Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Brusquedandelion's disruptive behaviour at the recent Talk:Australia RfC

Brusquedandelion is a generally constructive editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct, but they show a lack of restraint when it comes to (perceived or actual) ideological differences and are prone to lashing out against other editors. Brusquedandelion has previously been brought to AN/I for exactly that reason and continued to do so briefly on their talk page after the AN/I notice. They have recently engaged in similar conduct at the recent Talk:Australia RfC, and that behaviour is my reason for creating this.

The RfC was started by OntologicalTree, a confirmed sockpuppet of KlayCax. OT was blocked one week ago from today, so the RfC was able to run its course. Brusquedandelion was quite disruptive and less than civil throughout the RfC, bludgeoning the process and throwing personal attacks at every reply to the RfC that supported or discussed anything directly contrary to OT's proposed option (myself included).

Talk:Australia diffs:
"Please tell us what your actual objection is rather than using word count as a shield."
"It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is... It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this."
"The best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension."
"Your claim that this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water."
"Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required."
"If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED."
"And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies."
"I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out."

This report is already getting quite long, so I'll leave it at this for now. Sirocco745 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that @Brusquedandelion has engaged in battleground behavior and engaged in personal attacks. Because they are otherwise a constructive editor, I propose a three-month topic ban from all edits related to colonialism and genocide, broadly construed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this proposal. While Brusquedandelion is a capable, competent, and generally constructive editor, they have demonstrated their inability to remain civil while discussing topics of colonialism and genocide, and I believe their efforts would be best focused outside of these topics for a while. Having strong feelings on a topic is not necessarily bad in of itself, but it's how those feelings manifest themselves through the person's actions that can cause problems. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In the thread, you stated that you are sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. It's pretty clear from this comment that you are unable to maintain a position of objectivity on topics relating to "colonialism and genocide." Or perhaps only ones relating to Australia, I don't know. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If a comment like Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity is not indicative of a battleground mentality by someone who is quite possibly WP:NOTHERE, what is? This comment was made by @Sirocco745 who filed this report. They are clearly motivated by some sort of grievance politics (of a racial nature) by their own admission. They followed this up by admitting that I could, if I wanted, call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so. Their words!

You might feel my response was heavy-handed. Ok. But note that per the usual rules and conventions of an ANI post, a reporter's own conduct is also subject to scrutiny. Did you not read the thread, or did you not think this was worthy of taking into account? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me that all of their edits happening on Talk:Australia by Brusquedandelion occurred on Nov. 9th and haven't continued since. Have there been any personal attacks since that date or that have spilled over to other articles or talk pages? Of course, personal attacks are not acceptable but before imposing a wide-ranging topic ban, I'd like to see if this is an isolated incident on this one day in this one discussion on this one talk page or are occurring more broadly. I also would like to hear from Brusquedandelion on this matter for their point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No, nothing since then. They made four more replies on the RfC after being politely but firmly asked to reign it in by @Moxy and @Aemilius Adolphin at this reply here. The discourse hasn't bled out of the RfC/talk page, and they've been relatively quiet for the past two weeks.

Only thing I can think of that could count would be Brusque replying to my original attempt at settling this without needing to bring it to a noticeboard. They previously said I sounded like I was "channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes" on the RfC, and when I mentioned this in my original notification, their only response was to link Cecil Rhodes's article. Reply found here. Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Worth counting as further discourse outside of the RfC? Not really. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking a stern warning and explanation of the community norms..... unless there's some sort of pattern of behavior here? It's a contentious topic.... that many people feel has a tone of racism involved. Just need to explain they need to tone it down. Moxy🍁 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to raise an issue of possible canvassing. I was going to leave a message on @Brusquedandelion's talk page about their behaviour when the ruckus started when I found this odd message. It looks like someone was alerting them to the discussion on the Australia talk page and feeding them with talking points.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brusquedandelion&diff=prev&oldid=1255261107 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That was also KlayCax. CMD (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the sockpuppet User:DerApfelZeit went around to a lot of articles in contentious areas and then to user talk pages, trying to stir things up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not asked to be canvassed. I don't know this person, and given they're banned already I am unsure what the relevance is here. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The relevance, Brusquedandelion, was the consideration that maybe their comments provoked your response on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is correct, for better or for worse. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

OP has posted a bunch of comments above, but the actual reason they are reporting me is because of my comment comparing their views to those of Cecil Rhodes. They didn't feel the need to file this report until they posted on my page, including a comment about how they don't know who Rhodes was. I replied only with a link to his Wikipedia page. In a sense, this is probably their strongest case against me, so I am not sure why they didn't mention it in the original post. Perhaps it has to do with the reason I invoked this comparison: OP made a vile series of remarks about aboriginal Australians in which they referred to them and their culture as uncivilized, that one can't trust a treaty signed with non-English speaking indigenous peoples, and that hunter gatherer peoples are not worthy of political or moral consideration. These are all sentiments Cecil Rhodes would have affirmed. Perhaps this qualifies as a personal attack by the letter of the law here at Wikipedia, but talking about Aboriginal Australians this way is against upwards of half a dozen Wikipedia policies. OP will claim, as they did at my page, that I am casting aspersions, but they have actually explicitly admitted they are motivated by racial grievance politics; more on this point later. First, OP's comment that resulted in the comparison, for the record:

the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially Th government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.

Anyone familiar with the official justifications for colonial policies, past and present, will hear their echo here. The fairly explicit claim that the aboriginals are uncivilized is the most egregious remark here, but the entire comment is rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists, not on Wikipedia. These ideas about native peoples (in Australia and elsewhere) have been summarily refuted in the scholarly literature on this subject, but regrettably despite their repugnance they persist in popular culture in many nations. If any admin feels I need to back up this claim with sources, I will oblige, as fundamentally grim as it is that such views even need to be debunked.

Some further comments from OP:

The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

Apparently, it is NPOV to take a dim view of colonization. Does OP have a favorable view of colonialism, in particular in the Australian context? A question left for the reader.

Finally, OP is manifestly, by their own admission in the thread, motivated by a politics of racial grievance. First, they tell us that As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted. Make no mistake, this issue is personal, and OP has found their WP:BATTLEGROUND. Then they inform us:

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

These comments speak for themselves, since OP is themself admitting their prejudices. Even if OP were right ("Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" etc. etc.), this just isn't the website for it; see inter alia WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM.

Returning to what OP has quoted above, the vast majority of my alleged bludgeoning consists of reminding people what the substantive issue at stake is: whether to classify these events as genocide. The RFC was somewhat poorly worded, unfortunately, but there's not much to do about that now. The effect was that a number of replies did not explicitly admit a stance on the core issue, but nevertheless voted against the use of the "genocide" label.

I would prefer a straightforward discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of the use of this word. It would have made the RFC much more productive. A number of people essentially dodged the core issue on their vote altogether, and I thought this merited being pointed out. I admit I was strident, but I don't think any of my comments about this issue were especially uncivil. I also removed myself from the discussion as soon as people said I was commenting too much. I didn't feel need the need to continue this on anyone's talk page nor over here at ANI.

OP did, however, likely expecting an apology when they posted to my talk page, and reporting me when none was forthcoming. So:

I apologize for my stridency to the community at large. I will make an effort to regulate my tone in future discussions. I do not feel this thread is representative of my general conduct here, and I will certainly make an effort to not let it be the standard I set for my comments in future discussions. I was frustrated by an apparent refusal by certain folks to actually discuss the core issue, but there are more skillful ways I could have gone about this. And I was especially frustrated by certain comments, in particular those of OP, that affirm colonial stereotypes and ideologies.

I do not feel an apology is owed to OP until such time as they own up to the racism of their remarks. With regards to possible sanctions, I don't see how you can argue my criticizing OP's racism, even if I had been ten thousand times ruder about it, would be less civil or worse for Wikipedia's project as a whole than OP's remarks about aboriginal Australians, motivated as they are by racial grievance politics, per their own confession. Said confession also seems like a much stronger argument for a topic ban in particular, compared to anything I have said, since they have admitted an inability to retain neutrality in such discussions, as well as a particularly noxious reason for that inability—though I am only bringing this up since OP themself has asked for this sanction against me. Personally I only hope that OP realizes why such comments are unacceptable, that no one is witch-hunting him or his people, and that such ideologies have no place here anyways. It seems they are otherwise a constructive editor, and if they are able to make a good faith acknowledgement of this lapse, I wouldn't see any need for sanctions against them personally. Of course, all of this is up to the admins. Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Brusquedandelion: you've accused someone of racism. Please provide diffs or quickly withdraw your claim, or expect to be blocked for a serious personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment? It has verbatim quotes that can be found in the linked discussion (Talk:Australia); as far as I can tell, nothing has been edited or archived. Are you an admin and if so is this a formal request for a diff specifically? Because if not please do not go around threatening people with blocks for not providing information they already provided. I am really quite busy today, but if an administrator is formally making this request, I will oblige. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You always need to provide diffs when you make such allegations, whether asked to or not. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why diffs are important, as they provide context. The first two quotes come from Diff 1, and the last quote comes from Diff 2. I'm no expert, but statements like I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done. (Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism. In context, I get the impression of trying to preserve historical context, not proving the OP's racism alleged by BD above.

Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1). I also was unable to find any mention of the statement BD put in quotes as "Australian whites and their colonization of the country have been unjustly vilified" on the talk page; I presume these were scare quotes.

If there is missing context or background, BD would be well-advised to provide it. Most of us are laypersons and will likely miss more subtle types of racism, if that is what is alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why diffs are important, as they provide context.

The discussion as it stands provides all the context the diffs do, as nothing has been deleted.

(Diff 2) do not sound to me like racism.

Providing an example of a not-racist comment is not a refutation of any racist comments that were also made. Given you were just enjoining us to value the context of the interaction: it is a common strategy for people to preemptively hedge before making an unsavory statement, but the very fact of this statement in the context of the subsequent unsavory statement only reinforces, and does not mitigate, the nature of the statement that follows, since it implies at least some awareness that the commenter understood their subsequent comments could be seen in a certain light and thus felt the need to clarify. "I'm not racist but..." has never been followed by a not-racist statement in the history of the English language.

That said their hedge is not exactly the same as "I'm not racist but...". In principle it could have been followed by a relevant, reasoned, evidence-based, and non-prejudicial explanation for why the proposed RFC should resolve one way or another. Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire.

Diff 1 provides an explaination for why the British did not negotiate with the natives and, even there, their words very much acknowledged that the actions were unjust. (See The British did falsely claim terra nullius... in Diff 1).

The portion of the "explanation" that comes after The British did falsely claim terra nullius... is an uncritical parroting of the British imperial view of native Australians. The very fact that they do reject the terra nullius argument, but not the subsequent ones, indicates these are views they actually hold or at least held in that particular moment in the context of an RFC that they felt challenged their national pride. I understand such feelings may be fluid and encourage Sirocco to reflect on them.

I presume these were scare quotes

It is a brief summary of their multiple comments that make that point in more words, which I already quoted and did not want to copy again, for reasons of length and redudancy. Given the context of the RFC, do you feel this is an inaccurate summary of those comments, copied again below for your convenience?

The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity. Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so.

Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already admitted that I conducted myself poorly in the RfC and that my comments/suggestions were driven by my own feelings on the topic in combination with what I already knew about the topic (or at least, what I thought to be true).

Instead the commenter chose to grandstand about perceived slights against white Australians and uncritically regurgitate certain views and dogmas of the British Empire. First off, when writing or talking in a conversational tone, I generally don't criticize or exalt the subject until after I have explained what I know. I later stated my opinion on the subject in the RfC, being that the British's acts against the Indigenous Australians were undeniably racist and wrong in every definition of the word. I do not feel the need to apologize for the acts perpetrated by those settlers; I am not descended from them, only tangentially associated by merit of nationality. I am more annoyed that our government focuses on saying sorry all the time instead of proving sorry by taking actual action to support Indigenous families and communities, and it is this political apologetic rhetoric that I am tired of seeing and hearing on a weekly basis.

The "white" part of "perceived slights against white Australians" definitely isn't correct either. Australia is a country where you could walk past the entire skin colour spectrum on your way to work every day and not think twice about it, and this peaceful co-existence of cultures is something I am very grateful for here. The "perceived slights" part though? Personally, being told on a weekly basis by the government that "the land you live, work and study on doesn't belong to you and it's our fault as a nation that it doesn't belong to the Aboriginal people anymore" doesn't make me feel very welcome in the country I was born and live in.

Regardless, let's get back to the subject at hand, that being your behaviour. You can create a separate AN/I thread if you wish to discuss my personal conduct, but I started this one because, as shown in the diffs of my original post here, you were consistently not assuming good faith and bludgeoning the RfC by replying to almost every comment left by other users that didn't align with what you deemed to be the correct manner, not to mention the personal attacks. The point of an RfC is to draw the attention of uninvolved editors to a discussion with the hope that they will contribute constructively by providing new voices and second opinions to the conversation. Whether you see it this way or not, the general consensus of this thread so far is that you disrupted the RfC and have demonstrated a pattern of using personal attacks when disagreeing with other editors. Please try to stick to the topic of this thread, which is your behaviour. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on an uncharitable interpretation of Sirocco's comments. You've pointed out that one not-racist comment doesn't mean the person isn't racist, but in my view, you've failed to demonstrate racism in the first place. I do not believe your scare-quoted passage is an accurate summary, no. Similarly, I do not feel that, just because colonizers used something as an excuse, means it is inherently racist or untrue. I can see where you're coming from that it could be, but I also don't believe it's the only interpretation, and we're supposed to WP:AGF. Since this is a matter of judgement, I hope other editors will chime in to give a broader representation of the community either way, not just me saying, "Meh, I don't see it". EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I may have come off as confrontational with my comments in the RfC, and I apologize for that. I have always accepted that Wikipedia is not the place to air personal or political grievances and have done my best to keep to that policy, but I slipped when replying to the RfC. My motto is "don't let your motive be your message", but I forgot to keep my personal feelings out of the discussion this time.

First up though, the reason why some of my comments were rooted in a view of indigenous peoples that belongs to 19th century British imperialists is because I was presenting the views of 19th century British imperialists. These views are horribly outdated and illogical based in emotional fallacy, but because I was (probably over)explaining the racist reasonings the British justified their actions with, many of my comments in the RfC could be used to support BD's claim of racism when taken out of context.

In hindsight, "The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT" wasn't the best way to word my disproval of Option 1. In relation to the RfC, Option 1's rhetoric is that the wounds are still fresh. The problem is that while the damage is still felt, the wounds themselves aren't really fresh at all; Option 1 covers almost 200 years worth of events in a single paragraph and insinuates that they all happened at/around the same time. This is why I pushed against Option 1 and explained British actions and motives.

@Brusquedandelion, I would also like to deny your claim that I started this AN/I thread because of your actions against me specifically. I assume that you've read the opening sentences of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I included it in my initial attempt at reaching out.

"On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack."

The large number of diffs that show you being uncivil towards multiple editors in the RfC were always going to be the reason this came to AN/I, not your comments against me. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will respond to this in the next few days, not later than Tuesday 00:00 UTC; it is a holiday weekend here in my country and my time is very limited. If at all possible I ask the administrators not to resolve this thread until that time (unless this is going to be a nothingburger of zero sanctions all round, in which case, please resolve posthaste).

One preliminary comment about the most relevant portion of your comment: if you were simply explaining what the views of the British were, and not agreeing with them, you would have told us so, as you did literally in the prior sentence: The British did falsely claim terra nullius by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation. No such claims are made in any of your other comments. In fact, those comments are themselves placed after a However separating that last sentence from the rest of the claims you assert in authorial voice, implying the function of the subsequent comments is to provide objective, evidence-based, non-prejudicial reasons why negotiation would have been impossible anyways, so the whole terra nullius dogma was merely the British doing their best under unfortunate circumstances. Indeed this is exactly what the concluding remark of the paragraph all but states, to leave no room for confusion as to OP's point: No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups. In summary, treaties would have been impossible, so why bother?

Importantly, the stated justifications are not objective, evidence-based, or non-prejudicial: e.g. the first comment However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves has been debunked in the anthropological, sociological, and historical literature extensively. As far as we can tell, all human societies (that existed for any real amount of time) have had, minimally, some form of customary law. They have norms governing what is and isn't ethical or acceptable, means for restitution or punishment in the event of the transgression of these norms, and, most importantly for this discussion, a general understanding of informal and formal agreement between two or more parties that granted each a set of obligations and/or privileges. These are, as far back as we can reasonably verify, human universals. Believing they didn't, which, regrettably, literally millions of non-indegenous Australians, Americans, Canadians etc. still do about their respective Indigenous peoples, is a legacy of colonial thinking, and in effect places these people outside the category "human"—turns them into fauna—by denying them what we know to be a fundamental feature of our social life as a species. In this sense, (not so) ironically, OP's comments reproduce the specific British imperial dogma they rejected in the prior sentence. (Mind you, this is not even the most egregious remark here. Again in authorial voice, a little later on, Sirocco informs us the aboriginals are not to be considered civilized.)

Finally, I propose a litmus test: would such comments, if copy-pasted into a Wikipedia article, be considered WP:WIKIVOICE, or attributed text, per the relevant policies? If so, then they are also in authorial voice when written by a single editor outside a mainspace. To me, it is obvious how this litmus test resolves here, but I'll leave it to administrators to confirm this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh for goodness's sake, I do not believe that Aboriginal Australians are sub-human! I have admitted so many times that I didn't conduct myself properly in the RfC and that the wording of many of my comments could easily be interpreted as racist because I talked about racist acts and the reasonings behind them without condemning them immediately after. What more do I need to say, how much more do I need to apologize, and what will it take to prove myself non-racist to you? This is definitely Wikilawyering, but now it's starting to feel like borderline harassment. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Theres a lot of battleground behaviour here, which compounded with the personal attacks made in this thread (that they apparantly stand by) leads me to support the proposal above by Voorts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're against battleground behavior, do you not see the comments I copied above from Sirocco as examples of it? If you think my assessment of their comments is a "personal attack" are you stating, for the record, that you think there is nothing racist about those comments? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please be succinct and direct: please link (give where they can be found in context with the submission(s) of the author; a diff) and quote the statements you believe to be racist. You have made what appears to be about a dozen quotes, none of which I see to be clearly racist. If the community judges them to be so, then they will be dealt with appropriately. Buffs (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If any neutral editors have the time, could you please take a look at this thread and give your input? I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines and that no one is obliged to interact with the various discussions, disputes, etc. that occur daily, but there hasn't really been any significant development since I started this AN/I thread eight days ago. I guess I'm just nervous. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll give my 2 cents: there's a battleground here. Both of y'all need to tone it down. I don't see the discussion at Australia as inappropriate. People have voiced their opinions and someone can close it when it gets to the end. When trying to summarize so much, such assessments are going to be necessarily long; just be patient. Buffs (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. As stated earlier, I understand that ANI is not the place to settle content disputes and I started this thread with the intent of focusing on @Brusquedandelion's behaviour. It kinda got a bit out of hand though.. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

How do you not see a problem with calling other users racists and defenders of genocide? Sirocco is not the person who needs to tone it down. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I asked for clarification above. Without evidence, it is indeed inappropriate, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind about the possibility that the accusation is accurate. Sirocco can help matters by backing down a little and not offering long responses in the future (don't fan the flames). Buffs (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There are eight diffs in the opening post including a variety of accusations and incivility. Keeping an open mind that they might all be accurate seems excessively hopeful. CMD (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad engaged in BLP and 3RR violations as a SPA (possible SOCK as well)

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

---

Alejandroinmensidad (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account engaged in a disruptive behaviour involving Pedro Sánchez-related edits (with them adding contentious material to a number of articles, namely Pedro Sánchez, Álvaro García Ortiz and Begoña Gómez) in a heavily POV-ish way, in breach of WP:BLP). The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz after reverting TheRichic for attempting to reword some of the text to comply with BLP. I had previously attempted to warn them in their talk page, but they responded with indiscriminate accusations of vandalism (which by themselves constitute a personal attack and a violation of WP:AVOIDVANDAL). They were also noted by another user about WP:AC/CT (diff), but the user keeps on with their behaviour. Further, I have also detected evidence pointing to likely sockpuppetry, which I denounced through this SPI (where the situation is more throughly explained). Impru20^talk 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN might be a better forum for discussing these edits. It does seem like a lot of edit-warring going on on Pedro Sánchez. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This was already brought there a few days ago at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez, but the disruption has continued as the issue has been left unaddressed (and anyway, the BLPN thread does not address neither the behavioural issues nor the sock suspicions, which have evolved ever since). It's now basically impossible to do anything sort of keeping reverting this user if no admin steps in. Impru20^talk 07:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, I already pointed it out at the SPI case (see Update 1), but ever since the SPI was opened the user has been conducting a number of random edits through several articles in addition to their focus in the usual ones (while avoiding engaging in any discussion related to the ongoing issues), probably to attempt avoiding being singled out as a SPA. Impru20^talk 07:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see, Impru20, is that it looks like this has been a solo effort by you to get attention on this editor's contributions, in the SPI, on BLPN, on the editor's user talk page and now here in ANI without receiving much response from other editors. If there is contentious material being posted on this BLP (which gets over 1,000 views/day), we should get more eyes on this article and others where there might be questionable edits. Is there anyone here who is comfortable assessing Spanish language sources that could provide a second (or third) opinion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this a solo effort by me, Liz? And this? Maybe this? I am getting attention on this editor's contributions because they are being disruptive; they are reverting anyone who dares to restore a less POVish (and more BLP-compliant) version of the articles, and when they are confronted about that it's just personal attacks from them. The only solutions left are to: 1) keep reverting them (surely not what we are expected to do as per WP:EW); 2) discuss with them (this was done, and failed), and 3) bring the issue to venues where it can be properly addressed if points 1 and 2 are not possible (which was done: firstly to BLPN, then as SPI when I noticed they could be a sock, then here when that was left without solution yet the user kept engaging in disruptive behaviour). There are personal attacks, there is a 3RR violation, there is even behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (with two users, one logged in editor and one IP, being confirmed socks). What else is required for any action to even be considered? Seriously, I ask you with all honestly, because it's fairly frustrating that they are basically left to do what they please without anyone actually caring. Impru20^talk 20:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, with regards to Álvaro García Ortiz, it looks to me like Alejandroinmensidad's edits are more accurate than yours, if Google Translate is accurate in translating the cited source. So, why are you trying to keep less accurate content, and why have you not discussed this at Talk: Álvaro García Ortiz? Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not edited Álvaro García Ortiz, Cullen328, so it's difficult any edit there could be more accurate than mine. Now maybe you could focus on Alejandro's 3RR violation there, any of the behavioural issues that have been denounced... I don't know, something that has actually happened. Impru20^talk 22:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, I apologize for mixing you up with TheRichic. However, Alejandroinmensidad reverted false content three times over several days. That is not a violation of WP:3RR. Cullen328 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, Cullen328, but:

1. How is this content false? You may agree or disagree with the wording, but it is not false. One of TheRichic's denounces against Alejandroinmensidad (which I share) is that they treat (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths, typically resorting to the sources that fit their view the most (often without any WP:BALANCE or sense of impartiality). Again, I ask you: how is that content "false"? Specially considering your response here is limiting yourself to decry TheRichic's behaviour.
2. As per WP:3RR, reverts conducted just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.
3. You could maybe skip point 2... if it wasn't because all reverts done by Alejandroinmensidad at Álvaro García Ortiz came after being explicitly warned in their talk page about WP:AC/CT on articles about living people (diff).
4. ANI is about behavioural problems (which have been denounced and evidence provided); the explicit BLP issue was addressed (or attempted to) elsewhere: here it is being brought because of it showing a behavioural pattern and a SPA-theme focus on Pedro Sánchez-related edits (which I said). Aside of 3RR, there have been explicit personal attacks (repeated accusations of vandalism without any evidence nor justification), edit warring and behavioural evidence of SOCK which is not even being addressed. So, what are people intended to do against it? To keep edit warring Alejandroinmensidad to death? Impru20^talk 22:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328 and Liz, this user Impru20 has been continuously deleting text and references from many users in everything related to the government of Spain for many years ago: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. He has deleted on multiple occasions, without any explanation, my contributions, which I consider to be treated from a neutral point of view. That is why I have reverted its vandalism, I have not deleted the text of any user. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, the El Mundo headline translates as The Supreme Court indicts Attorney General García Ortiz for the leak of confidential data from Ayuso's boyfriend: The Second Chamber unanimously opens a case against Álvaro García Ortiz for the crime of revealing secrets. TheRichic's preferred wording was "García Ortiz has been investigated" and Alejandroinmensidad's preferred wording was "García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court". Everyone can see that Alejandroinmensidad's summary of the source was accurate and that TheRichic's summary was incorrect. You simply do not understand WP:3RR, which requires more than three reversions in a 24 hour period. Alejandroinmensidad reverted only three times, and they were at 19:14, November 29, 2024, and then roughly 27 hours later at 22:10, November 30, 2024, and then roughly 48 hours later at at 22:04, December 2, 2024. Three reverts in three days is not more than three reverts in 24 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, Alejandroinmensidad has literally breached WP:AVOIDVANDAL in front of your face in this very same discussion and you still have nothing to say about their behaviour? Also, they are linking literally random, occasional and entirely unrelated edits to the discussion to blame me of "vandalism"... and you still have nothing to say to it? On another note: Alejandroinmensidad, bold edits are not vandalism, the edits of mine you link have nothing wrong in them. Heck, half of the edits you link are not even mine (one is yours), for God's sake! Impru20^talk 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Cullen328, I am not understanding what your reasoning is here. You have now edited part of your previous comment ([7]), when all of it is essentially off-topic. This is not an issue of edits at Álvaro García Ortiz (an article which I have not even edited), but an issue of general behavioural concerns, which Alejandroinmensidad is exhibiting with impunity in this very same thread. I have provided detailed diffs, links and evidence yet still none of it is being addressed and I am now being singled out for edits I did not even made. I understand that every editor who opens a thread here is equally subject to BOOMERANG, but it's the first time I see it being applied to someone for edits done by other people, including the denounced editor's! Impru20^talk 23:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You have hundreds of text changes from other users in articles related to the government of Spain for years, just looking at your history to realize that most of the edits are vandalism. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify a couple of things:

1. A headline by itself is not information, it can be biased and you have to read the rest of the article.

2. If we read the El Mundo's article, at no point does it say that the attorney general has committed any crime, but rather that a criminal procedure has been opened and he and his surroundings are being investigated for an ALLEGED crime.

3. In Spain, the term "imputar", translated in the article as "charge", is synonymous with "investigar" (to investigate). In fact, the term was modified a decade ago because it led to the erroneous conclusion that the person who was "imputado" was being accused. The accusation phase comes later, when the judge issues the "auto de acusación" (indictment), and then the person is "accused of" or "charged with" a crime. At this point, it can be said that the person is accused.

4. "[...] García Ortiz was charged by the Supreme Court for having revealed the emails of the boyfriend of the president of the Community of Madrid" (what the article says) is just saying that he did it when we do not know what happened and a court of justice is investigating if anything happened.

Having said all this, yes, I rewrote the article because the person is not accused of anything (yet), has not committed any crime (yet), and we cannot interpret the information in the article as it suits us. Greetings. TheRichic (Messages here) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In Spanish and English, the terms charge (imputar) and investigate (investigar) are not synonymous. In the article in "Mundo" it is clearly explained that Álvaro García Ortiz is charged of leaking the emails. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To "charge" someone means that person gets investigated by the judicial authorities. It is the same. The issue is that you want to use "charge" as a synonymous to "accuse" (this has not happened, at least not yet). However, I am not going to discuss semantics with an editor who clearly doesn't understand what "vandalism" is. Impru20^talk 18:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is false. To charge is not to investigate, it is to file criminal charges, which is what the Supreme Court has done with Álvaro García Ortiz. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To charge is to investigate. That's why in Spanish the legal term was literally changed from imputación to investigación. See here: Being charged means that the investigating judge has determined that, either through a complaint or a lawsuit, there are indications that the person under investigation could have committed a crime." (...) "Then, the judge agrees to carry out the investigative procedures that he deems appropriate to clarify it." (...) investigated "means that the judge has admitted the complaint for processing, has initiated preliminary proceedings and has been classified as such." There are indications of crimes such that requires the judge to investigate them, but that condition does not assume the veracity of the accusations nor of the crime (a lot of people who are charged end up with their charges lifted without a trial) nor is the person yet accused, which comes at a later stage of the legal process. You are really manipulating what being charged means. Impru20^talk 22:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No matter how much you repeat a lie, it does not become the truth. To charge is not to investigate, neither in Spanish, nor in English, nor in law.

I have not said that the Prosecutor is guilty, but the Court sees indications of a crime, that is why he is charged. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I provided you evidence and sources and you still treat it as a "lie", despite you yourself now just casting aspersions and personal opinions here. Impru20^talk 10:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, I made an error in confusing you with TheRichic. I immediately apologized and then struck out the portions of my original comment that were inaccurate. That is what editors are supposed to do when they make a mistake. You are the editor who accused Alejandroinmensidad of BLP violations at Álvaro García Ortiz and you also accused that editor of violating 3RR. I decided to investigate one of the three articles you listed in your original post, and picked the middle of the three. I learned that there was no BLP violation, that Alejandroinmensidad's edits were more accurate than TheRichic's, and that the editor did not violate 3RR, at least in recent months. That is the full story. Cullen328 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Napoleonbuenoenparte with no action and an explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad, please be aware that Impru20 has made nearly 200,000 edits to the English Wikipedia and has never been blocked for vandalism. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning and can only be applied to editing with the deliberate intention of damaging the encyclopedia. Impru20 is not a vandal and false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. So, please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I am not referring to him, I am referring to his editions. It removes content from many users without giving any motivation. In addition, he always does it in articles referring to the government of Spain. In any case, I will not answer his provocations again. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Calling a user's edits vandalism is the same as calling the user a vandal. Just don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad is obsessed with calling another editor a vandal even in an ANI thread and against repeated warnings, but somehow they are still assumed to be able to work collaboratively? You cannot discuss anything with this guy (and this is not an assumption, this was tried and failed). At the very least, there is an obvious WP:CIR issue here, and they will only keep edit warring everyone as they see any edits undoing their own (or those contents they prefer) as "vandalism". Impru20^talk 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is exactly what TheRichic has stated above. Further, it's telling that, so far, the BLP violations at Pedro Sánchez (which are what started the whole ordeal) have not even been addressed; Alejandroinmensidad added false statements, and others they added were done without BALANCE (as I pointed it out to them several times: diff diff); these were reverted by Alejandro exhibiting the exact same behaviour as here (i.e. falsely accusing others of vandalism). They also accused me of "removing links" when they removed references themselves under accusations of "vandalism" just to attempt to re-assert a version of the articles that depicted Sánchez and his government in the worst way possible of the several available (diff). You cannot cherrypick sources and information to present a biased view of the person without contradictory information (which exists in this case) being presented as well. There is a BLPN case opened on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez yet, somehow, almost everything is being ignored to attempt to present Alejandroinmensidad's behaviour as legit, when it is one of the most egregious SPAs I have seen as of lately, being here only for the purpose of these Pedro Sánchez-related edits (also, as commented on the SPI case, they only resorted to making random edits to other articles when the SPI case was opened and they were noticed about it, diff). Impru20^talk 07:32, 4 December 20Im24 (UTC)

Impru20, if your concern is about Pedro Sánchez, then why the heck did you make false claims of BLP problems and false claims of 3RR violations at Álvaro García Ortiz? Administrator time is limited. Throwing false claims in with possibly legitimate claims is a waste of time that makes administrators reluctant to look further. I would rather get some sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I explicitly mentioned and linked Pedro Sánchez in my first post and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez in subsequent ones; spoke about Pedro Sánchez-related edits; linked to other venues where the situation was also thoroughly explained; and only mentioned Álvaro García Ortiz as part of the articles in which Alejandroinmensidad had a focus on. Liz understood it perfectly in their first reply. It is you who then became focused with Álvaro García Ortiz for no reason even when I told you that it was not the main cause of concern (only as part of the larger SPA effort). With all due respect (and maybe I cannot stress the issue of respect enough, but I have to say this), but you cannot just say what you said here when you already had an error (rather major, as it redirected the focus of the discussion into me having to refute a false claim) by confusing edits of other users with my own edits and now accuse me of doing what I did not do. The presented evidence was there for reading. The 3RR claim was not false: reverting just outside the 24-hour window is explictly acknowledged as EW; WP:GAME exists; and the reverts were conducted right after a warning about living people's biographies being contentious topics was added to the user's talk page. Administrator time may be limited, but so is that of other editors (such as mine), and frankly: it's frustrating that I have had to provide a detailed (while summarized, because too lengthy ANI cases are typically accused of WP:TLDR) description of the situation so for it to be also systematically ignored. Impru20^talk 08:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, you are still incorrect about 3RR. A violation requires a minimum of four reverts within 24 hours though some administrators might act at 25 hours. In this case, there were three reverts (not four) to clearly more accurate content over a three day period of about 75 hours. There is no possible interpretation of the policy that allows that to be called a 3RR violation. The notion that I looked into Álvaro García Ortiz "for no reason" is ludicrous. I looked into that article for a very real reason, namely that you mentioned that article in the first sentence of your report. If you did not want an administrator to look into that article, then why on earth did you mention it? Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And then in your second sentence, you wrote The last straw has been their breaking of WP:3RR at Álvaro García Ortiz. So, I look into your "last straw" and you get angry with me. It makes no sense. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, 3RR clearly states that The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. They made three consecutive reverts to the same content without any justification and just after receiving a warning on contentious topics because of their edits and reverts in BLP-related articles, and they just got away with it. I also mentioned other articles and you did not look at them. On Álvaro García Ortiz, I said it was the "last straw" (this is, cumulatively after a lot of other issues), yet you interpreted it as the main focus of the issue. I can understand that you analyze that article (that's why I mention it), not that you focus solely on it. I don't get angry with you, I just don't understand why you have taken it with that article and insist in ignoring everything else, In the course of all of it, you have casted two wrong facts about me (one about my (non)edits in that article, another one on what I said in this ANI thread). You have forced me to defend myself on issues that were not related to what I did or said while a disruptor is getting away with their disruption. This is my issue with you. Impru20^talk 18:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Impru20, you say that their edits were without any justification and yet the El Mundo reference that follows the content shows quite clearly that the edits were fully justified and accurate and that the other editor was adding inaccurate content. I do not know how else to explain it but those three specific edits over three days plus were not edit warring and in particular, nowhere near a 3RR violation. No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles. I chose to look into the one that you called the "last straw" and learned that what you have been saying about the edits in question is wrong. I apologized to you when I made a mistake. Perhaps you should consider apologizing as well. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, the user is misrepresenting what "being charged" means (this is what it means). The other editor did not add any innacurate content, and I dare you to explicitly state what of TheRichic's edit was innacurate, because that was legally and factually correct. You have been accusing them of adding "innacurate" or outrightly "false" (sic) content for a while even when they explicitly explained themselves here ([8]), just because you took a single source (the one provided by Alejandroinmensidad) without balancing it with other sources first, precisely when a lack of BALANCE was one of the (multiple) issues denounced here. Heck, both TheRichic and myself have gone through many more explanations here than Alejandroinmensidad, who just kept themselves calling everyone else as "vandals" even in this ANI thread (there was a time in which that alone would have merited a block) and manipulating and misinterpreting sources (as they keep doing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez).

Again with all due respect, but I say this in light of this latest reply of yours: your intervention here is becoming absurd. Yes, you chose to investigate one article, just as you chose to omit everything else. I repeat myself: It's not my fault that you did not care to take into account the "lengthy post" (which I already attempted to summarize, but what should I do if the issue affects more than one article and involves a general behaviour?) in which the evidence was presented. If you did not feel yourself like doing the review of this case, it would have been better to pass it to another colleague who could have had the time to do it. But yes, surprisingly (or not so): incomplete reviews may lead to incomplete judgements.

And yes: "No admistrator is obligated to investigate every single aspect of a lengthy ANI post that mentions three articles", but now you have basically chosen to cast aspersions (?) on a fellow editor over and over and over again, without even caring to consider their explanations, just because you have been unable to accept that your way of handling this (focusing on one aspect and omitting everything else) has been wrong from the beginning. If someone is deserving an apology here that's not you (nor me, either). Cheers. Impru20^talk 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

As an update: is nothing going to be said about this blind revert in Pedro Sánchez by Alejandroinmensidad to a third editor who, with good reason, stated that the subject of this article is Pedro Sánchez, not his family, especially when there appears to be no suggestion of any direct involvement of Pedro Sánchez himself (diff), a claim that Alejandroinmensidad has not even cared to respond to? Is nothing going to be said about how Alejandroinmensidad is being presented evidence at Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Pedro Sánchez and he just outrightly defends having wrong and/or misrepresentative material at the Pedro Sánchez article? Including an explicit situation of WP:THREATEN (diff)? Maybe we can just exit from this Álvaro García Ortiz article-loop and deal at once with a single-purpose account with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on using Wikipedia as a way to do politics. Good faith goes as far as it goes; this is just sheer, explicit and deliberate manipulation at this point. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered in BLP: Pedro Sánchez; "In the sub-article "Third term in office" the events of Pedro Sánchez's government are commented on. The corruption scandals of Pedro Sánchez's family are key to that government."

I am tired of this user's harassment and insults. Moderators must take action. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alejandroinmensidad edits like this, presenting the opinion of one newspaper as fact, are not acceptable per WP:WIKIVOICE. We certainly can include criticism of him, but that should be done in a neutral and balanced way. Similarly, since the article is about the subject himself, I struggle to see the relevance of any accusations against his brother (which you added here) in which Pedro S himself is not involved. The article is Pedro Sánchez, not Pedro Sánchez' family.

I've opened a section on the article talk page here to which you should contribute and discuss the changes you want rather than edit warring, which would probably result in sanctions against your account. Additionally, all users involved should stop the accusations and counter-accusations, which will not produce anything positive. Since this is, at heart, a content dispute, this ANI thread should be closed for now, with the caveat that WP:3RR and sanctions do exist. Valenciano (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained the reasons for including the scandal of Pedro Sánchez's brother: The scandal of Sánchez's brother is related to Pedro Sánchez because the judge accuses him of influence peddling, of having obtained his job thanks to the influence of Pedro Sánchez. A job in which he would receive a salary without doing any work. It is a similar case to that of Alfonso Guerra and his brother Juan Guerra.

The references I have given are not newspaper opinions, they are information that contrasts the different versions that Sánchez has given regarding Delcy Rodríguez's trip. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Valenciano, Cullen328, speaking of WP:3RR, do these four reverts of two editors' edits within a 4-hour timespan count as such? See diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4.

Because it would be extremely hilarious that a 3RR breach happened even after 1) the discussion about it in this ANI thread, 2) Valenciano's warning just above, 3) the warning on contentious topics on Alejandroinmensidad's talk page by a third, uninvolved party and 4) a new, specific warning on WP:3RR made in that user talk page by another third, uninvolved party. Where are we going to set our level of tolerance to disruption, exactly? Impru20^talk 14:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another update: Alejandroinmensidad has just edited the Pedro Sánchez article to insert an editorial opinion and present it as a fact ([9]). This is prohibited under WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. They were told both through an edit summary ([10]) and at the BLPN discussion ([11]) how this was wrong, yet they still re-added it anyway without caring to give an explanation. Is seriously nothing going to be done here? Impru20^talk 11:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Alejandroinmensidad for one week for edit warring and violations of the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging by this response, I do not think the editor is going to care about our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Aaand they pinged me to their talk page to claim that comment was "ironic." Definitely NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah HandThatFeeds, it isn't that it wasn't obvious from a long shot by the time I brought this case to ANI, but Good Lord. It just took a one-week block for them to openly acknowledge that their edits are motivated by some sort of crusade against "communism". I was benevolent citing WP:CIR a couple days ago: it's definitely a WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE case. Impru20^talk 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

After this, I have extended the block to indefinite as they currently do not exhibit any evidence of being here to collaborate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting reversal of premature closure of talk page section by TheRazgriz

I have recently engaged in lengthy talk page discussions with TheRazgriz regarding his edits on the 2024 United States elections page. Upon informing him today that I was escalating to the dispute resolution process, TheRazgriz prematurely closed a talk page section that dealt with the nature of our disagreement at hand, labeling it as "resolved" when it was not. There was no snowball as claimed in the closure message, and the subject matter that was absorbed into another section in the body was still in dispute. While the issue of the content in the lead was in fact resolved, the greater context of the claims that were made and were discussed in the section were not. The last comments in that section were made only 10 days prior, and the most recent comments involving this dispute were made today. BootsED (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've undone the closure and fixed the formatting issues that were broken by the user in accident that resulted in broken indentations of the existing discussion. Raladic (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance! BootsED (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For transparency and clarification: The dispute had migrated away from that topic and into a different topic on the page well over a week ago, and as noted by @BootsED here the resolution finding was accurately portrayed. Disputed content was not removed via closure. As point of that specific topic had been addressed and is no longer an issue, therefore unlikely to require further contribution, I fail to see the point in un-closing it. But it is what it is. Just want it clear this isn't a conspiracy of nefariousness. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's the point: it's poor practice to close a discussion in which you're heavily involved, certainly so in any issue that lacks a very strong consensus, and doubly so in a contentious topic such as the 2024 United States elections page. (Heck, I wouldn't dare to close a CT discussion I was involved in even for a snowball.) That's the point. Ravenswing 06:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think you should have more than 224 edits before engaging in closing discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's always worth considering if a discussion even needs a close. In this case, it seems unlikely that the resulting close was something which would be useful to link to in the future. If editors have moved on, it also seems unlikely that a close is needed to stop editors adding to a discussion where it's moved past the point of being useful. And in fact, if editors do feel they have something useful to add, I'm not convinced it would definitely be useless. It's possible that the close will stop editors wasting their time reading a discussion where there's no need but IMO in a case like this the benefits of that are definitely outweighed by the disadvantages of making an involved close, and probably outweighed even by just the negatives of closing. As for collapsing, well the page isn't that long. And frankly, it would seem better to just reduce time before automatic archiving rather than collapse that specific discussion. Or even just manually archive some of the older threads. Noting there are bunch of older threads which seem to be way more unlikely to be revived or that anyone needs to see. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing & @Nil Einne, I agree with both of your valid points, and they will be considered in the future. No arguement from me against either of those good points.

@Doug Weller, I expect you have mistakenly assumed I have only ever edited WP from this (somewhat new-ish) account in making that comment. That is incorrect. I have left uncounted thousands of edits as an IP User since 2007, though I only have begun to edit CTOP and political content since creation of this account.

To all of you, thank you and have a good day. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. But remember a lot of people won't know that. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And that is a perfectly valid point, which is why I spent so much time tinkering with my userpage to help those who may make that mistake. :) Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging Pbritti, who earlier today stated on TheRazgriz's talkpage that "I noticed you do a lot of closing". I'd like to know more about that, please, Pbritti, as this ANI thread has so far only been about one instance of inappropriate closing. Is there a wider problem that we need to address here? Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC).

  That line is a surprise to me as well. If memory serves, I believe I have only closed 2 topics in total. I believe maybe 3 or 4 if including manual archiving within that categorization. The topic which @BootsED brought to attention here is the only one which I can imagine would be contentious in any way. It is certainly the most recent I have performed. TheRazgriz (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I stumbled on a closure of Talk:Bryson City, North Carolina, where TheRazgriz closed a discussion to to conserve space. I don't think this is intentionally disruptive behavior (even if it were, it's not exactly amy sort of serious offense). TheRazgriz has evidently been productively engaging on that article since before they registered. I only mentioned it because I figured that TheRazgriz might think such closures are standard. They're not, but they're also not worth starting an ANI over. A good first step to preventing this sort of escalation from repeating is removing the notice at the top of User talk:TheRazgriz, as that might give the impression that they are an editor unwilling to respond directly to constructive criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just an aside, we can't tie a registered account to an IP editor and I don't think we should make any assumptions here about anyone's previous identities if they edited unregistered. Unless they choose to disclose, exceptions only for trolls and vandals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  No no, @Pbritti is correct, and my userpage makes that public info.

  Thank you for that, it would otherwise be a perfectly valid point to make. But in this case, it is both true and public knowledge by me to all of WP.

  (Additional edit to clarify, it is public that I edited for years as an IP user, and one of the first contributions on this named account was in reference to one of the IP edits I had made. What is not public is what my current IP is, which changes every so often for security reasons) TheRazgriz (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  @TheRazgriz: We're glad you registered, by the way. You've been pushing hard for some useful overhauls on CTs. Glad to see someone make the leap from IP to registered and bring that experience with them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Setting aside the potential issues laid out above, I'd add that it's entertaining to see an Ace Combat 5 reference in 2024. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  A massively underappreciated title in the series with way more lore building under the surface than was ever reasonable, was very surprised and pleased when AC7 gave folks who never played it back on PS2 to play it in the modern day and get some love. Heartbreak One is core reason why the Phantom II is to this day my favorite aircraft. Glad to see a fellow fan! Thank you, and have a good day. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:BrandtM113 WP:LAME edit war, no attempts at discussion, frequent warnings

On David Madden (executive), there is a red link for Michael Thorn, a president of Fox, and Sarah Barnett, a president of AMC Networks. User:BrandtM113 has, five times in the last 3 years, come to the page to remove the red links. [12] He has never left an edit summary, so I have no explanation for this unusual fixation.

In March 2022 I sent a message to BrandtM113 [13] telling him about WP:REDLINK and how red links are useful in helping editors find gaps in knowledge, and stopping new pages from being orphaned from birth. With the complete lack of edit summaries, I don't know if he thinks Thorn and Barnett should never have a Wikipedia article, which is quite the claim.

Repeating the same edit with no summaries, no talk page discussion, is disruption even if it is over several years. I think a WP:CIR block may be useful. His talk page has more notices than I care to count for removing content without a summary, adding content without a source, repeated disruptive edits (doing the same edit, again) [14], outright vandalism [15]. This user has had more than enough warnings and it's literally like talking to a brick wall with the lack of edit summaries or discussions. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. Let's see if that is long enough time to get their attention. Oz\^InterAct 19:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, 99.7% of this editor's 6,297 edits are to main space, they have made few edits to Talk space and fewer to User talk space. They don't often have an edit summary but they are very active and all of the talk page warnings are more than a year old so perhaps they have taken the advice on board. I was hoping that they would resond here but now they are blocked as I was writing this. I hope they file an unblock request and start communicating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Today, the user made the exact same edit that was made in 2021, 2022 and 2023, after having being told in 2022 about the exact Wikipedia policy that made that edit disruptive. I don't call that taking advice on board. If there is some crucial reason to remove those red links on the David Madden page, it should have been said in an edit summary or on the talk page. If a kid on my street played knock-and-run on my door once a year for four years, I'd still consider that as annoying as doing it once a day for four days. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The user did not edit between 22 October 2023 and 24 October 2024, after two warnings in September 2023. That's a year of not editing, rather than a year of constructive editing. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And I don't understand why you let this little error get so under your skin that you brought this to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people take Wikibreaks. I did myself for six months in 2009. I'm at a loss of what could be construed as sinister about that. Ravenswing 15:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding some formatting to an infobox that the relevant wikiproject dislikes is not "outright vandalism". Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This still seems like an excessive sanction for removing a few redlinks and not using talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oz, given this editor's neglect of talk page edits, it is unlikely that they will even know they can file an unblock request. They did post a meager response on their user talk page. Any chance this 6 month block could be reduced? Just thought I'd put in a pitch for mercy for what was really a minor edit infraction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Cycling through IPs

I have a question about vandalism accounts. I help edit a series of reality TV articles and, from what I can tell, there appears to be a single user who will edit with either rumored spoilers for upcoming episodes or flat-out fake information. They don't use an account and the IP used will eventually be warned/blocked but then they will just pop up sometime later using a similar but different IP. Is there any potential resolution for this that isn't an endless game of whack-a-mole? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahp2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RANGE? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We'll need some IP accounts first to see if a range block is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here are seven I suspect are the same user. All do the same type of unannotated edits on similar pages. 222.153.65.98, 222.154.16.98, 222.153.14.129, 222.153.114.170, 222.153.13.121, 222.153.68.214, 222.153.50.12. Noahp2 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The IPs are assigned to a telecom company, so there could be collateral damage. This range - Special:Contributions/222.153.0.0/16 - seems the most used (222.154.x.x being an outlier). FifthFive (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything I need to do/request? Looks like two of these IPs have been active in the last few days Noahp2 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

• RayanTarraf (talk · contribs)

Never disclosed their paid editing.

According to User:DubaiScripter: Glimpse Digital Agency is a Marketing, Digital Marketing and design production studio set up in Dubai in 2017 by Lebanese Rayan Tarraf.[16][17] Hypnôs (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I note that this user has not edited since March this year, and has only made three edits, none to mainspace, since 2017. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So, as originally worded as a complaint against RayanTarraf (talk · contribs), this report cannot be said to be of an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioural problem, as required for this noticeboard. It has, however, broadened its scope since then. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And what do you mean paid editing? Who paid who? DubaiScripter (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You disclosed in 2017 that you were paid to edit.[18]

If you are unaware of this, are there other people that have had access to your account? Hypnôs (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is getting paid for editing? Rayan Taraff or Dubai Scripter? Do you have any diffs of problematic content that they have added to articles? Isaidnoway (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Isaidnoway I just noticed a big discussion on social channels going around the article of Baalbek in Lebanon. Apparently, Some editors are using Wikipedia for political benefits in order to push war agenda. Which is terrible of course. I went straight to the article in order to see what is happening and found that many referenced articles have actually no backing or reliable sources. Two minutes after requesting access to edit, I received the notification of Hypnos questioning my integrity which makes me think that what is being said online is actually true. DubaiScripter (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

incase you want to see what I'm talking about https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ DubaiScripter (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter disclosed that they were paid by RayanTarraf's company to edit[19], and have created the page Rayan Tarraf three times. But since they seem to be unaware of this, the account is possibly used by someone else now.

Regarding Rayan Taraff, I can't go into details due to WP:OUTING, but the pages they created are either related to them or have a promotional tone.[20]

Since joining the Mohammad & Obaid AlMulla Group in 2017, Beshara has played a key role in its growth and success.

American Hospital Dubai, under Beshara's guidance, has achieved significant healthcare innovations, particularly in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence. Hypnôs (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are assuming too much. Not related, Nor paid. These pages were my attempts at learning on how to create new articles for known companies and figures that are not already on Wikipedia which I obviously failed to do but that certainly doesn't mean I'm paid and the section you quoted about American Hospital CEO is depicted directly from their articles which you can find online. And if you are talking about the option where you choose if you were paid or not for an article that was also a failed try when i was trying to find my way around understanding how this works. So again, no I never got paid nor do I know these people in person.

Now the real question is... Why is @Hypnôs very insistent on diverting from the original issue which is using Wikipedia for Political gain? DubaiScripter (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter, you have stated that you are indeed a paid editor, paid by Glimpse Digital Agency. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I have mentioned in my previous reply. I had chosen that option in one of my attempts to understand why the article is being rejected but I can confirm that was by mistake. not really paid by anyone. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

DubaiScripter, please be exactly specific. What exactly is your relationship to Rayan Tarraf and to Glimpse Digital Agency? --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No relationship. This guy made a lecture once were I worked and he inspired me to dig in Wikipedia and see how it works. So I kept trying to write an article about him or his company in order to learn. More like a test subject.

Even though there was enough articles to support the guy i never managed to get it published. I even tried choosing the option were it says I was paid or even try to create a link to the person or his company but also didn't work.

anyways I gave up on my Wikipedia skills. Anything else you would like to know? because the focus here should be the Political involvement of some admins.

Thanks DubaiScripter (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your first time creating an article on him was before 19 February 2017.[21]

On 6 November 2017 he made an edit to your user page.[22]

If the only relation to him was this one time lecture that inspired to to make an article about him, how did he know your user name and why did he make an edit to your user page months later? Hypnôs (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, please watch this video https://www.instagram.com/khalilshreateh/reel/DB1rDyqNjCc/ which explains exactly why @Hypnôs is doing this. He is plainly mentioned in there. DubaiScripter (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop this - I suggest you read the contentious topic notification on your talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

My last message: Whoever is reading from the esteemed and amazing non-biased Admins... That are obviously more experienced and much better than me. Please check the this issue and don't let misinformation run loose on Wikipedia. https://www.tiktok.com/@zeez870/video/7435060973855116562?q=baalbek%20wikipedia&t=1733319093938 DubaiScripter (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, @Hypnôs I've noticed that in the talk page your name is mentioned 27 times and that in trying to block the removal of exactly what I came to check. All, I can say is that this issue is blowing up on social channels and it's only reflecting badly on Wikipedia Admins and Wikipedia as a reliable source. I also, noticed that you are only interested in historical pages that are related to the Jewish community which makes me believe that you are biased but again it that's my assumption. I could be wrong DubaiScripter (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

... "this issue is blowing up on social channels"? Really? How about providing us some links to those? You wouldn't happen to be involved in pushing that, would you? Ravenswing 15:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Not pushing anything... I saw this video yesterday broadcasted on TV https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSjvepY85/ and it seems that there was a discussion panel at the university where I teach talking about how Wikipedia is being used for political reasons and everyone was talking about this guy @Hypnôs on how he is purposely adding fake details to the Baalbek article.

Then I noticed that so many people are reposting the video or duetting it on both TikTok and Instagram. This original link alone has 81K views.

Came in to check it out and unfortunately it was true a fake narrative is being added on to that article. Everyone can see it. And now I even have doubts based on your tone @Ravenswing that you are either the same person or work together.

I don't want to get involved in all this political nonsense but all I can say is that whoever you guys work for... I don't really care but you are only giving Wikipedia a bad name. People will lose trust in this platform and because of what you are doing, you will end up destroying a very unique heritage sight that has nothing to do with your wars.

No need to answer. I'm out. DubaiScripter (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

OK I think you really need to understand that if you don't cease making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comportment, so far, indicates you are not interested in collaboratively building an encyclopedia as you seem to have joined to act upon a specific grievance against a specific editor. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a prime example of Ravenswing's Third Law cropping up here: "The vehemence (and repetitiveness) with which an editor states that those who oppose his actions/edits/POV can only have sinister motives for doing so is in inverse proportion to the editor's conformity to (a) relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines; and/or (b) his articlespace edit count." If you really do believe that any editor who fails to agree with you is part of some conspiracy against you, then I agree with Simonm223; you are not fit to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazmul995, See also sections, and promotion

• Nazmul995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nazmul created their account on November 22 and has racked up 525 edits, of which 16 are deleted - they've created drafts that have been deleted per WP:G11, including a self-promoting userpage. Mostly what they've been doing is adding massive See also sections to Bangladeshi places. Often, the See also section is larger than the article. Yesterday, Worldbruce left a message on their Talk page about the problem. The user not only didn't respond but continued to add See also sections. This morning, I added "Why are you adding massive See also sections to articles? It's disruptive." after Worldbruce's post. The user hasn't responded but instead persists in their agenda. I thought about a short-term block to get their attention, but decided to come here instead to get more input because it's an unusual problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Nazmul995's most recent edits are adding 10+ "See also" links to every one-sentence "X is a village in Bangladesh" article, like this. Doing so is unhelpful and against the spirit of MOS:LINK. I'm guessing from a photo they uploaded, File:Tanvir Mehedi.jpg, that they may be more accustomed to a hierarchical work environment than a collaborative one. It would be good to have at least one more voice reach out to them and try to persuade them to redirect their energies into something constructive. Many ways to help are linked at Wikipedia:Community portal. If that doesn't work, it might get their attention and make them consider their edits more carefully if someone in authority blocked them briefly, and mass reverted their "See also" edits. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, their last 80 edits (all today) have been to add the same boilerplate list of links to the "See also" section in 80 different village stubs. Their edits have all been to articles beginning with the letter "A" and have been done in alphabetical order of the article names. They seem to be going through an alphabetically sorted list of villages and making the same edit to all of them. I strongly agree that this is not helpful and should be stopped. CodeTalker (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• They've not only been doing this, they've never edited a talk or user-talk page - and they're making the exact same edit to each page, in alphabetical order, at rapid speed, which is indistinguishable from a bot. I've blocked them for 24 hours in hopes that when they next log on they'll be motivated to discuss and have things explained to them. I'll leave it to someone with better tools and more time to revert the mass additions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've done a mass rollback of their last 500 edits, which is almost all of their edits. The ones before that were a bit different, or at least different enough that I didn't feel comfortable reverting them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just revoke EC on Namzul if they return. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. El_C 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Namzul, please refrain from abusing your talk page. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: I don't understand what revoking extended-confirmed will achieve given the nature of the problem, and I don't call what the user posted to their Talk page "abuse".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Talk page comment strikes me as either someone who does not understand how to communicate in English, or someone who is giving us the verbal equivalent of a hand-waving "I see you, now leave me alone." Neither of which seems productive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Given subsequent messages on User talk:Nazmul995, I think this editor was well-intentioned but they definitely overdid the article additions. Apparently, they are now aware of talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruption at Storrs, Connecticut by Jonathanhusky

For several months several editors have been claiming Storrs, Connecticut should be Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut. It was at ANI several months ago - see [23], which led to the creation of an RfC.

The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky. For some reason, a merge discussion was initiated part of the way through the RfC - the whole thing is a bit of a mess.

I'm coming here now since today I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC and marked it as minor: [24] After I reverted - and I admit I did revert a bit too much because there were a series of edits, so I just picked the last table version - Jonathanhusky accused me of misusing the tools: [25] Finally, the edit that got me here, which is something I've never seen before - Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers, including Mathglot, JamesMLane, and R0paire-wiki as "actually supports" in the RfC, while marking the edit as minor, and without signing the comments: [26]

This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour and there needs to be at the very least a topic ban if not an outright block. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the merits of this filing, but it should be noted that Jonathan also filed for a third opinion regarding this article. I procedurally declined that filing since there were clearly more than two editors involved in the matter already. I don't even know that this is particularly relevant to this ANI filing, but since it crossed my watchlist and since Jonathan is being accused of trying to bludgeon the matter, I figured I should at least note it. DonIago (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That last pretty much counts as "editing another editor's comments" doesn't it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I reverted their edit where they "interpreted" other editors' "votes" as the opposite of what they said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...have been claiming...

It is important to note that this statement is false - the official name of the community is "Storrs-Mansfield" and "Storrs" is only an informal, unofficial version. This has been verified and cited in the talk page discussion - the RFC is and was always started to determine the best way to respect the inclusion of the "common name" alongside the official one foremostly. Although a page name change (or "page move") was a prior topic, the RFC nor the actual discussion was at any point regarding that.

The RfC is clearly heading for an oppose, but it has been heavily bludgeoned by Jonathanhusky.

...I noticed Jonathanhusky had updated the article in a way that was clearly unsupported by the RfC...

Jonathanhusky marked several strong opposers...as "actually supports" in the RfC...

It is not "bludgeoning" to reply to one's comment nor is it disruptive to respond to individual points.

As can be seen by reading the actual editors' comments referenced, and then furtherly explained in a discussion comment, they actually did support the proposed edits. The suggested text follows the established and accepted Wikipedia style.

This behaviour, especially the bludgeoning and that last edit, is clearly disruptive/WP:OWNership behaviour...

Incorrect. When users publish multifaceted comments it is not inappropriate to respond to those facets with individual respect toward their points. As a furtherer of the discussion, I am allowed to respond to new evidence, theories and ideas, and able to (as any other user) explain why I do or don't agree with a comment or the reasoning presented, or asked clarifying questions. In fact, I have tried referencing verified reliable sources and relevant Wikipedia policies to figure out what applies and what doesn't. Not all participants did, and as well, others either repeated storied or irrelevant explanations (perhaps they did not know better) or refused to consider the valid points presented in a reply.

I understand that you have initiated this process, but, this has to be looked at from the perspective of the unanswered questions regarding how to properly and respectfully write about this community (and others like it) on Wikipedia. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you interpret their comments/explanations as "they actually did support". Editing other editors' comments in a discussion, especially changing their explict, bolded !votes, is a bright line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No portion of the editors' original comments were actually removed. This fact needs to be respected.

What I did was, solely, ensure that readers knew the honest view of the editors' responses. You say that these were so-called "votes" - in a discussion which is exclusively a discussion, not a call for "votes" - which say "opposed" but their explanations say they don't really oppose the point.

Then other editors see just the "opposed" but don't actually read or understand the comment, drawing a false conclusion. It is unfair to penalize me for adding clarifying labels. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky, it is up to the uninvolved closer to review all of the comments and weigh the arguments when they assess the discussion. You are an involved participant and as Bushranger states, no editor edits other people's comments or "interprets them" by editing them in any way unless they need to hat disruptive content which is not the case here. Just know that if you try this again, you will be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation when the original editors said it themselves. And, please, stop saying that I've edited anyone else's comment. I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to - What I did was akin to a sticky note on the cover page. It's actually disruptive to say one thing when you mean something else. What I did is not and was not disruptive. Jonathanhusky (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

However you choose to interpret what you did (realizing that experienced editors disagree with you), consider yourself warned not to do it again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...realizing that experienced editors disagree with you...

Then go to the discussion and see for yourself - for goodness' sake, half of the responses labeled "opposed" aren't about the RFC, they're about a page name change (or "page move"). And you're saying that those prima facie irrelevant responses aren't invalid?

You mentioned an uninvolved closer. If everyone feels so strongly about the so-called "conclusion" of the discussion, then please start the process to render a decision. Obviously, the editors who have an opinion on the subject have commented and if they actually read and understood the evidence, and participated fairly, you can clearly see that they support the lead paragraph and other changes as suggested. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no then — this is not a negotiation. What you did was sanctionable misconduct, so you can't do that again, full stop. El_C 09:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

So any comment labeled "opposed" will stand no matter what the editor says, in that very same or other comments in the discussion? Even if they really didn't disagree, or the comment had nothing to do with the topic? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A closer might deem an argument as weak enough so as to give it little to no weight, but you can't take another's agency away by editing their comment. El_C 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I did not edit anyone else's comment. The text, data, and material of every other editor's comments and edits were not changed, deleted, or altered.

Stop insinuating and accusing me of something I did not do. Doesn't Wikipedia have policies against personal attacks? Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see the diffs just fine. You do not have the authority to edit inside their comment field. You are not being personally or otherwise attacked, but you do need to step away from this at this point, because it's increasingly coming across as WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, which are in themselves sanctionable. El_C 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathanhusky: I'll put it a different way. Do you think it was in any way acceptable if I had let this edit stand [27]? Perhaps the formatting is a little different but that's basically what you did. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, it appears you did not actually understand the substance of this issue.

Firstly, since you were logged in and you are not me, it is obvious that such an edit in your example would have been thrown out immediately, automatically considered a target onto the other user, and perhaps result in you getting the first-person wish you typed on your own keyboard. Furthermore, you added something which wasn't suggested or supported in that or any of my other comments.

If we take a look at the real case here, we have editors who wrote "opposed" even though they didn't mean to. I did not remove any of their original "opposed" labels, nor any of their content. This fact needs to be respected. I placed before them, in a colored superscript italic indicating that it was an added emphasis not a part of their original comment "actually support".

I then linked to the reply that backs up that claim with "see their comment". It is obvious to any reader that the "sticky note" was and would have been separate from the editor's original comment, but clear (in the link and in the actual text) that the "opposed" would no longer be appropriate.

Had I removed any portion of their comment, or even not supported the change with linked evidence I could potentially understand the concern, albeit a form of crying wolf. Practically speaking, these were clarifying edits.

To accuse me of malfeasance and disruption is and was inappropriate and incorrect. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky is clearly in an "I am not going to listen to anyone else because I am right" mode. Accordingly, I have blocked Jonathanhusky for one month from editing Storrs, Connecticut and Talk: Storrs, Connecticut. They can spend that month contributing productively elsewhere and pondering the fact that this is a collaborative project where decisions are made by genuine consensus instead of misrepresentations and pushiness. Cullen328 (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If you actually read the discussion, you'll note that I'm actually one of the most willing editors on the platform to consider that my suggestion may be in need of improvement or doesn't fit. I was practically the only person to even attempt to seek out the relevant policies, entries in the manual of style, and precedents. And discussed them based on specific points with other editors. I didn't name call and I didn't push an agenda.

Go back and see that other editors started drawing conclusions and accusing me. Since when, in a discussion, am I not allowed to respond to individual points?

You called my editing disruptive, which is not true and frankly rude. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, you need to step back from this thread, or face additional sanctions. You do not have an inalienable right to to respond to individual points indefinitely. You are free to disagree, but not misuse (WP:BLUDGEON) this space further. El_C 10:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I just actually read the discussion, and there is no way to interpret those comments other than that this village should first be named as Storrs and then Storrs-Mansfield be given as an alternative name, the opposite way round to the RFC. Being polite does not excuse lying. Frankly, you are lucky that you can still edit here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On further thought, I've added ANI to the p-block list (now totaling three pages). Hopefully, this will suffice and we can avoid a sitewide block. Added: what Phil Bridger brings up is concerning. El_C 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If this person still wishes to edit, they should know that they are standing on the edge of a precipice and should take several steps back. Cullen328 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that merge discussion can be safely closed. It's going nowhere, and is another example of their disruptive behavior at that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Does this edit, made after the ANI was opened, also need to be reverted? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I closed the thing. There might be an argument made for merging the two articles in question, and a very simple 'sometimes known as ...' line in there, but better for those to be discussed politely in a separate thread. Also note this change was made over on the simple-english wiki without discussion while this was all going on. Connecticut - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which I have reverted JeffUK 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've modified the block to be site-wide due to continued edit warring, but reduced the length to two weeks. I think a lot of good faith has been extended to Jonathanhusky, but they're not listening to any of the advice or cautions provided.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

[28] Definitely not listening, and IMHO very likely to resume conduct once the block expires, so best to keep an eye on the various articles when that happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonathanhusky originally made identical Storrs-related edits from a variety of IP accounts in September 2024. Best to keep an eye out for logged out editing. Of course, at this point, I think this article on this CT town is on more Watchlists than it was 3 months ago when this dispute all first started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Having looked through the recent bits on his talk page, the constant wikilawering, refusal to listen, and refusal to accept that he could have in any way be wrong, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works (with it being implicitly stated that he'll resume the exact same behavior that got him blocked when the block expired) leads me to believe that an indef now would be not uncalled for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Current use of Storrs-Mansfield

Unnecessary aside hatted for the sake of EEng's stomach - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC) My stomach thanks you. EEng
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of this moment, there are exactly two uses of Storrs-Mansfield in mainspace, one in Storrs, Connecticut and one in Mansfield, Connecticut, both the title of the 674 Bus-line used as a reference in regards to public transportation.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC) (a) How does this bear on this complaint? (b) If I hear the words "Storrs" or "Mansfield" one more time, I'm gonna vomit. EEng 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Guillaume de la Mouette

Involved: Guillaume de la Mouette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So I was looking through Special:NewFiles to make sure my tornado images went through, and I came across File:1983 John (Jack) Thornton.jpg, which is missing all information. Then, I came across Thornton's Bookshop, where the following text was added by the user (feel free to remove it with "copyvio removed" if this is a copyright violation, my Earwig isn't working), which was reverted by me and instantly re-added:

The founders and rules of the British Empire took the fame of Oxford to the far corners of the earth. Many of them were, of course, educated at Oxford; they ate Oxford marmalade for breakfast; in the twilight of Empire a few of them even relaxed in Oxford bags. Yet the name o£ Oxford is known to millions throughout the world not because of trousers, or marmalade, or even scholarship, but because they have received their education from books supplied by Oxford booksellers. Oxford, a city which had a well-established book trade; the makers of medieval books - the scribes, limners, illuminators, and binders - and their sellers clustered around St Mary's and in Catte Street, near the Schools which stood on the site now occupied by the Bodleian. Their customers were the men of the University, but the invention of printing wrought a revolution in the availability of books and in the ability to read them. It was not, however, the printers themselves, but the booksellers, who were the key figures in the dissemination of this vast new literature. The learned booksellers of Oxford were soon adapting themselves to new ways. John Dorne had a shop near St Mary's in the 1520s from which he sold a great variety of books: the old learning was represented by Peter Lombard, and the new by Erasmus; but amongst the learned folios Dorne also stocked school textbooks, ballads, sheet almanacs, and the astrological prognostications which our ancestors loved. Each year he had a stall at St. Frideswide’s Fair and at Austin Fair which provided valuable additional income. Dorne, and, no doubt, his contemporaries about whom little or nothing is known, had begun to bridge the gap between town and gown, supplying the needs and tastes of both. Outside the city there were no printers but there were books and men who sold them. As early as 1604 we know of a stationer in Charlbury. Stationers normally had a few ballads and Bibles on their shelves and from The original site of the bookshop in Magdalen street c. 1860 near the Oxford Memorial and the Randolph hotel them country bookshops developed. By 1800, all the major towns in Oxfordshire had a tradesman who was, at least in name a bookseller. Most of them are shadowy. Only accidental survivals, like the little Holloway cache rescued by Johnson, or the much larger Cheney archives, can add flesh to the bare bones of names and dates. We can, however, argue by analogy with similar survivals elsewhere in England. Such analogies suggest that there were few towns of any size in which there was not a bookshop able to supply the needs of the locality. In Oxfordshire, as elsewhere the book trade was essentially distributive, and the similarity between the trade in Oxfordshire and that elsewhere emphasises the point that Oxford itself is not only not the whole story but is rather a deviation from it. The learned men of Oxford made the city a major centre of learned publishing; but beyond the walls the county pursued a quiet and uneventful existence in which the book trade was one of many which catered to its modest needs.

This is comlete cruft and promotional, and this user has a clear-cut COI, as seen here. I think administrator intervention is needed, as they've been reverting Filedelinkerbot, me, and don't seem to listen to warnings on their talk page. E_F⁵ 16:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this person knows what this is all about. It's an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

An article about a particular bookshop is not the place for an article about the poorly sourced Draft:History of the book trade in Oxford. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this situation is problematic. The SPA user's extensive edits to that article are also entirely unsourced. I have reverted the article to the position before they started their spree (which seems to include a large IP edit in 19th Nov). Axad12 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a very extensive archive of the bookshop, this goes back to about 1840. I am currently writing the history of 5 generations of booksellers in this, Oxford's oldest bookshop. I have just over 280 photographs, documents, letters etc just for the period 1835 - 1983. Of these I choose a few for Wikipedia. It is of course also strange that I keep on having to confirm copyright for photographs we, my wife and I took between 1983 and 2023. I added an introduction to the history of the book trade in Oxford till Thornton's opened in 1835 which you have now deleted and I now find that the site is back to the old one before I worked on this for days on end. It's simplistic. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Be that as it may, material added to Wikipedia articles must be properly cited to published sources and must be written in neutral encyclopaedic language. It also must not include large blocks of text taken from other sources. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COPYVIO for further details on the relevant policies. Axad12 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been tracking and watching storms for about 3 years now. Does that mean that I'm an "expert"? No! Please don't assume bad faith, as there are some serious NPOV issues here and we aren't "AI generated". E_F⁵ 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what AI has to do with this. Would you mind expanding?

Please also note that Wikipedia is no place for original research as per WP:OR. If you have researched the subject, the appropriate place to publish that research is in book form (or similar) not on Wikipedia (which simply reports what other already published sources say). Axad12 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I was in the legal field for over thirty years before my retirement, and that doesn't mean I get to override Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the consensus of other editors to jam in whatever meandering prose I want. You would be well advised to pay attention to Axad12's counsel, as well as reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR before editing further. Ravenswing 16:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the introduction myself, after all I have been a bookseller for more than 60 years. I let the previous generations speak about the history of the firm. But I realise that you allow AI to review all of this. a pity. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your (mis)understanding of the role of AI here? The reason your work has been reverted has been stated very clearly above. The need to revert you was observed and agreed by human beings alone (all of whom who have seen your work appear to oppose it). Axad12 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: They're now trying to re-add the info "secretly" under an IP (2A02:8012:B5B2:0:421:7B31:2D08:281E). I think block is in order? E_F⁵ 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This situation is rather sad, it would have been a lot more constructive if they had had a look at the policies I had pointed them to rather than starting to edit war while logged out.

I suppose it's up to them whether they want to be a useful contributor within the bounds of the relevant policies and guidelines, or someone who got blocked for edit warring.

Guillaume, I would seriously suggest that you opt for the former course. Axad12 (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks, I'll give up, a pity you are happy with an inferior description which fortunately I have saved and will be part of my Faringdon chronicle volume 5 to be housed in both the Bodleian library and the central Historical archive in Oxford. And by the way, the above I am he not they. :) Yes I still need to correct the introduction. Guillaume de la Mouette (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was assuming that the book plug was going to happen at some point. Axad12 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Guillaume de la Mouette, the bottom line is this: If you want to edit Wikipedia, then you must comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Neither your expertise nor your age give you any exemptions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: They continue to blank content, as seen by their recent contributions. E_F⁵ 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, despite my dickishness, let's look at some of Guy's contributions. Today, adding a crap ton of unsourced content to Thornton's Bookshop, and another edit, deleting some of the unsourced content? Weird stuff. BarntToust 17:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Guillaume de la Mouette for one week for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, @Guillaume de la Mouette, good luck with seeing if you can sneak your Amazon.fr print-ordered book into the donation boxes at the local libraries that you haven't yet been kicked out of for similar, prior incidents. BarntToust 18:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust, that remark was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with the unnecessary part, but.. inappropriate? I would characterise that as "chiding" and "dank" before I'd consider it inappropriate. BarntToust 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not an off-kilter reading of what's probably going on with Guillaume, but still definitely not helpful. I'll see myself out, eh. BarntToust 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

actually, looks like this is a bookseller? huh. weird. BarntToust 19:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust, since you failed to take the hint, consider this a formal warning: Never address a another editor in such a mocking fashion again. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

alrighty, no mocking. I should instead invite the editor to indeed wait until his works are published by a reliable publishing house, then provide identifying info, such as ISBN in order for his knowledge to be utilised in the project. BarntToust 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt actually, misplaced mockery aside, that this information Guillaume has put forth is true. But, as some essay said once, "Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiablity". So, let's wait for the book to be published, and judge from there. BarntToust 20:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Lavipao edit warring + POV pushing

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

This user is deliberately POV pushing on Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch articles, comparing these to US invasion of Iraq and Russian invasion of Ukraine. While these articles do not even include the word "invasion" as title but "operation". Also in international politics, only handful countries have called this an invasion. Undue weight. I reported this vandalism and asked for page protection but admin called this a content dispute, which is funny because the one editing 6 to 8 years old text is right in this context. Weird! Beshogur (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Beshogur, you're a very experienced editor, you know you have to present diffs so that editors can investigate your complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That's I can do on mobile.

Operation Olive Branch

rev before

rev after

Operation Euphrates Shield

rev before

rev after

Beshogur (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this content dispute, but it undoubtably is a content dispute. It doesn't matter that at least one editor thinks they are "right in this context" - it is still a content dispute. And an invasion is not necessarily bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In these both articles operation appears 10x more than invasion. And invasion is subjective. This can not be compared to Iraq or Ukraine invasion. The ratio of local Syrian rebels were 10x more than Turkish troops, yet it's conducted by the Turkish army. It is not even against the Syrian regime but ISIL and YPG. "not necessarily bad"? so let's change everything slightly to not necessarily bad instead of stating factual things. Beshogur (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes. And your opening salvo on their talk page [29] of "Revert your edit or you will be reported. This is the consensus." is not the right way to deal with a content dispute either. They probably shouldn't have reverted their change back in again without discussing it, but honestly, if that's the level of discussion they're introduced to I can see why they didn't think discussing it would be helpful. JeffUK 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am complaining the way administrators treat this as a content dispute. I asked for page protection and intervention against vandalism, but nothing. Administrators doing these do not even check the content. This is a disruptive edit and action should be taken. So he's changing something and I have to convince him. What a joke honestly. This is simply time wasting. Both of his edits are like "is an invasion bla bla" then suddenly 2-3 times the word operation appears in the lead again. Both were not described as a military invasion, but had been described as an invasion by a very fringe minority. If he thinks both were a military invasions, he should ask for title change "2016 invasion of Syria", etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also leaving this here as an example Operation_Olive_Branch#International reactions (simple read the countries):

• Cyprus: The Republic of Cyprus condemned the Turkish invasion in Afrin
• France: evolves into an attempted invasion (assumption)
• Sweden: to protest the Afrin invasion (statement of the newspaper, not Swedish government)
• US: US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert called on Turkey not to engage in any invasion of Syria's Afrin (doesn't have a source, and US called this an operation, not invasion)

for Operation_Euphrates_Shield#International_reactions

• Cyprus: the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria

Now tell me how his edits is appropriate? Beshogur (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How is whether we should describe this as an invasion or an operation not a content dispute? It is certainly not vandalism. The use of that word is a personal attack. And it's perfectly possible for something to be both an invasion and an operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing this resulted in a military occupation (see Turkish occupation of Northern Syria) but military invasion =/= military occupation. Invasion aims to conquer a land, while the Turkish army doesn't control a piece of land there, but uses proxy, which makes this different from US invasion of Iraq or Russian invasion of Ukraine. This is simply wrong, and we should be realistic. I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion. I don't get how Military operation suddenly became a taboo word after Russian invasion (yes yes I know the special military operation). Beshogur (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

>I don't care if anyone calls this an invasion or not, I am trying to say a fringe minority calls this an invasion.

Then say that a fringe minority call it an invasion! something like '[the operation]..characterised by some as an invasion.." would be an excellent compromise and a valuable addition to the article. JeffUK 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How so exactly? We edit like that. WP:UNDUE. Beshogur (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument to make on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that (the article talk page) is the right place to talk about this content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! As others have said this is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the talk page for the specific article. There is no POV or vandalism occurring, I’m just attempting to clean up the article by using correct and accurate language that reflects consistently the language used throughout this website for invasions. As I’ve provided before, there are many examples of pages on invasions throughout Wikipedia, such as the US invasion of Afghanistan or the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

User Beshogur has been continuously reverting away from correct language to use euphemistic, purposefully-confusing terms such as “cross border military operation” which is a term not used in other Wikipedia articles.

The user seems to have a very strong conviction that only Turkish government phrasing or sources should be used to describe this event, even though around the world this invasion has been widely covered as an invasion. I suspect a strong POV issue with this user Lavipao (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This user is deliberately edit warring and POV pushing. administrators should intervene asap. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are also edit-warring and you've failed to open a talk page discussion despite telling Lavipao too. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: because he's clear POV pushing? We have to revert POV pushing on wikipedia, not trying to convince the POV pusher. I asked several times page protection or intervention for vandalism (yet him having like less than 50 edits). Beshogur (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This user abuses 1RR rule, and edit warring, yet administrators doing nothing. Good. Beshogur (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What 1RR rule is there on these pages? On the user's talk page you reference an introduction to ARBPIA, what does a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

a Turkish military operation in Syria against Kurdish groups: Not ARBPIA, but WP:ARBKURDS. "The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed...has been designated as a contentious topic" - and thus 1RR applies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. It might be best to explain to give a proper explanation of it to Lavipao. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Their responses do not look promising. Calling another editor a "Classic no-life activist editor" is not good. Codename AD ^talk 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A classic case of WP:THETRUTH. I've given them what can be considered a final warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor508 + their IP (86.28.195.223) POV pushing

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

---

• Editor508 (talk · contribs)
• 86.28.195.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The two (the same person actually) are pushing their POV at UEFA Euro 2028, even though it is a long-standing consensus that the countries are always listed alphabetically. Single purpose accounts and IP editing with their pro-Wales edits and complexes against England, those edits are not done in a good faith and needs to be permanently blocked - or semi-protect the page in question for several months.

Difs Editor508:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

Diffs 86.28.195.223

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4
• Diff 5
• Diff 6

Snowflake91 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• The user was already partial-blocked from the article, I have done the same for the IP. If the IP is the user evading a block, they'll find they've just extended their block significantly, since I blocked the IP with "block registered users from this IP" enabled. Black Kite (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Emiya1980 Repeated Edit Warring

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

---

Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My colleague has been engaged in numerous edit wars, most recently demonstrated here [30] for another edit war at Hirohito. While both parties engaged in an Edit War, and the admin responding chose not to block either editor, Emiya1980's edit warring seems to be a chronic, intractable issue. Emiya1980 has received multiple warnings for Edit Warring, here at ANI, and on his talkpage [31][32][33][34][35][36] and yet continues to engage in edit warring, even crossing the bright line of the WP:3RR in the latest edit war.

I propose implementation of a WP:1RR restriction on Emiya1980 for at least six months, to prevent further, continued disruptive edit warring. Withdrawn. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.

I have made a point of trying to conform to Wikipedia’s expectations since being subjected to sanction in October. The recent edit war over at Hirohito is the only evidence provided of me being a disruptive presence since then. In the past, I have tried to compromise with LilAhok on that page but he/she has responded more often than not by digging in his/her heels. I am not the first editor whom LilAhok has gotten in a heated dispute with and I doubt I’ll be the last.

I ask that all I’ve said be taken into consideration before reaching a decision. Emiya1980 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go to WP:ANEW, or if it's with a specific problem, WP:DRN? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Given how much I’ve collaborated with BRP recently, I am rather taken aback by their decision to have me subject to further sanctions without speaking with me beforehand.

I have spoken to you beforehand. I urged you to be less combative and to WP:DISENGAGE, which is why I found it disappointing to see that you violated WP:3RR in a conflict on Hirohito with an editor that I suggested you WP:DISENGAGE from months ago [37]. My proposal for a WP:1RR is as much for your own good as it is the encyclopedia, because perhaps you'll just let things go and not run the risk of a site block. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly. I'll ask. @Crazycomputers: did you know about the behavior reported here? If not, do you think it's problematic enough that Emiya1980 should now get 1RR restriction, a block, and/or any other sanction? City of Silver 18:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489 § User:Emiya1980 reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Page protected)

Typically when investigating ANEW reports, unless there is a specific comment regarding past behavior, I look only at the facts presented at the time. For any participants I conclude are edit warring, I also will take their block log into account. In this case there was no reference to past behavior, so I didn't dig into either participant's history.

The other party in the edit war was starting to make an attempt to discuss on the article's talk page, and I did not want to stifle that discussion with a 2-party block, so I opted for page protection instead. However, it does not seem that Emiya1980 engaged in discussion on the article's talk page at all, so this approach unfortunately did not have the intended effect.

Having said all of that, I don't think a block is necessary at this time. Emiya1980 has not really even edited substantially since the ANEW report. I count one single edit in mainspace since then. Blocking now, a full week after the edit war, without a recurrence of the problematic behavior, would be in contravention of WP:NOPUNISH.

Looking at the links provided by BRP:

• Heinrich Himmler: They reverted once and then ceased. For an incident that happened 4 years ago, this is not terribly concerning to me.
• The edit warring at Talk:Benito Mussolini is concerning, especially since it involves removing/striking other people's messages. Emiya1980 should be reminded of WP:TPO, if they were not at the time.
• Unless I'm missing something, at World War II related to this discussion, I see one revert.
• The last is the edit war is the one handled by me at ANEW.

Out of these four incidents, two of them would be within the proposed 1RR sanction. Unless more compelling evidence is brought forward demonstrating that this is a chronic and intractable problem, I do not think additional sanctions are warranted. As the situation stands today, I think the standard edit warring policy is sufficient to handle future issues. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiya1980 hasn't edit warred since an admin closed that report at ANEW with two days of full protection. BRP seems to think that admin wasn't aware of previous conflicts and if they had been, they wouldn't have let Emiya1980 off so lightly

My suggestion was borne entirely of the fact that the user has accrued an unusual amount of edit warring notices across the past year, and the idea that a WP:1RR restriction would prevent further disruption. The links I provided are not the only warnings that Emiya1980 has received. It isn't that I believe the Admin would have reacted differently, it is a matter of feeling like the community should take action to prevent further distrubances.

Here is a list of edit warning notices and other evidence demonstrating a timeline of repeated behavior:

• May 2024[38]

• May 2024 Edit War Difs [39][40]

• June 2024[41][42][43]

• September 2024[44]

• October 2024 (The Slow War) [45][46] [47][48][49][50][51]

• November 2024 [52] [53]

• November 2024 Edit War Diffs[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] [62]

Regarding "Missing something at World War II", as explained here [63] Making a change, getting reverted, re-reverting, and being re-reverted again actually can constitute edit warring.

Supplying any further diffs would be overkill at this point (in fact, it already is overkill). I was succint in the diffs I supplied on the first round for fear of applying too many, but it demonstrates at the very least that Emiya1980 has been engaged in edit warring in September 2024, October 2024, November 2024. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that (with regards to the links posted for “November 2024”) both warnings against edit-warring on my talk page were posted by LilAhok who was likewise edit-warring on Hirohito. While the second warning is signed as “Ulises Laertíada”, said post was made by LilAhok not the former.Emiya1980 (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, if they're running around signing notices as someone else, that's a problem. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I can verify that LilAhok did apparently leave a warning on Emiya1980's page and signed it as @Ulises Laertíada for some reason [64] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, pretending to be another editor is not acceptable, and should result in sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

[65]

In this post, I clearly said I signed it by mistake. In August 2024, another user reminded me to sign my edits [66]. I am not used to signing edits since wiki usually does it automatically. Sometimes it doesn't. @Emiya1980 even mentioned it in the post and crossed it out because I admitted to that mistake on the admin board. Why would I pretend to be another editor when all edits are recorded on the history page? LilAhok (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you look at WP:Signature, then. All you need to sign anything is four tildes ~~~~ to generate a signature. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that. i'll take a look at WP:Signature. LilAhok (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to LilAhok's protestations of ignorance, this is not the first time they have been warned about improperly signing comments. [67] Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler - Emiya1980's edit warring behavior demonstrated through reverts and partial reverts on 14 September 2024.

User's preferred version: [68] - 20:45, 14 September 2024

Reverts & partial Reverts on same content:

[69] - 19:15, 14 September 2024

[70] - 20:53, 14 September 2024

[71] - 21:06, 14 September 2024

[72] - 22:33, 14 September 2024

[73] - 23:00, 14 September 2024 LilAhok (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing how LilAhok has seen fit to support sanctions against me in this thread, I think it's only fair to point out that LilAhok likewise has a history of edit-warring with other contributors besides myself. [74]. [75]

He/she also appears to have recurring problems with copyright violations. They have been warned by editors about such conduct on at least three separate occasions. [76], [77], [78]. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@LilAhok and Emiya1980: Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues per WP:NOPUNISH, which says "Blocks should not be used...if there is no current conduct issue of concern." If you keep going back and forth dredging up old stuff like this, that probably will be considered a "current conduct issue of concern" and blocks could come into play. Why not disengage and move on? City of Silver 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved on from the situation, but it appears that Emiya1980 has not, as shown by their behavior in this discussion.

Although Emiya1980 was reported by another user for edit warring, not myself, they have nonetheless mentioned me in this discussion. This was a consecutive edit by the user. [79]

As I pointed out earlier [80], I acknowledged my signature mistake in a previous administrative discussion, and Emiya participated in that conversation by asking, "I am curious though. Why did you sign your warning on my page as another editor?" [81] (This question had already been addressed by me long before the user asked it). [82] Emiya even went so far as to strike through their own question.[83] Despite this, Emiya knowingly misrepresented my actions by bringing up my earlier mistake in the current discussion. [84] Emiya1980's comments were not constructive to the discussion and were malicious in nature, as other users were speculating about whether I was signing my posts under different usernames. Had I not addressed the issue, there was a possibility that I could have been sanctioned or banned.

WP:CIV - I have issued multiple reminders and warnings to the user, advising them to refrain from engaging in uncivil behavior towards me.[85] I posted a final civil warning on their talk page after 3 violations. Prior to that, I made three reminders of the user's uncivil conduct.

Emiya1980's deliberate misrepresentations of my actions, despite it having already been addressed, constitute a violation of WP:CIV. Despite multiple reminders and warnings, and considering the seriousness of the most recent violation, should the user's behavior be reported? LilAhok (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading, but I believe their intent in bringing up the signature incident in this thread was to make it clear to people reviewing the diffs that both warnings were actually issued by you, not to suggest that you be sanctioned for that accident. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@LilAhok: After you stated "I have moved on from the situation," you typed out almost 300 words of you rehashing complaints that have already been addressed, proving that you have absolutely not "moved on from the situation" one bit. I'll say again: "Neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues". Just now in their message below this one, admin Crazycomputers told you that since there isn't a current problem, neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues. Since neither of you is going to get in trouble for previous issues, why keep trying? City of Silver 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm very close to proposing an interaction ban between these two editors. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If you do I'll support it. You're actually the reason I'm so frustrated; I was reluctant to lasso you into this because I felt like it could end up being a major waste of your time and a day later, sure enough, it's been little more than a major waste of your time. On the matter at hand, anyone who wants to know why an interaction ban is in order can trudge through this thread and see how much pointless bickering could have been avoided if these two editors were both required to leave each other alone. City of Silver 05:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration. Ultimately it is what it is, and given that I handled the most recent ANEW report it's probably inevitable that I ended up here one way or another. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking through these diffs, I'm not really seeing anything new. I see a lot of warnings to Emiya1980, but warnings are not evidence of anything other than that they're aware of our edit warring policy. In the diffs you provided, many are EW warning notices, others are duplicate links, and still others are links to reverts made by other editors. When you filter all of this out, it's pretty much the same list as you initially posted.

I'm not stating categorically that there's no problem with their behavior (there is), or that additional sanctions aren't necessary (they might be). I'm just stating that I don't think their problematic behavior yet rises to the level where additional sanctions are required -- at least I don't see evidence of that. An admonishment that this behavior is unacceptable and that future incidents will likely result in a block should be sufficient at this time. Of course, this is just my opinion, and any other administrator is welcome to chime in here if they disagree.

To be clear, if they want to voluntarily adopt a 1RR restriction as a stricter guardrail to help them avoid extended edit wars in the future, I would have no problem enforcing that. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm not hard pressed on the issue, so I'm not going to fight you about it or anything. If you feel that there isn't anything more to do, then I'm fine with that. I do want to note that I very specifically wasn't suggesting that Emiya should be blocked from the site, which was why I was proposed a 1RR restriction instead of suggesting they should be blocked. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent NPOV violations on Cavalier Johnson by multiple users involved in Michigan State University's Urban Politics course

The article on Cavalier Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been disrupted by multiple editors with edits that violate NPOV. When an NPOV edit from one user gets reverted, the reverted content usually gets readded by another user, sometimes over multiple edits. Could potentially be a case of meatpuppetry, as the editors concerned seem to be involved in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Michigan_State_University/Urban_Politics_(Fall_2024).

Concerned editors are JuliaG886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MiaReese26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and SarahReckhow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Devchar (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't AP2 lack a distinction between national and subnational politics in the United States? These would fall under that CTOP if true. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In theory, that's true. However it is unusual to indefinitely protect articles about local pols under CTOP. Not saying it hasn't been done. But it isn't routine. I think this issue is fixable if we can get the word out to the involved editors so they know to avoid slanted language in articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't implying protection. I was implying more formal CTOP warnings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I misunderstood your comment. Any editor in good standing is free to drop a CTOP notice on another user's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly problematic. I have EC protected the page for 1 month. I will be happy to lift the protection once everybody concerned understands our guidelines and policies on BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Michigan State University class in question ended yesterday. If the usual pattern prevails, we will never hear from these student editors again. I wonder what grade will be given to the student who wrote Johnson credits his desire to be mayor as being rooted in his passion for service and serving the city he grew up in. When the word "passion" appears in the biography of a living person, it is a violation of NPOV about 99.9% of the time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Student editing, while problematic, has the same sort of problem so many new editors have around tone. It's a problem that frequently makes me despair, but I believe there's incremental hope for better. And instructor reverting without explanation is a problem. Squarely our problem, because somehow we failed to convey the seriousness of it.

I've asked Helaine to intervene with the instructor. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/User:Guettarda/ 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm mildly concerned that the teacher of the course (SarahReckhow) doesn't seem to know what constitutes an NPOV violation (see their reply to me on their talk page). I'm not sure if this an actually valid concern though. Devchar (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User82532 clearly NOTHERE

• User82532 (talk · contribs)

This edit is quite self-explanatory. I had reported them at WP:AIV due to a previous edit, but looking at these edits, their talk page and their contribution history, this should probably result in an indef rather than a temporal block. Impru20^talk 19:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and combined with, on top of a vandalism block in April, just indef now. SerialNumber54129 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Welp. Impru20^talk 19:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Indef'ed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Every edit this person made today, including the one on their talk page, ought to get revdelled. City of Silver 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually curious as to how they were not indeffed back in April for those edits that were revdelled. Canterbury Tail talk 19:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Vyzlette - Unconstructive editing and editing while logged out

As a result of abusing multiple accounts for years to make unexplained, unnecessary and mostly incorrect additions (often containing improper grammar) to the plot section of several film articles (with a particular fixation on The Other Woman (2014 film) and occasional edits to The Other Guys), Vyzlette (talk · contribs) recently had two sockpuppets indefinitely blocked (see the SPI report), while the most recently used account (Vyzlette) was left untouched as the administrator felt this wasn't a case of malicious sockpuppetry. Less than a week later, Vyzlette continued to persistently make unexplained, unconstructive and nonsensical additions to the plot section of The Other Woman (2014 film) ([86][87][88]). After a couple attempts on my end to communicate with Vyzlette at their talk page (to no avail), the user began making edits to The Other Woman (2014 film) while logged out as 76.103.44.169 (talk · contribs) for a few days before switching back to Vyzlette ([89][90][91]). snapsnap ^(talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Request TPA revocation from Pavanreddy211

TPA needs to be revoked from Pavanreddy211 (talk · contribs). They may be WP:NOTHERE again. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the eyes. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent POV edits and probably COI on The Gersh Agency

User:Mischit has been making POV/promotional edits to The Gersh Agency since March. These involve removing sourced negative information diff for eg, adding promotional tone, etc. Here is the most recent example from this evening. User has been engaged on talk page (in March, and today) and their user page, but no response in any case. I can't revert their edits again without breaching 3RR. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

User:HumansRightsIsCool is NOTHERE

Their edits (primarily on articles about YouTubers and controversial figures) are not helpful and are frequently reverted; the user then does not listen to corrections and is argumentative. I'm unsure if they are just an overconfident young editor or are here to be intentionally disruptive.

The most recent run-in with this user was on the Jaden McNeil page, which has had notability issues since it was created. They went unaddressed, so I turned the page to a redirect. On the talk page, the user has justified reverting the decision by pointing out other unrelated individuals, saying that the subject of the article is "good at exposing" people, and mentioning that I'm Catholic. None of this addressed the issues, and this seems to be a recurring problem with the editor, on top of how few of their edits are constructive and the frequent edit warring.

Happy holidays, Swinub★ 23:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you're supposed to discuss. It's argumentative? That's the point, that's what the talk page is for. I mentioned how you were Catholic and might be a nick Fuentes fan (who identifies as a Catholic nationalist) because you mentioned how I was a Jaden McNeil fan. And I've only got a few warnings for edit warring a while back, but that was a while back and I dont do that anymore. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also the issues with the Jaden McNeil page went "unaddressed" because they're aren't any issues at all. He's got thousands of followers and reliable sources like the ADL cover him. Also just to be clear I'm not a fan of jaden's anti-semitic views but how he exposes his former Neo-Nazi friend Nick Fuentes. Also Im not just advocating to keep the page up just because I like what he does, but because he's definitely notable HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

one last thing before I go. You said my edits frequently get reversed. That doesn't happen a lot. It happens a few times when an editor disagrees but it always gets resolved in the talk page and we come to an agreement. And you said I point out unrelated individuals to argue about the McNeil page staying up. Syrian girl is also associated with Nick Fuentes. She's not a "unrelated individual." And I used her as an example to keep the Jaden McNeil page because she got a Wikipedia article when she had 30,000 subscribers on YouTube and still doesn't even have 100,000.

Happy holidays HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

She is unrelated, and her notability is clearly established. As explained in the original edit summary, Jaden McNeil is known for "being the former Turning Point USA chapter president of Kansas State University," posting an edgy tweet in 2020, and briefly being associated with Nick Fuentes. This does not establish notability. Yes, the ADL mentioned him; they cover everyone in online right-wing politics, most of whom do not and should not have an article on here. Swinub★ 23:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

She is related because she's associated with Nick, and yes her notability is established now. But when she first got an article she only had 30,000 followers on YouTube and was getting only a couple thousand views a video. If you go to syrian girl's channel, her most recent videos only have 1,000 views. She's notable now because syrian girl's post often go viral and get hundreds of thousands and sometimes hit a million views. But 10 years ago that wasn't the case and she still got a Wikipedia page. If you're saying Jaden McNeil isn't notable because he doesn't have many followers on a YouTube channel he doesn't even post on and has 0 content currently, look at why syrian girl is notable, viral tweets. many times Jaden McNeil's tweets get 100-400k views. One of his recent ones got 4 million views, and if there's reliable sources like the adl mentioning him. He's notable. The ADL doesn't cover every right-wing influencer, even small ones. That's simply impossible. And Jaden isn't only known for making one tweet about George Floyd in 2020. That needs to be updated lol. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

HumansRightsIsCool, why do you keep talking about views, followers and tweets? That's not how notability is established on Wikipedia and you've been around long enough to know this is the case. You shouldn't be mentioning biographical information about other editors, that shouldn't come into discussions about notability, focus on content, not contributors and their off-wiki lives.

Swinub, I gather you don't get on with HumansRightsIsCool but you need to present diffs/edits to show disruption to support your claims that you think this editor should be blocked. If this discussion devolves into a content discussion about specific articles and notability, I, or another editor, will hat it as content disagreements shouldn't be discussed at ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok first off, you're asking why do I keep talking about views, followers and tweets. Well swinhub started it by saying Jaden is only well known for one tweet about George Floyd 4 years ago in 2020. He's the one who first brought up fame and how famous Jaden is. And I haven't just been talking about views and tweets, I also mention how reliable sources cover Jaden McNeil like the ADL when he claimed it's just local sources. And I mentioned how swinhub was Catholic because Nick Fuentes identifies as a Catholic nationalist, and he's deleting the page about the enemy of Nick Fuentes, Yeah sorry I brought that up didn't know that was inappropriate and I should assume good faith and shouldn't assume personal bias HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's about notability, not "fame," something you should be aware of if you are making the sort of edits you make. I did not claim he was only known for the tweet; I claimed that it is one of three things he is known for, none of which indicate notability. The ADL calling someone anti-semitic also does not indicate notability. Swinub★ 00:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're talking about fame when you say "notable" though if you keep saying he's only known for 3 things. he has multiple reliable sources covering him, that's Wikipedia's policy on notability. And sorry but now I have to talk about fame again because you said he's only known for 3 things 4 years ago. If you go on his Twitter account his posts get tens of thousands and views, sometimes going up to 400k-1 million views. I saw one of his posts hit 4 million views. He's not notable for for only three things. Also please top deleting the Jaden McNeil page when we're still actively discussing, we haven't reached conscious yet and now you're starting to edit war. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

i meant "stop" not "top" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 01:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I've been editing this encyclopedia for a while now adding what I thinks best for pages. I'm building. Your the one who's deleting and deleting. Even if there's reliable sources in this article. we haven't come to an agreement and you deleted the page 2 or three times already. And you claim I'm the one starting edit wars lol. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

My last comment. HumansRightsIsCool, Swinub has not deleted any pages, he's not an administrator. Swinub, I asked you to present diffs of disruption which you haven't done. No action is likely to be taken if you don't provide evidence of the claims you are making. The only thing I see right now is two editors bickering. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok he technically didn't delete the page. He just removed everything on the page and made it a redirect HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be relevant to remind people that notability is not inherited, and that millions of views of a post does not establish notability. What established notability is what reliable secondary sources say specifically about the subject themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have AfDd the article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaden McNeil. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

New, uncommunicative editor adding European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award

Nisa-helena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new editor who has made nearly 180 edits only to add links to and information about the European Cultural Centre University & Research Projects Award to many articles. In many cases, the edits include an external link which is not something that should be added to the body of an article. In many cases, the additions are also vague and unnecessary. I would love to discuss my objections and help this editor but they are not responding to any messages or even using edit summaries. A message from another editor may get their attention but a brief block may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So is it now perfectly acceptable for an editor to add vague information and external links to articles while refusing to communicate with other editors in any way? ElKevbo (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want somebody to check out the user's behavior, please post some diffs as examples. Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Every single edit they have made is to add this information. No communication whatsoever. ElKevbo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Small correction: Their initial edits after creating their account in October were not about this award but focused on adding information about books published by the centre. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Checked out this user's contribution history and @ElKevbo is not exaggerating. He doesn't need to post diffs because if you check the contributions, every single one of the diffs follows the pattern he mentioned. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Crikey, they're even adding spam to articles of people who were "shortlisted" for these nonnotable awards. Editor has had plenty of time to respond to the several warnings. Block. EEng 08:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week in hope of their communicating. If they instead resume on the expiration, it'll be indef time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

76.130.142.29 and weird forum-like talk page posts, etc.

76.130.142.29 has been making odd forum-like talk page posts that are often unconstructive for a while now, such as those listed at their talk page and more recently this one at Talk:Aileen Wuornos and this one at Talk:Ron Lyle. Also, their responses on their talk page show quite an attitude problem. If I were still an admin with full blocking powers, I would block them for clearly continuing their editing pattern despite adequate warnings (or *maybe* give them *one* final warning), but I'm not so I've brought this here. Graham87 (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I posted a warning to not use talk pages as a forum. They posted a couple surly messages in response to previous warnings on their user talk page, let's see if the recent notice has any effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for that. You gave them exactly the same warning level that I did a couple of sections above your post though ... that feels a bit redundant from here, but maybe that's just me. Graham87 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Different admins have different approaches. I like to hear from an editor at ANI or see how they respond to a warning before taking action unless they are just vandalizing and disrespecting other editors. Especially with some new editors, they sometimes don't realize they have crossed a line until they are given that "Final warning." It's amazing to me but many newer editors just don't take the first warnings very seriously. And, if I can be honest, I think some of our standard warnings are very verbose and use 200 words what could be said in 20. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive and tendentious editing by TheRazgriz on the 2024 United States elections page

TheRazgriz has engaged in persistent, disruptive and tendentious editing on the 2024 United States elections page, including making multiple ad hominem attacks against myself, (calling me an emotional biased editor engaging in borderline vandalism, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and of acting with intentional bad faith) and making several WP:UNCIVIL comments on the talk page pointed out by other editors. TheRazgriz did apologize once on my talk page, but continued to engage in such attacks against myself afterwards. TheRazgriz has been called out by several other editors on his talk page for uncivil comments on this and other pages, which are promptly removed shortly thereafter. In comments on his talk page, Wikipedia admin Bishonen has noted Raz's use of "rudeness and sexualized language" (ex: "stroke off your ego", calling people "boy"). Wikipedia admin Doug Weller noted that his message in reply to Bishonen "comes across as somewhat arrogant". User Magnolia677 made a warning against Raz of potential edit warring on the Bryson City, North Carolina page.

I previously submitted an AN/I incident against TheRazgriz on December 3rd following his premature closure of a talk page section which was upheld. TheRazgriz has since made multiple novel and rejected interpretations of Wikipedia RS and OR policy, all of which have been unanimously rejected by editors both in an RfC I opened and a discussion on the Original Research noticeboard. During discussions, TheRazgriz refused to provide any reliable secondary sources for his claims, instead claiming the ONUS was not on him. TheRazgriz has also been called out by other editors that his claims about the content of prior edits was incorrect as shown by edit history.

TheRazgriz has frequently refused to engage in meaningful discussion with myself, with his repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong (one example: "I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion?"), and only relenting once overwhelming and unanimous agreement from other editors that his interpretation of policy is mistaken. Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed. TheRazgriz has falsely claimed a consensus exists within the "Undue weight in lead" section of the talk page for his "final" edits to the Economy section, which he has previously used to revert edits to the section and as of today claims he will continue to revert using consensus as the reason.

I do believe that TheRazgriz does think his interpretations of policy are correct. However, as a new editor with roughly 250 mainspace edits (Raz claims he has over 114,000 edits on other unregistered accounts but that his IP address changes frequently), and with his discussions and interpretations of policy being unanimously rejected by multiple editors, I believe that TheRazgriz requires further knowledge of Wikipedia policy in order to become an better editor. BootsED (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What has troubled me about this editor is that after I've had some conversations with them about policy and questioning claims that they've made on their user page that they seemingly followed me to an RFC on Israel, casting a !vote at Special:Diff/1261260050 that they weren't entitled to make given that they are not WP:XC. Now the edit can be forgiven for an editor who is new, however what concerned me was that they had never edited in that area before and then ended up doing so after I had made edits in that RFC. When I questioned the circumstance in which they made that edit, they WP:ABF and accused me of disruptive behaviour. When I suggested they strike their incivil comments before it escalate, they deleted the discussion between us and in the edit summary wrote "Removed unproductive comments, potential WP:DE" again WP:ABF and accusing me of engaging in disruptive behaviour. Given the litany of WP:ABF and WP:UNCIVIL directed at other editors at Talk:2024 United States elections as well as what I have experienced first hand, it is patently clear to me that this editor does not hold the level head needed in order to be participating in the post 1992 American politics CTOP area and should probably be topic banned. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not "follow" you. As someone who is new to the named user side of things, I am still exploring the deep dark rabbit holes "behind the curtain" that I had only rarely ever seen glimpses of before as a casual IP editor. With this other user having brought up something to a NB which involved me, it activated my curiosity around NB's and that led me down yet another rabbit hole of exploring which led me to the RfC, from a NB and not from the page itself. As my userbox on my userpage shows, I do indeed have an interest in such subject matter. As also pointed out, all of that subject matter is out of bounds for profiles with less than 500 edits. Even if I wanted to establish a record of interest in the area, how would I possibly have done so? That feels like a very unfair point.

Never the less, I do have a personal interest in that, but due to my IRL background I would caution myself from participating much, if at all, in that subject matter. I first recognized my bias after Oct 7, and as such I have made a promise to myself to not seek out any subject matter relating to Israel, Hamas, Palestine, etc for editing, only for reading, as this bias does not come from a place of passion but from a place of personal lived experiences. However that RfC was on if a particular news outlet was RS or not, and I wanted to offer my opinion only after reading the RfC opinions and confirming that others shared my view on that org, and for the same reasons. As was confirmed here on my page after they removed the post for the 500 edit issue, there was no other problem with my edit. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

User:BootsED, ultimately, what outcome are you looking for with this second complaint? You clearly spent quite a lot of time putting this all together but it's not clear what result you are seeking through this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to presume what action should be necessary for this editor, as I will admit this is only the second time I have engaged in an AN/I discussion and I am unfamiliar with this user's actions compared to other similar incidents and what actions were taken against them in the past. I agree with TarnishedPath that there should at least be a post-1992 American politics topic ban. However, his misunderstanding of basic policy and frequent uncivil behavior makes me question whether or not his disruptive editing will simply continue on other non-American politics articles and if he will show the necessary humility and willingness to learn. BootsED (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Their inability or unwillingness to understand core WP:PAG, particularly WP:RS and WP:NOR, is troubling especially given they claim to have been editing since 2007-08 with 114,000+ edits. TarnishedPath^talk 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a good look that User:TheRazgriz does not understand why pinning demeaning language on the top of their talk page is bad. Northern Moonlight 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have warned TheRazgriz about bludgeoning the process at Talk:2024 United States elections. If nothing changes, I consider page-blocking them. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

I'd support at least that. I want to know about any possible NOR or RS issues. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, on the issue of WP:RS please see Special:Diff/1261261442 where they try and claim a citation from NYT as subpar (Yourish & Smart| at the same time as pushing usage of WP:NYPOST "to give Republican perspective". When I asked them to clarify in which context NYPOST is reliable, by providing a specific story (see Special:Diff/1261274529 and Special:Diff/1261276064), they responded at Special:Diff/1261281341 that "I am speaking generally" in regards to NYPOST and that "The NYP is thus depreciated as a source of factual reporting, but on the matter of partisan reporting I would assume they would be a RS in reference to reporting aspects from the perspective of the right". During the aforementioned reply they advise that they read the RFC on the reliability of NYPOST to arrive at that conclusion.

In regards to Original Research, see this WP:NOV/N discussion where they are told by multiple editors that they a section of text they were promoting was original research. Even after clear consensus on WP:NOR/N they didn't remove the offending material and it took me removing it at Special:Diff/1261297519 to remove the original research from the article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

One of Razgriz's opinions on RS is that opinion pieces are RS if they are written by an "expert" source and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone. His NOR/N discussion revealed he believes that he can interpret data from primary sources to make synth claims, and his comments suggest he does not understand what a primary versus secondary source is.

I have also brought up several issues with NPOV in the Economy section of the page, which Razgriz has dismissed claiming I am engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BootsED (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"...and can be used to make claims in the narrative tone." That is not true of my position. My position is they can be used against arguments in the narrative tone. I specifically argued they shoudl not ever be used as justification for presenting a WikiVoice assertion, more and better RS would be needed for such, but that if something is being asserted in WV, then yes the opinions of subject matter experts can be used to demonstrate a significant counter-point. This is in line with WP:NEWSOPED, "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this falls into WP:FALSEBALANCE. You did use the NYP to make a WikiVoice assertion. The NYP article you posted was not an op-ed, but a regular article. You did not state that it came from the NYP or an individual writing in the NYP in the body of text either. The sentence immediately prior was: After Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, the Harris campaign made a large shift in Democrat messaging on the economy issue, particularly on the topic of "affordability" where Democrat messaging began to widely accept that basic goods were still too expensive for the average American.

Other issues I had with squarequotes and NPOV framing was your sentence: with President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often remarking they "inherited" economic problems from Trumps first-term, claiming it was now "strong" under their leadership. I also pointed out your repeated use of "Democrat", where the correct tense should have been "Democratic messaging". BootsED (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That statement also came with an additional citation beside NYP, and was done prior to me becoming aware of the change in NYP status. That is not a fair point to argue. We all make mistakes and errors. I am only human. I have been on WP for nearly 2 decades now, and until this year I did not edit much in relation to contemporary topics. The last time I had used NYP as a source, it was a valid source per WP:RS. That has since changed, and I acknowledged that wrong. I dont appreciate that you are also confusing the timeline of events for those trying to piece together this rather lengthy puzzle, on a moot point no less. Let it go. To me this is starting to get to the point of WP:DEADHORSE.

Your second and third points were addressed before you even made this NB, where I admitted you were correct. I even added one of those as a fun factoid on my userpage, to help spread awareness and to have a little fun at my own expense as it obviously highlights to you and anyone else who sees that Talk topic that I made a bit of an arse of myself with that one and hadn't even known it at the time. I'm not sure why you bring this up again here. What is your point in doing so? Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No, as shown here, your NYP citation was the only citation used to make that claim. Other editors had to remove NYP from the page after you conceded the point. Other points were only partially addressed by other editors afterwards, but many of the issues I have pointed out still remain on the page. You only admitted I was correct on the NYP point after unanimous consensus by other editors, and still contested there was any issue with your other edits to the page as I have pointed out repeatedly here. You only conceded where unanimous editor consensus was against you, but as I have stated in my initial post, you still insist that you will undo any edit of mine not backed up by at least three other editors.

Quote: I will have no major opposition if at least 3 editors (yourself and two others) agree to the new changes. ... If you get the simple majority with yourself and at least 2 others at the end of this, you make the change and as I maintained from the outset, I will not undo it. If you (surprisingly) fail, then the changes are not made. I was very specific about my issues with your edit, as seen here and here, which you claim I was not. I have not touched the page for days now to avoid an edit war. This is partly why I brought forwards this AN/I issue, as you are using false claims of a consensus and explicitly promising to revert any edits to the page which is very disruptive. I do not need an RfC to make any edit to the page because you disagree with it, and other RfC's and discussions have all unanimously ruled against you for incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Do I need to make an RfC to debate your every interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Because this is what you are suggesting. BootsED (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what I have suggested, and I believe you understand that already, but I have already addressed all of this in previous comments, despite your persistence in removing context in order to uncharitably misconstrue small portions of edits and comments within a different framing. I will not continue to waste space and the time of admins who will have to go through this mountain of a mess. The only point I will make here is to remind you that even as I write this, you still do not have any support for your position against the view of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS being reached previously, so I would caution against continuing to press on that point to then misconstrue elements of my argument that are obviously based around it.

Your initial posting here was extensive enough, and my reply against your accusations was exhaustive as well. We should not use this NB to have further back and forth. I ask out of respect for the process that this be our last messages here unless admins request further input, unless you have something further to add to your initial complaint against me (emphasis to discourage re-hashing points you may already have made here).

I am sorry we ended up being uncivil to one another, I am sorry that we could not move forward in good faith, I am sorry you wish to only see every statement I make or position I take in the most uncharitable and unflattering light, and I am sorry you feel that good faith opposition to your proposed edit is disruptive. Besides "shut up, say you are wrong, and go away so I can do what I want", I do not know what it is you actually want out of me from any of this. So for now, I will let admins review was has been presented, and let them decide how best to proceed. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this? To be blunt, this seems like a lot of cherry-picking and mischaracterization of my actions, along with whitewashing and outright ignoring many of your own actions. Allow me to try and correct the record in defense of myself, and hopefully the truth.

I apologize to the admins ahead of time, I struggle with being concise at the best of times, but I don't know how to condense the following any more than I have here. There is so much to comb through both with what the other user did say and things they left out, things that are mentioned out of hand that dramatically alter the framing and context and even the facts, and I'd like to address all of it. I've shortened parts that to me justified another 2 or 3 paragraphs of focus, and I even deleted 3 entire sections to make this post shorter. I'm not asking for special treatment, but for fair treatment.

Addressing the Assertion of "No Consensus"

A formalized RfC is not the only method of consensus building, per WP:CON, specifically WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and @BootsED has made incorrect reference to a topic on this point (their link goes to the correct topic, but its presentation and incorrect title here falsely frame it away from an objective reading). The topic in which consensus was reached was titled Undue weight in "Issues", in which another editor explained why they had added the undue tag to the Issues section. In that topic there were a small number of perceived problems which were worked on to be solved. If you follow that discussion, you will note a number of things: 1) I did not create that topic noting the issues within the issues section 2) My participation there shows my immediate and consistent good faith differing to other editors suggestions and recommendations for improving the section 3) There is not a single point in the discussion in which I argue any sort of "I'm right, you're wrong" or similar, demonstrating that the exact opposite is my default response to perspectives counter to mine 4) The absence of any participation by @BootsED whatsoever, either as the discussion was unfolding or with any attempt to revive the discussion to note their apparent disagreement with the outcome, and; 5) The most obvious agreement was that the Economy section needed to be longer/expanded as all cited WP:RS noted its importance as an issue in the election, and its short length did not reflect that fact well. After reading through that discussion, you can note @BootsED make his first bold edit to the "Economy" issue HERE, not terribly long after the other user removed the "undue weight" tag from the section in line with the referenced consensus building topic, and that their bold edit noticeably reduced the length of the section, obviously opposite the goal of the consensus building discussion.

Addressing assertions of WP:OWNERSHIP vis a vis "False Consensus", & speculation of WP:IDONTLIKE

When I reverted @BootsED's edit to that section of the article, I stated in the edit notes that this was done to uphold a consensus that had been reached recently per the talk page, and simultaneously requested the user to discuss before making further bold edits to that section to conform with both WP:CON & WP:CTOP by conforming with WP:DICC. You then see here @BootsED restoring their challenged edit and asserts that I was falsely claiming a consensus. If you follow the various talk topics, you will note that while @BootsED does garner support on other points of disagreement (EX: if the term "lawfare" should be used in the lede, or; if there was WP:OR in an edit concerning polling data), you will note a glaring lack of any support for this specific point of "No Consensus"/"False Consensus" which he has continued to raise. Despite the noticeable lack of any support for this assertion from other editors, @BootsED continued to challenge the prior consensus building effort that had been done HERE first by asserting that it had not happened at all by ignoring my reference to the other, prior topic, then asserting that the topic had no consensus on the subject, and to this day still continues to insist it is a falsehood I am pushing to "prohibit editing" despite the fact that I have maintained from the first revert diff forward that a bold edit to that section should be discussed first and that is it. At one point while trying to find another way to explain my points, I used the term "final" version when making reference to the version of the section prior to his bold edits. Ever since, he has continued to try and reframe this usage as though I am engaging in WP:OWNERSHIP behavior over the section, which he has all but directly accused me of throughout this disagreement over editing this specific section. This is where my consideration of potential WP:IDONTLIKE comes in, as I could not otherwise explain: 1) The constantly aggressive assertions insisting there had been no prior consensus and accusing me of fabricating a claim of consensus to engage in WP:OWNERSHIP, and; 2) The consistent refusal to attempt to gain a (new) consensus which would easily have solved this perceived issue once and for all. As I write this now I still do not understand what could presumably explain the behavior, outside of: not liking that the edit was reverted; not liking the idea that I could have been right on an issue, or; not liking the idea that they could have been wrong on an issue. There was no support for the user's edit, no support for their assertion that there was no consensus, and no attempt to either let it go or seek to problem solve via compromise. On this point, if absolutely nothing else, I am at a complete loss to understand a different, more sensible explanation than those three possibilities.

Refuting false assertion of "I'm always right, you're always wrong" logic

I have already noted elsewhere in this reply examples verifying that this is an absolute fabrication, and indeed that @BootsED has themselves engaged in this sort of behavior they have accused me of. The most glaring example which by itself makes one wonder why @BootsED would continue to push this obvious falsehood: Here @BootsED once again would make this assertion that I was refusing to accept being wrong about anything, that I was insisting I was right about everything and insisting that they were wrong about everything. Here is the message by me in which that WP:GASLIGHT reply was made in response to. I note no less than 3 points in that prior message in which I was acknowledging that they had made a correct point and thus where I had been previously incorrect. No other exchange between myself and @BootsED is as black and white crystal clear as this on this issue. The fact that they continue to make such statements after this is why I have no qualms about calling it exactly what it is: an outright lie. There is no misunderstanding it after that. I challenge them to directly answer why they made such a slanderous and false assertion directly in response to a message which clearly shows such an assertion to be false? Whatever else one may come to conclude about any of this, certainly one would be unreasonable to assert that the evidence would show that I have shown "repeated insistence that he is right and I am wrong", as they claim. Even the example they have provided to try and "prove" that point, doesn't. It shows my belief that I had proven my side of the issue, and asking them if they could disprove from the opposite side of said issue. I did not say "I am right, you are wrong", I said "I'm sure I am right, but can you prove me wrong?" Seems rather unreasonable to misrepresent that in the manner they have done here.

"Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected...continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least..."

A bluntly false framing in which this user decides to try and make it seem as though there is any support for their position or that my position is outright unreasonable, and it just makes it even more confusing. "Despite his interpretations being unanimously rejected by other editors multiple times, TheRazgriz has continued to insist his edits and interpretations of policy not disputed by at least three editors cannot be removed." This really comes across as if their justification for their stance is just whataboutism, specifically "what about that other time where you were wrong?" Someone can be right about some things and wrong about others. "A broken clock is right twice a day" is a popular phrase for a reason. You cannot just dismiss because "Raz was wrong about other, unrelated things." There is no "unanimous" view on this at the time of this NB being authored, there is as of yet not a single editor which has voiced a shared view with them on this or attempted to at least counter my view on this. Furthermore, the linked/cited message they refer to shows no such claim to be valid, this idea that my interpretation of policy needs 3 editors to overturn...frankly, that is just nonsense. It isn't a matter of overturning personal opinions on policy, its about abiding by a policy they refuse to recognize, in letter or in spirit, even in the compromised manner in which I have given them to consider. I'm not sure what purpose is better served by refusing a consensus compromise and instead taking this action to escalate to admins.

Concerning the closing of a Talk topic

The talk page which I closed was no longer active, and no attempt had been made to revive it, and it seemed to be misunderstood. I closed it with a summary which @BootsED themselves admitted was accurate as far as its summary relating to the issue with the "Economy" section (though disagreeing with a different part of the summary describing other issues as having snowballed, which I in retrospect agreed that was an inaccurate way to describe the other issues, I could have and should have found a more accurate descriptor). I did not challenge the reversal of the closure whatsoever, nor did I challenge the opposition from my referring to the other matters as snowballed, and agreed with point brought up by @Pbritti on my talk page HERE discouraging closing of topics I myself have been involved in. That is in-line with WP:CLOSE and good advice anyway, and I have not attempted to close any topics since (and don't plan to again in future).

Refuting allusion to events surrounding the Talk closure

I do absolutely reject the false framing here by trying to assert that in some sort of "response to having my closure un-closed" I then would start making arguments from my perspective on WP:RS and WP:OR, and the assertion that they are "unanimously rejected by multiple editors" when other users have given credit to parts of my arguments and interpretations, such as: HERE, where a user on the NB still disagreed with my interpretation but gives credit to my line of argument. I also had been making my arguments relating to such issues well before @BootsED even created the NB relating to the closure, as seen throughout THIS topic, so again this framing is false, which appears to try and make it seem as if I perhaps went on some sort of WP:DE spree, at least that is the takeaway I was left with upon reading just that specific portion of the initial NB topic.

Concering alleged "refusal" to engage

Follow the link they provided. Then see just how many back and forths we had each had leading up to that point. Then return that that diff and re-read what I stated there. Regardless of if you agree with the point I made there or not, of if you would take either of our "sides" on that issue, certainly one cannot agree that this is an example of me "refusing to engage". Furthermore, while WP does indeed highly ask for participation in discussions and such, I find no rule, guideline, or even essay which notes that I am required to engage with someone until they don't want to engage with me anymore. I am not their toy or other plaything. I get to decide if I wish to continue to engage or not, and what I wish to engage with or not, and I do not find it reasonable to suggest that I have no free agency in this regard.

Clarifying that my position is that the 2020 conspiracy is long-settled as FALSE, and my edit should not have been misconstrued to claim I believed otherwise

This is largely unimportant, but many aspects of this history of back and forths seem to me to be getting confused in relation to these specific points. Ignore if you like, this is mostly me getting this off my chest because I am sick of being repeatedly misrepresented on this point. I was trying to take the meat and potatoes of the edit @BootsED had done there, and tried to do what I believed to be cleaning it up in a better way. At a passive read, the first thought I had about their edit there was that it came across as "hammering the point". "Gee, I wonder if the reader really gets the point that it was all a big lie? Sure we've led this horse to water, but surely we can dunk their head under for a bit just to make sure, right? Should we hold their hand a little more? Perhaps yet more weighted language will help them really get how false the falsehood falsely is?" And none of that comes from an opposition to calling it a falsehood on-face, only that I wanted to try and tone down what I saw as over-editorializing language to more naturally present the point to the reader. What I can only surmise is that the @BootsED suffered a hiccup in judgement with respect to this particular issue. When all you have is a hammer, every screw looks like a nail. All he saw was "false" go away, and they decided I was challenging the validity of calling it a falsehood at all. In light of the rest of the context as I've laid out for my actions here, I hope whoever does care to read this comes away at least understanding that I was never challenging if it is or isn't false or if it could be referred to as such, only trying to do a good faith edit that ended up being disagreed with. I don't see FALSE as the only acceptable way to talk about a falsehood, much less each and every time it is mentioned. That to me is an Einstellung effect which I do not suffer from or share. I did not take it kindly that this was misrepresented in the first place, and it frankly pissed me off to have that mischaracterization repeated multiple times over a disagreement over grammatical and sentence structure edit disagreement from the editor I had made the correction to. I do believe my reply of "Your Majesty" then seems to be at least much more understood...though in retrospect, it was unwise.

Concerning WP:UNCIVIL behaviors

I apologize, but this will have to be the lengthiest as it is the most serious of concerns here, and the specifics require me to overcome the false framing presented by the other User. As admitted by @BootsED, when I noticed he had taken offense from my statements relating to them having a potential unaddressed bias which could be effecting their editing on this WP:CTOP subject matter, I apologized (to be clear, I did so twice. Once within one of the many back-and-forth replies immediately after, and a second time where I specifically apologized on his talk page which he makes mention of above, as I wanted to make sure it didn't get lost in the heated discussion). I stated in the message here that my intention was not to personally offend, only to call attention to what I perceived as a potential issue. When @BootsED made it clear that they had taken that statement as a personally offensive statement, I immediately apologized to clear the air and hopefully reinforce that our disagreement should be done as a matter of "professional" disagreement, not personal attacks and uncharitable assumptions. Perhaps they do not accept that apology, but they have admitted above to recognizing it as such. I stand by that apology, I meant that apology, and it is very important to me to apologize the moment I have caused someone an unjustified offense. It is a point of personal responsibility, regardless of if I will or will not be forgiven. First action that Offended me Here in the above NB message after acknowledging the apology, they then follow up that admission by whitewashing their own actions afterwards to remove context from later actions I would take. Later on, in the RfC relating to the use of "false" in relation to "lawfare" claims and such, another Users comment about why they voted "SUPPORT" highlighted to me something I had not noticed prior: That the RfC was also over if using "false" in relation to the 2020 election fraud conspiracy pushed by Trump was valid or not. This confused me, as there had previously not been any discussion or noted disagreement with such, and this greatly offended me as it appeared to make me or anyone taking any sort of "OPPOSE" stance as also seeming to support the WP:FRINGE view that defends the conspiracy as being valid...something I have not done, certainly not in the context of any Wikipedia page. I made it crystal clear this allusion offended me greatly. At no point did @BootsED offer even a fake apology for the presumed offense given, instead not only defending their view that it belonged as part of the RfC, but also doubling down on the allusion itself by making the false assertion that I was "now agreed" with referring to that conspiracy as false, this time more directly asserting that I had stood in opposition to that at some prior point in time. Reinforcing the Offense as intentional Despite multiple efforts to clarify my position and request that they retract these inaccurate allusions, @BootsED outright refused and instead demonstrated what seemed to be passive-aggressive uncivil behavior. His reply here seemed to me to not be done out of a position of assuming good faith, but instead out of a personally uncharitable assumption that they wished to reinforce at my expense. Arguments do not necessarily always have to be "fair" per se, but they should be done with civility and assuming good faith unless given a clear reason to assume otherwise. I do not see that reply as assuming good faith towards me and my position. It would have been simple to say simply "No offense intended", "I'm sorry you took it that way", etc. Instead, passive aggressive reinforcement of the offense is what was given. And when it is @BootsED who has caused an offense, they repeatedly refuse to accept that offense was either given or taken, and don't even offer a fake apology to clear the air and proceed in good faith. If I could offer apology, twice, for a single offense out of a desire to want to move forward in good faith with a disagreement, why is @BootsED unwilling to do a fraction of the same when the shoe is on the other foot and they are the party from which offense has been either given or taken? Why do they instead do nothing less than explicitly reinforce the perceived bad faith? So I called that repeated choice out. And at that time, again, they could then have chosen to recognize the error. Again, they did not apologize or otherwise seek to move towards a fully good faith interaction. Instead, they send this message, which serves as nothing more than a way to assert that I have done everything wrong and they have done everything right...which they then with zero irony would go on to accuse me of doing later on.

After all of this, I still wanted to work in good faith. I drew a line in the sand with the users outright attempt at WP:GASLIGHT by asserting I was engaging in an "I'm always right, you're always wrong" capacity DIRECTLY in response to my message acknowledging I was wrong and they were right on no less than 3 different points. That to me was a point of nearly no return...but still I tried. I offered an olive branch. Either take the olive branch and we can move forward in good faith, walk away if we cannot, or engage in bad faith and have it escalated. The user seemed to take the olive branch, but instead of seeking good faith compromise, the user demanded that I promise not to make further edits. When I indicated that "good faith" includes good faith opposition, and offered a possible compromise and ASKED if that is something they could agree to...they authored this NB topic. So here we are.

This ends my "testimony", as it were. We are all biased to ourselves, and as I am sure is the case with all disagreements: There is "their side", "my side" and "the truth" is somewhere in the middle. The only real question is a matter of degrees. I have not addressed assertions posited by certain others here, because again I am not good at being concise. Did you really WANT this to be twice the size? I think not. If Admins would like to ask me about those other things, I am more than happy to answer, I am just trying to be considerate of your time and patience.

To the admins who read all of this, you have my respect. This is a bit much even for me, but again I didn't know how else to condense it further than this. Perhaps you and others see an obvious way to do that, but it isn't to me. This is something I struggle with IRL, I don't mean to be a burden on your time. I don't care if you agree with me or disagree with me, in whole or in part, or if you feel you want to take some action against me. These are all your choices, not mine. All I want to do now is again thank you for your time, and especially if you read every word, thank you from the bottom of my heart for giving me a real and honest chance to explain myself and my side of the story in my own uncensored words. I promise I really will try to keep it as short as I can if you wish to ask me any questions. Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

TheRazgriz, your apology for taking up our time is appreciated, and I accept that you're not being so verbose on purpose, but it still makes it very, very hard to engage with you. It seems to me that you defend yourself at length against a lot of charges that are a matter of opinion (such as whether your actions show "immediate and consistent good faith", whether your interpretations of policy on article talk have been successfully challenged, etc, etc), while failing to write a single word about the important sourcing matter described by TarnishedPath + BootsED immediately above your post, including how you reject NYT while pushing usage of WP:POST. That is egregious, and suggests your grip on the reliability of sources is tenuous (and also tendentious). This, cited by BootsED, is downright wikilawyering. I apologize if you did address this somewhere above and I missed it; I did read the whole, but I admit my eyes were trying to glaze over. The same thing keeps happening, probably not just to me, at article talk. A pageblock from 2024 United States elections and its talkpage seems an absolute minimum of a sanction here; your editing of the article is tendentious, and, however much you apologize for it, your use of the talkpage in defense of that editing is destructive and ruinous. See also my comments on your own page about bludgeoning article talk. Bishonen | tålk 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC).

As I addressed here, my defense for using NYP was based on my apparent outdated recollection of the WP:RS list/consensus. I had recalled that just a couple of years ago the conensus was "Generally Reliable" on most subjects and that for the issue of politics it was "No consensus" on if it was or was not reliable. This was pointed out by others to be incorrect as that that had changed. I confirmed that to be true, and admitted my fault openly.

Also, I am not challenging NYT, that is a mischaracterization of my position there. Specifically I was challenging the use of 1 article based on 2 issues: 1) The 2 credited authors are, according to their own biographical information, a Graphics Journalist and a Graphics Editor, and 2) The piece they had authored spoke in very authoritative terms and tone on a scholastic field in which neither author are authorities to speak in such a way. Neither author, as far as any of the research I conducted could find, have any formal or informal education on the subjects of Political Science or Law. Specifically, the issue was that not only were these 2 non-authorities being cited at all, but also being directly quoted at length within the citation, the entirety of which was just their personal opinion presented as authoritative fact.

I have taken no issue with any other sourcing, from NYT or otherwise, as I see no issues with how those other pieces are represented, but the way this was being used at no less than 3 different points within the article seemed problematic. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Raz, you have stated your opposition to the NYT as a RS as per your comment here. BootsED (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop gaslighting me, and admins at this point, by trying to yet again control and misconstrue the framing of a fact to better suit your opinion.

What I did state about NYT itself is a fact widely reported, such as here. I am allowed to have a personal opinion that the ONE and ONLY NYT article I directly challenged is likely a result of that hampered editorial standard having allowed an error. Nowhere do I argue that opinion as a fact or to justify an edit. You and everyone else who reads that clearly knows I am challenging your preferred citation by Yourish & Smart. Yourish & Smart are not NYT, and NYT is not Yourish & Smart. My challenge is against the authors legitimacy so speak on the matter they speak on in authoritative tone, combined with how you would like to use the citation in the article. That is literally it. It isn't deeper than that, so please stop digging.

What you do NOT see there is any assertion by me that comes close to me being in "opposition to the NYT as a RS". Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"I offered a good faith compromise to settle our disagreement via WP:CON, and you have elected to do all of this?" @TheRazgriz, this is a highly unhelpful attitude and yet another misinterpretation of WP:PAG. WP:CON doesn't require that other editors compromise with those who are putting forward faulty policy positions. That's not how we do things around here. You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong. No one is right all of the time. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, no one is right all of the time. That is my point. Allow me to suggest that no is wrong all the time either.

So I ask: Can you explain how this is not an example of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and what WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS would look like in practice as opposed to this example? I understand all other participants positions on their interpretations of other policies in other discussions (and their repudiation of mine), but no one (including you) have explained what or how I must be incorrect here on the issue of WP:CON. It is simply asserted that I must be wrong, because I have been wrong on other subjects. That is highly fallacious, and I believe you can understand that. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote: You need to start listening to other editors when you are wrong (emphasis mine) I didn't write that you are wrong on all occasions. TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. With that in mind, and understanding that something needs to be said in order for me to listen to it, could you answer and explain the question I posted previously? Thank you. Razgriz, the Red Wizard (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that I didn't participate in that discussion and wasn't involved in or witness any editing that went along with that discussion I don't feel like I can give a good interpretation. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/troll/sock back again

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

---

The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back again, this time under the name Bubblegutz 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, working on the revdel. —Kusma (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All gone. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks Kusma. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:RocketKnightX Disruptive Editing

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

The user had been involved in an Edit War at 15.ai, when I proposed a TBAN for RocketKnightX in response to their persistent disruptive editing of 15.ai, I dropped the complaint when they said they would stop [92]. They were invited to the AfD discussion and then went to 15.ai and deleted the AfD notice [93] and declared my policy based removal of WP:NOSOCIAL and WP:YOUTUBE external links to be vandalism [94]. Their edit summary and some of their activity demonstrates a lack of maturity[95]. He was also warned for making personal attacks [96] coupled with their past activity on Wikipedia such as this edit summary[97] I think some manner of intervention is warranted at this point. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 10:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing the AfD template is pretty disruptive, as the template has clear in-your-face text that says "do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed". Talking nonsense about vandalism in the edit summary when reverting a well-explained edit here is not good either. Doing these things after promising to stop "causing issues" at the article is block-worthy. Blocked 31 hours. Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC).

Part of me wouldn't be surprised if RocketKnightX is involved in the sock/SPA disruption at the afd, or even a User:HackerKnownAs sock. WHile it wouldn't surprise me if true I don't suspect enough to take to SPI, afterall the evidence would be behavioural and there are some differences in behaviour. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think they're a HKA Sock given the wildly different behaviors, but RK was suspected of being someone else's Sock in an ANI discussion that produced no results [98] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Tacotron2 attempted WP:VOTESTACK

Tacotron2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am just creating this complaint as a sub-section because it is directly related to RocketKnightX's activity. After having a discussion where they were made aware that The person who solicits other people inappropriately may be subject to administrative review if the behavior is severe enough.[99], my colleague apparently took that as a sign to hit the campaign trail. When I saw they solictied RocketKnightX[100] and others[101][102] to the AfD I left a warning [103] about their canvassing. They proceeded to canvass more anyway [104][105][106]. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see your first message. It wasn't done intentionally. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You know, I can probably believe that you didn't see my warning. What I do not believe is that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when an admin already told that people who solicit (i.e the people asking others to the vote) inappropriately may be subject to administrative review. After that message you:

• Canvassed a known disruptive edit warrior [107]
• Canvassed someone whom you believed would support your outcome because they believed a source was reliable.[108]
• Canvassed someone who said use the source until someone contests [109]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [110]
• Canvassed someone who voted keep the last AfD [111]
• Canassed someone who voted keep the last AfD. [112]

Notably, you didn't provide a notice to any editor who was involved in editing 15.ai who might reasonably be expected to vote delete, nor did you canvass anyone who voted delete in the last AfD. Why you felt it necessary to specifically invite Elmidae when you pinged them in your response to the AfD I also do not know or understand. Notably, you did not invite the following editors who were active recently at 15.ai Polygnotus, Thought 1915, YesI'mOnFire, Sj, Cooldudeseven7, The Hand That Feeds You, or the editors who voted Delete last time such as LilianaUwU, Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum, and Cinadon36.

This is pretty clear WP:VOTESTACKING. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done intentionally? In the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Rsjaffe#AfD Issues), you were worried about being labeled as canvassed and I made the distinction that we are generally looking at the canvasser, not the canvassed. This was in a discussion about what sort of behavior merits reporting to ANI. And after all that, you claim ignorance of the issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, read WP:CAN, and please reply that you understand and will follow the behavioral guideline from now on. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A Summary

This, like many cases here at WP:ANI, is a conduct dispute that began as a content dispute. The content dispute was at 15.ai, and was over what the infobox should say was the status of the web site. Some editors said that the web site was under maintenance (and temporarily down for maintenance) and should say that. Other editors said that the web site was abandoned and should say that.

A request was made, on 5 October 2024, for moderated discussion at DRN by an editor who was then indefinitely blocked for unrelated conduct. However, other editors took part, including User:BrocadeRiverPoems and User:RocketKnightX. The DRN is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai. I then started an RFC on the status of the web site, at Talk:15.ai. That was meant to resolve the content dispute.

User:HackerKnownAs then filed a complaint at WP:ANI against User:BrocadeRiverPoems on 16 November 2024, that is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#BrocadeRiverPoems_behavioral_issues. That complaint and the reply were both Too Long to Read. User:HackerKnownAs and some other editors were then blocked for sockpuppetry.

User:RocketKnightX continued to edit-war, and User:BrocadeRiverPoems proposed a topic-ban against RocketKnightX from the page 15.ai. RocketKnightX said that they would stop edit-warring. At about this point, that ANI was closed.

User:BrocadeRiverPoems then nominated the article 15.ai for deletion on 2 December 2024. I have not (as of the time of this post) done a source analysis on the article, and so do not have an opinion on the AFD at this time.

User:BrocadeRiverPoems closed the RFC as an involved snow close on 4 December 2024 to omit the status of the web site from the infobox, because there are no reliable sources stating either that it is under maintenance or that it is abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

Proposal 1: Site Ban for User:RocketKnightX

I think that the conduct of User:RocketKnightX is a strong net negative for the community. They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring. They removed the AFD banner, which is very clearly forbidden, while accusing User:BrocadeRiverPoems of vandalism. I think that RocketKnightX has exhausted the patience of the community and should be banned by the community.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support When I looked at their history, they have a history of incivility, borderline WP:NATIONALIST editing[113][114],[115] where they continue act disruptively within the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and a number of other problems that indicate WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues[116] including at one point bizarrely restoring a massive plot synopsis that another editor had created [117] that had been removed by two different editors for being too long [118][119]. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see Robert enumerates exactly the same problems with RocketKnightX's editing as I did above, where I gave them a 31-hour block (currently an active block) for them. The only difference is that Robert assumes bad faith of RocketKnightX's undertaking to stop edit warring ("They agreed to stop edit-warring, possibly only in order to avoid being topic-banned, and have resumed edit-warring"). We're not supposed to do that, and I'll point out that RKX agreed to stop on 18 November and only went back to disruptive actions at 15.ai (not actually to edit warring, but to the aforementioned removal of the AfD banner and accusation of vandalism) again on 7 December, three weeks later. The agreement to stop in November doesn't look to me like part of a heinous plan to continue disrupting; it seems at least as likely that they had simply forgotten about it three weeks later. It was six words that look angrily dashed-off; not some elaborate undertaking. The whole notion that RKX has already "exhausted the patience of the community" seems weirdly excessive. I stand by my 31-hour block as the more appropriate sanction. Bishonen | tålk 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC).

  I do feel that WP:CIR is a very valid, chronic concern with this editor regardless of edit warring, specifically the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. In October they asked me what they should do in cases of disputes. When I told them what they should do, about dispute resolution, etc. they responded Too hard. This site is the hardest thing to do.[120]. Coupled with dropping edit summaries like "I said stop!" and "deal with it" and their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude on talkpages [121] and I'm not really sure what the community is expected to do when the user has self-proclaimed that learning dispute resolution is too hard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Upd Edit

Upd Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made edits only on the Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, trying to promote a single claim that a hindu temple existed beneath the mosque. Though they cite books as sources, the reliability and verifiability of these sources are questionable. (See 2024 Sambhal violence) Their edits violate WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE,

• Issues:
  1. Their contributions are solely focused on the Shahi Jama Masjid article. Edit count
  2. WP:V and WP:RS Violations: The user relies on obscure or unverifiable sources to support controversial claims.
  3. WP:NPOV Violation: Edits consistently emphasize the unverified temple claim, creating bias and disregarding alternative historical perspectives.
  4. WP:DUE Violation: Though sourced,Their edits focus too much about the temple claim, even though it's not the most important part of the mosque's story. The mosque itself should be the main focus.
  5. WP:EDITWAR and Disruptive Behavior: The user reverts changes made by other editors. Example:
  1. Moved page to wrong title
  2. reverted
  3. reverted
  4. reverted
  5. reverted …
  
• Request:
  1. Investigate their editing patterns and advanced skills for potential WP:SOCK violations.
  2. Review whether the user’s edits and behavior align with Wikipedia policies on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE.
  

Thank you! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, a fellow editor claimed that I was a sock of Kautilya3 and nobody paid any heed.

Today, Cerium4B—who is yet to make a single edit to the article talk-page despite my and Kautilya3's consistent demands—has the chutzpah of raising a barely coherent complaint with no substantiation. Notably, my ANEW report against Cerium4B was not acted upon because an administrator thought Kautilya's reinstatement of my content (and a warning to Cerium4B) to have resolved the issue.

In not unrelated news, someone else, with similar editorial proclivities, believes me to be a sock of someone else. What next? Upd Edit (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support page-block - Given that this user is simply a single purpose account dedicated to relentless POV pushing and edit warring on this article, a page block (both talkpage/article) seems to be the way here before supporting a broader topic ban on him. CharlesWain (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It would perhaps add more credence to your suggestion if you choose to take part at the t/p discussion, as requested, than hit the revert button and request sanctions. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - When I first came by this article (which is the subject of a current dispute in India), I found an edit war between the filer and User:Upd Edit, with the former repeatedly deleting the well-sourced content added by the latter. There was also an AN3 complaint against the filer, which can be consulted to see that their reverts cited no policy-based reasons whatsoever.

I gave WP:CTOP alerts to both the ediors (as well as another editor who was involved at that stage), and pinged the filer as well as the other editor from the talk page, inviting them to discuss their objections on the talk page. I have also explained that reverts need to be policy-based, and cannot be instances of WP:CENSOR or WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I was surprised to see that the filer has done a yet another revert today of the same nature, and hasn't written anything on the talk page. This clearly indicates a restart of the edit war, and I believe the filer should be sternly warned, if not sanctioned for thier continued edit warring.

As for "disruptive editing", I see none from User:Upd Edit, but plenty of it from the filer. This complaint itslef lacks evidence and presents the filer's self-assured judgements about the content, which should have been rightly discussed on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Kautilya3. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is at least the third time that this editor has been dragged to a noticeboard, and this seems just as baseless as the others. Where are the diffs of misbehaviour? The only diffs that we have been given show that the user has been reverted, and it is just as likely that the reverter was wrong as that they were. Talk about it on the article talk page, as it is a content issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil Bridger. Upd Edit (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Cerium4B, will you consider participating in article talk page discussions before bringing an editor to ANI or AIV? I see you recommending other editors go to the talk page to discuss disagreements but I don't see you there, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You also had this ANEW case you didn't respond to, Cerium4B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Liz

I should have participated on talkpage. But, in this case, I couldn’t figure out how to engage with this user. Upds edits relied on unverified, questionable sources to push a controversial claim, which multiple editors and I felt was irrelevant to the mosque’s main topic. These edits violated WP:NPOV and WP:DUE policies, and I believed they needed administrative attention. Their Talk:Shahi Jama Masjid#Upcoming edits proposal (focused on hindu things) is also irrelevant to this article, where Kautilya3 is collaborating with Upd.

On the ANEW report, I didn’t respond because Upd had already broken the WP:RRR rule, before I did. I thought admins would review the full situation. If I was found to have violated the rule for abuse, I would have accepted any decision against me.
Upd is a new user but has a high level of skill, which raised concerns about potential WP:PROJSOCK violations. This is why I believed this matter needed proper investigation.
When an experienced editor like Kautilya supported those biased edits, it added to my concern. Both were ignoring neutrality, I believe. which made me feel admin intervention was necessary.
And I am also a new user with about 1700 edits trying to learn the policies. I do not have much experience but was trying my best to address the issue.

I still strongly believe this case requires a deep investigation by the administrator. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What is an "unverified, questionable source"? I see no discussion at the talk-page, challenging the reliability of my sources. The very binary Hindu-Muslim way of seeing things is at the crux of the larger political issue but be that may, you are welcome to join talk-page discussions with coherent non-IDHT arguments. Upd Edit (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just discovered that 18 days ago Upd Edit was brought to the wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172#Upd_Edit_-_project_sock? for project sock,

when they had only 5 edits!

In a comment, Phil Bridger expressed opposition to the report.

Many of you couldn't reach a decision on this matter! - Cerium4B • Talk? • 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Despite me asking for a page block above for Upd edit due to persistent edit warring, he still has made the third revert in 24 hours on the article. [122] This is not a single incident but part of a chain of reverts by this user in this week alone [123][124][125] and similar POV pushing trying to point out a supposedly "Hindu" origin for this mediaeval period Mosque through highlighting of Hindu mythology that has no relevance to it. [126] A page block is much needed for this user. CharlesWain (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous suggestion. He is the only contributor that knows anything about the subject! Rest everybody else is just throwing stones. Please get them to discuss the issues on the talk page instead of messing with the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And what is your own role on the page? Here I see you deleting a block of text and calling it "restoring improvements"! Did you explain your issues on the talk page? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What is actually ridiculous is that you have to support a POV pusher and that too in such a desperate manner. Knowing something about the topic gives him no right to edit war constantly with different editors, and clearly he is trying to push a view here about pre-islamic origin to the mosque by undue emphasis on unrelated hindu mythology about this place in the article that clearly does not belong there. No scholar appears to be making a connection between Kalki and the Mosque and Upd Edit was misrepresenting an academic's quote in order to corroborate such a tenuous connection on the talkpage. In any case, the page has been extended confirmed protected because of his disruption. CharlesWain (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

He is only trying to defend his own content that has been improperly deleted. Every one of us has a right to do so. Branding it as "edit warring" won't get you anywhere. If he is POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate it on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruption and personal threat

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

---

Vartgul is going on a rampage and removing well-sourced information from many articles and when their edits are revered they turned to personal threats. See contributions page for disruption. Threat is here[127]. Semsûrî (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Semsûrî does not create accurate content with sources in any of their edits. All the content they provide spreads views classified by the United Nations as those of a terrorist organization, promoting misinformation that supports terrorism. They edit content in a non-encyclopedic manner, based solely on their own political views. Vartgul (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• That is a legal threat, not a "personal threat". Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Incivility by newbie

Bryan7778888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been reverted and told off by @AstrooKai and me on account of their edits that reek of WP:BLP and WP:V violations and WP:OR, has doubled down in WP:IDNHT and resorted to making WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSION, WP:CRYSTAL and falsely accusing us of sockpuppetry on the flimsy grounds of happening to be editing some of the same topics (and in total ignorance of our edit histories). While I acknowledge being harsh in some comments in a knee-jerk reaction to such WP:CIR arguments on the offending editor, I believe that their continued replies mark them further into WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND territory. Borgenland (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this only began when I reverted their edit on the article Stacey (singer) and other alike edits on the articles Maloi (singer) and Colet (singer), where they added about the subject's ancestral descent without citing a source that would verify this. I told them that needs to be verifiable by citing a source, but they said that:

It is in the sources when they stated the places they where born. People in Bohol are Boholanos, People from Nueva Viscaya are ilocanos and people from Batangas are Tagalog. I believe for lack of better word, that it is your ignorance for not understand the sources better thank you.
— User:Bryan7778888 08:43, December 7, 2024 (UTC)

They were actually referring to demonyms which are the terms used to refer to people who were born from a place, but they added it to the articles as the subjects' ancestral descents. I explained it to them that "demonym" (which is the thing that they're referring to) and "descent" (ancestral or genealogical link) are two distinctive concepts. I told them that even these small details could be challenged by anyone. That is why it is important to be extremely careful in terms of verifiability when adding content to BLP articles. I was simply correcting their mistake and trying to guide them on how to do it right, but they justified their action by saying that:

Nueva Vizcaya and Nueva Viscaya is the same. Just like Filipinas and Pilipinas is the same. One is Spanish and the other is from a local. And 62.3% of Nueva Viscaya is Ilocano and Stacy speaks Ilocano. So it's very rendundant. You're simplyfighting to win and shame the other. At least be logical and professional.
— User:Bryan7778888 14:45, December 7, 2024 (UTC)

Meaning they were basing their assumption of the subjects' ancestral descent solely based on ethnic statistics. I told them that this was a violation of WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTALBALL, but they ignored all of this and personally attacked me and Borgenland, calling Borgen a "dictator" and accusing me of having Borgen as my alternative account.

This could have been avoided if they had just acknowledged and accepted their mistake, but they didn't WP:LISTEN and went ahead with these unacceptable behaviors instead. AstrooKai (Talk) 17:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder how I could have been rapidly editing in Syria [128] [129] and Poland [130] and commenting on offending user's TP [131] at the exact same time. Borgenland (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I also wonder on how a person with tens of thousands of edits and is inclined with politics and stuff would create a new account for music-related edits only. I don't think anyone would go through all the hard work to create a new account and establish there a reputation in music-related articles when they could have just done it in their first account in the first place. My user page literally contains every thing there is to know about me here on Wikipedia, and we both have very distinctive interests.

Additionally, why would I reply to your comments on talk pages if am "you"? This is hilarious. AstrooKai (Talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bryan7778888 has been editing for TWO days. You can assume that they don't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as an experienced editor, you will need to explain them to them. How about we give them some time and grace to digest all of the information you have posted on their User talk page before coming to ANI?

This doesn't seem like an "chronic, intractable problem", it's just a new editor learning how things are done here. Assume ignorance, not maliciousness. You shouldn't have the same expectations of them as you would of an editor who has been active for a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that @AstrooKai has sent them the standard warning templates. In that case I hope I don't have to update it with something that would lead to further sanctions. Borgenland (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandalism by PyrateDru

User:PyrateDru has been vandalizing the MrBeast page to revert all mention of Ava Kris Tyson’s name to her deadname. Requesting indef.

Snokalok (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and that they are just unaware of Wikipedia norms I've given them a warning for now. Lets hope they get it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Snokalok, it's advised to try talking with an editor before posting a complaint about them to ANI, especially for a new, inexperienced editor. Try informing them before seeking a sanction. ANI is the place to come if other efforts to resolve a situation have failed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that’s fair. Snokalok (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Delectable1

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

---

Involved: Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Here we are at ANI again, for something unrelated. The following timeline speaks for itself:

• July 2024: Received a message from Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) for unattributed addition of content.
• July 2024: The same day, Received a final warning from Sable232 (talk · contribs) as a result of their disruptive addition of redlinks into articles.
• September 2024: 3RR violation, no block came along with this.
• December 2024: Warned for misleading edit summaries, something I've noticed is frequent with them.
• December 2024 (today): Recieved multiple messages because of edit warring.
• Messages directed at me, all sent today:

• You two know each other to some extent. For some reason you want this video posted. I have not even begun to protest your actions. You both are unusual and try to throw weight around. That doesn't work here at Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson.
• Where to start, you write about tornados. You say that you "have been here since 2024." News item, this is 2024. Why are you doing some of the quirky things you do? Consensus? How many polls have you operated on here? at my talk page.

I'm inclined to say they are NOTHERE, and admin intervention is needed. E_F⁵ 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that the above warning messages were all removed by the user themselves, implying they had read them, and in today's case they removed talk page messages about edit warring before proceeding to continue said content dispute. Departure– (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Just now: (diff) from this user, a comment on contributors, not content. Departure– (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

(Diff) I guess they really feel the need to comment on contributors, not content, and reinstated that PA. Seems to be WP:CIR at the very least, and in my eyes, WP:NOTHERE, because we've given 'em enough rope. Departure– (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:ICHY applies - (diff) they removed the ANI notification from their talk page. Departure– (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note, that was WP:ASPERSIONS at least, but not to the level where it was removable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Blocked as a checkuser sock. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Harassment by another user

User:Remsense appears to have made it their mission to stalk my contribution page and revert my edits, regardless of the context.

They just reverted two of my edits, demanding in both cases that I take it to the talk page, in one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_II&oldid=prev&diff=1261805142, I was already trying to bring the issue to the talk page, and the second https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1261805984&oldid=1261433489&title=German_Empire is just completely stupid as almost every single country page uses the greater coat of arms. The first dispute they had absolutely nothing to do with, and the second revert took place a few minutes later.

I don't necessarily want them blocked, but I just want them to leave me alone. I can't have a good faith discussion with somebody like this. OddHerring (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this person considers me undoing two edits to pages on my watchlist that I disagreed with to be a conduct issue and not content disputes of the most routine kind, or why they think I care who they are beyond the totally unearned hyperaggression they seemingly express in response to the most trivial disagreements. Remsense ‥ 论 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You have not just reverted me twice:

Flags of Austria-Hungary‬ - 1 revert

Mongol Empire - 3 reverts (and he ganged up on me in the talk page with what I assume to be his friends.)

OddHerring (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. The added context really does give me pause, actually: the eye-popping rate of 7 reverts in 103 days—all unprovoked and with no reasoning whatsoever—is surely some sort of record for unbridled harassment on here. Remsense ‥ 论 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that they are STILL reverting my edits after I posted this. OddHerring (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You're not familiar with site norms (e.g. WP:ONUS, WP:BRD) or do not feel that they apply to you, and are simply not entitled to have your disputed changes published by default pending the expected "D" in BRD. Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Remense, to bring this a close, can you give this editor some space so they don't feel hounded? OddHerring, I don't think this needed to be brought to ANI. Know that all editors get reverted at times. You can expect it to happen in the future. If you have questions or they didn't leave an explanatory edit summary, approach the editor on their user talk page for more information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations of means to register disagreements with edits I may have n the future, or is it best in your mind to just assume others will do so in my stead? That's the only thing I worry about: it's not exactly constructive to assume it's impossible for another person to feel harried somehow—to make it clear to third parties, I've interacted with this person twice, previously in August—but depending on the extent of those expectations I'm not sure how their changes wouldn't in effect become beyond reproach. Their demand on my talk page that I must "report them" if I disagree with their edits as opposed to anything like a typical consensus building process is not reasonable. Remsense ‥ 论 03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wanting to be left alone to edit in the way you want doesn't seem like something we should be encouraging. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sean, there are other editors who can check an edit. You can assume when an editor comes to ANI that other editors will be looking at their contributions. I'm sorry, Remsense, but I don't understand the question you are asking me. I went looking at your User talk page to see what comment you were referencing but I didn't see anything that fit into what you were trying to say. If you want, we can move this to my own user talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right of course. I'm really just trying to encourage more of a 'nothing matters', 'meh', 'whatever' response to having one's edits reverted. I find it helps a lot. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with being reverted and having to defend by changes, but not if it means I have to do all the work and the other guy can just constantly say the same thing over and over again as if it proves anything (i.e. Talk:Mongol Empire). That's not a discussion, that's just obstruction. OddHerring (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, calling an editor you are involved in dispute with an idiot and then linking it months later as evidence in an ANI dispute is one of the strangest maneuvers I've seen. [132] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, either you are an idiot or are arguing in bad faith. I will figure out a way to go around you now. —@OddHerring

Bruh – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And if people chime in to support my positions, that's to be interpreted as my friends ganging up on them. I get I haven't been the most effective or patient communicator here, but I've felt expressly boxed out of any assumption of good faith on my part from the very beginning. Remsense ‥ 论 04:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This guy thinks he knows more about the Mongol Empire than the actual Mongolians https://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Их_Монгол_Улс (seal is displayed prominently, featured article by the way), but whatever, I'm the asshole somehow. OddHerring (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Does this extend to the other editors who have opposed the addition of the seal as inappropriate?[133] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, OddHerring, for trying to use an argument that falls apart if you think about it for more than two seconds. Are the only knowledgeable people on the Roman Empire from Rome? Are the only knowledgeable people on ancient Babylon the tour guides who live at the modern day ruins?

I can only speak for myself—I don't know how well you regard taking Genghis Khan to featured article status on this English Wikipedia (and with more than eleven citations!!!!)—but I immediately count over a dozen basic errors/omissions on that Mongolian Mongol Empire page, which anyone with the most basic smattering of knowledge of actual scholarship on the Mongols would spot.

And for the record, accusations of "ganging up" are not particularly appreciated here, particularly when, again, they fall apart when you think about them for a second. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly the one who doesn't know site norms, since you have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring against me. OddHerring (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to take the German Empire infobox issue to talk, and they have completely ignored it. Seems like they don't have any respect for WP:BRD either.

And no, it's not because they're doing something else. They have made three unrelated edits, and three unrelated reverts since this complaint started. OddHerring (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If no one else has a problem with the edits here, then I guess I give up (in their words, I win by default) and they will be allowed to push their disputed changes, because I've been given zero indication that they have any intention of listening to me. Given the previous gem from August, it is not an unreasonable conclusion: this time around, they've already expressly told me to GFM and that they cannot perceive my actions as being in good faith, so I'm a bit strapped here, no? Remsense ‥ 论 04:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I would be willing to listen to you if you would:

1. Lose the snark.

2. Hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that you hold me to. OddHerring (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You made bold changes and they were contested. I explicitly asked you to elaborate on "we always use greater seals"—which is a novel observation on your part, with seemingly no basis in actual content guidelines—but you apparently feel it to be self-evident as to be enforceable across all applicable pages. That's something you need to explain, not me. Remsense ‥ 论 04:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And that is the exact reason why I think you just have it out for me. What is the objection to my changes? Why are you opposed? OddHerring (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So am I just not allowed to edit if somebody reverts me but won't take it to talk? Because that seems to be the rule here. OddHerring (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I ran an Editor Interaction Analyzer check to check on this. It doesn't seem to show substantial evidence of hounding. Since June 1st (roughly the time @OddHerring started editing extensively), neither editor consistently starts editing pages before the other. The overlap seems to be explained by a common interest in map games European history c. 1300-1914 (but maybe also 1936-1945). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the levity, but the insinuation I'm a Paradox gamer is the meanest thing anyone's ever said about me on here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Remsense explained their objections in detail and didn't just say that the onus was on OddHerring to explain the changes. It would also be helpful if OddHerring didn't use edit summaries like Enough with the crappy PNG and her husband's arms after she died. Take it to talk or get blocked. (Special:Diff/1261801292). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that's a bit rude, but most of the revert messages I get (in general) are like that and make similar demands. OddHerring (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Really not trying to be coy to prove a point here, but I guess the reason I haven't expressed my core objection of "the greater arms are useless at thumbnail size" is because I get the sense they'll just tell me to fuck off and that my concerns rooted in principles that're actually present in the MOS don't matter. Hopefully that's at least a little reasonable given the precedent discussed above.Remsense ‥ 论 04:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that greater coat of arms in the infobox should be the standard, I'm arguing that it is. And if you say that doesn't matter, you are arguing against consensus as a principle. OddHerring (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Walsh90210 et al., hopefully the dynamic is a bit more clear now as to why I'm having trouble with the OP's AGF, especially given that I'm tripping over all the rope they've lugged into the discussion with the apparent goal of trying to hang themselves. Unless anyone has other questions or concerns, I'll be tuning out now. Remsense ‥ 论 04:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So just to be clear, they are now completely unwilling to take any disputes over editing to talk, but will continue to revert. If that isn't edit warring, I don't know what is. OddHerring (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind. A completely random third person reverted me instead. OddHerring (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(To be clear, OP has already gotten their way on German Empire as I am too pessimistic in their AGF to try any more than I already have, and their dispute on Mary II has to be sorted out with another user who I happen to agree with. There isn't anything left to talk about as far as I am aware.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I see that my attempt to deescalate this complaint was not of much use tonight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I did appreciate the attempt, but I'm not sure there was much you could've done. Remsense ‥ 论 07:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think editors get hyper focused on their own disputes and don't realize that every.single.editor on the project has other editors they don't get along with and they coexist with each other by keeping their distance and avoiding provoking each other. Everyone here has disagreements. Those editors who last for decades are those that find a way to negotiate all of this and who focus on the work and not each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if you're suggesting I've exhibited some shade of that myopia in this case, but I would submit there's a difference between "an editor that doesn't get along with another editor" and "an editor that can't get along with anyone". OP's is a comparatively small sample size, but all points so far speak to the latter characterization, if I'm being honest. They have never been civil to anyone who's challenged them, and I'm not sure I can agree that a permanent state of editing around them is a viable outcome for anyone else who draws their ire. Reading above, it's not only a clash of personalities: they're just blatantly wrong about how consensus works and what our standards are, and they've given us no reason to think they care about rectifying that. Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Remsense, my comment was a general observation about how to edit on the project when there are editors you don't get along well with, it was not targeted to this specific dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

User LesbianTiamat

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

---

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

User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.[134] I have declined the request.[135] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with my reverting a number of their edits at Jefferson Davis, which was followed by discussion on the article talk page.[136] Their response to that discussion was to edit my user page in a manner that I believe can only be described as malicious.[137] This was quickly reverted and I posted a firmly worded caution on their talk page.[138] The discussion which followed was not IMO productive and was characterized by snark and a general reluctance to acknowledge that her conduct had been extremely inappropriate. This despite my requesting an uninvolved admin, Cullen328, to have a word with her given where things stood at the time.[139], which he kindly did. I am not going to post links to all the diffs in that discussion, but I would encourage anyone reviewing the matter to look at the editing history for LT's talk page as she heavily edited the conversation, including some of her own comments after I had replied to her. I would also encourage anyone reviewing this matter to take a look at the history of LT's user page from that period. While I found her responses to be troubling, and they did raise doubts in my mind as to her temperament, I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[140] at User talk:LilianaUwU with their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation.

Both as an admin and editor, I take the community's trust very seriously and do not regard lightly any accusations of misconduct. I respectfully invite the community to review my conduct here and if anyone believes I have fallen short in my behavior, misused the tools, or demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing, as per LT's accusation, I am completely prepared to discuss any concerns. In particular I would note that LT seems to take very strong umbrage with a statement on my user page in which I make clear that owing to my disagreement with parts of MOS:GENDERID, that I generally refrain from editing in subject areas where that is likely to become an issue.

Unfortunately, I have rather serious concerns about LT's own behavior. I believe there is credible evidence of WP:HOUNDING,[141] and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior at the least. And this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here. Frankly, her hostility towards me seems to have become something of an obsession. If there is a feeling that I'm off base here or over-reacting feel free to let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to start my own topic against this user following my own experience with them, in which I attempted to confront them about their editing behavior and was was immediately dismissed and possibly even threatened despite my best efforts to assume good faith in them. Granted, they did respond later on, and I commend them for that, but that does not excuse their behavior. All of my concerns with them can be found in the revision I linked above. They are extremely problematic and needs to be dealt with. λ NegativeMP1 04:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Ad Orientem: The old incident is over. We solved it and moved on. I don't get why people keep reigniting it. I had to remove it from my talk page because people kept adding fuel to a fire that should have been extinguished. I agreed to not do it - is that not what you wanted? Is that not the purpose of going to the talk page? It's over.
2. Ad Orientem: I'm not ready to bring up an ANI discussion regarding your adminship. I told you that I would do so when I had gathered the evidence, so that you have a chance to prepare a defense. I am not hounding, only carefully observing and gathering evidence for the proper procedure. I made the request for you to step down because I was on the same page. Timestamps will reveal that the award on LilianUwU's talk page was given before my comment. It was pure chance that I saw you there, Ad Orientem. I have no intention of hounding you. I will follow proper procedure as you said to. There will be no further word from me to you until it is time to post an ANI thread (except for this discussion, obviously).
3. NegativeMP1: I don't understand how you can interpret anything I've ever said in my entire history on Wikipedia as a threat. Please clarify. I wrote a quick comment dismissing you (I will cease this behavior) then addressed each of your points in a second, much longer commment. I dismissed your comment on the presumption that your message was retaliatory in nature due to timing, the "boomerang" that Ad Orientem brought up. I apologize for presuming collusion if it was independent.

LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 04:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think people "keep reigniting it" is because it's clear from how you handled that situation on your talk page that you do not understand (or do not want to admit) that your behavior was inappropriate. Your agreement to not repeat the behavior is couched not in an apology for your behavior (or at minimum an acknowledgement that it was inappropriate), but in an overt claim that Ad Orientem would violate WP:INVOLVED should you repeat the edit, yourself violating WP:AGF.

But I recognize that you will abuse your admin powers and ban me if I again shine a light on what you attempt to obfuscate, so I shall refrain from such action.

This entire incident was instigated by you, and your abject refusal to admit how inappropriate your edit to their userpage was is very concerning. Essentially every comment made by you during that discussion screams I didn't hear that. You kept pointing to how you agreed not to repeat the behavior while ignoring concerns that your explicitly stated motivation for stopping was unsatisfactory.

I have no familiarity with Ad Orientem's long term edit history, so I cannot comment on any accusation of civil POV pushing, but in this particular matter I can absolutely say that I found their behavior both appropriate and civil, and yours neither of those things. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I recognized that my behavior was inappropriate for Wikipedia and agreed to stop it. I see no purpose in continuing beyond such agreements.

I won't apologize (except to Frost (sorry Frost), who thanked my edit, which I interpreted as being a civil end to our conversation), but I will alter my behavior on Wikipedia to comply with Wikipedia's rules.

I hear your every word. I have my disagreements with Wikipedia's policies, but I am an internet veteran and understand that internet communities have rules to follow if one wants to be a member of them.

Today, I attempted civility. I will make further efforts to be overly-civil, so as not to undershoot the goal of civility during collaborative disagreements. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG isn't a threat, it's just a reminder to avoid vexatious/frivolous complaints at ANI, because sometimes when investigating we find bad stuff the original reporter did that they get in trouble for. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a great way to suppress genuine complaints. I'm not saying that that's the intent, but if that's what you do around here, I suggest reconsidering doing that to avoid chilling effects. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Chilling? Not hounding me? If this isn't hounding, then we need to just remove that from our P&G. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Open a discussion I shall, once the evidence is gathered and organized. I fear no boomerang, as I am one of the WP:BOLDest editors on this site. I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that last sentence crossed the line into hounding. I shouldn't have said that. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not heavily edit my comments after a reply. If any such thing occurred, it was due to MediaWiki's known flaws regarding simultaneous edits. That actually happened just now on this page, and I immediately reverted my edit.

I asked Cullen328 about the own-comment-editing policy on Cullen328's talk page, and the response was exactly in line with my bona fide belief as to what I have been doing.

And I absolutely did not edit another user's comment. (Except for when an edit conflict occurred, which I pointed out.) That is a false accusation, or a horrific mistake on my part for which I deeply apologize. (Note: There has been confusion in the past regarding the word "comment." When I say "comment," I mean what happens when you click reply.) LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I recognize that another user's page was an inappropriate venue. I should have gone to Ad Orientem's talk page, following appropriate ANI procedure. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a troubling conversation with LesbianTiamat back in October which can be seen in this diff. The editor edited Ad Orientem 's user page to misrepresent the administrator's own words in an inflammatory fashion. Instead of acknowledging their error and apologizing, LesbianTiamat was combative, argumentative and dismissive. This is clearly an editor who holds grudges and is willing to pursue them over months. As for their contributions to Jefferson Davis and Talk: Jefferson Davis, those edits showed a similarly combative reluctance to accept Wikipedia's core content policies. If you ask me off-Wikipedia what I think of Jefferson Davis then I will be frank about how much I despise him, but this is an encyclopedia and we simply cannot call someone a traitor unless that person was convicted of treason by a court of law. Otherwise, British editors would be free to call George Washington a traitor to the British crown in Wikipedia's voice. And so on in countless biographies of people who rebelled but were never convicted of treason. As for the editor's comment at Talk:The Birth of a Nation, I changed it to something that doesn't suck the film's dick, that type of sexualized comment in a discussion that has nothing to do with sexuality is utterly inappropriate. I see this editor's contributions as deeply problematic and I am struggling to come up with a solution. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't touch the page on Jefferson Davis after the incident reached my talk page, at least to my memory.

I'll avoid vulgarity in future comments. I don't think the sexual nature is relevant because I was using it as an idiomatic set phrase, but I will filter further comments. That thought did not cross my mind; it is everyday language in my dialect, which is not that of Wikipedia as a whole, and thus inappropriate.

And yeah, I did that edit to Ad Orientem's userpage. I said I wouldn't do it again, and I haven't. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat: Have you apologized for it? City of Silver 06:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

About that one specific edit that seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages? No, I have not. But I have not repeated the behavior, and I have no desire for further interaction. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat: If, as you say, that message "seriously crossed the line regarding Wikipedia's rules on editing others' user pages," either apologize for it or explain why you won't. People notice when you dance around issues rather than face them head-on and that sort of reticence will do you a lot more harm than good in the long run. City of Silver 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that actions speak louder than words, and have very strict personal rules regarding when I apologize. I'm not betraying that personal policy.

In the context of Wikipedia, I apologize. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you intended it, this sounds like a non-apology, at best. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel that WP:BLOCKP#3 might offer a simple solution here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What's my sentence? LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 05:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For my own part, I would be content with an indefinite WP:IBAN. But I think there are issues here that go beyond her rather obvious hostility to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that seems excessive when I'm actively correcting my behavior. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that you accused me of misconduct and asked me to resign without producing any evidence, and openly threatened to follow me around with the intent of having me desysopped, I would argue than an indefinite IBAN would be pretty much the minimal response. What possible reason would you have for wanting to still be able to interact with me? -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I haven't collected it all yet! And if collecting evidence is considered hounding, I'm really in a Catch-22 here. I guess I'll completely back off. You're just one admin out of hundreds. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you asked him to resign, saying [y]ou may not realize it, Ad Orientem, but you appear to have become a civil POV pusher... before you had even attempted to collect evidence regarding whether or not your assertion was correct? Can you explain how this is not naked casting of aspersions? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a big mistake that I didn't put everything in a document before making said request and casting aspersions! It is casting aspersions. I thought I was handling things civilly by making a request, and it turns out I wasn't!

The evidence, at this point it's irrelevant; I'm not going to hound Ad Orientem.

And to clarify, I do not hold grudges - I stand by principles. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, collecting evidence from past behavior to make a report is not hounding. It is within your rights to do that. It was asserting that you'd follow them around to wait for them to "trip up" in the future that's hounding, and in particular for the purpose of removing you as an administrator is making it personal. You've already admitted that sentence was inappropriate, so I don't think further discussion is necessary. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that crossed the line. I knew in the back of my head that I shouldn't have added that, but was fired up in the moment and felt indignation, and that I had to do something. I will not do that again. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And do you have any intent to apologize to Ad Orientem for casting aspersions? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia's rules and the community the two of us share, I apologize for breaking the rules regarding casting aspersions without first gathering evidence into a presentable format. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Crusading, really. Secretlondon (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat: An IBAN (interaction ban) is a ban on interacting with another user, so it would be very mild. It's like a restraining order preventing you from talking to @Ad Orientem on talk pages or reverting their edits. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I made a mistake. WP:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI I don't want to interact with Ad Orientem, but I also don't want Ad Orientem interacting with me. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat We can end this right now. All you need to do is agree to the IBAN. I've already stated I have no desire to interact with you and will refrain from doing so unless absolutely necessary. Your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below IMO would be enough to close this discussion and we can both move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we're done here if we've both agreed that we don't want to interact with each other? LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to state your acceptance of the IBAN in the section below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The editor claims I'm actively correcting my behavior but her recent edits that happened before this ANI discussion began show little evidence of that. The idiomatic set phrase defense is . . . unpersuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that your point is that I added sexuality, which was not my intent. If it's unpersuasive, well, I really don't have anything else to say, because everything I said here is the truth. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How on earth can you write something that doesn't suck the film's dick, and then argue that adding sexualized commentary was not my intent? That literally makes no sense whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's how I talk. It's how people around me talk. I'm actually really at the same level of incredulity as you because it's something I hear every day. It won't be posted on Wikipedia again. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a worldwide collaborative project, and people from a wide variety of countries, social and religious groups, ages and educational levels need to be welcomed here. If you think that the sexualized insults that you claim are common in your social milieu are appropriate for Wikipedia, then perhaps you need to be restricted from editing Wikipedia. You are creating, in effect, a hostile work environment for people with different social norms. When I was a teenager, I had many friends who freely and frequently dropped f-bombs to protest against the prevailing social norms of that era. I don't talk that way on Wikipedia and neither should anyone. We should use standard, businesslike English in our interactions with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I already said it won't be posted on Wikipedia again. I get it. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 07:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying "it" won't be posted again is nowhere near enough. What is needed is a dramatic transformation in your style of interaction with other editors. Drop the combativeness and adopt friendly collaboration. And I do not mean things like the mean-spirited barnstar that you left at User talk: LilianaUwU#courage strength and cuteness to you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that we have another misunderstanding here. That barnstar was given out of solidarity. It is specifically for members of my birth-status group, and is a reference to a well-known (within the group) meme.

One person chastised me for giving the award because that person felt it was not deserved, and you're saying it's mean-spirited. I have now removed the lines that could be considered mean-spirited towards others, keeping it completely positive. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 08:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding. Your intention was clear. I will leave this now for input by other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If openly transgender users are going to be criticized and threatened with discipline for sharing goofy inside-jokes with other openly transgender users, then Wikipedia's even more transphobic than I feared. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I really don’t think the barnstar bears factoring into anything. As Hydrangeans mentioned, this is a trans editor making a joke with another trans editor. It really doesn’t warrant any level of response Snokalok (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, I did not notice the comments LesbianTiamat left with that barnstar previously (to be 100% clear, the barnstar isn't the problem--it's the comments made toward Ad Orientem that were left with the barnstar, which were removed in this diff).

More importantly, LesbianTiamat's attempt to brush off the comments as a "misunderstanding" (followed by her noting that she removed the lines that "could be considered mean-spirited toward others"...seriously, "could"???) shows that she does not get it, despite her assurance that she is actively correcting her behavior. I would support an IBAN in this case, and LesbianTiamat would do well to take Cullen328's advice to dramatically transform her style of interaction with other editors, drop the combativeness, and adopt friendly collaboration. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is the quote in the diff: And don't let Ad Orientem or that IP editor get to you. I've had problems with that admin before, and will be voting for his recall. Stand up and fight, just as you've been doing. Call for a different admin if you need Wikipedia's rules enforced.

To be honest, I'm not seeing the cause for dramatic alarm. The text amounts to trying to reassure another transgender user in the face of perceived transphobia. Openly saying that one "will be voting for his recall" is toasty, yeah, but it's not slurs or insults or personal attacks. I personally have a really high bar for civility, so I do personally think LesbianTiamat was behaving less than ideally, but behaving below an ideal is pretty different from what she's being accused of (being mean and combative). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, the message attached to the barnstar reads as reassurance and certainly to my view does not meet the bar for any level of incivility towards OP. Snokalok (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• First Ad Orientem dares LesbianTiamat to open an ANI thread about his behavior (disproportionately targeting transgender users for disciplinary action), and within a couple hours Ad Orientem instead is opening a thread to complain about Lesbian Tiamat? It's hard for me to not see this as Ad Orientem trying to 'get ahead' of any thread about himself by once again disproportionately targeting a transgender user for disciplinary action. Ad Orientem already openly disagrees with MOS:GENDERID (a Manual of Style guidance that for the most part is the pretty minimal don't misgender or deadname people) and scorns WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA as evidence that Wikipedia requires users to subscribe to the current doctrines and orthodoxy of the social political left. And frankly, Ad Orientem's intervention at Jefferson Davis—We cannot state that Davis committed treason in wiki-voice because he was never convicted of the crime—really doesn't impress me. Historians of the Civil War have called it treason, and wikilawyering that away smacks of Neo-Confederate apologia.
  We don't need Confederate apologetics on Wikipedia. We don't need queerphobes. We don't need admins who disproportionately target transgender users. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support and words of honesty. I've felt pretty alone here. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans, you can not make charges like that without providing evidence or you are also casting aspersion. This thread was winding down and you just escalated things. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I can’t speak to the noqueerphobes quote, but the confederate one is from one of the diffs OP posted. I’ll repost it here. Talk:Jefferson Davis#Treason, first post.

That said Hydrangeans, you should be thorough in your citations, especially for a matter like this. Snokalok (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting the NOQUEERPHOBES link; I've added a link in my initial comment. As for the statement about Jefferson Davis, I thought that being linked in OP was sufficient, but I'll remember to be thorough in the future.

As for escalation, Ad Orientem started the thread, and at ANI OPs can also be scrutinized. If things really have winded down, then I don't think there's much cause for alarm that my one comment would somehow drastically and unjustly change that. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave Snokalok a barnstar in appreciation (it's silly, and based on a userbox) and then this happened.

@Rambam 2025 gave the reversion reason Rv retract your comments about AO or pay the price! (Another user stepped in and reverted the blatant targeted vandalism.)

This looks like hounding to me. And it's part of a pattern I noticed. However, with the casting aspersions thing, my documentation of the prior event with AO cannot be posted without significant work, as I tracked only the usernames of those going through my contributions and reverting my good-faith edits. I also am unsure of the extent of the damage, as I have not completely surveyed it - I have roughly 1500 edits.

An unknown editor may possibly be violating WP:CANVAS and WP:HOUND against me. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 13:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Mysteriously, the edit summary is now gone. I was not aware that that was even possible. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 13:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just passing by, Rambam 2025 was blocked as a sock/vandal below. Sarsenet (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think a one-way IBAN proposal is still on the table. I'm not convinced that threat of hounding will no longer occur. No one, editor or admin, should edit thinking that another editor is scrutinizing their every edit to capture "evidence". I mean, no one wants to edit like that on the Project, no matter who you are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve read over OP’s post several times, and I have concerns.

The opening quote User LesbianTiamat has asked me to resign as an admin on grounds of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.[131] I have declined the request.[132] Her antagonism towards me appears to have originated with and the subsequent quotes I had largely forgotten the matter when LT suddenly turned up on a long stale discussion[137] at User talk:LilianaUwUwith their accusations of misconduct and their request for my resignation. and this recent development has renewed my concerns as to whether or not she possesses the temperament required to be able to contribute effectively here make this thread read to me as though the central issue here is that LT asked OP to resign as admin. Certainly, the manner in which this request to resign was given was not at all in line with Wikipedia standards of civility, and that is its own issue, but nonetheless, the way this thread is currently written reads as “Could you resign?” “No” being the central issue instead of the incivility, and that concerns me greatly. But perhaps there’s some wiki guideline I’m missing that makes it all make sense. Snokalok (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Signature tangent, resolved as no action required. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor's link to their user talk page says "troll/pester"...maybe we should take that as literal. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) It's a Homestuck reference. Trollian and PesterChum are fictional chat programs. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) To quote David Mitchell, "But is that how it comes across?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Well, it's supposed to be a hint that I'm a fan of the webcomic, intended to actually encourage people to talk to me. I figure that outside the scrutiny of ANI, it's seen as a joke. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC) It does indicate that any attempt at WP:COMMUNICATE will be seen as trolling/pestering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC) I say again, it's a Homestuck reference. I bolded my statement above that I would not dismiss others quickly. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 06:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC) FWIW, I found it to be tongue-in-cheek. We are allowed to have some fun here. I don't think we need to nitpick her signature. The other issues are more concerning to me, and I am cautiously optimistic given LT's change in tone demonstrated on this thread. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree. I would not read too much into the "troll/pester" thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I'm sorry I brought it up. It just seemed very unusual. Sorry for the unnecessary tangent. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Understandable. On a side note, it's extremely late here and I have to get up in a few hours. I will check back later today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Requesting One Way IBan for LesbianTiamat

Based on their history and above discussion, I am satisfied that LesbianTiamat harbors extremely strong personal animosity towards me, likely motivated by ideological prejudice. Despite ample opportunity to produce at least some evidence to back up her aspersions and request for my resignation, she has failed to do so. Nor am I satisfied by her extremely grudging acknowledgments that her actions were wrong. The wording is often carefully couched and leaves me convinced that while she very reluctantly accepts her behavior was contrary to community policies and guidelines, that she believe she occupy the moral high ground. I note that after denying hounding, when I posted their direct quote threatening to to do exactly that with the objective of having me desysopped, her response was "I shouldn't have said that." At this point. I cannot conceive of any constructive reason why she would want to interact with me. And frankly I do not want to spend the rest of my time on the project looking over my shoulder knowing someone with such openly declared hostility is looking for an opportunity to attack me. I respectfully ask the community to impose an indefinite WP:IBAN on LesbianTiamat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

How about a two-way ban? One-way is absolutely unfair and unjust.

A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. (troll/pester) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For my part, I will be quite happy to avoid any interaction with you that is not necessary in my administrator capacity. And even then, I would probably refer anything not time sensitive to another admin. That said, I have done nothing wrong here. A two way IBAN is not appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've done nothing wrong outside the context of Wikipedia.LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You are reinforcing my entire point. You still don't believe you have done anything wrong. Honestly, if this were a situation involving two other editors and I were an uninvolved party, looking at this objectively I'd be at least thinking about an indefinite block. Your editing history suggests you see Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But we're within Wikipedia here. This is honestly a totally perplexing response to me. It's like if I broke a US law and my defense was "but I didn't break a Canadian law." Yes... and? --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Could you please state exactly what "ideological prejudice" Tiamat "likely" has against you? You didn't explicitly say what belief(s) you have that she might find objectionable and I don't want to guess because if I guess wrong, that's probably me violating AGF. City of Silver 17:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

See her edit on my user page. I believe it is self evident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite one way IBan for LesbianTiamat, as the minimum action required here, with a warning that any more disruptive editing may result in further sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite one way interaction ban, per the behaviours exhibited in the thread above (especially, and quite shockingly, including "I advise that you watch your actions and check your biases before doing anything, because I am watching you for the purpose of removing you as an administrator") as well as vandalism of AO's userpage a couple of months ago. The fact that this has been going on for seemingly months means the problem clearly isn't going away easily. Daniel (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Accept. To paraphrase Che Guevara, you will only be blocking a woman. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 18:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on LT's acceptance of the proposed IBAN, I am satisfied that no further action is required. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Unless there is an objection, could an uninvolved admin please log the IBAN, post the appropriate talk page notice and close this discussion? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Weliviewf disruptive editing – review requested

I left User:Weliviewf many warnings and requests about editing errors that they were making. The editor removed those warnings from their User talk page, so they can be presumed to have been seen. The editor continues to make the same sorts of disruptive edits. I found a half-dozen significant errors in a dozen recent edits. They are making good edits to prose, but often accompanied by errors like nonexistent templates or categories, removing valid formatting, and making unhelpful changes. See the talk page history for my requests to them.

The editor is also newly registered, but their behavior gives every indication that they are an experienced Wikipedian.

At this point, I feel like another set of eyes is needed to judge the level of disruption and if anything else may be going on here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I also thought of bringing them here due to their many revisions of removing content without explanation or with misleading edit summaries (such as this one claiming minor edits while also removing 72,000 bytes). Not only that, but they also remove the references, external links and categories for no reason. I do agree that some of their edits are genuinely beneficial, however edits like this, this and this are completely unhelpful, removing entire sections of various articles, breaking tables and templates, and leaving sentences incomplete.

They are completely aware they have a talk page, as they have removed content from it on two occasions, but the fact that they refuse to address concerns brought up on their talk page is concerning (I never left any warnings on their talk page because I thought what was already there was sufficient and didn't want to seem like I was piling on, however they don't seem to acknowledge them at all except for removing those warnings, which they have the right to do of course). Procyon117 (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I haven't looked at their edits but it looked like you left 8 messages on their user talk page over 15 minutes! Given their previous behavior, do you think this was an effective way to communicate with them? It's overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I left a message for each different problem that I found, including problems that they had previously been warned about. They made many different kinds of errors and disruptive edits at a high rate of speed. I also reverted some edits and pinged them from edit summaries, hoping that different styles of notification would help. Everything I have read about blocking says that editors need to be given adequate warnings. As for whether it was effective, I don't think the previous warnings were effective, but I know that they are required. If these do not work, I need more help. Hence my request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sharnadd and disruptive editing/CIR

Hi, Sharnadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing disruptively recently and with a past block in June 2024 (block warning on talk page), I think more action is required. I don’t think their edits are vandalism and may not warrant a full rollback but I do think they are disruptive and might need a WP:CIR block. I [142] (and many others) [143] [144] [145] have addressed this in both user and article talk pages, but they do not seem to understand the issues raised. It also appears this editor may not have a good grasp of English due to the misspellings and grammar issues they have introduced.
-edit warring to readd reverted information: [146], [147], [148], and [149]

-Partially deleted talk page discussions in a manner that changes what the original post means (instead of fully blanking): [150] and [151]

-Added uncited section in broken English: [152]

-Nonsense edit summaries: Good title of country [153] and [154] Added book shop I go marks and Spencers is a supermarket. There are full service hotels at a service station not motels which generally have the doors outside

-Removal of info with confusing, misspelled edit summaries: [155] and [156]

Please let me know if there’s any mistakes, or additional information needed. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There's an evidwnt error in the ES of that "uncited section" diff, "Added types" should be "typos". Narky Blert (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

thata not true I haven't been disruptive posting. I had been adding information with citations. I know that you had a problem as I made a spelling mistake on a posting by that's hardly Sharnadd (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

145 I added additional sources the originator agreed and has removed some of his incorrect information. Sharnadd (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

146 I apologised to Cassiopeia as when I edited I had accidently removed some information from lower down and she put it back for me Sharnadd (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

147 I sent belbury the current information that is per the regulations as he had a query on regs after Brexit Sharnadd (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

148 to 151 it wasn't an editing war. Someone was removing information as I was added several citations as they did not think the citations were good enough but they had not seen guardian citations. Information was left on as citations given Sharnadd (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

152 and 153 when you mentions the problem with my accidently spelling he word placed as places I would happily have blanked your discussion from my talk page if I knew how to do so it seems I can only edit Sharnadd (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

156 to 157 what would you prefer the edit summary to say. Would you prefer that they remain blank Sharnadd (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

157 to 158 it was t confusing at all. The page was listed as breakfast sandwich from United states. Since It discussed the American breakfast sandwich in the overview history and ingredients I removed the reference to other types. Since you stated it was for all types of breakfast sandwich I removed the origin as united states Sharnadd (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your edits for Breakfast sandwich the problem is that your injecting your own understanding, but that is not how Wikipedia works when it comes to adding or removing information -- for example, see WP:TRUE TiggerJay (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding removing other peoples talk messages in part, such as this example -- there is no special "full blanking" tool or feature, but instead the problem is that you partially deleted only some of what the other editor posted on your talk page. That is an inappropriate form of WP:REFACTORING. You have the ability to "edit" and fully remove the discussion, as the second example regarding Pie seems to be your intention there. TiggerJay (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

With regards to Delicatessen those edits broadly fall under WP:3R which is a form of edit waring, even if unintentional. Your edits were removed more than once, and regardless of your reasoning, you do not simply re-add information that was removed without either (1) fully addressing the initial concert; or (2) bringing the discussion to the talk page to find consensus with other editors. TiggerJay (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

First a caution about how you're responding to the various links provided, those numbers are dynamic and may change at any point, which will cause confusion. For example, at the time of me writing this reply, 145 is now part of the section above regarding User LesbianTiamat which I am certain you're not referring to... So please use a different way to explain the various edits. For example, what is currently #157 will change, so perhaps when responding you might say for example: for Beefsteak and this diff my reason is xyz... TiggerJay (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian Air Flight 9218

Can someone with more experience look at Syrian Air Flight 9218. It's been created in response by a theory by some that radar data recorded by this plane shows that it may have crashed, with theories it was carrying the President of Syria. Given how entirely speculative the entire thing is, and the 1RR restrictions, someone more competent than me needs to have their finger on this one. Nfitz (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional info on the theory that is going around social media. It should be noted that reliable sources have discussed the flight, but have made it clear that details about it are unconfirmed and speculation: The Telegraph, Reuters. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly interesting. But entirely speculative. And at this point it happened about 12 to 13 hours ago. The article just shouldn't be here, if there's no actual physical evidence of a crash, or a missing plane. Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar; this one just had odd looking data before it vanished. This isn't encyclopaedic. Anyhow, I'm out of here for a few hours. Nfitz (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on most to all points. (Not sure about the "Planes have been vanishing in that area all day on radar" part as this is the first I have heard of that.) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some reliable sources are quoting Russian government officials saying that Bashar al-Assad is in Moscow and has been granted asylum there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And there we go. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It's moot now, but some planes from the Gulf and Iran were vanishing on approach to Tartus, see [157] this. Vanishing around the same point near the "crash site". Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yet another great argument for Wikipedia not covering breaking news. EEng 19:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and snow closed the deletion discussion on the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/troll/sock back yet again

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

---

The fistagon vandal/troll/sock is back yet again, this time under the name Rambam 2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If someone could please take the appropriate action and do a reveal on the edit summaries, I’d be very grateful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Diannaa, that's great. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Two clear NOTHERE accounts

TheodoresTomfooleries and DFLPApologist are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Not sure where else to report so I brought it here. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 15:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My contributions very much suggest otherwise. Whether you like my userpage or not has nothing to do with my contributions to Wikipedia, all of which have been done to improve Wikipedia. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My userpage has no relation to my contributions. DFLPApologist (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sigh Both users should be trouted for using their user pages for very bad-taste jokes. These pages should be deleted via MfD and, honestly, run a CU just in case. But, assuming these two aren't a pair of socks I think we can let them off with a warning not to do something so pointlessly edgy going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, I think. Looking through their contributions, there's some potentially-good edits, e.g. Special:Diff/1257215939. (Although I'd like if someone ran a double-check on those references on the off chance it's subtle vandalism.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that DPLPApologist's page includes the apparent quote "A homosexual cannot be a revolutionary." Toughpigs (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am a lesbian. DFLPApologist (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I consider it highly likely that both of these accounts are controlled by the same person. Thd absurdist style is similar and the categories are very similar. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I just ripped off their userbox because I don’t know how to code DFLPApologist (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  infobox* DFLPApologist (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, TheodoresTomfooleries is a left communist, while I am a Maoist. DFLPApologist (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  This style of absurdist humor is popular on leftist twitter, which is why our profiles appear similar, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t inspired. DFLPApologist (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  But here's the thing, friend. This isn't twitter. This is Wikipedia. While I do agree that your user page should be something that is solely you, certain things to not put in seemed to go without saying. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  (after edit conflicts) If they're not the same person then they are friends. I suppose we should at least be grateful for this edit. Just block. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think being friends, or having multiple accounts, is against the rules. However, it does need to be properly disclosed. @DFLPApologist and @TheodoresTomfooleries: are these two accounts by the same person, or do you just happen to know each other? If two accounts, see our rules about sockpuppetry. I would strongly recommend using only one account, as using multiple accounts is an easy way to get yourself banned. If you know each other, you should avoid making controversial edits to the same pages without disclosing this (which can violate the prohibitions on meatpuppetry and canvassing). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  We don’t know each other properly, I just found their profile on the Syria article and thought it was ridiculous. DFLPApologist (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  The only alternative account I have on Wikipedia is User:Kalivyah, which I have specifically marked as such (and which I do not use anymore). Other than this, I do not know who @DFLPApologist is, and I suspect we simply met through the Syria article like she suggests.

  I think it's a possibility I might know her from another platform, but I'm unable to confirm this-- and even whether I do or don't know her, it doesn't make it a case of sockpuppetry. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

DFLPApologist, this is not Twitter or social media of any kind. You wrote Unlimited genocide on the first world on the other editor's talk page. Why should other Wikipedia editors believe anything that you say? Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just revdelled about a dozen revisions on their userpage under RD2. I don't think the user was being remotely serious about what they said, but it's still gross and unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

PMC has apparently revdelled multiple revisions upon my request but the content was extremely inappropriate and gross - I don't think any sane person would interpret it as humour The AP (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The good news is that nobody on the internet is sane. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Any reason why both should not be blocked? GiantSnowman 20:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  They have made fair edits - I guess it's better to warn them that they shouldn't add such inappropriate mentions on the user page and if they continue to make such gross comments - a block? The AP (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Clear AI slop IP editor

Special:Contributions/162.156.70.174

Behaviour has been sporadically ongoing since June 2024.

Block history

- User talk:162.156.70.174#August 2024|Blocked in August 2024 for linking their AI generated slop articles into mainspace. TPA also revoked.

- Blocked and TPA revoked again later in August 2024.

Has created the following AI slop drafts:

- Draft:The_Rise_of_Eco-Fascism:_A_Threat_to_Climate_Justice

- Draft:Climate_Policy_and_Far-Right_Influence

- Draft:Economic_Impacts_of_Climate_Change

Has added AI slop to the Ecofacism article:

- Diff #1

- Diff #2

Has made AI slop threads / replies:

- Talk:Ecofascism #1

- Talk:Ecofascism #2

- WP:Help Desk #1

- WP:Help Desk #2

- WP:Teahouse

- Their User Talk page #1

- Their User Talk page #2

- Their User Talk page #3

- AfC Helpdesk #1

- AfC Helpdesk #2

qcne (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

^{Courtesy ping to prior blocking admins: @Jake Wartenberg, @Paul Erik, @Jpgordon, @Materialscientist} qcne (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk: Administrators' noticeboard#Subject: Clarification and Assistance Needed for "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change: A Journey Towards a Sustainable Future" Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am regular editor who has recently become aware of this user and I am also highly concerned by their behaviour. ALL of their edits, including response to other users and administrators, is clearly AI-generated. When asked to stop, they lie and insist they are not. They also insist they are two human collaborators, rather than one person who has developed an unhealthy attachment to an AI-chatbot.

They have received multiple warnings, all their edits end up getting reverted, they're don't take onboard any input, etc etc My view is that they need to be barred from input into Wikipedia. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked and silenced. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground News; WP:LLM involvement & WP:COMPROMISED suspicions

• Bartimas2 (talk · contribs)
• Fxober (talk · contribs)

This discussion about a news aggregator seems like it may be compromised both by LLM rationales and the possibility of a compromised account. Bartimas's first edit is on this discussion and their rationale reads as a complete chatbot hallucination that makes no real sense, while Fxober may have been here much longer, but it reads the same and does not resemble the writing style or language of any of their past edits, nor interest spaces at all, so I'm suspecting that their account may have been unfortunately compromised. As is this is one of those constant YouTube advertisers that has some controversy I feel like someone external may be trying to weigh down the scales of this discussion outside the first two voters who had proper reasons for their keep (the third from 2603:6011:9600:52C0:414B:816B:94D5:DA4 (talk · contribs) is another first-edit just saying 'keep' and just as suspicisious). Nate • (chatter) 21:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Bartimas2 can be dealt with using a {{uw-coi}} warning. I'm also not seeing any evidence of a compromised account nor does Fxober's post appear to be AI generated. I don't think an LLM would use a comma like Fxober did in the first sentence, for example. I take Fxober's !vote to be "keep, other stuff exists" per their accompanying edit to the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behaviour and unsubstantiated MOS:PUFFERY by 155.69.190.63

Calling for intervention against persistent disruptive patterns from 155.69.190.63, which has repeatedly added unverified claims, and tendencies to disregard editing policies and misrepresentation in List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru and other related articles.

• [158] Unexplained addition of unverified claims, with no WP:RS.
• [159] Another unexplained edit, without any WP:ES.
• [160] Misrepresenting data from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, which itself does not indicate that "Johor Bahru is also currently the nation's second tallest city in terms of number of 200 metres and above skyscrapers", quite possibly to advance said IP address' MOS:PUFFERY.

Said IP address even attempted to justify why they refused the burden of proof in their talk page and insinuated me in bad faith of disruptive behaviour. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I should say, of the three diffs you mentioned, only one (the first) seems like it could even be potentially objectionable, and I'd have to read through the issue in greater detail before I could comment meaningfully.

Are you sure those are the diffs you meant to point to? DS (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)