Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

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

---

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and edit warring regarding the Tim Hunt biography. For several years Basboll has insisted on framing a 2015 controversy regarding comments that Hunt made at a conference that were widely considered sexist as an "online shaming" campaign. After LokiTheLiar recently attempted to alter this, they were reverted by Basboll and subsequently made a post at WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt) Over half a dozen people responded, none of which agreed with Basbolls position. Discussion was then opened at Hunts talkpage (Talk:Tim Hunt) which again found against Basbolls position. Basboll is still reverting any attempt to alter the wording in the article despite a consensus against their postion, and has now opened a discussion at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt which is a clear attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Basboll needs to be firmly told to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The admin @Firefangledfeathers: has previously warned them on their talkpage, see User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at WP:ANEW, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article. See for instance this diff from about a week ago, this diff from 2019, and this diff from 2020. It's largely due to reading the page history that made me jump to WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at WP:BLPN not WP:NPOVN and I said so repeatedly. At the moment the dispute is about including as quotation a disputed report of the most shameful thing the subject of the article has ever been accused of saying or doing. Getting the story even half-way right, will force us to make it a WP:COATRACK for the entire social shaming incident that he was the victim of. This clearly violates WP:BLP and that is the position I'm maintaining. Also, I have said repeatedly that I am reverting only out of caution (again a BLP concern). The disputed section has been stable for several years. A few more weeks of it being (perhaps too) kind to its subject isn't going to make a huge difference in the long. A few weeks of slander, by contrast, can do unnecessary harm.Thomas B (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOVN discussion, I agree with what Hemiauchenia, Loki, Bon courage, and Firefangledfeathers said. Thomas B is stonewalling by reverting additions to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article despite consensus against em. And indeed, this user has been removing large amounts of content from that section for 4 years. I'm also under an impression that the amount and frequency of comments made by this user is distractingly excessive, going against WP:BLUDGEONING. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [1] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future. Thomas B (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms. Thomas B (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an innocent coming to this article from NPOVN thinking it a detail about a scientist's bio, I have since discovered it's a gamergate-adjacent culture war battle that sparked interest in the Daily Mail and Breitbart. The attempt was made there to reframe the issue not as being with a white man, but with the black women (Connie St Louis) who reported his comments.[2] It goes without saying Wikipedia needs to be a million miles from buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like some others, you're on a steep learning curve about this event. As I've been saying from the beginning, it was a major shitstorm, and once the dust settled there were really only two sentences you could say about it in Hunt's bio without feeling dirty. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, scholarly journals and quality news outlets have managed to cover this quite well, and since Wikipedia only need cover accepted knowledge as covered in quality RS we are good to go. There is plenty so long as one ignores the Daily Mail/Breitbart/etc crap. While searching for sources I noticed you have blogged at quite enormous length about this, about how in your view Hunt was wronged a saint and Connie St Louis was the baddie in multiple ways, and you have vowed to take the fight to anyone who says Hunt is sexist. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to consult the policy, but I think you're violating some sort of rule about referring to my work off-Wiki. Do you want to delete it now, or should we look it up? Thomas B (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is what you want. By all means look it up yourself but I am familiar with this policy thanks. Also with WP:COI, where selective linking to off-wiki content is even sometimes necessary to evaluate a case. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. I will be disengaging with you for the time being. Thomas B (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm thank you for that very illuminating piece of information Bon courage Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited." (WP:OUTING) Thomas B (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "outed" you I pointed out that you've been banging on about this for years

Really, I am busy and have spent quite enough time on a topic that you are for whatever reason fixated upon. If and when you condescend to let mere mortals touch the topic I may have some suggestions, but meanwhile you might want to acquaint yourself with the recent Arbcom case where Volunteer Marek really was outed and endangered before you wave that policy around. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for harassment... Am I really hearing this from someone who's painted me as ignorant and incapable of intellectual rigor? Who told me I had no business editing this article? I feel the need to wash my typing fingers now. It's interesting that you mention a name change. First of all it's a good idea, although considering you're still using the exact same phrases, the only embarrassing thing is that you've pretty much obviously already made up your mind regardless. More to the point though, was Bon courage supposed to not look for sources lest it embarrass you??? You aren't making sense. I'm definitely considering changing my name to Thomas, for sure though! It seems to be a free pass at ANI. Do you realize that another editor has taken the exactly same position I have? And it didn't bother you a bit. Guess what that editor's name was. I'm too busy for your BS and Bon courage is doing fine. Ta.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have forgotten, but I have not asked for any of your time for a week now.[3] Be well. Thomas B (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of WP:3RR. The user has been also posting an excessive amount of comments in the discussions, which constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [4] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[5] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[6] [7]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[8], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea. Thomas B (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

S

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [9] and Bon courage[10]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[11][12][13]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [14][15][16]
  • misconstruing policy [17] vs [18] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [19]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [20][21]
  • [22] and doubling down: [23] and [24] Also [25] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot Support as the disruption is ongoing. in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC); amended 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage, I wonder, do you still consider this page ban proposal moot given Hemiauchenia's and Firetangledfeather's recent votes below? In case your opinion changed, I would like to request for you to update your vote. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NicolausPrime yes, it seems I was over-optimistic. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a WP:TAG team should receive a WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email 08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a block and a ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [26] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's WP:BLUDGEONING and stonewalling. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering Tim Hunt and online shaming and their talk pages. I don't really see how @NicolausPrime's proposal can be read any other way. The aim seems to be to speed the process of implementing changes along the lines of those @LokiTheLiar originally proposed by removing me from the conversation. I do indeed oppose them, and I think that any changes along those lines should be implemented, if at all, very slowly and carefully. I will respect a ban if that's what is decided but I really do think it's a bad idea to remove people who think you're wrong from a conversation about what to do, even (and perhaps especially) if you're very certain you're right. Thomas B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In light of Thomas B's continuing failure to disengage, I now unambiguously support a block from the talk-page. The discussion is not being helped by the two or three people who evidently are heavily invested in their own individual conclusions about what happened and what it means; Thomas B has had ample opportunity to make his position known. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I am walking away from this. My viewpoint is that both "sides" in this debate are letting their personal feelings get the better of them, and are attempting to right great wrongs (just two different wrongs). The result has been a debate that's gone off the rails, degenerated into a lot of wikilawyering, poor faith, and walls of text. I don't feel I can interact with other editors in improving this article in the current situation. I believe it will only be solved by a structured debate, forced to focus on the article rather than the editors, and therefore I strongly, strongly recommend WP:DRN. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended. I had walked away from the talk page, I had planned that I was not going to edit at all this weekend and do something more useful like cleaning the oven. What is desperately needed at this page is an admin with experience of WP:BLP, because the edits being proposed are in violation of our BLP policy.

I realise that ANI is not the place to discuss content and I do not intend to do anymore than is necessary to explain the background but it is necessary to help with BLP. 8 years ago the Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt attended a conference in South Korea. Tim Hunt who is described by his wife as "socially awkward" and "less than wordly" was asked at the last minute to give a toast during lunch. Extremely nervous he gave a 2-3 minute speech that included a self-deprecating joke that was awkward and ill-advised (in that what was said could and was misconstrued). Nevertheless it was well received by the audience; so much so he was asked to deliver a further speech during the closing banquet. A journalist attending the event tweeted a series of tweets denouncing what he'd said as sexist and misogynist, partially quoting the speech out of context and making two false claims. A Twitter storm blew up and whilst flying home his reputation was effectively destroyed and he was forced to resign from several positions. Subsequently the facts of what was said, what wasn't said came out but had little effect on the commentary that continued to be hostile, until the journalist Louise Mensch investigated it doggedly and demonstrated it to be untrue. The accepted view in the literature now is that he was treated unfairly, he is neither sexist nor misogynist but definitely socially awkward and less than wordly.

This is very relevant to the RFC that is currently being run.

1. A loaded question has been made about including a quote of what was said
2. The edits proposed all make the false claim it was his speech that was denounced as sexist, which is untrue, what was denounced as sexist was based on false reporting.

I am extremely concerned by some of the commentary eg [27] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood.". This to me indicate a closed mind, a refusal to accept in good faith that there are other possibilities and an unwillingness to listen to evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs. It seems that some editors have decided Tim Hunt is a sexist misogynist who should be labelled as such on his Wikipedia article. It seems that editors have learned nothing about the damage that a disparaging Wikipedia biography can do and why we have BLP policies. Are we really in the business of pillorying a socially awkward scientist who has been an advocate for women in science? 8 years ago this affair nearly drove the poor man to suicide.

I have to commend Thomas B for his knowledge of the case and the willingness to stick his neck out for our BLP policies, he doesn't deserve the threat of blocks or page bans. To my mind they are misdirected. It seems that 3RR, ANI and various noticeboards are being abused to try and remove an obstacle rather than seek a consensus.

I have no problem with a BLP if it accurately reflects what actually happened but that is not what is happening here. The talk page is toxic, with editors simply not listening or earnestly engaging with the consensus building process. I've given up on trying.

My suggestion is to extend the page lock until editors propose a reasonable summary of what happened that all can agree on via WP:DRN - a very aposite suggestion. I fear that as soon as the page is unlocked, the edit war will recommence. It certainly needs a good old trouting among all concerned. Now rubber gloves and Mr Muscle^TM beckon, I do hope more sensible heads like Elemimele prevail - I would also commend them for a very sensible contribution I can only apologise if your comments were drowned out. WCM_email 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I would disengage from this and have, but that isn't a license to misleadingly quote me. I meant that I didn't want to engage in house to house combat over the entrenched establishment circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny. Claims of being misunderstood are completely unsurprising.

The dismissal of anyone who objects to the hagiography as ignorant is apparently being allowed to succeed here. Oh well, another day at Wikipedia. I forgot to unsubscribe yesterday but before I do, I want to day that the remarks in their full context are still appalling and that thinking that they are appalling does not demonstrate that one has not read them. That is the level of bad faith at play here.

The idea that anything less than a complete picture should be reported has been imputed to everyone who thinks that this should be discussed as anything but a terrible thing that happened to a good man. I think that failing a page block, dispute resolution is a pretty good idea, since presumably they won't allow all this mud-slinging. Note that given the RFC and previous NPOV discussions, DRN should not be needed to guarantee that opinions can be expressed without generating aspersions, but that is where this is. The clear consensus is being disregarded with cries of BLP, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE waved off. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Young also wrote a piece in Reason (magazine), calling out the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, and how the "narrative [about Hunt] has been falling apart". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that WCM also mentioned this source earlier, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to add this to the article with an attribution, as Reason is considered a reliable though opinionated source. (I think it would be more effective to raise this on the article's talk page) NicolausPrime (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did do, the source was immediately denounced, that apparently is enough to ignore it and continue with the same narrative. Therein lies the problem, this is just me being a "misogynist" "circling the wagons to protect a misogynist" with "shitty sources". Those by the way are quotes from the talk page. WCM_email 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the page protection has stopped the disruption, and I don't see any sign that TB recognizes that his conduct has been problematic. There are people above arguing that a sanction would be moot, but the ongoing conduct makes it clear that is not the case. Above, TB says it'll be ok if he remains unsanctioned because "the constraints of 3RR" will keep him from achieving his preferred version in article-space, and I worry this is a signal that he intends to continue edit warring. The repeated declarations that he'll be stepping back, followed by further bludgeoning and personalization, suggest that TB will continue to worsen the discourse in this dispute. His most recent action is to post a non-serious proposal. He can see no reason that many good-faith editors propose versions he disagrees with, believing they are trying to "vindicate those who originally shamed" Hunt.
  I wonder if those who oppose a pblock would consider a warning, or if they think all this conduct has been just fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary pblock until the RfC is over, but not a permanent ban. The OP was not very clear in their proposal, in my view. And for that matter, a temp pblock for anyone else who is bludgeoning the discussion, regardless of what side they are on about the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I take the point and have withdrawn from the talk page until the RfC is over. I don't know if that makes closing easier. But I think I've taken up enough time. Thomas B (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, consensus is policy, so if your preferred version of the article doesn't make the cut, there really isn't anything more to discuss, is there? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was initially on the fence about this because Basboll wasn't the sole cause of disruption in the discussions, but Basboll hasn't stepped back from the discussion like he promised and his behaviour hasn't improved. His self-admitted non serious proposal at Talk:Tim_Hunt#Counterproposal followed by the comment that my proposal for a consensus version is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of [Hunt], rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him is just blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that isn't moving the conversation regarding this issue forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry you got that treatment, Hemi. As best as I can tell, you were uninvolved in the dispute, responded civilly and reasonably to the NPOVN post, then noticed that we were a a standstill and started and RfC. You made a concrete proposal for article content and tweaked it based on TB's concerns, and then you got that uncivil response. It's unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding. I produced a version that was obviously slanted in Hunt's direction in order to show well-intentioned people like Hemiauchenia that explanding it with a bunch of (true) details slants it in the direction of Hunt's original accusers (less obviously to many editors here, it seems). Once we get into the weeds, we in effect have to either defend or attack him. That's why I'm not serioulsy proposing the defensive version. I'm proposing (as I have been all along) not to get into the weeds. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was doing a drive-by looking for the "od" template for a WP:GLI entry, when I had a look. I've had experience of this in the past most recently. It is disruptive when the editor is guarding the article to maintain their own revision. Its form of WP:OWN. I have no time for it. An article ban is ideal in this instance. There is many other areas the editor can work on. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support It has become very clear that Basboll has come to the article to right great wrongs and edit in defense of the subject's honor. That, combined with their desire to frame this situation as a "shaming campaign" combines to make them ill suited for editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect righting great wrongs is the motive of some of those editing on the talk page, more concerned with the protagonist in this controversy than the victim. But I am certain that Basboll's motives are to protect wikipedia from a BLP violation not in defence of anyone's honour. WCM_email 08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, yet he had already spilled many many pixels at blogspot defending the subject's honor long before this discussion began. To be completely clear, I am sure the man was joking. I also think that jokes like that are a problem. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He also hasn't edited the talk page for 48 hrs so at this stage any admin action is moot. This is the second time you've alluded to off-wiki activities. You appear to be inviting WP:OUTING and you should really stop that. WCM_email 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have I until just now, since it became clear I was a convenient red herring. I came over to see if the RFC had closed yet. The prior writings merely underline the inability to be neutral on the topic. But that was evident from the start. Meanwhile, strict as the outing policy may be, if it doesn't cover Grabowski and Klein I sincerely doubt it covers the recognizable style of and nearly-identical statements of someone now editing under their own name; I find that your concern is specious and more likely a threat than an actual concern. The fact that I ignore your behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't noted. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I have edited here for many years, and at times been involved in very heated disputes, always in my own name. I've never encountered this sort of behavior before. As a result, I've put in a request to have my username changed. Making editors answer for things they wrote online eight years ago is obviously not helpful to the current debate. Especially in the context of a request to ban the user. Since this is ANI, I had expected an administrator to step in already. Things seem to have changed around here. Not a pleasant atmosphere. Thomas B (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break from editing the article, especially while an ANI discussion is ongoing, does not mean sanctions are unnecessary. And the repeated claims of OUTING are spurious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

what a mess of a situation Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Lock

Given the bad tempered nature of the discussion, I would propose that the Page Lock is extended until a consensus text is worked out through WP:DRN. Consensus building and cooler heads are desperately needed on this topic. WCM_email 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If we went to DRN while an RFC was on, it would be immediately rejected as redundant. This feels to me like a poor attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My take is that we've really made a mess of this and that the page should be locked until a resolution is found. Thomas B (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that a couple of editors (one of whom was edit warring before to stop any change) are worried the RfC is running against them, and want to prevent the likely WP:CONSENSUS being implemented. Let the community do its thing and it will all work out in due course. There is no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a mess:

1. Its a loaded question that should never be used on an RFC
2. The atmosphere is toxic and outside comment deterred by walls of text
3. Anybody who comments is denounced as a misogynist if they contradict the "consensus" circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny [28]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [29]
5. The tactic above is driving away editors like Emimele and myself
6. The content for which you claim there is a consensus is simply untrue and doesn't give a reasonable summary of the controversy. It is in violation of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY.
7. Editors are basing their edit on a personal conviction the subject of the BLP is sexist and a misogynist based on their reading of a quote taken out of context. [30]

It seems based on this comment by Bon courage, editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" and simply not listening. Given the conduct DRN is desperately needed. WCM_email 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the tactic is evidently to kick up as much process sand as possible in an attempt to derail the RfC (which follows an already extensive discussion at NPOVN). Remember we are WP:NOTDUMB. Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. Bon courage (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. I agree. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

nod, my comment about DRN was intended for the event where the waters at the RfC had been sufficiently muddied by the bludgeoning to obscure consensus, as seems possible. In that event a more structured discussion may be necessary for the benefit of those can't quite process that they are misinterpreting policy. But as Loki correctly points out, there is no point in doing that until the RfC runs has its course, and depending on how that goes it may prove unnecessary. I would have thought a page block a week ago would have been better, but apparently the admins do not agree.

And lest I add to the toxicity here, I will now return to thuch me more civil topic of modern-day fascism. Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" Agree - Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

This thread has gone on for long enough, and as Obama once said, it's "shedding more heat than light" at this point. There's clearly no consensus for any kind of action against Basboll, nor for any other kind of action, and has just devolved into angry arguing. Several threads on the article talk page have also devolved into simiar acrimony, and probably need hatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there was never any need for any kind of action against Basboll, they have raised valid concerns but there is a chorus of editors who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I really do think that admin action is required and that is to lock the page for an extended period whilst this is resolved at WP:DRN. Otherwise I can easily see this ending at arbcom, this needs to be nipped in the bud. WCM_email 18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you think elevates this to an ArbCom case? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, it does warrant intervention by an admin experienced in BLP cases. Whilst the discussion has improved in the last 24 hrs and I'm assuming because of the scrutiny here. However, if the discussions there had continued in the same vein it was definitely headed there. WCM_email 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what WP:DRN is for? It's not just a place to find a mediator for any conflict. It's specifically for resolving small content disputes where no other dispute resolution process is occurring. Neither half of that is true because of the ongoing RFC.

My personal guideline is that an RFC is more appropriate when the dispute is between a few relatively-concrete options, and WP:DRN is more appropriate for chaotic disputes where exact wordings themselves are hard to pin down. Pre-RFC I could see either of those being appropriate, but now that an RFC is happening, we need to let it run and implement the consensus agreed on there, if any, before considering a separate dispute resolution process in a separate location. All taking this to WP:DRN right now will do is get it closed immediately because of the existing RFC. Loki (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that Firetangledfeathers and Hemiauchenia voted just now, I would like to still wait for a moment before closing this and for the closer to check if there's still no consensus or if there's one now. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Basboll has jumped the shark now and changed my vote accordingly. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd also like to see this closed. Thomas B (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm seconding the closure request. It appears there's consensus that imo is now unlikely to change. The sooner this is closed, the less vitriol will continue to spill, and there's still much potential for that. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this end for a while, to be honest. Does someone have to post it at WP:CR? You'll get no objection from me. Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just scroll off if people stop commenting. I think it's best if this is dropped now. I'll give @Thomas Basboll a WP:CTOP alert, and the most efficient course of action, if an editor wants to report a problem in future, is to do so at WP:AE. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a request for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article

XMcan (talk · contribs) was page blocked from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk page for disruptive editing. Since then, the majority of their editing has been to James A. Lindsay and that article's talk page. Their focus has been to remove mention of Lindsay's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]). There has been other disruption along the way, such as reverting attempts to add sourcing or labeling edits they disagree with vandalism. I submit that the disruption the block was intended to prevent has simply moved to a new article. Can something be done about this? MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out here is that XMcan said, here, on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that it was decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns about that article (in a context where they were generally discussing, and showing familiarity with, decade-old Wikipedia disputes on that topic.) Yet XMcan's edit history has only five edits prior to December 2022, none on that topic. The dispute on that topic a decade ago involved a large number of WP:SPIs, throwaway accounts, and so on, many of whom ended up facing sanctions for the sort of behavior XMcan is exhibiting now; I suspect it's possible that XMcan is among that number and switched accounts to evade scrutiny. Their response when I asked them about this - which I think was a reasonable thing to ask, under the circumstances, in order to give them a chance to explain the discrepancy - was to deflect. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had never even heard of CMCT/FSCT until November '23 when I first stumbled upon the Lindsay BLP. The dinosaur reference was simply an inartful quip about my age. Can we please refrain from making further bad-faith aspersions? XMcan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @XMcan:, regardless of your age, how can you have "broached our concerns" a decade ago about something you first heard of last year? Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I remember about the post in question is that I had just finished reading the 2014 Slate article, which explains the history behind FSCT/CMCT/CM pages and how they were merged. I was excited to learn that even the great JW shared my misgivings about the CM=CMCT equivalency. In my excitement to show how JW and I are on the same side of this issue, I misspoke. BTW, it was that Talk post that led to my p-block. XMcan (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To state the obvious, there's no guarantee Jimbo was ever on the same side as you, at least in a temporal sense. What Jimbo felt in 2014 might not be what they felt nearly 10 years later, and you didn't feel it until recently. Those of us who are actually dinosaurs in a Wikipedia sense have been on various "sides" of this throughout the years. Plenty of editors still feel the same they did 10 years ago, but some don't.

  Anyway if you had offered this explanation when asked the first time, I think plenty of us would have been willing to accept that at face value. (I mean I think we can all accept you misspoke, but there are various ways that might have happened.)

  But the fact you've been persistently evasive about it and we've had to drag something resembling an explanation out if you, means the existing doubts are compounded. There might not be enough for any sanction, but we're all free to disengage from you when it isn't necessary. In this case, while you seem to have raised some legitimate concerns (without having looked at the sources), I have no desire to help someone who could be a sock; and the BLP issues seem to minor to worry so I doubt I'll look into it further. I might not be the only one.

  Consider this carefully the next time you decide to evade legitimate concerns about your activity. Plenty of us actual dinosaurs, for good reason based on long experience, detest socks, and are very reluctant to get anywhere near anything involving them unless it's to counter them and we feel we can do it fairly. If there are socking concerns and these are unanswered, this might lead to the same result. Sometimes the concerns are great enough that we get involved anyway, but not always. Socks never seem to understand that they're generally achieving the opposite of what they seem to aim to achieve.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To give a different example of what I mean about the temporal issue, let's say an 18 year old, opposed to same-sex marriage says Barack Obama shares the same views as me! In that cases it's an even weirder statement since we actually know he doesn't. Yes when this person was about 2 years old, Obama may have said something similar about same-sex marriage. But by the time this person was about 7, Obama had already came out fully in favour of same-sex marriage Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage. So to get so excited about the fact their views matched at different points in time, is just odd. To be clear, I'm not aware Jimbo has expressed any differing views on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's not something I care about. I just find it odd you'd get so excited about something nearly 10 years old, when the world especially the US and Wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure Jimbo Wales has moved on a lot since then. For example, this was before Trump's presidency run and so before post-truth, alternative facts, fake news and the Intellectual dark web took on their modern realities in the US political environment. (For example, consider that Dave Rubin was still with the TYT at the time.) It was also at a time when Fox News caused some concerns but their news arm was often an acceptable source without question especially outside of politics and science since they hadn't yet gone all in with the election results denial angle. I mean heck Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources didn't even exist, and WP:DAILYMAIL style source deprecation had never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there any reason to believe that extending the partial block to also cover James A. Lindsay would do any good? Having already migrated from one venue to another, taking the disruption with them, it seems likely that this would just be repeated in a third place. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could do the trick but I am doubtful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

XMcan's reverts here are not disruptive. This article has a blatant BLP issue, and XMcan has challenged content that I have also challenged, within a WP:BRD process. What's being attempted here in this ANI is to silence and minimize dissent through sanctioning. This is a move we've seen many times before, and it's the reason we have a huge bias problem across Wikipedia when it comes to politically-charged topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As Jweiss11 correctly points out, this is first and foremost a content dispute. Editors can scan through the current Talk discussion and assure themselves that my posts are civil and on-topic, unlike some other posts, which have, in some cases, focused on the messenger rather than the message. Whenever I mentioned the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory in Talk, it was solely in relation to the BLP and not as a soapbox about the CMCT article. (e.g., [36]) I’ve learned my lesson from Valereee’s ban not to soapbox in Talk, a fact that they can hopefully confirm in this ANI.

Meanwhile, Aquillion and MrOllie have been repeatedly trying to add new controversial material to the BLP without addressing already raised problems with the existing statements/sources. (e.g., [37][38][39] ) When challenged on policy grounds such as WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and in contravention of consensus from prior discussions, and in contravention of WP:BLPUNDEL, they still restore this content falsely claiming consensus or asserting that there is no need for further discussion.[40][41][42] This approach is not helpful on any article, let alone on a BLP, where the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

In summary, rather than solving this content dispute through Talk or bringing it to the appropriate venue, such as the BLP noticeboard, MrOllie and Aquillion are attempting to silence and intimidate dissenting voices. This constitutes a misuse of the ANI process. Therefore, a boomerang for both parties should be considered. XMcan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. XMcan, it's completely appropriate to call out an editor's behavior in a content dispute; that's not focussing on the messenger. It isn't inappropriate to ask about a statement you've made that implied you might be a returned editor using a new account. It's also completely appropriate for someone to bring what they in good faith believe is a behavior issue to ANI.

That said, at a BLP, continuing to argue against content when there's not clear consensus to include it is something we should encourage. Especially when it's at articles about US conservatives. We do in fact have a tendency to treat such subjects less neutrally.

That said, XMcan is a bit long-winded -- XM, I'd definitely recommend you learn how to write short -- and it's very hard to tell whether there's bludgeoning or sealioning going on. I just brought a case of very clear sealioning here, the worst I've ever personally been involved with, and only two admins apparently were willing to read the diffs because proving sealioning requires so many of them.

Is there any reason one of you hasn't opened an RfC or taken this to BLPN or NPOVN or whatever's the most appropriate noticeboard? Valereee (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question and comment Question: was the tban for a specific article or a topic. If an editor is tbanned from article A then they aren't allowed to edit the article or the talk page. If they are tbanned from the topic A then they can't edit article A or content about A at related articles. I would not view an article ban as a topic ban. Comment: I don't see any clear examples of problematic behavior at the BLP in question. I do see an editor who perhaps should be more brief/selective in their replies but that is about it. Certainly nothing that requires intervention or blocking based on what seem on the surface to be legitimate BLP concerns. Note that one may ultimately not have consensus for their BLP concerns but that doesn't mean their concerns were without merit. Springee (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was no tban, it was a p-block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edit warring continues while this ANI is open [43]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [44] article in question and do not be taken in by the misleading summaries offered in this thread. Promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory by Lindsay and the other figures examined is the main topic of the citation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that content is in dispute and given this is a BLP and NOCON it's probably best to run a RfC to decide if the material should be included. Springee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edits like these really make this feel like sealioning. A simple search for "cultural marxism" shows that it's mentioned in the article. There are several other examples including edit with misleading edit summaries. I think it's worth noting that after being banned from editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory wikipedia page, the first thing XMcan did was to attempt to remove any mention of CMCT from another page. I don't think reaching consensus will be possible as long as he is able to edit the page. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing that's confusing a lot of people (and giving the false impression that XMCan is "sealioning") is a failure to differentiate between 1) "cultural Marxism" as an observation about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly and 2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that a bunch of Jews somewhere are secretly plotting to destroy civilization. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference, it’s just that modern mainstream discourse doesn’t bring up the Jew thing because it looks bad and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) What? There's a significant difference. The former is Marxist cultural analysis, the latter is the unfounded conspiracy theory based on Jews taking over the world via socialism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) An observation [by the right] about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly is certainly not Marxist cultural analysis.  Tewdar  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "The term 'cultural Marxism' is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an 'antisemitic conspiracy theory' (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish)." - James Lindsay in Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish. They aren't "against the west" because they are Jewish, they're against the west because they want a communist revolution. It's a conspiracy and if not antisemitic on it's face, then it can still be used by antisemites due to it's close relation to the original antisemitic conspiracy theory. A claim can be antisemitic without the claimant knowingly being antisemitic or a self proclaimed antisemite. It's a distinction without a difference (at least in Lindsay's case). Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tewdar, that's an observation that been made by many centrist, moderates, and liberals as well. Pokerplayer513, that's a misreading of what Lindsay is saying. He says more on the topic here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Can you give me an example of any centrists, moderates, or liberals using the term 'cultural Marxism' to describe what contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly? The OED says 'cultural Marxism' is used chiefly among right-wing commentators, but I don't really see any use of this sense by anyone I would describe as centrist.  Tewdar  05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Any RS that say something similar Jweiss? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I don't want to get drawn into an argument about content here, but for the record here is the quote from Lindsay that Jweiss11 says we are 'misreading' - The term “cultural Marxism” is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish). It seems to be that Pokerplayer513 paraphrased it accurately. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Pokerplayer513 said "Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish." What Lindsay actually says is: "The most apt meaning of “cultural Marxism” is that the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context (see also, conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism)." This is not a "conspiracy theory" nor does it have anything to do with anyone being Jewish. This is a description of leftist political beliefs held by some number of people. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tedwar, I think you are correct that the term "cultural Marxism" is explicitly used mostly by conservatives/right-wingers, but there are centrist, moderates, and liberals who criticize the contents of "cultural Marxism", as defined by Lindsay, e.g. "conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism." Sam Harris, John McWhorter, and Steve Pinker immediately come to mind. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I’d like to see any of those guys use the term “cultural Marxism”, never mind that Sam Harris is only a few steps away from Lindsay and his ilk. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Those are two different quotes. The more relevant quote here is obviously the former. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I think the most relevant quote about what Lindsay believes obviously starts with "the most apt meaning..." Jweiss11 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) No, the most relevant quote is the one where he admits it’s a conspiracy theory. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, a political critique is not a "conspiracy theory" merely because one disagrees with it. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Is it a conspiracy theory when Lindsay calls it one in his own words? I really don't like to discuss content in ANI threads, but this has been a helpful demonstration of what it is like to discuss with XMCan and/or Jweiss11 on Talk:James A. Lindsay or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) You can argue against cultural Marxism being a conspiracy theory all you want but the point is that this isn’t about you, this isn’t about your opinions, and your opinions are based on a questionable reading of an extremely unreliable primary source that is clearly outside your area of expertise (I’m not insulting you— you edit almost exclusively about American football, not political theory) Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) MrOllie, Lindsay explains that "Cultural marxism" is used differently by different people and then goes on to describe what he things is the "most apt" meaning. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, I'm confident in my reading here. That I edit prolifically about American football here doesn't obviate my ability to understand other topics. A lot of people are offering their opinions here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) If you want to keep arguing about this, the talk page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is thataway and full of editors who have heard these arguments a million times. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) What I'm arguing about, fundamentally, is that MrOllie accusations toward XMcan are flawed, and that XMcan is correct in that we have a BLP violation at the Lindsay article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) By "That it is possible to see “cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory—both legitimately and not" Lindsay means there is a legitimate conspiracy by "cultural marxists" to "achieve some form of communism" and there is an illegitimate conspiracy theory "by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain." Both conspiracies, both led by jewish theorists, but one of them apparently isn't antisemitic because it doesn't blame Judaism. Also Jweiss11, I don't think that quote can be used in isolation. If it said something like "oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is covertly re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context by it's adherents without the knowledge of the general public" it would be more fitting, but that is something garnered from context. Also RS > primary source. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Lindsay is not asserting that the "legitimate conspiracy" of cultural Marxists is led by Jewish theorists. While Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, as were a majority of the core members of the Frankfurt School, their Jewishness was orthogonal to their ideas and beliefs, and, more importantly, those advocating for culturally Marxist principles and policies in the current era are not overwhelmingly Jewish. He would point to thought leaders like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Ibram X. Kendi. I don't believe any of those individuals happen to be Jewish in any way, ethnically or religiously. Also, the extent to which the efforts of such people can be considered a "conspiracy" is questionable. Is every political project involving more than one person a conspiracy? Any political campaign for public office is going to involve two or more people coordinating their efforts in service of private, often secret, strategies. So is every political campaign a conspiracy? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Talk page thataway Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) In fact amateur philosophy department thataway, off the site Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to highlight some recent contributions I've made to the Lindsay BLP that are unrelated to the FSCT/CMCT issue:

1. I identified a missing date of birth in one of the sources.[45]
2. I corrected an error regarding Lindsay's undergraduate degree, which had been incorrectly listed since “forever”.[46]
3. I eliminated duplicate citations.[47]
4. I attempted to improve BLP tags and LP descriptors, although I ultimately abandoned this effort due to a lack of consensus.[48]

In contrast to my contributions, it's worth examining the efforts of those who advocate for my ban. Have their actions truly enhanced the quality of the BLP? Upon reviewing their recent contributions, it becomes apparent that their focus predominantly revolves around portraying Lindsay in a negative light. XMcan (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m done standing off to the side on this: XMcan should be topic banned from modern politics. Jumping from an article you were blocked from for pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning to a directly adjacent one is pure system gaming. I’m also calling out Jweiss11 here for defending XMcan by baselessly claiming Cultural Marxism is not a far-right conspiracy theory but rather some moderate mainstream opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could Dronebogus kindly provide evidence where Valereee stated that I was p-blocked for “pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning”? It's important for discussions to be based on factual information rather than mischaracterizations and aspersions. Additionally, your comment directed to Jweiss11 feels to me like potstirring. XMcan (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/XMcan states you were blocked for “disruptive editing”. All I recall you doing during that discussion was not taking a hint that your opinions were solidly rejected, so I’m making an inference here. It’s hard to find the block notice when you’re constantly deleting your talk page entries with no archive. But the point isn’t the specifics, it’s the fact that you were blocked for disruptive editing about a particular topic on one page, then moved on to another page on the same topic. Either you stop dancing around the edges of your editing restriction, or you will eventually get some kind of stronger sanction. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The assertion that I am “constantly deleting my talk page entries” is another gross misrepresentation, easily disproven by reviewing my Talk page history. Unfortunately, Dronebogus persists in their months-old campaign of distortions and mischaracterizations.[49] XMcan (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I delete some messages, especially if they look like canned warnings (which I think you understand are often considered patronizing to experienced users). I never delete block messages from admins, in the spirit of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

as i opined a few days ago there, a page-ban from an article should be considered a de facto ban from the topic in any other article. if we aren't willing to extend the blocking rules in that direction then a formal discussion of topicbanning XMCan from Cultural Marxism should be initiated here. ValarianB (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban for XMcan regarding cultural marxism. I'm not sure if this is the right venue for this, but seeing more experienced editors like Dronebogus say the same thing and that XMcan continues to sealion on the James Lindsay talk page then I also agree. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban for for XMcan regarding cultural Marxism. The repeated harping on XMCan alleged "sealioning" is an obvious example of failing to assume good faith by editors who are frustrated to have their opinions challenged. XMcan is fundamentally being punished for vocalizing a minority opinion, specifically a minority that challenges a leftist orthodoxy that is widely entrenched across Wikipedia in topic areas related to contemporary politics. And part of the reason his opinion is a minor one here and now is that other editors that might agree with him have been sanctioned in the past after having similar Kafka traps applied to them. Do we want to rinse and repeat that history or strive for a future of Wikipedia is that fairer both in treatment of it editors and its presentation of content? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure does feel like The Trial. XMcan (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about “leftist orthodoxy” being “widely enforced on Wikipedia” I’m just not gonna take your opinion seriously. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, I’m afraid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I agree that reality has liberal bias. But the bias I'm talking about is leftist, not liberal (i.e. left of liberal), much like many of opinion sources that have been cited in the Lindsay article, e.g. Current Affairs, Jacobin. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is not an overwhelming number of “leftist […] opinion sources” cited in the article, even for “cultural marxism”. I’m seeing academic papers and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Plus I don’t think citing a leftist critique of someone misconstruing Marxism is necessarily a bad thing. I’ve seen right-leaning opinion sources cited for some topics as well— it’s just that this shouldn’t be one of them because serious academic literature strongly disputes their conclusions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Dronebogus, @Jweiss11, @Pokerplayer513, @MrOllie, @XMcan, anyone else I'm missing. Please stop arguing content here. It's absolutely 100% counterproductive to getting admin eyes on the issue. Could someone please collapse all this content stuff, I'm getting like 30 seconds of connectivity at a time. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it's probably time to consider some CT editing restrictions for James A. Lindsay. XMcan has made a suggestion that seems helpful. Perhaps a consensus required restriction for sources? (FTR, I am not closely following the entire huge discussion there; I'm out of town with spotty access and am only editing sporadically, I don't actually want to become the enforcing admin myself right now but would support someone else setting it.) Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need some sort of extraordinary solution implemented across any topics that could be construed as adjacent to “Cultural Marxism”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This might qualify for WP:CTOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Yotrages

On the article about singer Wizkid, User: Yotrages is purposely altering direct quotes and violating WP: NPOV. Following my correction of his fake altered quotes in the "Legacy" section of the article, he's continuously restoring them despite being notified for it. Even after a lengthy message left by User: Vanderwaalforces on his talk page, he refuses to understand that a statement like “Wizkid is regarded as an African living legend” is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind is editing per his own opinion and violating WP:NPOV, he has removed lots of fairly written and reliably sourced contents without reason. He's also owning the article, he has already changed the article's lead section, in which I didn't revert. So he's also trying to change the whole page without tangible reasons, and based on some rubbish excuses. And he's even accusing me of being a fan of the artist, in which i'm not. Yotrages (talk) 16: 29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“without reason”? I have written in every single edit summary of the article the reasons of my edits, that are: removing altered fabricated quotes, change the wording per WP: NPOV, and fixing genres per Wikipedia:Independent sources. Everyone can check that you altered almost every quote in the legacy section, please stop it.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

These are your edits. You surely have some nerve accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. This is you, caught red handed altering quotes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: @SarekOfVulcan: has increased the protection level of the Wizkid article to allow only administrators to edit it, which is a prudent measure to end the dispute between you two. As I mentioned here, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article and address the NPOV issues, this is a simple matter that can be resolved without involving any administrator who has other priorities to deal with. The WP:3RR is there to advise us, but you both disregarded it.

@SarekOfVulcan please I would suggest that, in the future, the protection level should be reduced as its current level won't allow other productive editors who are not administrator to edit the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The full protection is set to expire tomorrow, so this shouldn't be an issue. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind can you heard that? we both violated WP:NPOV, so don't act like you're doing a good job to the article. And I wasn't caught red-handed or whatever I rephrased those qoutes, and about the first one, I gave you three tangible source deeming him "One of the greatest". so I think you're on your own. Yotrages (talk) 4:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages, no one said that Dolly's edits violated POV, but I'll say that your edits were not productive. Besides the overlinking and the excessive quoting, there's statements like this, "Wizkid's contributions to the Nigerian music industry have earned him several achievements"--no, he did not get a Grammy for contributing to the Nigerian music industry; he got one for best video, apparently. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that @Yotrages: is continuing his editing with personal attacks, removing POV templates to articles with active discussions on their talk pages (1, 2) DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more falsified quotes, as noted by @Schazjmd: DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

sneakily removing other editors' comments during active discussions in Schazjmd talk page DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages uses a mobile editor, so I believe them when they said that removal was inadvertent. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

He's still falsifying quotes. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Today you're edit warning over multiple articles. This needs to stop immediately... I've asked for Chris Brown to be fully protected. Moxy- 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is not nice for Yotrages to still be making these types of edits and looks like they have a WP:CIR issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Salto Loco and continued tendentious editing

Salto Loco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been blocked three times and warned multiple times for tendentious editing (including vandalism) in RUSUKR topics. Now we had this, which is either vandalism or POV pushing borderline vandalism. Probably a long-term block is needed now. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits such as this one suggest perhaps a topic ban is needed as a minimum. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vandalism, and a long-term block (possibly an indef block) is needed. This is not the first such edit. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user (to me) seems to be at times productive but at other times a problem. Definitely disruptive and a problem user, but also someone who if improved would be valuable to the project.

I think an indef block (with a WP:LASTCHANCE appeal) would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. If he stops his problem behavior, great, a valuable editor. If he doesn't, its another revert and an extra block. I also support an indef TBAN. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Long-term subtly disruptive editing

• The One I Left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've communicated my concerns about The One I Left's behavior directly to them several times over the years.[50] Unfortunately, their edits have continued to involve policy violations,[51] misleading summaries,[52] and questionable lead section changes.[53] The reason I believe this has largely gone unnoticed is that their edits usually involve large chunks of text, requiring a closer inspection. On top of that, they mostly write "added (sourced) content" as summaries. A click on a random recent edit with this summary showed an unsourced claim being added (i.e., the actor's "mixed reviews").[54] Here,[55] they even removed content. During July–August 2023, I found a series of blanket reverts by multiple users that I believe accurately represents the same issues that persist today.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] KyleJoan^talk 04:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:KyleJoan and I have always had interesting conversations, but my edits have always been in good faith. I think it is not uncommon for people to have disagreements with other people's edits. I have never added anything that is purposely misleading, or false. When i edit I try to add context and sources. You can disagree with me on specific edits and thats fine. I'm sure I could go through other people's pages and disagree with their edits and find some fault with them but I'm not a disruptive editor. I add quality to articles, I don't tare them down Over the years editors have complimented my on the quality of which I add to articles. In 2021 I received a Precious Prize number 2549 for my contributions from User:Gerda Arendt. Again I love discussing specific edits, or changes. I'm not editing to be disruptive but to add quality and I'm open to any and all debate.The One I Left (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You first received a notice about adding unsourced material in March 2019. Almost five years later, you wrote that a BLP subject's film "received mixed reviews but was a commercial success" without sourcing. Do you believe that your good intentions exempt you from the requirement that users adhere to policies and suggestion that we write accurate edit summaries? KyleJoan^talk 14:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Which film are you referring to? Again, I'm open to conversations and debate. But I wouldn't describe my edits as being disruptive or vandalism. I received a Barnstar last year from an editor, I create quality articles, and add sources, and prop up empty articles. I could criticize you when you removed sourced content relating to the entire family history from the Finding Your Roots segment on Sunny Hostin's page.[63]. On one of your edit summaries wrote, "Whaaaat?"[64]. But I don't wanna criticize you or anyone. I feel like this feels like a personal attack when we could have discussions about it. Again I'm always available to speak out or admit a mistake or typo. Just reach out and I will fix it or admit I made a mistake. We are all human. The intention and acts are never disruptive and always in good faith to create a better article.The One I Left (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of this user's edits seem constructive - I understand your frustration for their misleading edit summaries but it seems like a very small percentage of their edits meet this criteria and even then I don't see how they are made in bad faith, as often it looks like some material is sourced and some is not. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I recognize The One I Left does a lot of good work. What's frustrating is encountering the same issues year after year, especially after various notices urging them to exercise more care. If I were to point out every error, I'd write on their talk page almost weekly. They haven't even fixed the errors mentioned here, instead opting to interpret policy issues as "disagreements" and evidence of failures to cite sources as "a personal attack". How is it appropriate after 14,000 edits to add unsourced material sometimes (even under the umbrella of good faith)? KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your problems with my editing tend to veer towards personal disagreements and phrasing issues more than policy issues. Like I also said I could nitpick and point out every error you make and every edit summary you've made but I think that's unfair and wouldn't put you through that. Again, I would not describe my edits as disruptive. I have never added anything that would be considered false and I've never vandalized. I understand the feedback that I need to be more descriptive in my edit summaries but again I'm not a disruptive editor, I do good work, and I act in good faith.The One I Left (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Since this report, The One I Left has made at least one edit containing unsourced claims (i.e., "received negatively", "received mixed reviews").[65] Is unsourced, not "considered false" material acceptable–in a BLP, no less? Is it others' responsibility to monitor and clean up after an experienced user who should know better? KyleJoan^talk 01:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading my edits or just making assumptions? I literally sourced and had direct quotes.

• • "received negatively" - "which was received negatively with Frank Rich of The New York Times writing it, "isn't a play - it's a temper tantrum in two acts... One of the more shocking lapses of Mr. Albee's writing is that he makes almost no attempt even to pretend that Himself is anything other than a maudlin stand-in for himself, with the disappearing arm representing an atrophied talent.""
  • "received mixed reviews" - "Albee's plays during the 1980s received mixed reviews with Michael Billington of The Guardian writing, "American dramatists invariably end up as victims of their own myth: in a success-crazed culture they are never forgiven for failing to live up to their own early masterpieces. But if Edward Albee has suffered the same cruel fate as Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams, he has kept on trucking" The One I Left (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

    This user's confidence in citing one review to support a claim about mixed reviews shows they either refuse to adhere to policies or they do not understand NPOV, V, and OR. KyleJoan^talk 05:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can remove it if you really want, but I'm just adding one critics opinion which was mixed for his later work. Again this is not disruptive work but I'm open to debate as to wording, phrasing etc. However you initial claim that I had no sourcing is false. The One I Left (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the mere presence of a ref next to a claim constitutes appropriate and sufficient sourcing whether that ref verifies that claim or not? KyleJoan^talk 07:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply sourcing a quote lol You seem to be making inaccurate allegations against me saying I didn't source any content when I have specified quotes and sources. Again, if you want to debate the phrasing that's fine and I'm open to it but it's not disruptive.The One I Left (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to ping these users and ask them to clarify that your edits were not in fact unsourced, poorly sourced, or plain incompatible with the sources cited?[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] KyleJoan^talk 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are totally misrepresenting a lot of these edits. I don't think you're arguing in good faith at all unlike my edits. Most of edits are minor phrasing disputes over whether to add certain awards or credits in lead or not. Which is fine and totally up for debate! One of them even described my edits as being in good faith. The MJ the Musical reverts were around one particular user wanting to sanitize that article from any negative reviews! So they were in fact disrupting the page not me. They didn't want any negative reviews in the article and in the end a consensus was made to include the reviews.The One I Left (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's impossible to misrepresent reverts that blatantly say "unsourced", "inaccurate", and "WP:PROVEIT". That said, I'll refrain from commenting further if no other user believes this is actionable. KyleJoan^talk 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will admit to accidentally misapplying a nomination towards Paul Dano for a role. We all make mistakes and it was quickly reverted. For that I sincerely apologize and was embarrassed when the mistake was made. But a lot of the examples you name are out of context. The "unsourced" allegation you reference here, [76] refers to when I added a comedian who was already listed as being an influence in the sourced article! So despite not understanding the reversion, I just added multiple sources on top of that other article to back my claim[77]. Regardless I'll stop commenting too. Clearly we have differences of opinions, but I think debate, conversation etc should be allowed and encouraged as well as the ability to recognize one acting in good faith. Not every editor is going to agree on which titles, accolades get listed in the lead or phrasing etc. But I'm not a disruptive editor.The One I Left (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel

Cornsimpel (talk | contribs) is a user who's been active in Armenia-Azerbaijan and related topics since December 2023, being completely inactive for 2 years previously. I’ve noticed their edits in Anatolia article and reverted them because of the extended confirmed restriction on these topics. I have also warned them of the restriction [78] and reverted other edits covered by it. Nevertheless, Cornsimpel reverted me [79] in violation of the restriction, then made a spree of edits claiming “self-rv” [80] when in actuality they still ended up moving the whole Etymology section which covered Armenian genocide, erasure of Armenia mention and place name changes in the aftermath of the genocide, etc, to the very bottom of the article, just like in their original edit that I reverted. Cornsimpel has done the same thing in other articles under the restriction, reverting and restoring their edits [81], [82] claiming "not within ec restriction" (see sections that these articles too are literally under the restriction, with explicit mention of Armenian genocide [83], [84]). And in similar fashion such as in Eastern Anatolia Region, moved down or just outright removed any mention of Armenian genocide, place name changes in the genocide aftermath, see Anatolia.

The user then proceeded to WP:GAME extended confirmed restriction by doing 100+ edits in one day, such rapid activity was never shown before in their contributions history, neither the type of edits like random inconsequential article moves never done before by this user, presumably in order to game extended confirmed faster [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90].

All in all, it’s safe to conclude the user was violating the restriction while doing POV edits and restoring them, then in one article claims “self-rv” while literally just doing same edit as before (moving info down), and in another claims to not be within ec restriction when clearly the article was under the restriction. Then, presumably in order to justify all of these restriction violations and POV, goes on a 100+ edits spree never done before in their contributions' history, and games extended confirmed restriction. I believe the user should at least be topic banned from Armenia-Azebaijan and related articles simply because they lack the competence and first thing is to revert violating the restriction they've been warned about hours before, edit in a POV manner to begin with, and game the system afterwards. Vanezi (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little take aback by this complaint. Vanezi, you reverted many other editors on the Anatolia article. I did not think that was right and I explained that to you in an edit summary. I asked you to get in touch with me if you wanted me to clean out my own edits. You did not reply to me there or on my talk page where I invited you to raise additional concerns with me. I feel a little bit like you baited me telling me you were reverting because of an EC restriction and then waiting until after I made EC to file this complaint. It's true that I did feel more engaged than after so many of my edits were reverted, but also because I'm very interested in the subject I am working on (earthquakes and geology). I haven't been editing as often because I did a lot of research before making my edits. But, I'm very proud of the work I did today by the way, the tectonic plate articles are very difficult articles and I have been working on them for hours, and all year for the work I did to make today's edits so I don't see it as WP:GAME, I was just very well prepared to make a large number of difficult, substantial edits quickly. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel reverted again shortly after gaming extended confirmed by making rapid 100+ edits in one day, never done before in their contributions. Their edit is just a tendentious POV change. They added an unsourced section, but what's alot more concerning is that they tweaked the lead and an already existing section of Etymology, both of which were sourced and covered the article's relation to Armenian genocide, Western Armenia, Turkification and Place name changes in Turkey in the genocide's aftermath. From individual summary of their edits, you can see that the edits themselves don't make sense such as removing sourced content from lead and doing original research changes with bogus edit summary [91], removing sources from a caption then adding the same picture with a completely different caption and unexplained quotations [92].

Same thing in another article, again reverting [93] and restoring mostly their POV edits which again include removal of entire reliable sourced paragraph about Armenian genocide and Western Armenia relation to the name change [94].

I think it's evident that the user isn't concerned about POV issues at all which I already mentioned above, and the first thing they do after gaming extended confirmed status is to edit-war and restore their tendentious original research edits which have no consensus and in several instances are just reliable sources removals and original research rewording. That's why I have stated that Cornsimpel hasn’t shown the competency required to edit in a contentious topic area such as Armenia-Azerbaijan, and especially concerning Armenian genocide. Vanezi (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How can the user just randomly change sourced content and remove sources then reword with their own WP:OR? This is unacceptable. Their edit summary makes no sense. They also remove historical info but now from the body. After changing the lead and body, they then remove vasts of citations from the map, remove the map as "fake", then re-add the same map with pov scare quotes, even putting scare quotes on Armenia.

They then make more POV changes (keep in mind this is happening while the ANI is up) adding additional completely unsourced doubt ("some") and scare quotes to the already obscured lead thanks to their previous OR and removal of several sources and changes to sourced content. They add more "some" doubt and a cn tag to the lead they themselves had previously erased sources from, then add the same Oxford source pretending to add a new citation when they were the one who removed the citation in the first place and obscured the wording in a POV original research manner, then restored the same source but now changed the text to add MOS:DOUBT despite it being clear RS. They also keep adding scare quotes as evident by the diffs. And they added completely irrelevant to the article info to the lead and body that has no connection to Eastern Anatolia region's name changes; this seems like an attempt to push more POV in any ways possible, even if the article is irrelevant to the added info and their added source doesn't make the connection to the Eastern Anatolia name change either.

Can admins take a look at this user's behavior? Despite this ANI case, they are continuing to push POV and tendentious editing. Vanezi (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like my edits. I really am. I try to make high quality edits and I hope that others benefit from that work. I do wish this discussion were occurring on the article talk page so there would be a clear history of talk page discussion and editing. For this reason, I am not planning to make further edits to the article. I simply don't find it appropriate for the edits should be occurring independently of the discussion, and I am uncomfortable with the discussion currently, since you are not discussing anything with me. And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work:

1. Quotes are commonly used for place names in discussions of toponyms for conceptual clarify and the benefit of readers, like most forms of punctuation.
2. Are you accusing me of having a too pro-Armenia POV? I thought that was generally a consensus view on this project but, as I have stated, this is not my main area of involvement with this project. Was it my edit calling "historic Armenia" the "native national home of indigenous Armenians"? Or the part that toponyms were changed "to erase the name and memory of the historic Armenian national home that now fell within Turkey's borders"? I don't think these are "original research". I feel the statements are supported by the citations in the article, if not the exact verbatim words I added. Christ, where did I go wrong. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• "And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work"

The user must be trolling at this point. I have shown diff by diff the problematic, absurd and tendentious nature of this user's edits and even edit-summaries in the article, the user's reply is to describe their "work" as "earnest and good faith". I believe an admin action is due for this case. Vanezi (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person. I hope that you are able to find a way to contribute to this project constructively. Cornsimpel (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person.

This is a personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike it, or else you may face sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for the clear personal attack. I further think that between the personal attack and the pretty clear GAME editing, Cornsimpel should be indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. However, as they were not given a {{alert/first}} notice prior to these edits, I do not believe I have CTOPS authority to unilaterally impose said sanction at this time and thus am instead proposing it as a community sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support tban per the evidence above [95], [96]. Vanezi (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [97] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

82.22.44.102

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

I've come across 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few times while patrolling on Huggle, they're making consistent MOS changes to train classes in articles. Now normally I would bring this up on a relevant WikiProject, but their talk page does seem to indicate that they are WP:NOTHERE so I'm thinking that this might be an WP:LTA. Does anyone know any more information? FozzieHey (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. FozzieHey (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note their user talk page, shows some prior history by the person, if not from that IP. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

They're very clearly a sock of somebody, and are very clearly not interested in editing collaboratively so blocking is definitely the way to go. @HJ Mitchell and Redrose64: are you familiar with this editor? Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If most of this IP's edits are being reverted as unhelpful then a one-month block might be considered. The statement on their user talk might be viewed as a promise to evade any block that might be imposed: "PLEASE DON'T BOTHER BLOCKING ME, I KEEP GETTING A NEW USER TALK PAGE NUMBER EVERY YEAR. There is another IP at Special:Contributions/82.30.152.3 that shares their interest in British railways, also begins with "82." and generally has all their changes reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've often come across this guy, one of their "tells" is to replace the valid link Diesel multiple unit with the link DMU, which goes to a dab page. I don't think that I've seem them do anything useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a range block personally. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Whois reports that both IPs belong to Virgin Media, which is one of the largest IPs in the UK so any range block will have to be done carefully to avoid collateral damage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some form of soft block will at least pin them to an account? Geardona (talk to me?) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs) for one month, due to the constant style changes with no willingness to discuss. Let me know if they return from another IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think a range block will cause more damage than it would solve. I'm not entirely sure if 82.30.152.3 is the same person, as that IP focuses more on blatant vandalism as opposed to styling changes. If it is though, the only range which covers both of those IPs is 82.0.0.0/11, which contains 2,097,152 IP addresses. I guess all we can do now is see how easy it is for them to change their IP. FozzieHey (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Vikepro is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference. In his profile earlier he praise BJP and scolded Congress by citing fake scam and corruptions. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. Please take proper steps against him. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread on them. As per the top of the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment two steps above appears to be posted later than the comment below, who appears to be the actual OP. Of course, Vikepro didn't notify this user either. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Might have been my issue in merging the sections. But there's also the empty section, so not entirely sure what either is up to besides edit warring. Star Mississippi 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference.I am continuously adding citations about the added article and this user repeatedly removing my article without any proper reasons. Evrytime i am giving proper reasons for my act but this user never bothering fo give reasons to remove my article. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. This user is new in Wikipedia as this user joined this platform 26 days ago. I think this user is paid that's why he is spreading fake information.Please take proper steps against him.Vikepro (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have full-protected Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance for a week. You're both edit warring. If the disruption continues to move elsewhere, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sir, i have added the valid citations so wheres my fault? The other editor who is removing my content is not giving any reasons and valid citations. Its mean the ither user is doing vandalism. You can research the news articles which i have given in the citations then you will realise that who is correct. Vikepro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Can I ask for a favor? @Vikepro created a user page at the other user with a WP:PA in edit summary. Could you delete the page as it wasn't created by them [98]? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done @DaxServer. That's unsurprisingly, what lead to the prior block: User_talk:Vikepro#November_2023 cc @UtherSRG Star Mississippi 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  This comment of theirs is concerning aswell. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  On second look, both are still edit warring. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours and @Vikepro for two weeks following an earlier one week block. Leaving longer form notes on their Talks. Star Mississippi 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi The user is just editing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a political party only, [99] Please have a look to this link at last he has written (जय भारतीय जनता पार्टी means Hail Bharatiya Janta Party) and also please see [100]and [101] Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. He has defamed a particular party and promoted another political party. Please check his userpage history which is full of promotion and defamation. And many of his edits were disrupting other political alliances by removing some strong parties from it or decreasing its seats tally. And he was increasing seats tally of his favorable alliances. His given sources were not conveying the related claim.

• [102] He is also calling admins "stupid" and "leftist" on @Shaan Sengupta's Talk page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is now WP:NPA. Admins, grab the mop. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  He has already been blocked. Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne

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

There's a lot of different Wikipedia guidelines this editor is abusing that I could point out, from WP:NATIONALIST to WP:BATTLEGROUND to WP:COMPETENCY which is evidenced by their edits and summaries. They are spamming pages with WP:POINTY unproductive edits, in order to try to prove that x territory or village was inhabited purely by Albanians, or to point how an event was "propaganda". At the same time, they go on these long angry nationalistic rants in their edit summaries or on talk pages, that has nothing to do with the actual validity of the content people are objecting to (quality, undue/due, appropriateness, ect.) showing they're WP:NOTHERE. For example:

• "I have already said that the name of this page should be changed to the Albanian name and the picture should be changed , if the name is not changed within one day I am personally going to change the name... this is nothing but an insult, even more insulting is the Serbian names that are being used for some of the town. This is my last warning before I change the name personally."
• After an editor reverted them here explaining that listing every single village that had an Albanian majority along with the names of people was excessive and irrelevant, they went to the talk page and answered with: So what you are saying is that people with Albanians names are not Albanian ? but people with Slavic, Christian names are not Albanian either ? ... But it seems to me that people here want Kosove and Dardania to still be connected to Serbs despite Albanians are obviously connected to the territories history.. What's even more insulting is how they use the Serbian names despite these areas haven't had Serbs it seems for a long time.
• In an article about demographic history, they added a whole bunch of content that doesn't deal with the actual topic ([103] [104]) Not to mention creating a whole bunch of reference errors. They then proceeded to go on a rant on the talk page about "telling a false version of history" [105]
• You mean it deals with invented fairytales and propaganda ?
• When they were reverted in this article because the content they added already repeated the first sentence of the paragraph, they responded with 100% Albanian development, don't try to remove the truth with invented stuff..
• And more ranting in edit summaries: stop lying, stop telling a false version of history and stop manipulating the facts, stop taking different parts from different books in order to suit your agenda.. ..stop telling invented lies and fairytales.. I am just telling history based on the evidence while you are telling propaganda and lies there is no evidence for the things you people claim..

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Griboski (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted several of his edits which were previously revertee by an admin. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple attempts have been made to encourage @TheCreatorOne to act in line with Wikipedia policy to no avail:

• 10:48 7 February 2024 - Message left on their talk page, raising awareness to their problematic editing. TheCreatorOne responded by venting their feelings in a long and protracted response that violates WP:TALKNO [106][107][108][109]
• 16:59 February 2024 - Responded to by an editor reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. This message was in response to TheCreatorOne asking them to add content in an unsolicited manner
• 23:35 9 February 2024 - Message response to TheCreatorOne, once again reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. The response came after TheCreatorOne made allegations that some content was a bunch of invented history to fit Serbian nationalistic
• 14:20 10 February 2024 Uw-disruptive2 warning left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.
• 15:35 10 February 2024 Contentious topics reminder left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.

Despite the multiple reminders and warning, it seems TheCreatorOne's behaviour has not changed and they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We must look at it from the beginning, for example in the most recent case: Kosovo. Why was he reverted? Because of "nationalist nonsense"? The user is quoting Noel Malcolm, one of the most experienced authors on the subject Kosovo. He is a reliable source and is used across many articles. This clearly rests on WP:IJDL. Everything that happened after that is not entirely his fault, but also yours, because you falsely accuse him of spreading nationalist nonsense and keep reverting him with false excuses. Everything that is not quoted with N. Malcolm should be brought to the talkpage and not be edit-warred. The user actually did open a discussion, but some users of this talk did not participate until now while reverting at the same time. I agree that the user should be warned concerning his word choice, but we should keep in mind who is responsible for that. He is being reverted by multiple users at the same time, sometimes with reasonings that constitute WP:PA. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has violated the 1RR restriction multiple times. Given their behavior so far, it is highly likely they will continue. This is a high-visibility page, admin action is urgently needed. AlexBachmann, your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This also isn't a new user or someone unfamiliar to the Balkan topics area. ([110] [111]) --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Same can be said for certain users that just kept WP:STONEWALLING and haven't participated in discussions yet.

Your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. In what way is that unhelpful? I cleared up confusion.

However, regarding Griboski's comment, I have to say that the users indeed share similarities. An admin will have to look at this. This, however, still does not justify the removal of perfectly sourced and reliable content. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Except it isn't. Can Malcolm be used as a source and compared and contrasted with others? Sure. Spamming the same contested 17KB walls of text across multiple pages? No.

When someone is engaging in tendentious editing, we shouldn't be forced to entertain their soapboxing. Since this thread was opened and they've been notified, they've reverted 3 more times in an article with 1RR. --Griboski (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann your response falls under WP:ASPERSIONS and isn't tolerated here. There is a difference between opening up a discussion and using the talk page as a forum to vent feelings without any desire to engage with editors with other viewpoints. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As per definition: „casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor accuses another of misbehavior without evidence“. I do not see that here. I‘ve already explained that reliable sources were removed. Everyone has the right to be defended, especially when other users may also be in the wrong. Let’s wait for the admins decision. AlexBachmann (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Any chance you can look into this? --Griboski (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There may be logged-out editing, but not on a huge scale, and there's nothing more that I can see. This will have to be handled by other than technical means. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the potential socking but the behavioral evidence. At the very least, they have reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours on the Kosovo page which has a 1RR restriction. [112] [113] [114] [115] Griboski (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A further point to raise, TheCreatorOne has now begun to launch personal attacks, violating WP:PA. On my talk page, TheCreatorOne took the liberty to tell me how can I live with myself...you are pathetic...you should be banned from here you nut job...you low life pathetic losers ElderZamzam (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user for 72h for personal attacks. That does not preclude stronger action by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

This was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [116], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([117]), be uncivil ([118], [119], [120]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [121] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [122] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([123]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([124]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [125].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([126]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([127], [128]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([129], [130], [131], [132]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [133].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([134]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([135], [136], [137]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([138]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[139]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[140]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP and admin involvement

There is an ongoing BLPVIO that have a large number of people, potentially including admins. Doug Weller (talk · contribs) for example warned me for 3RR while the other editor did four reverts and the admin can be seen coordinating with them. In addition, I think I was temporarily blocked but I don't see anything in the logs? This is WP:BLP territory with potential INVOLVED admins that needs other admins to investigate. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Forgot to put a section title on the talk page. Did not mean to delay, obfuscate, or annoy. Sorry. 🤦‍♂️ int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Int21h, you were last blocked in 2013, and that block was removed as it was in error. There are no recent blocks of your account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Int21h, Doug Weller gave you a detailed response to your concerns, explaining that he is not an involved administrator in this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to purge logs? (It came up with my last block-in-error.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The log makes it clear that the 2013 block was an error. Nobody acting in good faith could possibly hold that 11 year old mistake against you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Int21h:, I'm sure int21h was blocked recently, they're just confused over the details. User:Doug Weller did block Special:Contributions/89.10.174.232 for 72 hours [141]. int21h if that was you, you're not allowed to use an IP to make edits in the same dispute per WP:LOUTSOCK. The editing patterns makes it hard for me to imagine this was an accident but in any case even if it was an accident you are responsible for any edits you make be they with an account or IP so pay attention to whether you're logged in or not. Note that it was an anon only and account creation block. So this block would not have affected any editing from your account, so you would have only seen that you were blocked when you tried to edit from the IP (or make a new account). If you want to continue to edit from your phone or tablet or whatever that IP is using, please log in to your int21h account. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And whatever any other editor is doing, I note that User:Int21h brought this here minutes after continuing a slow edit war.[142]., basically promoting the subject. Ironic that of my two edits there, one reverted the IP back to Int21h's version. The other was my reverting the IP whose edit summary said fixed typo while, as the later IP edit, changed "pseudoscience" to "science". I would like Int21h to justify their claim that there is a BLP violation in the removal of their edits. My view is that this is likely to end up, and probably should, with at least a partial block for promoting pseudoscience. Or at AE, I gave them an alert a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What of the four reverts and coordination with said editor? This concerns the Harold E. Puthoff article as an WP:ATTACK page. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Int21h Please answer my question about a BLP violation - and if the Puthoff article is an attack page, add a speedy delete tag to justify your claim - if it's deleted, as we do with attack pages, it will justify your claims. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, two way street; answer all these question without evasion. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? Totally get that woo woo or magic or whatever is your thing, what gets you going, but you are abusing your admin rights. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock IP

Resolved

 – I had already blocked the /64 for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2402:A00:401:7C3E:3034:268C:5649:DBAB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion [143][144]. This range is up again after being reported previously at this SPI. It's clearly a sock of this user. Here's further identical edits from just a few days ago [145] [146] (i.e that is readding the word "ancient Hindu" to this obscure barely edited article) and same "economic reforms" related edits to this page[147][148]. I had reported this yesterday at AIV but it didnt get a response as it was 3 days stale. This suspicious IP is also stalking and engaging in revenge editing against me after I reported them yesterday by adding questionable material I am opposed to a different article. [149][150] Codenamewolf (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Codenamewolf, if I were you I would clean up and improve this evidence and then file at SPI. I don't think the case is so obvious that it's immediately actionable. The range was reported at SPI previously, but the responding admins made no decision on if it's the sockmaster (AKG). The Taliban insurgency edits are over material contentious enough that many users would make that change. Your stalking diffs either make no sense or are under-explained. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By revenge editing, I meant exactly one day after I reported them [151], this IP suddenly is copy pasting material I had reverted previously two week ago on a different article [152][153]

Regardless, this IP range is now blocked now for distrupion, but I had to unarchive this ANI report again because another registered user took to complaining against this to the blocking admin. Codenamewolf (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is laughable (like your other claims) that you call it "revenge editing", despite this particular article was never edited by you until a few hours ago.[154] Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've linked two diffs above. One was my revert to the page Partition of India (15 whole days ago), and the said content is now being pasted on this article by IP after my report against them. I made the "first" revert to that page after already having coming across this IP. Refer to both diffs. I'm not making any other "claims" either, just posted identical edits to a blocked user like you would to a regular AIV/SPI.

Anyways, regarding the snarky comments see WP:PERSONAL Codenamewolf (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Though this is closed, I do want to add further before this gets archived that this IP also removed sourced material in the first diff I've posted above, other than having an edit warring history. This is in addition to having identical edits to a blocked user which is sufficient grounds for IPs to get blocked at AIV. Commenting again, since this is still being dragged at the unblock request of this IP after apparently being resolved. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Anupam I had originally posted the first diff and reported this to AIV where I got the response "insufficient activity to warrant a block" [155] It is from there I linked to this thread where one more recent diff of identical edits to a blocked user had been linked plus this IP range already had an edit warring history. Ultimately, this IP did not get blocked for socking; it got temporary blocked for disruption because it HAS resumed being disruptive after being already blocked before. Hope this clears things. Codenamewolf (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked indef and article listed at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:YaquiWoman Has threatened legal action at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. They said "That is completely fine as we are having the Texas Band of Yaqui tribal attorney Mia get involved and we will be reaching out with a Seaze and desist letter." here. I've already reported at WP:AN3 but thought I should post here as well due to the legal threat. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by @Firefangledfeathers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to overlook the circumstances that led to the legal threat. Will other editors and admins please take a look at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians? There are reasonable grounds for concern, as the article has many things to say about the group that will be interpreted negatively. The cited sources are not great, being mainly primary/government sources, a couple databases, and one news source that doesn't mention the group. This all may be fine, but I think more eyes would be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Firefangledfeathers very much. I only saw what was being added but after reviewing, the article does appear to have issues that someone might be able to correct. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lodged an AfD on that article. From my point of view, no independent/reliable sources are provided, likely fails GNG. CSMention269 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalking

User:SeriousHist was banned in an edit war with me in January. Since then they have been stalking me with proxies and several socks specifically just to revert my edits. Same fixation on my talk page, edit history, and urges admins to ban me.

• 185.243.209.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.76.176.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Taicompatriot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sword of china (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Truthtaw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Qiushufang (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked a few of the more obvious socks. There's an SPI open for the others, so I'll let the CUs sort those out. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow

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

Please look at:

1. Special:History/McAnally‎
2. Special:History/McNally (surname)‎
3. Talk:McNally (surname)
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 9#Supposedly conflicting etymologies & reliability of sources
   • This was responded to in the following way (leading to an apparent consensus: Talk:McNally (surname)#Cont. 2): PamD's edits of March 2023; after that, however, there have been many more inscrutable removals and restorations.

Gaelicbow is apparently facing some dilemmas and is repeatedly restoring and self reverting content on McAnally‎ and McNally (surname). After multiple attempts I have stopped trying to fully understand his reasons for such edits. I request that an administrator blocks Gaelicbow from McAnally‎ and McNally (surname)‎, since text constantly appearing and disappearing in stroboscopic fashion can't possibly be a good thing for our readers. —Alalch E. 12:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• @PamD: Do you have any thoughts on this matter?—Alalch E. 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. I haven't the stamina to plough through all the changes made since I added a paragraph of careful text citing three different highly reliable sources, but it's pretty upsetting to see that it has disappeared completely over the months. The current version of McNally (surname) has no references nor explanation of the name, is just a list of surname-holders, and the only sourced statement in McAnally is "McAnnally is a surname" (sourced to a 1923 work reproduced on a genealogy website), though it includes the unsourced (and cryptic) statement "The death of the eponym is recorded in the Annals of Clonmacnoise in 1316." so neither article makes any reference to my three sources. PamD 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Delving further into the previous discussions, I think I may not have noticed the "ping" on 22 April 2023, or perhaps felt I'd contributed enough with my researches.

  If authoritative sources have something to say about the surname origins, it is appropriate to include that in our Wikipedia article on the surname. Yes, most surname articles are lists of surname-holders only, but where there is sourced information and editors with the inclination to add it, it should be added. If the sources differ, we can say so. If there are other reliable sources with other things to say, then we can add those, well cited. But this looks as if content has been removed because Gaelicbow doesn't like it, which is not a good reason to suppress the correctly-sourced work of other editors.

  So it appears that Gaelicbow's editing here is disruptive, with a WP:OWN approach to the two articles, and that a topic ban from these and any related surnames might indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. PamD 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've been watching Gaelicbow's edits for a while (they keep showing up on my watchlist all over the place.) Their edits are disruptive, but on the low end of the scale. They don't give explanations for why they add or remove material, seems to be just personal preference rather than encyclopaedic reasons, and are terrible at referencing information. On multiple occasions after they've been warned and have been very actively engaged in disruptive behaviour, they've removed the warnings and stated that they were "vandalism and/or irrelevant" when they were clearly justified. I haven't had the energy to go further on it but it seems clear that their editing is of the "I don't like it" disruptive manner. This conversation is extremely telling of their combative "I don't like it" mentality, and the only time they engage with other editors is in this manner. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortly before last Christmas (I left a note on his talk page on the 25th) he started changing people from being Irish in being Anglo-Irish. Without sources. What he defended with: Seriously? They do not need sources when they are self-evident in the content of the article (and the articles of their respective forbears).. So yes, I can imagine that his editing is reason for concern. The Banner talk 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples: this, this, this and [156]]. The Banner talk 22:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow appeared making edits on a small article I created a long time ago, Leonard McNally. There was nothing majorly disruptive about their edits but i did notice that they kept making changes, undoing them then redoing them over again over quite a lengthy period. Some of them were nonsensical. I couldn't really fathom what they were doing. There didn't seem to be a POV at play - just slightly WP:CIRish and, well, just strange. DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus

User:ElijahPepe has been continually making disruptive edits to New York Times against user consensus. This has taken the form of the following acts:

-Blanking massive parts of entire sections against talk consensus, based on events that he has personally "determined to be notable". When editors revert his changes, tell him to take it up with talk, explain that consensus is against his changes, or even leave warnings on his page, he often flat out refuses to engage and reasserts his mass deletions to the point of edit warring them. If he does engage, it'll simply be to say "I personally don't like that, I'm going to do this instead, no discussion to be had", often in the form of the edit summary message.

Examples can be found here: [157] talk, [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164] user page

-He will also mass delete necessary citations, on the grounds that the html code in which the citations are recorded does not fit his personal style (the style they're coded in is the standard <ref> style, whereas he deletes without replacement any citation that does not follow {name|year} footnote style). When people reinsert them because they're necessary, he likewise deletes them again, leading to paragraphs full of "Citation Needed" tags that have to be deleted until the citations are replaced as a result. Then, when the paragraphs are restored w/ citations according to talk page consensus, he simply wordlessly deletes them again, despite numerous attempts to ping and discuss with him on the talk page. Occasionally when he blanks citations, he'll (I should stress, only occasionally) replace them with footnote citations of his own sources which consensus agrees don't actually cover the required cited info, and yet despite being told this, he continually deletes them for being coded in an html format he personally doesn't like. Despite being pinged in talk on these issues to discuss, he instead wordlessly deletes once more, even when talk page consensus says otherwise.

EDIT: For clarity to any admin reading, the citation style used by Elijah was unilaterally implemented by him here in this 230,000 character change made without discussion. [165]

Examples: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170] talk, [171] talk.

Snokalok (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather extreme avenue to go through, and it appears as though you're taking it lightly. To clarify:

• Rewriting elements of a page is acceptable, as was done in the second link—based on Sideswipe's comments, the third link—which Soni thanked me for, the fourth link—which I believed was acceptable because I had seen sections with the Main template but no content before, the fifth and sixth links—which were reducing the content and removing banalities in coverage, and the seventh link—which I had asked Soni to discuss this in the talk page and I had expressed concerns over how the citations would display; several of the works cited interfered with how shortened footnotes were used.
• Going through a talk page to discuss what to include is acceptable, which is what I did in the first link.
• The citations that you added are not necessary and one is sufficient for the content in the page. The citations must follow shortened footnotes. Earnestly, it's not my personal style, but I chose to implement it for this article because of the division in references between The New York Times and other sources. There are no issues in what I left on that article in terms of the content-citation relationship. As far as I know, consensus has not agreed that the Klein source does not cover the content.

Your characterization of a citation style that "does not fit [my] personal style" is mischaracterization and suggests to me that you aren't making a genuine effort to resolve a dispute here. I'm not going to conceal that I'm not open to help, but I appreciate the copyediting that has occurred. Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page. In "Deciding the content within the history section", Sideswipe and I agreed that transcluding the ledes was a viable option. I'm not sure why this is still an issue or why this warrants ANI. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please ping editors if you are going to discuss them @Sideswipe9th: Soni (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

- Rewriting elements of the page is acceptable, but if consensus is against those rewrites, or even just people want to discuss them first, it's not acceptable to just go ahead.

-Your discussion amounts to 'This is my article, get in line or get out of the way'. See the way you responded to me re-implementing citations, by saying "Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed."

-Consensus *has* agreed that Klein doesn't cover the necessary content, that's why there were 20 citation needed tags and the paragraph was removed pending need of citations.

-"Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page" Everyone has been speaking to you on the talk page, everyone has been pinging you on the talk page. You've just found their disagreements unsatisfactory and because it's clearly your article in your mind, you've decided to go ahead regardless.

-Notice how many other editors came here on their own to say "I was about to make an ANI post too, then I saw this one went up like a minute ago". No one pinged them or anything, they just came here, to make a post about your behavior, and then saw this one. Snokalok (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I will second this, as another editor who was minutes away from writing about Elijah at ANI. He has clear ownership issues and problems understanding how consensus works. To give a few clearer cut examples of these issues... here's a list (that may coincide with User:Snokalok's list)

• He added 250K bytes to a 200K byte article, basically doubling the size with just one edit. When the unannounced overhaul was discussed on talk, he was mostly not receptive. If you have an issue with content, WP:BEBOLD.
• He then engaged me in a revert war against consensus that eventually ended with the edit summary If this article is going to surpass 12,000 words with a history section, then it shouldn't have one and blanking of the entire section
• Other handy quotes from talk which concern OWNership - This is not how this should be done. The article is significantly worse and this is not what this article should look like. I now need to drop everything that I'm doing on this article to deal with this
• Also - This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I'm going to ask editors hold off on editing this paragraph, because this has now been made the utmost priority for this article and I'll have to halt my work on finding references for the website section to deal with this.. He very clearly has a "Editors who are allowed to edit this article" in mind that excludes anyone who disagrees with him.
• Another concerning diff - Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed. Everything in this paragraph is in the Klein reference. Three references are way too much for what amounts to an oversized quote. (bolding mine). Note that there is an ongoing discussion about the reference style itself on talk, so consensus is still pending.
• Finally [editors have tried] to engage him in this very discussino, trying to make him understand Wikipedia policies and why he needs to follow consensus and/or engage with other editors. Instead, he's decided his preferred article split is the way to go - I certainly plan to expand the ledes and would really prefer to start working on the virtual reality section tomorrow. He was thrown a very clear bone and proceeded to edit war rather than discuss the changes with anyone else.

I don't know if his edits are "disruptive" but he obviously does not understand basic Wikipedia policies and refuses to learn. And it's a pattern enough that it can't be fixed by just talking to him.

Soni (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the edit as worse because it was inconsistent in what it chose to cover regarding the Times and it introduced {{Cite book}} templates that interfered with shortened footnotes. Retaining that content isn't an option because it isn't a complete summary of the history of the Times; a sentence about column width followed a sentence about additional lifestyle sections, which is certainly more significant. Altering the previous content would have served as a benefit to readers. I'm definitely not opposed to attempting to trim the history section down, but I also want to be careful about how it's done. Permanent content that does not adequately cover the topic will not suffice. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To stay in the clear, I'll state that Sideswipe9th and myself have been discussing Elijah offwiki, mainly because how frustrating all of this has been. Our comments are independently made and any takes here are my own. Soni (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I was also about to draft a thread about this issue. The biggest issue from my perspective is that Elijah is not engaging on the talk page in a manner that is open to collaboration. When he does engage on the talk page, it has an air of finality to it, with statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[172], I am done trying to argue this.[173], I'm not looking for help at the moment.[174], and I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times[175].

Myself and other editors have repeatedly and extensively tried to get Elijah to collaborate. See 230,000+ char change, Deciding the content within the history section, and Getting the article to GA on the article talk page, and NY Times on Elijah's talk page. We have tried to impress upon him that collaboration is not only necessary for the FA process, but the standard procedure on enwiki.

Yesterday, I explicitly asked Elijah to [not] make any more edits to the article, or the sub-articles for the next couple of days so that we could plan out the content for the main NY Times article and its newly created sub-articles. We need this plan so that we don't wind up creating four History of articles (1, 2, 3, 4) when the scope of all of them are still in flux, and so that we can properly scope out the content for the potential Online platforms of The New York Times and Critical reception of The New York Times. That last article in particular, Critical reception, will need very careful planning so as to avoid neutrality issues. And then by having a plan in place, each of us who are ready and willing to help bring this article to GA and eventually FA status can then play to our relative strengths as editors.

I hate that this discussion at ANI is necessary. Elijah can write good albeit lengthy content, and I think his overall goal of getting the NY Times article to FA status is laudable. Despite everything, I still want to help with that, as I think there's scope to get multiple articles to GA/FA status. I think his input in this, his content creation skills, and his background knowledge of the sourcing will all be invaluable in this process. The problem is that he's utterly resistant to allowing anyone to help in achieving this goal. I don't know what is needed here to get Elijah to work with us, rather than against us. I really don't want to see him indeffed or long term blocked over this unless it's absolutely necessary. Maybe the seriousness of this thread alone will be enough, or maybe he needs a rolling article space PBLOCK from the NY Times, its associated articles and any other articles we need to create for summary style and page length reasons, or a narrowly construed article space TBAN from the NY Times and its associated articles. I just don't know, and I am sorry, really truly sorry that it has come to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Utterly resistant" is erroneous. The copyediting and even alterations that I have read have been very beneficial for the article. The issue is when consistency is not observed. The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No Elijah. This is not a content dispute, this is a behavioural dispute. In the last twenty minutes you have added almost as much text to this discussion (3904 bytes) as you've added to Talk:The New York Times in the last four days (4406 bytes). When I've said you are utterly resistant to allowing others to help, it is because you have made statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[176] (emphasis mine) and I'm not looking for help at the moment.[177]. Statements like that close the door on anyone being able to help you achieve the goal of bringing the article to FA.

Even in this reply you have said The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. (emphasis mine). The route you are taking. So you can continue to work. How are we supposed to give feedback on this, give input on how sections or articles should be structured, even create substantive content ourselves, when you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved comment) I read through Talk:The New York Times and ElijahPepe's ownership viewpoint is clear. I can sympathize with having a vision for how an article should be and wanting to get it done without interference, but that isn't how wikipedia works. (Citation style is a separate issue, and WP:CITEVAR supports not mixing styles.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In this context I would like to state for the record that the article used <ref> style until Elijah made a 230,000 character change unilaterally which implemented his footnotes style, and then used that as justification for deleting all other citations because they went against the citation style he implemented without discussion. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, @Snokalok, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize the cite style had been changed by ElijahPepe just under a month ago. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that my behavior has frustrated other editors and I apologize that I have not been as forthcoming or responsive as I should have been. I will accept any consequences as a result of my actions. I also express that I have the same goals as the editors on the Times article and I have only been seeking the best possible outcome. My intentions were to move this new content, write any additional content, and submit it for good article. It is clear those intentions did not consider other editors. I will hold off on any edits to the mainspace article until size issues have been resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is one editor trying to improve an article and get it in line with best practices, while several other editors are just saying no without providing any constructive input. Blocking well-sourced content seems like a much bigger ownership problem to me than adding it. Just split the article. Problem solved. This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see many editors trying to give constructive input on the talk page, which is where the discussion should be (not in edit summaries). Schazjmd (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Don't add content" is not constructive input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're reading my request that Elijah not edit the article or sub-articles for a few days in isolation from everything else, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However in context that request was made to try and get Elijah to engage productively on the article talk page, so that we all could construct a plan for the scope and content of all of the articles, and help put that plan in motion.

At present, Elijah is displaying severe ownership issues over the content, by unilaterally making decisions and dictating content without respecting any of the feedback expressed on the article talk page. Yes be bold is a guideline, but ownership is a policy and it covers this exact circumstance. There are editors on that talk page who want to help bring this article to GA and FA status, but we cannot do so right now because of the ownership issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw this a few days ago and was thinking the same thing--ownership. User:Schazjmd, thank you for your helpful comments here. I don't know if we're at the intervention stage yet. The easiest solution is to just block the editor from editing the article but I think that's too drastic. I do think that, if we don't see significant talk page discussion and a collaborative spirit, such a block is going to come. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think ElijahPepe's apology above is a good start, provided it's followed up with a change in his approach in the talk page discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good start. But what I'd really want to see is Elijah actually engaging with the talk page discussions in an open and constructive manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I started looking into the NYT article a week ago because I have it watchlisted and I saw a contentious discussion about transgenderism on the article's talkpage. I cleaned up the errors in that section of the article, and was wholesale reverted by ElijahPepe without edit summary explanation or talkpage discussion. When I explained on the talkpage that there were numerous uncited and incorrectly cited claims in the paragraph, I was shocked at ElijahPepe's immature and uncooperative behavior. As of 8 hours ago he is still edit-warring on the article without consensus, and putting non-confirming opinion pieces as citations in the article while removing confirming reliable citations. Pinging Drmies -- perhaps it is time for that PBlock. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Stopping short of a block, which I don't think would be unwarranted here, I'd say just, rollback the entire article to before his 230k character edit and make him start again. If he wants to change things this time, he has to get consensus, not just unilaterally go in and remake things so unrecognizably that no one can revert or edit anything he does Snokalok (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone deletes 230k characters of content solely because the editor didn't ask permission to edit the page, that would be tantamount to vandalism, and I would support a block against any editor who mass deleted otherwise perfectly good content on these grounds. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a very large edit, made without consensus, that has been flagged as possibly problematic by other editors. It probably needs to be rolled back. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Thebiguglyalien, I don't know why you are trying to defend those edits, and I note that you have stayed clear of commenting on the behavior. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't touched on the actual content of the edits here beyond saying that they have sources, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My concern is that the editors could have just opened a split proposal or something similar to organize the content, and that would be that. But instead they escalated this by taking an "ask permission before editing" approach and then came straight to ANI when that didn't work. Based on my reading of the talk page discussion, Epicgenius and SnowFire were ready to actually improve the article instead of obstructing changes, but they (wisely?) moved away from the discussion as it became needlessly heated. I don't endorse how ElijahPepe has approached this, but to this point he's the only one who's actually improved the article since this started. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that the editors could have just opened a split proposal or something similar to organize the content, and that would be that. But instead they escalated this by taking an "ask permission before editing" approach and then came straight to ANI when that didn't work. So that's not quite what happened. And in fact, we have tried to start a discussion to properly and collaboratively work on a plan for this set of articles. But let me give you an illustrative timeline of part of the problem here.

At 17:36 UTC, 10 February I made a suggestion that we should look into creating a dedicated Critical reception of The New York Times article. Two hours later, without any discussion for or against the proposal from any other editor, Elijah created the Critical reception of article as a redirect pointing to the renamed criticism section. Now that specific article is going to need careful attention and a great deal of discussion, because its scope includes both positive and negative reception, and balancing that in a NPOV way will be tricky. But so far, Elijah hasn't so much as said "I think this is a good idea, lets do it." In fact, he's said nothing about it, other than he intends to do it. There is no opportunity for collaboration here, and no planning beyond whatever Elijah has determined and isn't telling us.

but to this point he's the only one who's actually improved the article since this started There are multiple editors on that talk page who want to help and who are trying to help. Elijah won't let us. He has outright told us that he doesn't need help and he isn't looking for help, despite stating how he's had "to drop everything that I'm doing" in order to respond to issues he's created. That is a textbook ownership problem. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend reading the discussion before you comment with suggestions. The content in question is already duplicated-split across two other mainspace articles, something I noted in my first Talk comment after the reverts. The question just ended up being "Should the long content be on NYT's main page while said split happens" and Elijah disagreed and reverted everyone else on that.

And it's not that the reverts were done just for "ask permissions" sake. Also in that exact thread, we also explained why it was technically impossible for some editors to physically edit the page from the longer form.

As far as the rest of it is concerned, ANI editors who care about the article specifics are welcome to discuss the content in the Talk page. As far as I was concerned, the ANI post was to check if Elijah's behaviour was proper/what can make things more collaborative. Content diktat from here will be fairly unfruitful. Soni (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We could certainly do that, however we're currently discussing (or trying to) the plans to get this article to GA and eventually FA status. Part of those plans involves figuring out what the scope of the various History of The New York Times sub-articles should be. Once we have a consensus on that, work would focus initially on getting those articles into an acceptable state, and then transcluding their leads and other relevant pieces of content to completely replace the current History section of the main article per summary style. Any reversion of the article to the revision prior to Elijah's edits would hopefully be replaced anyway in the near future with the finalised content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I think most likely the majority of the changes he made will sail through consensus and be implemented again in short order. But he should have to get consensus nonetheless. Snokalok (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was skeptical, so I checked out Special:Diff/1203600291 in detail. Contrary to Snokalok's description of it above, in that edit no citations were deleted at all. The existing <ref> citations were duplicates, one of which was a bare URL, the other of which lacked both dateline and byline, and both the {{sfn}}s pointed to the things that they duplicated, already cited properly with actual authors, datelines, bylines, and titles in another citation. I suspect from this sample that other editing is being mischaracterized too, and that is driving this discussion with people just taking it for granted that the supplied description of the editing is correct. Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Addendum: I just checked Special:Diff/1205867200, another of Snokalok's examples, and that's actually the very same superfluous duplicate citations (ironically now right next to each other in the wikitext — one would think that that would be noticed) being reduced to just one citation of the Vanity Fair piece by Klein. In the imediately preceding version of the article, Special:Permalink/1205718614 by Snokalok, the Vanity Fair headline can be found in three citations, two of which are of poor quality. The {{Sfn|Klein|2023a}} substituted points to the third one.

  If talk page consensus really is concluding that this elimination of poor quality bare URL and missing-information duplicates is "deleting citations with nothing to replace them" then said talk page consensus is false and being formed by editors who should perhaps take a refresher course in reading project:Bare URLs and the documentation for {{cite news}} as well as glasses to help with counting the number of times that their revisions of an article say the same Vanity Fair headline.

  Then there's the false sourcing. In Snokalok's version of the article "almost 1,000" is sourced to the Vanity Fair piece that only says "nearly 200" and "more than 170 past and present New York Times contributors", whereas in ElijahPepe's reversion "over 1000" is sourced to the MSNBC piece that says "from more than 1,000 Times contributors". I encourage noticeboard participants to take the characterization of what's going on here being given to us with a great degree of skepticism, as spot checks of the diffs supplied tell a very different story.

  Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin controversial bot-like editing

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

On January 24, I blocked this editor from mainspace for one hour to force them to stop their unauthorized bot-like editing and reply to the four objections on their talk page about WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI that had gone unanswered for approximately six hours while they continued the same kinds of bot-like edits. The relevant user talk threads are here and here.

One of the behaviors about their bot-like editing that bothered me is that they are mass changing the template {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in articles. While this may seem like a little thing at first, I really dislike seeing this on my watchlist. It is my belief that all template first letters should be capitalized, because the software will not allow someone to create an uncapitalized template. It's Template:Cite, not Template:cite, so why would we mass convert {{Cite}} to {{cite}}?

This editor is back at it again, for example with this edit today.

I also see some other hints of unauthorized and objected-to WP:COSMETICBOT-like editing, for example at User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2024/January#Be careful.

Can we get some kind of action to stop this behavior please? This user is cluttering watchlists, not getting consensus for their controversial edits, and is disregarding users who have asked them to stop. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor should be blocked until he promises to stop making edits such as converting {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. His last explanation for this on the talk page was that it was motivated by consistency. That's just inadequate. There is no need for consistency in this area. These are non-constructive cosmetic edits. —Alalch E. 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think that replacing Cite to Cite are not needed, I would not do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, great. There is reason to suspect that you wanted to impose this phantom consistency by combining otherwise inappropriate, purely cosmetic, edits with the barest-minimum-of substantive, token substantive, edits, that are not the primary intended change. After I looked again at your recent edits I can not find any edit that consists solely of changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. That appears to always be combined with some other change, a substantive change, making all of those edits (that I've seen), consisting of multiple types of changes, technically okay as a whole. But technically okay doesn't mean advisable.

And, really, I don't think you were consciously trying to create a fait accompli as Novem Linguae has accused you, but the friction arising from the appearance isn't worth it. It's great that you should stop converting Cite to cite, because it distracts editors looking at the watchlist, makes it hard to find the substantive part of your edit in the diff, and makes it harder to understand what your edit is about. Editors see an edit in their watchlist starting with words such as: Used lowercase "cite" template everywhere for consistency ... and they think it's a non-helpful purely cosmetic edit. This type of consistency would truly be a phantom. It's a worthless consistency. It doesn't matter if it's "Cite" or "cite". I don't agree with Novem Linguae that "Cite" is correct and "cite" is wrong. Neither is correct or wrong, they are the same. The variation doesn't affect anything.

I retract the part of my previous comment saying that I think you should be blocked, after reviewing more, and after your commitment to stop replacing Cite with cite. —Alalch E. 01:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and for your detailed comment. I also sometimes change {{short description|}} to {{Short description}}.

May I propose that each template that allows multiple spelling, such as {{Cite}} and {{cite}} or {{short description|}} and {{Short description|}} to have a defined preferred spelling, for example, in the documentation? I mean that such templates must have explicit mention in the documentation that different case variations are allowed, but the suggested (recommended) variant is ... .

Where do you think is a place to discuss this proposal of mine? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you concerned that I use Citations bot to fix article errors or that I change Cite to cite when there is already the majority of the intances are lowercase and just a few uppercase? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention that I used citation expander which is the standard tool included in gadgets that I added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID?

That article had 52 uppercase Cite and 325 lowercase cite, so I thought all lowercase cite would be appropriate. Would it have been OK if I just added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID but kept the case of the cite? It would have anyway triggered the update in your watchlist. Please let me know what kind of activity would you like me to stop. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think if you did the following 3 things I would be happy and withdraw my objections: 1) Never change {{Cite}} to {{cite}} again, since I feel this is changing correct code to incorrect code. 2) Read WP:COSMETICBOT and make sure the gnoming edits you choose to work on follow WP:COSMETICBOT and are important enough to merit a diff and watchlist disruption. 3) Pay close attention to when your edits are objected to, and immediately stop until you have consensus. Controversial edits should never be done in a WP:MEATBOT like manner. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! I do (1), (2) and (3). Is that be OK if done a substantial amount of edits to an article on contents (not just technical edits), such as preparing it to a GA nomination, changing Cite to cite should not constitute an (1) event? Are you OK with my edits when I fix errors such as "Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style"? Are fixing those errors merit? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing CS1 errors doesn't bother me. You can probably keep doing that unless/until someone objects. I will always object to changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}} if I see it, because I believe this is changing correct code to incorrect code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will not be changing Cite to cite if you object, because I have no interest in it, you (or somebody) probably proposed to start a discussion, but I didn't start a discussion because for me it is not an important point; however, if in the future there will occasionally be a discussion and a consensus on the case of templates, let me know, because I sometimes change "short description" to "Short description" template. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I will ask for advise on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy whether fixing cs1 errors constitute a cosmetic change, and proceed accordingly. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1 might be a good place to ask. I'll bet a citation fixing expert such as Trappist the monk watches that page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I asked in the Help talk:Citation Style 1 instead, as you suggested. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether discussions in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would affect my "reputation", i.e. when someone will complain about my edits in the future, will they be able to refer to this incident to reinforce their arguments? Or an incident report may have a short conclusion that will make things clear? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to do the same things, then yes, someone will refer to this discussion. If they have a complaint about unrelated issues, this probably won't matter much unless they are advocating for a WP:CIR block. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you because I take your concerns seriously, i.e. when you first time contacted me about "cite", I stopped replacing "cite" everywhere, and began only replacing it (1) only when there were other substantive edits, and (2) when the majority of "cite" were already lowercase. But after your raised another concern yesterday that you didn't like it, I promised to never change it unless I work on article content, writing stuff, such as preparing article for a GA or to raise a category, such as from C to B. Would you mind in the future to contact me first, i.e. via my Talk page or via an article in concern talk page, and if we would not resolve quickly, write to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, rather than writing to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents straight away? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that we already discussed this on Jan 24, and I had mentioned escalating to a noticeboard in that discussion, so a noticeboard was in my mind the next logical step.

Even if I am wrong or not in the majority on my template capitalization preferences here (which is possible), the takeaway here should be that bot-like editing must be exceptionally conservative, careful, and respectful of consensus and complaints. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, that makes sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with Maxim's response and consider this

Resolved

for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Parqud making mass unexplained and/or disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age

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

New editor making non-stop disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age with zero communication or explanation, despite multiple reverts and warnings on their talk page. At worse, each round of edits has involved deleting mention of Persian or other non-Arab(ic) cultures. At best, they've been making unhelpful changes to spelling of Arabic names and terms, often away from established convention.

It started with these IP edits, which are almost certainly the same editor the day before. After those were reverted, the new Parqud account repeated the same edits here. After another revert, he repeated them again here (along with some spelling changes). By this point he had received two warnings on his talk page: [178], [179]. Since the last warning and revert, he hasn't repeated all of the same edits but has of course deleted mentions of Persia(n) again ([180], [181]) and continued other unhelpful spelling changes ([182], [183]). Zero explanation or communication throughout. R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. I have p-blocked the editor from editing the article directly. User talk:Parqud, you should read what it says on your talk page, and what R Prazeres wrote here: your unexplained and unclear edits are the reason you cannot edit the article directly--you can make the point, if there's a point to be made, on the article talk page. If this persists after the block runs out, other measures may have to be taken. This is a collaborative project: please collaborate, in the broad sense of the word. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Harassment at page "Anies Baswedan"

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

There is some edit warring and harassment here: title=Anies_Baswedan&diff=1206112505&oldid=1206105651

> political buzzer who is trying to revert edits

> keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me

Please look into this. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring between Natsuikomin (talk · contribs) and Asphonixm at Anies Baswedan. I see Asphonixm's edit summary which includes "he keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me." That is indeed concerning. But the editor interaction analyser only reports interaction at that one article and not even on its talk page. @Taylor 49: Please can you clarify why you say there is harassment here? NebY (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian wikipedia:

ngelawan buzzer tolol seperti anda

meladeni buzzer bodoh seperti anda bodoh = stupid

The accusation of attemped murder is most likely false. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editors are among those editing an article on Indonesian Wikipedia on the same subject, a current candidate for President of Indonesia, and the analyser shows little other interaction there - and of course what happens on that Wikipedia is outside our scope. Why do you call editing on that subject on this Wikipedia (the only one that concerns us) harassment? NebY (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it then? The edit summary is unacceptable in any case. User "Asphonixm" repeatedly attacked user "Natsuikomin". Do you claim that there is no problem at all? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it), and I see that a week after you told Asphonixm they were blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia, you've followed them here and raised this ANI report accusing them of harassment. Well. Time to let other editors take a view on this. NebY (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see very rude edit sumaries by "Asphonixm". I was asked by a user on id wikipedia to post this request here. I have no personal need to hound user "Asphonixm" or anyone else. I indeed had informed "Asphonixm" about the block imposed by another administrator, after having checked that harassment/personal attacks indeed had occurred. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And how will you deal with the defamatory (which means containing false information) edit that the user made? He always restored the edit, and here you were saying that I might have breached WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE???
Bruh, you're the one here who ain't neutral. That's even defamatory, and "you suspiciously defended the defamatory edit made by Asphonixm as if it's just a case of breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE!" Natsuikomin (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@NebY, If you're a sysop and rollbacker or any other special statuses other than editor, those statuses of yours would and should be revoked for being frankly and clearly unneutral, that is, breaching WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:DONTHOAX in a row. Natsuikomin (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They haven't used rollback at all in this edit dispute, I don't see what this has to do with revoking an unrelated permission. Being a rollbacker (or a sysop, although they aren't one) doesn't grant any "upper hand" in content disputes, as rollback should be used for obvious vandalism only. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't edited the article or even the talk page, only this discussion plus an ANI-notice on Natsuikomin's talk page. The above vehemence, the claims that I've breached WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:DONTHOAX, and the accusatory edit summary at the article[184] do not inspire confidence. NebY (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad you didn't do (roll back) that. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

said this after defending the defamatory ('defamatory' means "(of speech or writing) intended to harm somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them"), even without bothering to check the user's edit against the source he cited. Even after I told you that what Asphonixm wrote on the article was different from what CNN Indonesia reported on their article, you still proudly said this. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How was their comment in any way defending that edit? They only said: I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it)
Which doesn't look like defending any of the edits at all, close to the opposite in fact, and wasn't even making an in-depth commentary but just talking about a possibility. A pretty reasonable position to take before assessing the content in detail. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't much care about all the other stuff right now. Unfounded accusations that another editor is "trying to track me down so he can kill me" - used as a reason that the accuser's edits shouldn't be reverted - is blockable. Like, indef with no talk page access without even waiting for an explanation blockable. I'm going to do that now. Any remaining content or behavioral disputes can be handled in their usual fashion. Any *actual* death threats can be handled thru, you know, the police. Not used to try to win an edit war on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully support this block and the subsequent talk page revocation, that is a ridiculous thing to write to try and achieve a chilling effect on editorial processes. Thanks for your decisive action Floquenbeam. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. NebY (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the editor is now using IPs Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1048:35:6985:9A5B:4FC2:6850/64. It looks like they've restricted themselves to editing their talk page and don't seem to have repeated their extreme allegation. Actually they've completely ignored the earlier allegation and the block rationale and instead seem to be ranting about other alleged behavioural problems. However their block was without talk page access so it's clearly still evasion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes I did reply rather than simply deleting as I felt it a better solution in this instance since the editor still doesn't seem to get why we blocked them and how to appeal and so it's likely someone whether UTRS or on wikipedia might need to do something to try and help. And having replied I didn't feel comfortable just deleting the IP comments I was effectively replying to. If someone else wants to just delete their evasion, don't let my comments be a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the user kept insisting on restoring its defamatory edit on Anies Baswedan. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user also made several disruptive edits in which he/she unnecessarily rearranged the layout of sub-sections. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, don't post on their Talk page again while they're blocked. The comment you made (under the Shame on you header) can be considered grave dancing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (crossposting at ANI and user's talk page) While I think this unblock request would probably be better done thru UTRS, if any admin thinks that talk page access should be restored and have an unblock request handled here instead, feel free to do so without talking to me first. I'm not around consistently. However, when talk page access is removed, you can't just use an IP to post on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  further comment (ANI only): do not import disputes from other wikis to en.wiki. We have quite enough of our own, thanks. The only reason there weren't multiple edit warring blocks issued is because one person went so far over the top that there wasn't enough symmetry to do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glasfaser Wien, inadequate sourcing, failure to engage with warnings constructively

Glasfaser Wien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Glasfaser Wien's edits on English Wikipedia thus far have largely comprised the addition of information without adequate sources to back it up, for which they have been warned on numerous occasions. Thus far, their only engagement with these warnings has been belligerent edit summaries and blanking.

Examples diffs. This list is not exhaustive, but does comprise nearly all of their edits since late last September:

• See the edit range 28 September through 30 September, which began with an edit war at Apollo 12 (talk page warning diff), continued with fait accompli-style mass changes across multiple articles, and ended with WP:POINT-y changes (example diff)
• October 2023 edit war at Psyche (spacecraft) to insert novel claims without providing a source.
• Recreating an article about V-4 (rocket launch) using a single source that does not appear to make mention of any of the information in the article (Special:Diff/1206265877). This is despite a prior warning raising the issue with this article on their talk page.

Absent an explanation, the V-4 article with a single, irrelevant source crosses into CIR/NOTHERE territory, whereas the earlier edits demonstrate lesser manifestations of the same lack of compliance with WP:V and less-than-civil engagement with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm interested in hearing if someone indeed thinks that the V-4 edits are just a kind of falsification. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the source. I could not see how it verifies anything in the article. —Alalch E. 00:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
    • It provides verification for exactly one factoid in the article text, the first of the Kármán altitude range numbers, all of the way down on page 114 of the source. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobbylonardo not providing edit summaries, questionable edits

User:Bobbylonardo was created on September 10, 2023; their first 5 months as a Wikipedia editor have included nearly 2,000 edits, most of which are creations of redirects, additions of categories, or other minor and constructive revisions to the encyclopedia. I bring them up here because of a few concerning behavioral patterns:

1. They have never added an originally written edit summary to any of their edits, even after being asked on three separate occasions, by three different editors, including myself (1 2 3), to do so
2. They have added and removed the "Featured article" icon to several articles without following the procedure to do so (additions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11)
3. They have, on at least two occasions (1 2), added material to a talk page with the signature of another user.
4. They have been warned twice, by the same editor (1 2), about their additions of copyrighted content to an article about a television series. They have already been blocked once, on January 27, 2024, for "persistent addition of unsourced content".

I believe that this user can be a productive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and at the same time I am very concerned about their repeated failure to take any kind of feedback from the community, or to abide by the community's standards for edit summaries and cited information. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Two examples of content that this user added that likely violate copyright, and that the user has not yet been warned about:

1. This diff is copied from this IMDb page
2. This diff is copied from this DIRECTV episode guide page

White 720 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I investigated what was going on with their edits using other's signatures:

1. <This edit> was an almost exact copy of the top of another article's talk page as it is right now(Talk:Rosie's_Rules), with the signature replaced (original comment was added in <this edit> in 2022, which is a different name in the original because that user changed their username)
2. <This edit> was a copy of a previous warning on their page, by the correct user this time, but with some alterations: <original>.

Not sure what to make of this.

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC))

You must leave a notice on the talk page of an editor when you bring them to this page. (I have done so for you). ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobbylonardo&diff=prev&oldid=1206365293 White 720 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm used to seeing such warnings in sections on their own, and missed the one you placed there. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries! My edit is easy to miss, especially because I removed a duplicate comment that the user had added in that section at the same time as I issued an ANI notice. White 720 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing at Isa Ali Pantami

Isa Ali Pantami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I stumbled upon this attempt to whitewash watching the edit filter log (which is how I get most of my edits nowadays). Such edits have been a thing since before my time, as the page history shows similar edits dating as far back as 2019 (which I cannot link due to a copyvio revdel). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave it a 1-year SEMI. Noting for the record one of the IPs making these edits has issued a direct legal threat [185]. DMacks (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [186]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [187][188] [189]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [190] [191]
• Removal of edit warring notice [192]
• Removal of ANI notice [193]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [194] [195] [196]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [197]
• Personal attack [198]
• WP:PA against Leventio [199]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [200]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211])
• Erroneous material ([212] [213])
• Readded boosterism ([214]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with Nauman335

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

---

M.Nauman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is likely a sock of now blocked user:Nauman335 who has a history of UPE on film-related pages. Reported user at SPI on the 7th but there is a backlog. In the meantime, can an admin take a look and possibly WP:DUCK block? There are more accounts than M.Nauman123 which are also reported (some back on the 4th) but they do not seem to be editing currently unlike M. Nauman123. CNMall41 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Izno as a sock. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Can someone make this edit?

When I was editing the draft, I changed some external links in references after the filter stopped me, but then it stopped me again. I am sure that the edit follows the policies, and I don't know how to change those external links so that the filter doesn't block me. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This external link should work instead, it's a direct link instead of that proxy thing you had. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

FI.214 disruptive page moves

FI.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page has numerous warnings going back to last year, many regarding undiscussed controversial page moves. They were also blocked for this by Favonian in December and have been warned again since then. However, they are still continuing with this, including numerous controversial moves of Indian topics today - [215]. It seems this editor is not getting the message about this disruption. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That's quite enough of that. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistent copyright violations by User:Mejoel

This user has been consistently making copyright violations even after repeated warnings and notices (4 to be exact). I believe this behaviour will only continue if they are not given a proper final warning or a block. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time one of their drafts violated copyvio. Previous draft deletions were Feb 2022 and Jan 2024, preceded by a warning from Diannaa in Feb 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Star Mississippi. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Camden Willas

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

---

This editor can't seem to agree with us on what information is supposed to be added onto a Wikipedia Article. Whenever somebody reverts the content he added, he reverts (re-adds) it again without a care. After somebody left him a message on his talk page, he said something like "I don't know who the hell you are; don't you ever correct me". He added a sentence calling the "Eldorado Park School" as "one of the best in the City of Johannesburg" without a citation & then I reverted it, only for him to force the sentence back into the article. Just the last 5 edits that user made, all on the Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital article, seem to have turned into an "edit war" with me & others & I've run out of ideas on how to make him understand what belongs on this website. I hope I'm not here too soon. GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

All of his edits (besides the one to his talk page) have been reverted. I smell NOTHERE which is surprising considering the state of my nose I like Astatine (Talk to me) 20:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You are being a childish Gambino. Don't you ever correct me again. Bloody Idiot. That's a pretty clear violation of WP:PA, if you ask me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 01:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

IP editor - Repeated use of bare URLs, use of fake citation titles and lack of communication

I'm reporting 80.192.53.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because honestly I'm at a loss with this IP... they have been providing useful edits for a while under a couple of different IPs (which is of course normal), but have consistently either used bare URLs for citations and other times made up fake titles for sources... examples are below. I've tried multiple times, from November 2023 to today, to engage this user on their talk page, but have not once received any kind of acknowledgement. They have only once left a message on my talk page, about an unrelated issue - and I prompted them to read their messages on their talk page... but nothing has happened. Is there something that can be done to get this user to communicate, instead of other users having to tidy up their edits every time?

Bare URLs:

• [216] - bare URL with title "6435 gets new owner", requiring manual removal before a bot like ReFill2 can be used
• [217] and [218] - both bare URLs with custom title, again requiring manual intervention instead of a bot
• [219] - Again, bare URL with title

Examples of fake titles:

• [220] - IP used "45690 to visit EOR" when the article linked was titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced"
• [221] - IP used "5593 On sale" with an article titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced". They also used this in another article with the titles "5593 On sale" and "7760 On sale", and another with the title "7760 On sale".

Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I haven't linked each and every issue... In my eyes this is more a lack of communication than a behavioural issue - I would be more than happy to show the user how to easily add citations properly, but I can't seem to get through... Danners430 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

IP with obvious WP:COI, plus edit-warring

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

This looks like an obvious WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE. This IP has been rapidly spamming a self-published article posted online in December 2023 (this). Every single edit has been inserting this unformatted reference, without contributing anything else, across five articles so far. The spamming is especially obvious in these, where they inserted it three times in a row in the same article. After I reverted them at History of the Quran and gave them a warning on their talk page ([222]), they edit-warred at that article ([223], [224]) and repeat the same thing at Criticism of the Quran ([225]). R Prazeres (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hr. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly removing sourced content without explanation

160.39.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Has a history of repeatedly removing sourced information from Greenhill & Co. and Boutique investment bank without explaining why. Has already been warned. Latest edit on Independent advisory firm give me a suspicion user might be trying to remove mention of competitors for various reasons. While user might be using shared IP from Columbia University, it just so happens all these disruptive edits come from this address. AntiDionysius (talk · contribs) seeking your input if any.

I'm seeking a temp block for this IP to see if the message will be understood. If still not then it will be increased to indef eventually. - Imcdc Contact 05:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; the combination of unexplained removals and apparently constructive additions is a strange one. I don't know if I think this is a person who is just very bad at edit summaries/general communication, or if there's an undisclosed COI going on. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:GabrielPenn4223

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

---

I began tracking GabrielPenn4223 (talk · contribs)'s contributions after they made this questionable move request last month, and in the time since, I've noticed some behavior that is concerning, to say the least.

They have been combative with other users over edits that are several years old, combative in general, have previously been blocked for inappropriate behavior, has created draft articles in mainspace, was nearly blocked again, nominated numerous articles for GA status despite not being a significant contributor to them, created questionable redirects, made questionable requests for deletion, made questionable requests for page renaming, made requests that would clearly fail, and has apparently done all of these things under the guise of we are not all perfect.

It seems that after being told to stop nominating articles for GA status (and apologizing for their behavior), they have moved on to nominating articles for deletion or redirect, often without any consideration to their subject matter, general notability, or existing references. Ultimately, I believe their intentions, while good in nature, are misguided, and they are creating more and wholly unnecessary work for other editors, and I've seen enough of it that I thought it might be prudent to open a discussion into their editing patterns. Of course, I could be wildly off base here, but as a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I felt like it was time to bring these edits to attention. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I apollogize and I will promise to improve. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm a fairly brand new editor to Wikipedia so you know I make mistakes at times. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I probably need to stop nominating redirects or pages for deletion/discussion? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, GSK. Thanks for the message, and I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia as you know. and I make mistakes. I've stopped nominating and reviewing GA's nearly an entire month ago and

everyone makes mistakes. I clearly have apologized to users who have gave me negative feedback or I got negative feedback over with. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block per User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect. The community should not have to tolerate this much trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to get my best to improve, I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support CIR block the user has done nothing productive for Wikipedia, and has been a massive WP:TIMESINK around the GA process. Many editors have asked that they start making constructive edits, but they continue being disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've stopped making everything miscallenous (GA, moves, AfDs, RfDs, you name that) until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for at least 90 days or something longer, as mentioned at the teahouse. I've started making constructive edits by adding a news source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  By "constructive edit", you mean adding erroneous text which other users have to clean up? What, do you think you should be praised, as you hoped when you posted your self-flagellating user essay on so many talk pages? What is the purpose of citations on Wikipedia, GabrielPenn4223? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-citing-an-article-in-Wikipedia#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20citing%20articles,accuracy%20of%20the%20information%20presented. This states: The purpose of citing articles in Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information to support the claims made in the article. By citing sources, Wikipedia articles aim to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the information presented. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  quora isn't a generally reliable source. we have reliable rules set. see WP:Reliable, and WP:Quora Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's not a reliable source, citations are to provide verifiable sources to define claims made in the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Adding CN tags to nearly every single line of an article is also not acceptable behavior. GSK (talk • edits) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I'm going to stop. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I added a "unreferenced section" template to a entirely unreferenced section. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, indefinite CIR block, no further questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This seems a pretty clear case of CIR to me, and it doesn't appear the prior block has had the required effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a constructive contribution today. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I have already needed to correct your "constructive contribution" because it added erroneous text. Furthermore, I support a CIR block. GSK (talk • edits) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  How long? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block per AirshipJungleman29 and Chris Troutman Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC

• Support CIR block It is always good that a user is willing to admit their own shortcomings, but when their history is overwhelmingly filled with disruptive behavior, the user should be blocked to prevent more disruption regardless of their intent. The Night Watch (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly admit my shortcomings. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GabrielPenn4223: Can you clarify "mostly", please? ——Serial 15:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Generally I ask on a page or the TeaHouse and get advice, and if I get advice I take it most of the time. I stopped making GAs, AfDs, RMs, RfDs, AfCs, etc. not until I read the rules or understand what these are. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  In case it's indefinite maybe try to wait six months with the standard offer? or maybe shorter block GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think they are lucky to not be indeffed already - Blablubbs used the indefinite checkuser block template but only set the block length for two weeks. I'm wondering if that was a misclick. Either way I would support a CIR block now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if it was a misclick GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am apologizing for my behavior; I'm going to improve articles instead and stop the "we all are not perfect thing.". I am new, and it's a hard task to improve articles. I will not make GA nominations, AfDs, moves RfDs AfCs ever again until I clearly understand what these are and read the rules of these. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Gabriel. This is based on the evidence presented here and my own review of their behavior. However, this is not a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Led8000 on Talk:United States

After I saw Led8000 calling other editors "anti-intellectual" in this post, I wrote "Calling other editors "anti-intellectual" is insulting, uncivil, and inaccurate, and only serves to make other people discount your opinion and be more likely to insult you in return. Wikipedia policies require us to criticize ideas, not people, unless we're filing a report at WP:AN/I or other dispute mechanism." Instead of agreeing to follow these policies, Led8000 in response to this and some arguments about content called me "a very confused and misled power-hungry person" in this post. I let that go and tried to refocus on sourcing and content. But then in another thread I see Led8000 advised another editor "Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally." in this post. I don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and Led8000 has made some thoughtful contributions to the discussion, but this habit of insulting other editors in the conversation seems like it could easily and repeatedly derail what are delicate negotiations over wording in a politically charged article. Not to mention reduce participation by editors who just want to volunteer their assistance and not be attacked for expressing concerns or making suggestions. I see warnings all over the place that this is a contentious topic and best behavior is required. I'm not sure what generally happens in cases like this, if editors are typically admonished, or topic-banned, or what, so I'm asking about it here. And obviously leaving this up to uninvolved editors, considering I've been one of the targets of these demotivating attacks. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Beland. I sincerely thank you for your message on my talk page about your post here, instead of trying to be covert or misleading in that way. There are too many things that you have not mentioned and left out here concerning this, and I will not be prompted by you to waste time of my life on a discussion here like this. I only advise people to see all of me and Beland's interactions on that talk page, for now. A question to other administrators, is Beland misusing this page? I was under the impression previously that this was actually a sort of page to let other administrators know about site-wide potential compromises or coding problems with the website. Led8000 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your final query, you might be thinking of WP:AN; this venue is correct for this kind of issue.

On your main point: I'd advise that if you think there is additional context missing from Beland's report, you should add it now. Right now it does look like you've made a number of personal attacks, and people aren't going to go hunting for reasons why this shouldn't be actioned by admins. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actioned how, exactly? And what have I done? I have now realized, as I should have before, that Beland obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing, as is a completely logical assumption for any of the top 100 Wikipedia contributors. I am not anti-Wikipedia (my third edit , in 2012, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=497932002 ) . I also did not intend to imply, and I would not want any, probably overall positive, significant contributors to be motivated to put less effort or work in to Wikipedia. Beland is included in that group, in my opinion, just like every other of the top 100 or so Wikipedia editors. I do not intend, and I have never harassed anyone on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the internet, or in person, or any other way, also, in my entire life. The 2 or 3 potentially "uncivil" messages on that talk page constitute what? What really happened, is that this post here by him can be explained by this talk page section, which seemingly has emotionally affected him, thinking that I intend to start a series of complaints to oust him as a long-time admin or something, such is addressed earlier here, based on my assumptions of intentions and perceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Extended_confirmed_edit_request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1206868576#Extended_confirmed_edit_request Led8000 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's some of what you have done :UPDATE. —WELL, THANK YOU, bitter anti-intellectuals,..., You are a very confused and misled power-hungry person,..., Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally., and of course in the comment above "obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing," and "which seemingly has emotionally affected him". Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be brief. @Led8000, stop making observations about your perceptions of other editors' states of mind, here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's obnoxious, and actionable. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what Acroterion said. Comment on the edits, not your personal opinion of the editor. If you can't stay focused on the merits of the discussion, and continue with your attacks, you will get blocked from editing. It is unnecessary and unproductive. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the third uninvolved administrator to comment, Led8000. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is policy. This discussion has two possible outcomes. The preferable one is that you follow the policy and agree to stop making personal attacks. The other outcome is that you get blocked from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

An editor who contributes valuable content... sometimes

I noticed a newly created category, Category:Pro–nuclear_weapons_activists, with only one BLP entry in it. I submitted it to CfD. The category creator is CJ-Moki. CJ-Moki has a long history of deleted categories and deleted articles. So many deletions and warnings over so many years; however, CJ also contributes good content to the project. Have a look at User_talk:CJ-Moki. I am laughing as I type these examples of problem content: Category:Targets of Gamergate, Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Libya, Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, Template:Nazi discussion, Harriet Tubman folding chair, and Mr. Krabs felllatio. I suppose this could be described as periodic disruptive editing? The problem activity isn't localized to any one topic or namespace, and it is intermittent. OTOH, this is an example of one of many contributions that made it to DYK status by the editor: Behind Closed Doors: Horrible, Filthy, Vile, Disgusting, Inappropriate, Off-Model Drawings by the Crew of a Popular Cartoon Show, so maybe we take the good with the bad? I don't know.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hmm, this seems tricky. I'm looking through their contribs and a lot of them seem to be in good faith, especially the DYK's. However, the unnecessary addition of empty categories, baseless redirects, and especially the attack page you brought up all pull this into a place that is of uncertain to me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Callanecc said that the newly created category is not an attack page. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, I couldn't even see what page FeralOink was talking about, I just saw the warning. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Chavurah

Hi! JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 are tag-teaming [226] [227] to add an advertisement for an art collective and its magazine to Chavurah, an article about Jewish fellowship. This includes two external links in the body. As an IPv6, I am, of course, automatically assumed to be a vandal and being told that removing spam is not a valid reason for removing spam. Can anything be done? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:E532:22ED:9050:A469 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This assumption is quite obviously a WP:AGF violation. 2003 LN6 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It's not an advertisement, it's just a reference to the contemporary usage of the term "Havurah" primarily among religious Jews in NYC. I'm not sure how this source is seen as an advertisement considering it's from an independent Jewish news organization. JewishArtnik (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason there are two external links is because there are no wikipedia articles referring to the contemporary use of Havurah yet. I know it's being worked on but until then where should it be linked? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If the organization merits its own article (i.e. it is notable), then it would have one. Until then, every instance of a chavurah does not need to be mentioned in the article. Please see WP:Write the article first. ... discospinster _talk 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am working on creating its own page as it is quite notable in the Jewish community. I don't, however, understand why the organization would not also be mentioned in the article for the term "Havurah". Other organizations and movements are mentioned in the article, not just the literal translation of the term, so why should this not be referenced as well? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The only other organization mentioned by name is Havurat Shalom, and it has got an article. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The process here would be to create the article for the organization (assuming it meets Wikipedia notability requirements), and then it might make sense to add a "For the art collective, see Havurah (Art collective)" note at the start of the Chavurah article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would remind JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so things that share a name have separate articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

pages by a blocked user

Globally blocked user Special:Contributions/Mykytal (bodiadub's sockpuppet) has created many spam promo pages, which are eligible for deletion under G5 speedy deletion rule. Here are some of the latest pages:

Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group Daria Zarivna Viktor Andrukhiv Viktor Andrukhiv Andriy Smyrnov Yulia Yanina 2A02:810A:8E3F:FAA4:D45C:1A7E:10F2:80DD (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New articles about political scandals

I have submitted the article Draft:List of state political scandals in the United States which was rejected for being too long. So I shortened the article by breaking it in to fifty individual articles and reducing the contentof each and the number of references used. I then resubmitted. See example Draft:List of Oklahoma political scandals, etc.

These new articles were immediately accepted by an administrator and encouraged. This admin’s decision was then vigorously challenged by a few editors who caused him to reverse his original decision. Each of the new, smaller articles was then rejected by the admin and these editors for being TOO LONG, and having DIFFERING TEMPLATES, BLP, RECENTISM, and ORGINAL RESEARCH. I challenge their reasoning.

• Being TOO LONG is negated by Wikipedia:Special:Longpages.
• DIFFERING TEMPLATES is addressed by Wikipedia:Citing sources:Citation style. “Wikipedia does not have a single house style for reliable sources.”
• BLP violations are easily remedied by multiple references which were discouraged.
• RECENTISM and ORGINAL RESEARCH are such vague concepts as to be irrelevant.

All these issues were discussed in full at Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States an article in existence since 2004.

I would ask that the reasons for acceptance/non acceptance be examined and the validity of the comments given for rejection be re-considered. And finally, I draw your attention to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marquis de la Eirron who has been mentioned on this subject before.Johnsagent (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins have no special privileges in the determination of content matters. You should discuss this with the other editors involved. If you wish to accuse anyone of sickpuppeting you should do so at WP:SPI with WP:DIFFS showing proof of your claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnsagent, content disputes do not belong at this noticeboard. There are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of points to consider here:

• The user who accepted the drafts, @WikiOriginal-9, is not an administrator, although that shouldn't matter either way.
• Your original draft article is as long as the longest of Special:LongPages. The issue is that this amount of text hits the limit in terms of templates able to be transcluded, meaning that some citation templates don't render at all.
• "Not having a single house style" means that different citation styles in use, like Wikipedia:CS1 and Wikipedia:CS2 (used in most {{Citation}} templates) are accepted. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia:Bare URLs like the ones you used are okay, as they are much less informative and at higher risk of link rot. Indeed, your AfC declining message mentions that Links such as this [https://www.nydailynews.com] with no text should not be used.
  • It also doesn't mean that any possible way to cite information is accepted. As written in the Manual of Style, Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an
    article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system.
• Your later individual drafts were not declined for being too long or for differing templates. Rather, as it was discussed here, issues such as BLP violations, recentism and original research were indeed brought up. These are certainly not "such vague concepts as to be irrelevant", and indeed original research is highly discouraged on Wikipedia.
  • If there aren't reliable sources describing specific events as scandals, they shouldn't be labeled as such. That's also where the BLP violation comes in, even if the facts are supported by reliable sources (not any source is sufficient), commentary on the facts is not, and describing factual events as "scandals" is indeed a potential BLP violation if not supported by independent reliable sources.
  • The lead sections are definitely full of original research, using your own specific definition of scandal and asserting things such as Breaking the law is always considered a scandal.

In other terms, declining those drafts was absolutely justified, and I warmly invite you to rework them to remove original research, make the labeling of individual events as "scandal" in line with their descriptions in reliable sources rather than your own definition, and ask further question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need any more information (trust me, it's a way calmer place than ANI).
Also, please don't vaguely hint at people being sockpuppets with no evidence — not only is it bad form to cast aspersions, but it also happens to be useless here as neither the declining users nor anyone involved in the discussions have been blocked as sockpuppets. If you have evidence of any of them actually being sockpuppets, please bring it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than throwing an accusation here without supporting evidence. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)