Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Jonharojjashi, part 2

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

TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2] [3], but they were mostly fruitless.

Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699

1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [7] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122

1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [8] [9] [10] [11]
2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [12]
3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15] [16]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan

1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17] [18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [19] [20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22] [23].

Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330

1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [26], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [27]
3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [28], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [29]
4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [30] [31]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [32]
5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11

Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

Closing remark

In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.

Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.

Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.

1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of

Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?

1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.

Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing issues of Jonharojjashi

I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial^[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial^[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-

• The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-

• I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.

Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.

Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-

• Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.

I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind

Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My god, can they make it less obvious?

1. Both Jonharojjashi [51] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [52] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
2. Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [53] [54]
3. Like Jonharojjashi [55], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [56] [57]
4. Both Jonharojjashi [58] and Malik-Al-Hind [59] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68] [69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab

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

1. Both Jonharojjashi [71] [72] and indeffed user Sudsahab [73] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
2. Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74] [75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.

I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

A user Based Kashmiri is selecting articles for deletion that do not appear to have any issues. It seems that he simply dislikes these articles, which is why he is deleting them. Surprisingly, another user, Rawn, has voted for deletion on every article this user has selected for deletion.

DeepstoneV (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

पापा जी

पापा जी (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

पापा जी is a "brand new user", yet they are already aware of WP:SYNTH [77] and WP:NPOV [78]. Their first edit was restoring info in an article by Shakib ul hassan [79], does this edit summary seem like that of a new user to you? using "rv" in their very first edit summary. They then immediately went to support the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab conquest of Kaikan ‎and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh. Not even remotely close to the traditional journey of a new user, good thing they're trying to hide it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A remark about closing

@HistoryofIran, please stop non-archiving this thread. You have been warned about this previously. The administrators do not appear to be interested in this report. It's time to close and move on. I have removed the no-archive. BoldGnome (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@BoldGnome: That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this [80] [81]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm

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

WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [82]), likely a sock [83], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [84], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [85] [86]
3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [87]
4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [88] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
5. Same here [89]
6. And here [90]
7. And here [91]
8. And here [92]
9. And here [93]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [94]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [95]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[96] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
  • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
  • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
  • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.

  I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [97] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: [98], [99]

They are not removal but restoration.

I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [100]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"More unsourced" not "unsourced"

I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".

And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [101] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for closure

Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [102]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.

User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [103]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.

This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [104]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I second the request for closure and have removed the non-archive from this report as well. BoldGnome (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.

  This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough [105]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.

See here. [106][107] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.

WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

horse horse i love my station

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:

  • "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
  • "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
  • "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas

  Oh and here's a bonus:

  • "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"

  Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) my comments are not not needed.

1. AndyTheGrump opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[108]
2. 4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[109]
3. AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[110]
4. 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[111]
5. 4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.

This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[112] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology◈ 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something

ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks.

I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump

• Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.

  I see it this way:

  • There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
  • He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
  • Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.

  So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would also support a topic ban from Did You Know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support a t-ban from DYK per Valereee. BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.
  Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor Lightburst. ——Serial Number 54129 18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  That question is easy to answer: DYK posts 9-18 8-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  A 9th list item has snuck in today! Levivich (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and their own behavior wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a general remark not based on any single editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.

  What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @4meter4, are you suggesting a logged warning? Valereee (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I would definitely support a logged warning then.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait, nvm, that's already happened. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways, Andy opened this. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both I don't see any new issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.

  Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He. Brought. This. Here. If you think it wasn't worth bringing here, it's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  (Note the comment above was only He. Brought. This. Here. when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)
  It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria.
  What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Taking this to user talk. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because no one is obligated to satisfy you. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Taking to user talk. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  For reference sake see BLP incivility warning that was given. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am not bloody-minded enough lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Christ on a cracker, Mangoe, would you get the facts straight. Levivich (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."

The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.

TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. wound theology◈ 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia. He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I didn't make a statement about a topic-ban from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with User:Valereee. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. wound theology◈ 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: to make everybody happy, I support a three months block from DYK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. I thought long and hard about this. Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions as shooting the messenger, though Andy would be well advised to tone it down. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom

I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.

I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.

I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.

It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides.

There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive.

It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
• Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.
    That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion. Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit. And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here. It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND and just follow that route.
    Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him. He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors.
    But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he is pushing the right idea or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project. This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards. Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm. The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The RFC is now open at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. All are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  This solves the procedural issue at DYK, but the second overlapping issue, which relates to user conduct, is still open. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns

Both of these users have raised serious civility concerns on Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia#Replies_to_Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist. YFNS made a pretty blatant personal attack, saying I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. Licks-rocks is constantly assuming bad faith from me and making false statements about my edits, such as repeatedly saying that I removed a bullet point when I had actually merged it for redundancy, and later for saying that I had speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition, something I did not imply. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• For clarity: I said this briefly before in a comment below, but I think this info should be at the top for clarity since I'm potentially/partially withdrawing one of the two users from this report. I think I can safely drop the WP:STICK against specifically Licks-rocks (the report stays up for YFNS though, I'm not letting the personal attack nor the disruption slide). Maybe a warning could be issued for me and Licks-rocks because of the conduct Licks-rocks and I had with each other, but I don't think there needs to be anything further for Licks-rocks. During the 7 hours so far Licks-rocks has been either asleep or busy, I discovered a diff (listed below in one of my comments) where they seemed open to discussion. It appears the false accusations were from good faith misunderstanding, not from malice, with the misunderstanding and frustration going both ways between both of us. It's annoying that the two of us had to go through this, and I apologize; arguing with two editors simultaneously frazzled me, and I had initially missed the diff that solved many of my civility concerns for Licks-rocks, even if we still disagree on the content. I think the Licks-rocks conflict can easily be reduced from a civility concern to a content dispute, which, while not ideal, is no longer serious enough for ANI. If something new comes up with Licks-rocks, I may reinstate my report against them, but so far I believe I can come to an understanding with Licks-rocks. As I said though, my report against YFNS remains due to the severity of her personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Just in case anybody is wondering what context UA is neglecting to mention, that comment was in response to the fact they removed That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. from a list of queerphobic beliefs in an essay - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). [113] . Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

A content dispute is not a good reason to call me a troll, bad faith, or incompetent. You're also neglecting to mention how you started the whole argument with a sarcastic Non-Endorsement, which was extremely disruptive. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, this goes beyond "content dispute", which I assume is why you took it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It goes into user conduct dispute once YFNS made the very blatant personal attack, and I was also sick of you saying that I said things I did not do, and yours' and YNFS's latest comments on the essay talk page were the last straw. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think it went into user conduct dispute when I told you to stop repeatedly trying to delete content from that essay. The rest happened because ANI cases are a hassle and I was hoping you'd have stopped by now. If you have, I can't tell, because you're too busy arguing back and filing ANI cases against me --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you remember how several editors retracted their !delete votes to get rid of the essay because I was deleting content that was found to be problematic, and they cited the deletions as overall improvements? I figured it would be fine to keep trying to improve the essay, but then you accused me of disruptive editing because according to you, I shouldn't edit a page I voted to delete on. I also didn't want it to come to an ANI case, but once you said I was questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior, as well as her name-calling me, those were the last straws. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a diff on questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior? You can't just say someone said that without diffs. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff where I felt Licks-Rocks was accusing me, and here is the diff where YFNS made a very blatant personal attack. I'd also like to mention that I just discovered a diff showing that Licks-rocks is able to discuss civilly, finally realizing that I had merged a point instead of deleting it, although it came after these two diffs of false accusations. I apologize to Licks-rocks for not finding that first diff before making this ANI. My conflict with Licks-rocks hasn't disappeared fully, but my trust has been partially renewed after reading the diff where they said "fair point", as it seems like a lot of our dispute was founded over miscommunication. However, the issue with YFNS remains fully intact, and I can not in any way trust a user who will blatantly call another user a "queerphobic troll", cast aspersions of incompetence and dogwhistling, threaten to take me to AE over a content dispute, or in general say something as hostile as cry as much as you want, or make it extremely clear she's not open to discussion by saying the essay isn't going to change for you. Saying "I would call you a troll" is essentially the exact same thing as "I am calling you a troll right now". am aware that YFNS has had a GENSEX TBAN before; should her TBAN be reinstated if she will behave with such hostility towards a conflict dispute? In fact, for good measure, here's her sarcastic Non-Endorsement that I found to be disruptive, and the additional comment that made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical, furthering her disruption. I don't think there's any specific policy against sarcastic/satirical comments in talk pages, but they're not helpful and only make things confusing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

?

YFNS had a GENSEX TBAN because admins refused to close the discussion when the filer was revealed to be a sock. It was illegitimate to begin with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) This time, it isn't a sock filing. Also, even during that prior discussion, many legitimate editors came forth with actual problems against YFNS. As the closer stated, It might make or break in a close discussion, but this was not close… Even though the filing was in bad faith, once the issue was up, it became apparent that there was indeed problem's with TheTranarchists editing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Really LilianaUwU? You think I'm a sockpuppet because of beef with one user?. I just checked the supposed sock master's edits, and I don't have any other edits in common with the supposed sock master, especially not any of the pages tied to locations I have no familiarity with nor have I ever been to. Go ahead and check our IPs, unless the sock master is by some chance in the same area as me they'll be different. I would, however, like to report LilianaUwU for the unfounded aspersion that I could be a sock. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Yeah, and I withdrew it when I realized I'm horribly wrong. Apologies for the aspersion casting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) I apologize for blowing up at you. I'm glad you understand that I was frustrated at a false accusation. I'll strike my above comment. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Nah, it's fair to be mad at me for such a big mistake. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Also, since we're here... might as well put this up here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Casting of ass Persians

I am open for a two-way interaction ban between me and both of these users, though I would still like for their behavior to be examined, as the name-calling and assumption of bad faith are both very uncivil in my opinion. I am also open to examination of my own behavior. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• See also the conversation I had with anon at his talk page. Also, take a look at the conversation mentioned above, and anon's general editing history since that MfD. Something something doth protest too much. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to my talk page still falls under my civility concern. You accused me, again, of obviously disagreeing with the premise of the essay, when I had literally just explained that I do think queerphobia is hate, and that the disagreement was what the essay considered queerphobia. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what the words "the premise" mean is very narrow here, to me. All in all, you've been pretty vocal about disliking what amounts to the vast majority of that essay, so I don't think what I'm saying is an unfair characterisation. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that this reply was made to the initial post(diff), the OP wrote the text this is currently a reply to 5 mins after the reply was made(diff). – 2804:F1...1D:E8C2 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Crazy thought. Stop arguing with each other here before anyone else has a chance to chime in. You both look bad. --Onorem (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I have been watching discussions about this essay for a while. Things are getting nasty and it must stop. All editors involved with this essay pro and con should be advised that false accusations, snide remarks, personal attacks and slow motion edit warring are unacceptable. Be on your best behavior, or be prepared to accept the consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah, uh, what he said jp×g🗯️ 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon's contributions in this area have been disruptive and it is far past time that he dropped the WP:STICK. His comments in the essay's MFD consisted mainly of soapboxing about his own personal views of what is and is not queerphobic instead of making policy-based arguments, he edited an archived deletion review after it was headed for a unanimous endorsement to suggest yet more discussion should be held, and now he bring this dispute to ANI after he chose to escalate it at seemingly every turn (ex. suggesting YFNS remove the "friendly" from her username). It's just an essay! Hatman31 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point about my comments on the MfD being soapboxing and not policy-based, but I can explain the edit to the archived deletion review. YFNS sarcastically wrote a Non-Endorsement and this additional comment made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical. My thought process was that she wouldn't reply to her original endorsement if she wasn't at least somewhat serious. It turned out to be sarcasm, but it was legitimately hard to tell until she replied later, so I requested to reopen the Deletion Review now that new info had supposedly come to light. Did I write it in the wrong place? Yes. I had no idea where to write it, and because I didn't know if it was sarcasm I didn't want to waste a page on new info if I didn't know it was serious or not. As for saying YFNS should remove the word "Friendly" from her username, I'll admit I did step too far and my comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, but I had felt she made a personal attack towards me first by misinterpreting my replies on the talk page and by saying that my agreement with her disruptive sarcasm was a stupid bar, before of course she made a more blatant personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If the people who write an essay want to avoid arguing about it with others who want it to say something else, why not just put it in userspace to begin with? That's what userspace is for, after all. This kind of thing is why I said it ought to have been userfied in the first place... jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, uh, what is this -- "In any case, cry as much as you want" -- it's great that you have good opinions and etc etc, but I do distinctly recall a person being indeffed some years ago after repeated ad-hominems about other editors "crying"/having "cried" -- so maybe less of that. jp×g🗯️ 08:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the next diff was the one that proved that Licks-rocks (who I also initially reported but have mostly dropped the stick towards by now) can actually be reasonable, with a statement like Fair point on the first removal. However, because YFNS blatantly called me a troll at the exact same time, I was more focused on that, and didn't discover that Licks-rocks even made that comment until a few hours after filing this ANI, and ended up wasting Lick-rocks' time. While I can only speculate, I do think the conflict between me and Licks-rocks would have reached a more natural conclusion if I wasn't also dealing with YFNS's disruption and general incivility at the same time. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate, if unsurprising, to see UA at AN/I. But the signs were there from the start. It is worth noting that they registered this account for the sole reason of continuing an edit war which they had waged as an IP, intent on restoring unsourced cruft material to an already-swamped fanboy page, even when advised against doing so (e.g. by Drmies, and Ad Orientam). This led them to forum shop in excelsis, and saw them file in rapid order at WP:AE, the Teahouse (!!!) and WP:ANI. They accuse others of lying (noted GorillaWarfare). I note that little seems to have changed. While it might look as transphobia is their latest POV to push, they have had similar gender-based problems previously (Claiming someone is gay because of a Twitter post, or advice from Tamzin in which she notes a degree of offensiveness in his treatment of transgender people); before which their previous behavior pales. But the side issues brought up—here and on UA's talk page—demonstrate that the lessons of a few years ago have not been learned. Edit warring (and the continuing misunderstanding of what constitutes it), bludgeoning, aspersions of trolling and edit warring (result: No violation: and the closing admin told UA they were basically throwing anything to see what stuck), and a basic IDHT unwillingness to be counselled are all old behaviors not yet unlearned. To quote Eggishorn to UA:

  You will, of course, dispute every characterization of your edits I've made above and defend yourself from these "accusations". Your statements at the Teahouse and DRN and AE all demonstrate that, no matter how many editors have told you this approach is mal-adapted for this website, you are going to insist on your righteousness. Please: you really, really need to slow down and read instructions and the feedback you've already received before you keep going. You are treating the entire project as your personal WP:BATTLEGROUND.

  That warning was from nearly four years ago. plus ça change, and four years later, we are having almost exactly the same conversation. Such recidivism suggests that they are a net negative and continually soaking up editors' time and energy requires a preventative block. ——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: While I hate to bring up an entirely separate discussion into the mix, if you're going to bring up that one from 4 years ago, I can't see how you reverting to your preferred version of a page every month or two could be considered anything but slow motion edit warring, especially since three of the people who reverted you were not me (the first was an entirely different user and the other two were separate IPs who were not me). Only these two IPs editing that page were me, with a third one briefly rotated to here (and the first one was a temporary one as I was editing while not in my hometown), before I made my account in August, as I wanted to avoid the aspersion you cast that any IP reverting your edits to that page was me. In addition to the aspersion that every IP editing that page was me, and another aspersion of "bullshitting innocent admins", you publicly stated my location at the time, something I really do not appreciate, as it comes very close to doxxing. Calling me a "crufter" in that same edit where you stated my location at the time also comes close to being a personal attack since it's immature name-calling, but I'll let that slide for now because doxxing me was so much worse. Even after reverting your edit I had tried to find a compromise by removing said cruft without entirely removing the article's substance and tried to add sources (examples of both). I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have, and forumshopping that I have mostly stopped doing since that discussion with you, but it seems like you still believe you were entirely in the right even four years later, when what you were doing 4 years ago couldn't be described as anything but the exact type of slow motion edit warring that I'm (probably correctly) at stake for right now, and you're completely blowing off my attempt at cooperation. I hope anybody else reading can understand that I was frustrated at clear slow-motion edit warring from SN54129 being called "not warring" and especially towards being doxxed, even if my response to edit war back or forumshop wasn't appropriate. As I was a new editor back then, I did not know how to describe slow motion edit warring, and as I said I have not continued forumshopping. You're also claiming that Ad Orientem had told me to not edit the page; he never did that at all, and specifically said that In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here when I raised my concerns. You linked GorillaWarfare, who said you were discussing on the talk page; while you were doing so properly in January, when the discussion resurfaced in August, your only substantial edit to the talk page was the aforementioned doxxing. You are also leaving out GorillaWarfare's next comment suggesting what I should do, and me properly following her advice. While I appreciate constructive criticism (Hatman31's criticism was constructive, for example), Serial Number 54129's criticism is not constructive at all, as it appears that you still believe you are blameless, when that clearly is not the case, and are completely ignoring instances where I showed that I was able to properly come to a compromise and consensus. I also can't trust how the discussion below started by Kcmastrpc was initially collapsed by you, when another user is bringing up issues with Licks-rocks. I hate to WP:BOOMERANG to a user that was initially uninvolved, but I feel I have to when said editor is misconstruing facts of a prior debate to get me blocked, whether intentionally or misguided. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Did I mention walls of text, anyone? That's another favored technique, and comparable to the AN3 report where an admin said they are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the report.

But while it's true I was involved in that case, I deliberately didn't personalise it by adding my opinion. I did not even mention the causes of the dispute or the original page it revolved around. That's because it's irrelevant. What's relevant is you are showing the same behavior here as you did four years ago—as indicated by your immediate attempts at diverting the discussion into rehashing and relitigating an argument from four years ago. Anyone clicking those links will see my involvement and judge as necessary. But the important thing in these discussions is not to personalise them, as that generates more heat than light. Unfortunately, you have proved Eggishorn's point for them: you immediately personalize the discussion, go on a battlefield attack, while accepting no responsibility. You should remember, now, that it's not about me, and more to the point, it's not about defending yourself to me—you must defend yourself to the community. I imagine a little self-reflection and consideration for others might go a long way towards helping your case; I hope it's not too late.

Feel free to cry boomerang all you like; I do not feel such chill on the back of my head to necessitate wearing a helmet.

PS I've re-hatted that extraneous section, as it clearly would have been undone by admin if it was out of place. It was not. That essay has enough discussions on it already if you want to join one of them.

I expect there will be further walls of text to enjoy; I doubt I will avail myself of the opportunity to do so. ——Serial Number 54129 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hatting the below discussion is still not appropriate if another user is bringing up concerns about Licks-rocks, whose user conduct is also being judged. And I feel I do need a wall of text if you're going to be casting aspersions by saying I have a misunderstanding of what constitutes [edit warring] or blatantly misrepresenting admin statements. You're also either lying or not reading carefully that I am accepting no responsibility, when I had literally just said I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have. I have no desire to sanction you for a discussion that ended long ago, but aside from the BATTLEGROUND problem I realize I have, your argument to block me is misconstruing the facts. Also seriously, another user saying Feel free to cry? Didn't JPxG literally just say that was a uncivil? Unnamed anon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now, other than strongly imply that everyone here has a tumblr? Is the idea to just get us to start arguing about whether BakuDeku is a bad ship?? Be still my dash... jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Re. What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now: Nothing, as I said JPxG; but the similarity of the behaviors demonstrated then, with those demonstrated over this essay, are clear. This recidivism—a long-term failure to abide by community norms and expectations—has resulted in this thread. You agree, of course, that a pattern of behavior needs to be proved. I give you UA's own history. Anyway, please focus on UA's current transphobia and consider my input as background to the current complaint.

  Re. the rest of your message, I have no idea it relates to or what answer is required, apologies. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated, most of the diffs you linked were things that were either before I came to a proper consensus and abided by community norms and expectation, or things I haven't done since I was new. Only the BATTLEGROUND complaint was valid. It appears you believe I don't abide by the community norms because you didn't participate in the discussion to resolve the edit war you were a part of. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm just some guy online, but if I were trying to get someone to stop posting huge walls of text, I would try to find some way to criticize their behavior without making repeated vague accusations of bigotry, something which necessarily requires them to type out gigantic reams of text to respond to and deny et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Thank you. Both SN54129 and YFNS have shown why I write these walls of text in the first place. I'd like to mention that, while I was editing as an IP, SN publicly stated my location at the time with a whatismyipaddress link and used immature name-calling, the former of which comes dangerously close to doxxing. Frankly, now that this is the first time me and SN have interacted in years, I'm open for a two-way interaction ban between the two of us as well, because he can't respond to me civilly, or criticize me without outdated information (seriously, why bring up forumshopping if I haven't done that since I was new?), and I can't WP:DROPTHESTICK towards his incivility. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: SN54129's argument was to prove that I have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, which I'll concede he is correct about. Unless somebody else beings up a new issue with me, I think only BATTLEGROUND issue remains though; the rest are pretty egregious aspersions. The edit warring he's accusing me of was primarily from him, several admin statements were misrepresented as those statements were before I came to agreements with them, and the rest of the diffs represent things I haven't done since 2020. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG aside, that doesn't really negate the WP:BATTLEGROUND that is emerging on the recently created essay. There's no easy solution to that, honestly, and the controversy surrounding it's creation, deletion proposal, and subject matter in general is indicative of the broader culture war that naturally coexists on Wikipedia. I see general incivility around, and I was accused of WP:ASPERSIONS by Licks-rocks regarding the MfD when I explicitly avoided alleging canvassing was deliberate.[114] Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  The easy solution would have been to delete the essay but the community missed that opportunity and now nobody is surprised it's a battleground. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I know I haven't been involved much in this discussion, but maybe a rewrite of the essay might do something.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also explained my reasoning for that on your talk page. I'm glad that you're making the distinction between accidental canvassing and intentional canvassing now, but I'm sure you'll forgive me for not divining that from your initial comments, where you referred to the extremely standard issue notice placed at WP:LGBT as seeming, quote, "quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices.". --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• WP:PG allows essays in project namespace that are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. It follows that editors who fundamentally disagree with an essay should just leave it be (short of taking it to MfD, which we have been through). There is no reason to continue this escalating conflict. Trying to achieve consensus on something that by definition expresses a view that does not have widespread consensus is impossible. Now if you will excuse me, I am off to rewrite WP:MANDY to match the infinitely wiser WP:NOTMANDY.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Licks-rocks has given me new info that I was legitimately unaware of, to which I replied that I'm open for compromises. If other editors have problems with Licks-rocks, go ahead, but I no longer have problems with them outside of a minor, easily solveable content dispute. YFNS struck her "cry about it" comment, which I'm glad for, but she did not strike the dogwhistling/compotency/bad faith aspersions nor calling me a troll, which is still a concern since those were more blatant personal attacks.

Additionally, SN54129's faulty and outdated evidence against me makes me distrust him further, he's also given the uncivil "Feel free to cry" statement that, unlike YFNS, he has not struck, and I still haven't forgiven him for doxxing my location four years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's acting in bad faith. Dishonest use of "diffs". Making a claim, then providing a link in a form of a diff which supposedly supports the claim when the diff actually shows nothing of the sort, and if you go the the next diff in his "unwillingness to be counseled" aspersion, you can see very well my willingness to be counseled. I'd like for two-way interaction bans between me and both SN54129 and YFNS. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrt WP:CIR, you admit just above that you were editing an article and removing mentions of trans kids because you didn't realize genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers. The text you removed and are saying this about didn't even mention medical transition.

If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll - this is me saying that I was interpreting your behavior, that came off as queerphobic, as genuine concern, as opposed to trolling. Stop trying to twist that into you are a queerphobic troll because that's not what I said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll trust that you think I had genuine concern, but saying "I'd call you a troll" is pretty easily read as "I am calling you a troll right now". Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I issued a warning nearly a day ago, and Unnamed anon thanked me for my warning and then proceeded to disregard my warning. Unnamed anon continued with battleground behavior, which, strikingly, the editor themself acknowledges as battleground behavior, and yet continues even after being warned at this very noticeboard. On to the repeated mentions of "doxxing" based on another editor saying that certain IP edits were made from California, which any competent person could confirm with a handful of keystrokes. California has 39 million residents and who knows how many visitors at any point in time, and is by far the most populous state. California is the third largest US state by area, stretching 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived in California for 52 years which simply informs my analysis. So, this ongoing "doxxing" complaint is entirely without merit and should be dropped completely . WP:TLDR is another aspect of my block. The unpaid volunteer competent labor of productive editors is by far our most valuable resource. Disruptive editors who repeatedly waste that precious time have two choices: Stop it or get blocked. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for a week. Cullen328 (talk)

I don't have enough energy to compile diffs and detailed timelines, but one pattern of behavior from Unnamed anon is that they often make changes that are disputed but fail to engage on discussions that follow. For example this section was opened after UA had made 10+ consecutive edits removing a portion of the essay content. A part of those removals saw some discussion before UA made those edits, with no apparent consensus. Despite that, UA went ahead and implemented those, along with some additional content they thought warranted removal, which I disputed in another section. This time UA only engaged after someone suggested CBAN. At the history page of the essay, you can see how UA has on multiple occasions did this:

1. makes a change that was disputed/considered problematic
2. when others bring the issue to talk, refuse to engage or minimally engage with the consensus building process, with other editors having to make reverts.
3. after discussion for that dies down, UA goes ahead and makes another edit that is problematic/disputed, perpetuating this pattern of behavior.

This is disruptive editing with the time wasting, combined with some WP:TEND as well. WP:GENSEX is already a contentious topic, and UA's behavior is subpar. Combined with SN54129's background above, my preference would be a CBAN. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I know he's magnanimously decided to let me off the hook if I don't do anything further to offend him, but sadly, I have to agree with this assessment. Something else I've noticed is that UA also frequently uses individual comments by users on talk pages as a cue, where someone will say something negative about a part of the essay as an aside, and two minutes later I'll see a "per the talk page" removal of the entire thing from UA. See here and here. Neither of these were preceded by actual discussion, just off-the-cuff comments by single editors. I should note that since the ANI discussion, he's started adding stuff instead, using the exact same "one talk page comment as a cue" MO, see here. I'm accepting the new additions under AGF, but they do leave me scratching my head. The quality issue should be obvious, but even when done in good faith, interrupting talk page discussions like this makes carrying out those discussions properly more difficult, and is tiresome to deal with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

After Cullen328 made the temp block and explained in the comment above, there is a response at UA's talk page. The part that specifically addressed this ANI thread is copied here.

As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDeadbeef and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of me ignoring its existence. This talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, especially in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar.
— User:Unnamed anon

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. It may sound surprising, especially as I'm usually the first to support an extension of WP:ROPE, but in this particular case, I think that ship has sailed. Whereas usually attitudes soften and people become more comfortable in their surroundings, here it seems the opposite: that confrontation and a general refusal to take advice—and with a curious focus on settling old scores—shows that if anything, they have become less collegiate over the years and less likely to fit in with the community for the future. Perhaps if they could demonstrate a year or two of productive, anger- and confrontation-free editing at other projects, the WP:SO would probably become available. ——Serial Number 54129 17:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: t-ban for Unnamed anon

• Notwithstanding Unnamed anon's request that their current short-duration block be the end of the remedy against them I think the most productive method of resolving this issue would be an indefinite topic ban from Gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed. This is not a new problem with Unnamed anon as some of their editing relating to Bridget (Guilty Gear) and The Simpsons demonstrates: [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] this one in which the user insists on misgendering a video game character is particularly alarming also a whole bunch of tendentious commentary on the gender of Hikaru Utada. What it comes down to is that Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well and it seems to generally end in tendentious editing. They shouldn't be editing articles with regard to gender and sexuality. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Gender and Sexuality topics, broadly construed (and I would support this being inclusive of content in non-article pages, like essays, as the disruptive behavior at WP:No Queerphobia warrants). Simonm223's diffs are persuasive for establishing a broader pattern of disruptive behavior in this topic area (a 'highlight' including an edit summary accusing editors of having an obsession with history revisionism when they write prose that doesn't misgender), and Serial Number 54129 describes a long term pattern of Unnamed anon becoming less collegial over time. A topic ban here would be preventative, sparing editors from further disruption. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Unnamed anon on their talk page expressed disavowal of the "sexual deviancy" comment (diff in comment from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist below) which is to some extent good—but then followed that up with I do not have a history at homosexual-related disputes, which is both eliding disputes like the removal of marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted from WP:NQP (which was about same-sex couples) as well as, while not as egregious as "deviancy", phrased with what rings in context as brow-raising language (and makes me a bit concerned about Unnamed anon's copyediting; might they end up introducing less-than-neutral language like this in the name of copyediting in other articles?). This is also why as much as Unnamed anon's less confrontational tone at present is welcome it doesn't persuade me to stop supporting the topic ban proposal or to support exceptions to it. Unnamed anon continues to not recognize some of their disruptive behavior as disruptive, and the long duration of this behavior—and the extremities it has reached—together leave me persuaded that Unnamed anon spending time away from this topic area would be to the project's benefit. Other editors will be capable of copyediting and of doing so without disruptive editing accompanying their contributions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• think I can support this, if it means keeping an otherwise productive editir onsite. I hope that Simonm223's suggestion does turn out to be sufficient; otherwise Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well would have to be addressed. Still, one step at a time, all right yet be well. ——Serial Number 54129 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN; neutral leaning support on CBAN (involved): After UA opened this original thread, I filed a case at AE regarding their long-term GENSEX misbehavior. @Seraphimblade: closed the thread, referring the matter back here. Highlights include:

• UA made comments stereotyping LGBT editors as having a POV in 2021, when Tamzin kindly called them on this[122], they doubled down [123], and when Tamzin left a more detailed message UA explained they resort to stereotyping when in a bad mood.[124]
• UA made comments grouping editors by LGBT identity again in 2022, then described being LGB as a sexual deviancy[125] in the same month.
• During the WP:NQP discussion, they make an oversighed massive BLP violation[126] and they continued to make comments about editors based on identity (having repeatedly argued that LGBT editors can have a COI due to their identity)[127]. They in fact said that it "definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest" that I objected to people saying all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists[128]...
• As mentioned earlier, they removed marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples from a list of queerphobic beliefs in the essay.[129]
• The examples I listed here and at AE are only a selection of worse offenses, there are other instances of tendentious editing regarding LGBT topics. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  i have been quietly watching this ordeal over the last week or so, and wowie i had not seen those diffs you present here. the "sexual deviancy" comments are especially egregious and offensive, and the fact that seemingly no one addressed that blows my mind. i acknowledge my apparent "conflict of interest" as an LGBT editor, but i think TBAN is the bare minimum here, given that this behavior has not changed in the slightest since they joined nearly 4 years ago. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  and to be clear: YFNS' conduct hasn't been perfect here, but that can be addressed separately and that's no excuse for UA to be tendentious themself. at the AE request, UA said I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. UA, you shouldn't be grouping editors by their sexuality at all.
  UA has just replied to me on their talk page and i appreciate that they are concerned about not being able to fix typos and the like - in that case, i think carving out a minor copyediting exception to the TBAN would be fine, if that's an option (struck per Hydrangeans) - i just do not want the community or the lovely admins at AE to have to spend any more time on this disruption ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN to prevent further disruption in this topic area. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Keep in mind that WP:GENSEX is a contentious topic where the threshold for tolerating disruption is already low. No one, not even Unnamed anon himself, has denied that he has disrupted under this topic area.

  I think we as a community is spending way too much time on this than necessary, with UA's talk page section starting to be filled with walls of text.

  The community should move on and implement a topic ban. UA should move on and accept a topic ban, and I hope he can remain here and contribute to other areas that interest him. And if someone thinks a page ban from WP:NQP is sufficient, we can add the history on Talk:Hikaru Utada, the comment about sexual deviancy, and many more detailed above and in the arbitration request. Being able to edit constructively in other LGBT articles is not an excuse for the disruption already caused, and TBAN is just what happens when you continuously disrupt a contentious topic. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• pencilled in Oppose, per Serial, but also because this measure is being suggested at a point of time where the subject of the suggested sanction is not able to explain themself. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) ... added later: When I wrote "per Serial" I meant what Serial Number 54129 had written at the time before removing it here. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  You can see UA's talk page, he has responded there. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to stop further disruption in the area. As was already shown above by others, UA has a long-standing history of problematic edits in the space, not just limited to the WP:NQP MfD where they caused hours of tendentious arguing, or then jumping and trying to immediately resurrect the DRV (and editing an archived page at that) after YFNS made a sarcastic non-endorsement. Them now arguing they will leave the essay alone after a tban was proposed appears very reactionary and ignores the rest of their disruptive history in the area. A topic ban also won't stop them from editing movie or TV articles as they asked about, just that they stay away from any explicit LGBT articles, or on movie or TV show articles, just specific sections or sentences that are part of the topic ban, as is explained in WP:TBAN. So I think a topic ban will help prevent any further disruption here. Raladic (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I have read UA's response on their user talk page and my personal opinion is that grammar fixes to articles about LGBT BLPs are not sufficiently beneficial to offset the risk of permitting UA to continue editing in the gender and sexuality topic area. I would be willing to extend WP:ROPE regarding edits to TV shows and movies with queer characters provided they understand that editing in relation to topics of gender and sexuality within those articles was still off-limits. But, saying this as a cisgender bisexual, I find both UA's recent comments about sexuality and conflict of interest generally alarming and also don't think we should, at Wikipedia, be countenancing LGB without the T as being a coherent idea that we should permit. The rhetoric used on trans people now is the same rhetoric that we bisexuals and other members of the queer community faced in decades past and an inability to edit appropriately on trans topics should be interpreted as an inability to edit appropriately on queer topics generally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per YFNS, as well as 0xDEADBEEFs note about CTOP. I read through all of UA’s responses through this whole mess, and while it looks like they've realized that they did something wrong, CIR remains an issue. UA has shown an inability to judge their own ability to contribute to conversations productively (the fact that they still thought 7 year olds are getting genital surgery [130] over two weeks into arguing against the essay was particularly concerning to me). They've shown a tendency to only become receptive to feedback from others after things hit a boiling point (particularly when discussions of sanctions pop up). I do think that they’ll be able to appeal this in the future, but until they show an ability to contribute productively (I'd suggest checking out the advice on WP:COMPLICATEDTALK), they need to stay away from GENSEX topics. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  _{Huh, never heard about WP:COMPLICATEDTALK before, but that's a really good essay, and I will certainly incorporate it in my editing practices going forward. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)}

• Support WP:GENSEX topic ban - I've had a number of off-wiki conversations lately with friends who identify as queer (I identify as straight with asterisks) where we discuss the concept of an "unsafe person" (my words; the off-wiki tone is not so collegial), in the context of local events. An unsafe person is not a bad person necessarily, but they are a person whose behaviour around queer spaces and topics raises doubts as to whether that person can be trusted not to do harm, most commonly through well-meaning ignorance as I think was exemplified by UA's editing at WP:No Queerphobia, but also occasionally through malice which we have seen some examples of from UA as well. Unsafe persons have a chilling effect on queer persons and queer spaces, and we must avoid that on Wikipedia; see WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm not saying this to attack Unnamed anon and I trust they won't take it that way since they've already acknowledged they've behaved badly in this space, but I agree with Simonm223 on this: the minor benefit of one editor gnoming and copyediting BLPs in this space is very greatly outweighed by the potential for a known unsafe person to drive marginalized editors away from a sensitive topic. I don't think there can be any limiting in topic scope of the ban, gender and sexuality are too closely intertwined to craft a workable sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  this is a really excellent way to put it ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban These are the types of AN/I I typically try to avoid weighing in on, but after reading Simonm223's diffs and YFNS' highlights I realized how much I, as someone not even directly interacting with UA, felt a deep discomfort at their attitudes and editing patterns regarding queer topics. Luckily for me, Ivanvector already wrote essentially everything I wanted to convey, nearly exactly. From what I've seen UA very much seems well-meaning, but how they conduct themselves and word their stances imparts a notable chilling effect. I hope no matter the result, UA sticks around and continues to help improve Wikipedia in a way they find fulfilling. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban_(Involved) I was thinking about not weighing in on this topic ban proposal because I felt I'd already said plenty elsewhere, but I've decided to weigh in one final time. I want to highlight that this "disruption" we talk about is not something theoretical. Honestly, this whole situation has been very tiresome to me. The energy I ended up spending to keep the constant deletions, comments and unhelpful changes in check is energy I could have spent improving the essay. In fact, I would've much preferred spending that time working my way through the essay and doing copyedits, or making sure the list of transphobic beliefs section explained why those beliefs are listed, or adding proper sourcing to back up the factual claims. We have no deadline, but editors do run tired, and then they stop, and then the next editor to come along might be years away. As CambrianCrab pointed out above, sometimes, an ill-informed contribution is worse than no contribution at all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

user:elshadabulla1954 accussing of supporting not good people

so recently i was discussing with user:Elshadabdulla1954 about the importance of citing sources since they attempted to just claim on the elshad abdullayev page that elsha adbullayev was performing some crimes related to fraud. I of course reverted these edits since they were unsourced, however quickly I was accused on my talk page of "supporting a fraudster" and "defending a criminal" by user:Elshadabdulla1954 even though all I did was request for sources to be provided. I'm not entirely certain what my best course of action should be in this situation so if someone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated! ps: the comments are still on my talk page if you want to take a look at them Gaismagorm (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

alright the user has been blocked, so the issue is now resolved Gaismagorm (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a username block here sine the account is editing the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b1c8:b754:6106:ae10:b44d:ecfc (talk • contribs) 11:29 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I don't want to be too hasty before reporting them to the username board Gaismagorm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Reasonable suggestion re username block but probably unnecessary in this case. From their edit history they're not trying to impersonate Elshad Abdullayev. And of course they are already blocked indefinitely. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here? If I am not mistaken (which i very well might be) you are trying to say that the username block wasn't fully justified? I am not sure if this is what you are trying to say, so if it is not a clearer explanation would be greatly appreciated. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND

Elinruby is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([131]), warnings ([132]), and a block ([133]).

• Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: [134]
• Accusing me of inserting fake news and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [135]
• Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [136]
• Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [137]
• When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: [138]

Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Elinruby#Block. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text is Q[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO [line break] Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.

By way of context for different editor did heavily maul the article, there is an RSN discussion (permanent link) about the use of unreliable sources in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

OP put the "triggered" in quotes, and that's where the word occurs in the diff cited. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• From User talk:Elinruby (permalink):

The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.

I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [139][140] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[141][142] Or specific. Or that they didn't show the receipts. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.

I think that Pbritti misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example:

• current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
• current diff 146: Discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
• current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself

Then the complaint itself:

• Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [143] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points.

• Accusing me of inserting fake news: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI.
• removing reliably sourced material: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations
• refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes.
• spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present: Uh...no. see next bullet point.
• the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons": Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[144][145][146] The same week, Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere: By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia!
• Saying they don't need to engage in discussion: Misinterpretation of I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement.
• suggesting that I'm racist: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice
• CBC News investigation that determined a link: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag.
• When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going...
• apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you
• a list of Q and As: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits.

This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

copied by Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinged note, no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @Elinruby notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per El_C, I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified. What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with Springee that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the Jordan Peterson page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections.

  As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound WP:NPOV failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at WP:RS/N and you can see how that turned out here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page: as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting TPA revocation and block extension

Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page:

• When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they replied with I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills
• They falsely claim The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having left an edit summary that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning
• They claimed a hostile notice they added to their talk page mentions no names–despite pinging me with @Pbritti: please see section below immediately after adding it.
• The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and this reply

I am not keen on the project allowing further ROPE for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging El C as original blocking admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: The diff for left an edit summary is linking to a 2008 revision. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C: Thanks, I must've deleted a digit. Fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - I do not see anything there that requires revoking TPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

CLIQUE-like behavior at Elephant article

Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [147],[148], [149]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying, removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?

Far more important, however, are the following:

• "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.

• "the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([150]) as well as [151].

However, since I am blackballed from the Elephant article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.

(https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/sri-lankan-elephant). Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([152]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(likely copied and pasted from the reference source) No it wasn't, stop making false claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588 —Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is okay too: Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147. —Alalch E. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.

Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. EEng 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads)." (page 121). CodeTalker (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. EEng 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm very disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine):

Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?

What in the world prompts such an accusation here? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing

I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, LocomotiveEngine. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

User: Hopefull Innformer

• Hopefull Innformer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks onTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.

I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Higher powers"? I guess I know what you mean but I've had a long day and that made me laugh. Time to get back to my mop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to close this out in some way? They said they had wanted the opinion of "moderators", but they've since continued to contribute on Talk: Yasuke while not even responding to any of this, or responding on their own talk page. Plus they've stopped accusing people on Talk: Yasuke of deception, so I don't even see that there's a point to this any longer. X0n10ox (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's assuming bad faith, but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over this comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the aspersions which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term.

  "is people from twitter, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just people who don't care for integrity or accuracy"

  "I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever inaccurate narrative you want to push"

  "I don't think Theozilla is being sincere here let's focus"

  The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. X0n10ox (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

180.75.233.40

Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. -Lemonaka‎ 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Malaysia is not a Chinese country, the official language is Malay written in both Latin and Jawi script. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka‎ 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok next time I will put the summary, btw I already put the statement in the caption. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And you should have tried discussing with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”.

Hence only Latin and Jawi are recognized nationwide, Chinese and Tamil are not recognized under Malaysian constitution and law. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@180.75.233.40: Are you the same person as the IP discussed in #Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address 180.75.238.55 in multiple Penang-related articles ~2 months ago? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Same language indeed. FYI ping Ponyo. CMD (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. CMD (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@180.75.233.40@Chipmunkdavis I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Deb and @El_C, who may want to deal with this case? -Lemonaka 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of User:180.75.233.40, but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. Deb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour -Lemonaka 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise.

Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Enough of that. I've re-blocked the IP for continued edit warring and incivility.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND User:BilledMammal

This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them.

My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I reverted a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an arbitration notice against me.

Fast forward to present day, I've reverted another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. Threatening to have me blocked unless I restore their edits.

I don't know if this is behavior is allowed on Wikipedia or not but it's certainly immoral. Ecrusized (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

For context, the full November AE report. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted ScottishFinnishRadish to say an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here

That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting a 1RR concern from a different editor without responding to it, and then today a concern from me about the removal of a disputed tag.

Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here"

"That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting"

You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was talking to you on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• "This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them." Pot, meet kettle. That is pretty much how I would describe construing a note as a block threat and escalating it immediately to ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago (permanent link): I must admit my confusion about this link from BilledMammal (and therefore also about the forumshopping charge leveled against Ecrusized's behavior). The link isn't to a concern about BilledMammal brought to Arbitration Enforcement; it links to an Arbitration Enforcement request that BilledMammal submitted about a different user, Dylanvt.
  Without commenting one way or another on Ecrusized's behavior and whether boomeranging applies, the concern about some of BilledMammal's edits verging on (or becoming) battlegrounding seems unfortunately plausible. BilledMammal has been previously sanctioned for abuse of process also in this topic area that the admin called using boards for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing. In April and May, BilledMammal was advised about unproductively bludgeoning discussions ([153] [154]) and received an Arbitration Enforcement block for edit-warring in the Israel–Palestine topic area. At a minimum, I would hope that the present thread reminds BilledMammal to exercise restraint when contributing in contentious topic areas. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and personal commentary towards other editors, we're firmly in topic ban territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about it. I probably should have explained that earlier. I left this open so community discussion could continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I find posting on an editor's user talk about edits that occurred a week beforehand, with an edit warring notice, to be problematic and it is not unsupportive of the OP's claim that BM has gone trolling through their edit history the moment they've come into some sort of conflict. TarnishedPath^talk 00:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• That indeed seems problematic. But you should use trawling rather than trolling to express such purported WP:HOUNDING. Thanks. El_C 12:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @El C thanks for the correction. TarnishedPath^talk 12:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which would y'all rather have:

  1. Editors complain about 1RR vios right away each and every time they happen
  2. Editors never complain about 1RR vios
  3. Editors let 1RRs slide for a while until they get to be too many, and then bring all the recent ones up at once to show it's not a one-time thing

  I prefer # 3. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. TarnishedPath^talk 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to WP:AE, which is what I hoped would happen when I proposed the gentlemen's agreement here. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out:

  • Key background: on 13 May, Ecrusized filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Galamore, reporting 1RR violations by another editor, with diffs going back to 19 April (which requires "trawling" through others' contribs)
  • Here are Ecrusized's edits to Israel-Hamas war
  • On May 14 they made a bunch of edits to that article, crossing 1RR
  • Among those May 14 edits is this edit, which they self-reverted with edit summary "This probably puts me in 1RR" (true), only to reinstate that same edit a few hours later at 16:43. Their first revert was on 15:49 13 May, which is why they waited until 16:53 14 May to reinstate it. Unfortunately, despite the rather obvious gaming involved in waiting 25hrs to make a revert, because of other intervening reverts, that 16:53 14 May edit was still a 1RR violation.
  • The 14 May edits included adding inline tags and a hidden HTML comment telling other editors not to change content, while also removing an inline tag placed by others (while discussion was still ongoing on the talk page, the most recent talk page message was made only 16 minutes prior)
  • Ecrusized made no edits to the article between 14 May and 20 May
  • On 20 May, they once again removed another editor's disputed tag, while discussion was still ongoing, with the most-recent comment was made only 2 minutes prior and Ecrusized made a comment 2 minutes later, and they restored their hidden comment that had been removed by others
  • On 20 May, BM posted a message on Ecrusized's talk page asking them to self-revert the removal of the disputed tag. No block threat, no incivility, just a please self-revert request.
  • Ecrusized's response was to post this message on BM's user talk page, and blank BM's post on their own user talk page, 10 minutes later
  • Then BM posted a second message bringing up the 1RR violations on 14 May. It was a request to self-revert. There was no block threat, no threat to escalate.
  • Ecrusized's response was to call BM a "wiki warrior", and to accuse BM of "threatening to have me blocked", which never happened. Here is that whole discussion, which took place over the course of 18 minutes, 10:50-11:08
  • At 11:17, Ecrusized opened this ANI

  Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while at the same time complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like "virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias" ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year.

  I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that BM's behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I can see how someone who didn't look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this bill of particulars out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  virtually inexperienced editors and heavy Israeli bias is strong wording that I don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn't look at this history (that is to say, a different user's behavioral history) and think that BM's behavior is problematic; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for that @Levivich. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable reference work, not engaging with concerns by CoptEgypt136

CoptEgypt136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned that CoptEgypt136 is repeatedly inserting content that is either supported by unreliable sources or else entirely original research. I encountered their editing while reviewing the new pages Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta and Our Lady of Maulawin; in both cases, after I identified serious reliability issues with their cited sources, they responded only by removing tags (Special:Diff/1224816435, Special:Diff/1224816381) and otherwise declining to engage. Upon looking to start a discussion on their user talk page, I saw that they have previously deleted but otherwise ignored multiple warnings from Veverve and Pbritti (Special:Diff/1165819612, Special:Diff/1179393452, and additional warnings from Pbritti before then), and that they have yet to actually make a single communicative edit to a Talk page (other than deleting comments or adding WikiProject flags). At this point, unless they decide to finally engage with the community, I think that a CIR block may be needed. It's debatable as to whether I am WP:INVOLVED here, as my only interaction has been to tag articles for AfD as part of NPP, which is an admin-adjacent task, but I figured it would be best to err on the side of caution and request independent review rather than proceeding to a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't want to make a snap judgement regarding this most recent set of concerns regarding CoptEgypt136, but I have spent a long time reverting/correcting errors and OR inserted by them. If they have been continuing to do this, I am inclined to support a CIR block that forces them to engage with these issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've been pretty sure that CoptEgypt136 is the latest sock incarnation of Mark Imanuel Granados. I had gotten tired of playing whack-a-mole with his socks both here and over on wikicommons. I had also hoped that maybe he could focus on editing according to policy as opposed to creating socks to keep pushing his edits that had been reverted. I would support a block, but I also do not anticipate this to solve the problem as he will likely just create another sock. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

EuroLeague - User:Cf203, User:Coining, and IPv6s

There seems to be some odd stuff going on at EuroLeague and its talk page. Primarily, it's Cf203 (talk · contribs) apparently in a bit of a content dispute with some IPv6 users who they're accusing of using VPNs, and lumping Coining (talk · contribs) in with them. Right now there's a slow-motion edit war on the article and I've removed tit-for-tat block requests from the talk page (from Cf203 targeting Coining and an IPv6 targeting Cf203). See also: User talk:Coining#Last Warning and User talk:Liz#Vandalist, as those are also related to this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My thanks to Jéské Couriano for raising this issue. For now, I point to my prior defenses at Talk:EuroLeague and my user talk page, and I convey that I'm happy to answer any questions an admin has for me. I get that Cf203 doesn't care for the anonymous edits that were made by others, but they weren't from me -- I approached things directly and publicly on the article talk page, and yet the reaction from Cf203 goes against WP:AGF WP:SIG and I'm sure whatever policy Wikipedia has about not leveling charges of vandalism without a proper basis. Coining (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi , now i havent issue with User:Coining . I messaged their talk pages. And I requested to block VPN and protect pages from destruction.

In the last ten days, one person has broken pages many times with different VPNs.

Last VPN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:6C2D:134D:F618:6F9B

Others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Liz#Vandalist

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:388E:3741:ADCC:24E4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:8B05:4300:916:D566:7B6:5972

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:6C2D:134D:F618:6F9B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:9805:1400:532:38F0:C5DC:18AA

- Athens, Attica, Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.167.197.143

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.203.97.145

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.218.90.24 Cf203 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) *sig moved by 2804:F1...53:A19D (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC): diffs1 (19:34), diffs2 (19:45)

Respectfully, Cf203, though you say you don't have an issue with me, you've left up your false vandalism charge against me at User Talk: Coining. It really should be replaced with an apology that shows contrition. As for the substance of what the IPv6 accounts are relaying -- the thing you call vandalism -- I can only speak to the EuroLeague article I've been involved with, but I think you are mistaking genuine disagreement with vandalism. Those accounts and I (who, again, are not the same people) are all trying to point out that the concept of gold, silver, and bronze "medals" and the EuroLeague simply don't go together, and you haven't cited an outside source that says they do. So, your effort to keep reinstituting a "medals table" keeps getting reverted (never once by me, but by others -- I simply raised the point in the article's talk page). Just because you disagree with that determination doesn't make it vandalism. But what likely got you here, to this administrative discussion, is that you turned the disagreement into a "war" (your word, on my user talk page) and I, an innocent bystander, was caught up as collateral damage, when you falsely charged me with vandalism. And when Jéské Couriano tried to explain proper Wikipedia procedure, you also summarily ignored him. And, no matter how many times I try to point you to the requirement to sign your posts WP:SIGN, you keep not doing so. I hope an administrator sees fit to give you some sort of time out. Most of us would rather focus our efforts on improving articles rather than having to deal with things like this. Coining (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's clear to me that the situation at the EuroLeague article, and related articles, is a content dispute. There is no vandalism taking place there. Accordingly, I've given Cf203 a standard templated message about edit warring, as they are subject to being blocked if they breach the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles. Who should stop him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2a02:85f:ecd7:d600:c0e6:3e48:10d2:525d

His VPNs should be blocked and his articles protected

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EuroLeague#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:55AA:85E3:7089:389C

I did not enter into an editorial war. I have discussed enough here. The account user did not respond. VPN had no answer except destruction and manipulation. Cf203 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, User:Cf203, be careful about how you phrase things. You say at the beginning of this last comment "He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles." A casual reader would think that I am the "he" you are referring to because the topic of this conversation refers to the two of us. Continuing to read your comment, the accounts you are complaining about are the IPv6 accounts, which I have explained to you time and again are not me. You claim you don't have an issue with me, but you seem to not be willing to distinguish between those you do have a genuine dispute with and those, like me, whom you've simply made up accusations against. Do better. I continue to leave in place your false vandalism charge against me at User_talk:Coining in the hope that you will take it upon yourself to reverse your edit and apologize. You haven't seemed to be willing to do that yet, but you still have a chance. Coining (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See this history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIBA_Europe_Cup&action=history

One of the users deleted his edit and he restored it again with different VPNs. All his VPNs should be blocked forever. It should be checked which VPN it uses so that all its addresses are blocked.

Template:GoodHue291 hello remove all edits of this vandalist and lock all pages for ips and vpns.Cf203 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cf203: Do you want to explain why me template signing your unsigned comment, and reverting your section title change with the clear explanation that your change violates WP:TALKOTHER, is to you blocked user nonesense content? Further, you've now included me in the list above - what exactly am I being accused of? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:ECD7:D600:C0E6:3E48:10D2:525D

Cf203, you just linking to IPv6 contributions without providing any additional context is not doing you any favours, —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither is the WP:FORUMSHOPPING [155] [156]. Your verging ever closer to WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviours and that wont turn out well. Amortias (T)(C) 16:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred: And upon inspection they went and reverted for a 4th time in a fraction under 24 hours and just minutes after your warning so I've issued a 24 hour block. Amortias (T)(C) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User: A.Viki Wiki7

A.Viki Wiki7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is disruptively editing numerous pages, inserting unsourced, often nonsensical or unencyclopedic content, excessive Wikilinks (e.g., to numbers in pages), and what appears to be the unsourced addition of LLM-generated content. Their focus appears to be on islands, mainly the islands of Greenland. User's disruptive behavior has been brought up on their talk page numerous times, including with warning templates, since 12 May by three different editors (myself included). User has acknowledged the warnings, but continues to edit disruptively. The repeated acknowledgement then ignoring of warnings leads me to believe this user is not editing in good faith.

Disruptive edits include:

• Uummannaarsuk here
• Clavering Island here and here
• Disko Island here and here
• Lynn Island here
• Queen Louise Island here
• Chagatai Khanate here
• Tasiusaq Island here
• Sermitsiaq Island here
• United States Virgin Islands here

nf utvol (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be a WP:CIR issue.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. nf utvol (talk) nf utvol (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Then this might be a Wikipedia:NOTHERE and/or a troll.

I think they might be a troll because on there userpage, they claim they a #1 of the list of Wikipedians by articles created. Even though they are not even on that list.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User continues to make unsourced, nonsense edits to uninhabited islands off Greenland. The continued behavior after all the friendly advice, warnings, and now an ANI leads me to believe this is just strangely targeted vandalism. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm A.Wiki Wiki 7. I wish all Wikipedians a good and lucky day. I'm afraid of vandalizing Wikipedia. My edits present the knowledge and skills I have acquired. Thank you. Happy editing! A.Viki Wiki7 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Above comment by A.Viki Wiki7 moved from new section they started at bottom of page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

p-blocked from article space. Not sure it shouldn't have been full, but as long as they don't become disruptive elsewhere, maybe that's sufficient. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Given their own userpage nonsense and their sealioning at various usertalk, I would have full-blocked. But no harm in waiting a bit to see what they do next. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like this user has created a sockpuppet account User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08. This user thanked me for an edit where I removed a number of A.Viki Wiki7's comments from my own talk page, account was created immediately after A.Viki Wiki7 was banned, and has a language pattern on strangely similar to the banned user, and is making the same kind of nonsense edits. nf utvol (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, there are many accounts starting with those 2 words followed by a number, multiple blocked: Special:ListUsers. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, good catch. That's extremely strange. nf utvol (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an xwiki sockfest dating back at least to December. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this is a little out of control. User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08 is now pinging admin talk pages asking why they got blocked...pretty cut and dry admission of sockpuppetry if you ask me. nf utvol (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure there are more, there's overlap through UZ Wiki history (first article the 08 sock edited there) for names like A.Sherzod _ and multiple combinations of A. (short for Abduvaitov?), Sherzod, Wiki, Viki (short for Vikipediya, Uzbek for Wikipedia) and some number or other.

There's also this account which is globally locked and was blocked along with some related accounts at UZ Wiki: Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi (unless Sherzod is some sort of meme, it seems like there's a connection: diff).

Hopefully a checkuser finds most of the relevant ones. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If anyone has any additional accounts with evidence of being part of this sock set, please add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. CUs will be looking there in due time and that's also the place anyone else will be looking in the future to help keep track of this set. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDOIT has been blanked four times by 3 different accounts

As of a few minutes ago, the redirect page Wikipedia:JUSTDOIT pointed to a page that just says . The blanking was first made three weeks ago,

• first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists on March 14.
• then by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and
• Then by by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b.
• and again by the same account o "Giatricotloi".

I reverted again but I think this page needs to be protected temporarily and the other two IP accounts need to be blocked or banned or something. I hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask questions. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a month. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly this isn't a page that requires editing to be open at all. It's not likely to be valid to change it to anything else. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

71.174.52.146 (talk · contribs) Vandalism and disruptive only editing IP for years

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

---

Looking at the talk page history and the recent, it shows this IP is not here to build an Encyclopedia. This is a disruptive, vandalism editing IP and needs blocking.

The history is too long. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on ship-related articles

Merzostin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obsidian Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Djong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Junk (ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. There is an ongoing edit war on the articles I've linked above, primarily between Merzostin and Obsidian Soul. Both editors have warned each other, yet continued with the reverts. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. (I didn't post at WP:ANEW because I wasn't sure whether I could, as I'm not directly involved in this, sorry if I should have posted there) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just those two articles. He also removed a large portion of sourced content on K'un-lun po. I have already tried talking to him. His removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation" and "disruptive editing" motivated by nationalism in complete disregard to sources. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANEW is indeed the right place for reports of edit warring violations, even filed as an uninvolved party. Although short of highly contentious topics, I don't believe action is typically taken until 3RR is broken, which Merzostin seems to have done on Junk (ship). GabberFlasted (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This editors have made a lot of reverts based on nothing literally, he didn't check the arguments neither did he check the sources, his reverts is definitely disruptive motivated by nationalism or bias towards other ethnicity.

Anyhow this users adhered to a certain biased agenda, as his edits contained double standard, for example he said that Chinese sources are not reliable and should be removed from Junk (ship), that they might exaggerate the size of ships but at the same on the Djong, he provided the same "unreliable" Chinese sources as fact on Djong page because the Chinese apparently describe a large ships of the Southeast asian from 3rd century, i guess they are reliable now and they didn't exaggerate this size of the ship.

he did this a lot, which showed his real intention in downplaying one ethnicity over the other. Merzostin (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not Indonesian.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

who said that you are? "downplaying one ethnicity over the other" you don't have to be of that ethnicity of the main article to downplay other ethnicity. While i am Indonesian and i hate misinformation and disinformation in general, especially regarding my own country and culture. Merzostin (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I said WP:PRIMARY sources including direct quotes from Chinese historical texts (many of them legendary, like your texts from pre-Han China) are not reliable, can not be taken literally, and need to be filtered through a reliable secondary source. That is not "downplaying" anything. Mentioning that the terms "junk"/"junco"/"juanga", etc. originally applied to Southeast Asian ships per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing quotes from medieval travelers who are describing Southeast Asian (not Chinese) ships again, per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. Removing irrelevant sections on legendary naval battles in ancient China that did not involve junks, is not "downplaying" anything. Expanding and clarifying foreign and Chinese maritime trade from the Han to the Ming dynasty, is not "downplaying" anything. Correcting the actual characteristics that define a Chinese junk (and how it differs from the Southeast Asian ships) per the sources, is not "downplaying" anything. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully protected this page by way of RfPP (diff) while unaware of this thread. But Merzostin, your approach suffers from excess WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you need to tone down. Above, Obsidian Soul made cogent points regarding the reliability and veracity of certain sources, expressed in a matter-of-fact tone. If you disagree, you need to likewise tone it accordingly. That is to say, in good faith; in a dispassionate and scholarly and civil manner. This, then, is a formal warning that if you choose to continue engaging the content dispute/s, you need to fulfil that. No more personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS about underlying ethnocentrism (diff), and so on. Otherwise, you risk sanctions that, in one way or another, may remove you from the page/s in question. El_C 09:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Yoyo360 Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin

User:Yoyo360 is not adhering to page restrictions after having been warned by an administrator.

Warning by administrator

• [157]

Edits in violation

• [158]
• [159]

Intention to ignore and violate the restrictions

• edit description sets out intention to ignore admin warning and page restrictions

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd need a clarification to determine whether this is at all actionable. It seems that after being cautioned Yoyo360 did not, in fact, edit in article space and, instead, edited at article talk. Is the 500 edit restriction relevant to participation at article talk or is it only relevant to article space edits? Tagging @Acroterion: as the admin who issued the warning in question. Simonm223 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I re-read the original caution from Acroterion and it answered my question. Maybe a very short-duration block just as a way of them understanding that their edit history on FR-Wikipedia isn't relevant to these sanctions? The diffs presented don't seem particularly disruptive so I don't think a major action is necessary at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If the topic is under an extendedconfirmed restriction then non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk page. This is not quite that but it's in the spirit IMO. No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sensing coded language here that somehow Am I prohibited from editing in a way which is not prohibited by others? what on earth do you mean by "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them" It seems that there is a failure by the people to stop going after me as I and admin asked for a group of people to not comment on my talk page and that was ignored. This seems to be a way of going PP666 stop doing what are normal editing practices. Are you accusing me of harassment? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the warning is clear and I do not get the oblique comments above about what was said regarding "stop bothering them".PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that the wording of the notice was not optimal. Acroterion has already been pinged, but I'll remind everyone here that, per WP:ARBECR, Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. I interpret the two edits you linked to as making an edit request, although they did not use the template to request it but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; WP:IAR applies. Other admins reviewing might disagree with my interpretation, I'm just going to leave it at that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see this revert from an admin which this report is a follow up from [160]

Can this edit then be looked into as to if it was correct as it seems to have caused confusion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot, I just reminded an editor that the talkpage is under editing restrictions. They are free to make appropriate edit requests, but not to generally opine. Since this is a confusing area for restrictions, there's no reason to be draconian unless there's significant problematic behavior, we just need to remind people. Wikipedia isn't a court or a bureaucracy. PP666, I don't see anything that merits more than what was done, different language WPs handle things differently, and it takes some getting used to. This isn't about you. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as my edits are being discussed I will chime in and say that I do find this a bit confusing. My edits (the deleted ones highlighted above) were intended to be edit requests, so with the above taken into account I'm now not sure why they were deleted. I won't kick up a fuss about those specific edits because the issue they refer to was resolved, but clarification on what is/what isn't allowed would be useful in this area. For instance: PP666 is currently policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus' based on this deletion, but it's hard to tell where "edit requesting" and "consensus making" draws a line. If edit requests are allowed but opining isn't, then it sounds like I would be allowed to suggest an edit, but just not publically agree with someone else who suggests an edit? Is that correct? I just want to know what's expected here because there seems to be several different interpretations here BugGhost🎤 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the Arbitration Committee did not sufficiently clarify in their decision regarding edit requests, and so in the limited instances where I do enforce the sanction (because I think it's very badly overused) I interpret their decision as allowing any talk page comment which suggests an improvement to the article, but disallowing general discussion and conversations with other editors, though I usually let those slide as well as long as they're not disruptive. Many other admins will interpret this as meaning that only properly formatted edit requests using the {{edit extended-protected}} template may be considered and will remove any other edit; I feel that's bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Still others will indiscriminately remove any edit by a non-EC editor, which is clearly wrong but it still happens. In shorter words: Arbcom left too much space for interpretation, and so it depends on which admins see your edit. If you are proposing an improvement to the article then you should be fine, but some admins have harder asses. I believe it to be unfair, but that's what we've been given. If you think an admin is removing comments inappropriately, you can ask for a review at WP:AARV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ivanvector. It's a question of drawing a line between chat and specific suggestions for article improvement (sans editorializing), and it's sometimes hard to discern where that is. For this kind of thing, I would prefer a fairly format edit proposal, rather than an extended commentary, since that tends to lead to trouble. I really meant to remind everyone in general to maintain decorum. Bugghost has 120 edits, which is a little scanty for contentious areas, so I just want them to think carefully before commenting in areas where restrictions exist, however fuzzily defined. As I've noted before, the Eurovision contest is a strange place to see restrictions like that, so editors may need more guidance than would be the case than if it were plainly within a contentious topic. . Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to both of you for more clarification on the topic. I won't be going to AARV because I understand that the scenario is nuanced and I think Acroterion is being reasonable. As a side request, if someone possibly reply to this comment to refer to this discussion or a summary of it? At the moment I think it is misrepresenting what you two are saying. I did it myself but realised that me doing that would ironically probably actually be against the rules that we're talking about, so decided to self-revert it for my own peace of mind. BugGhost🎤 19:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please with draw your comments of ‘policing who can and can't be considered part of 'consensus'’ as that is unhelpful to this discussion. I could say the same about people trying push me off the page for having an opposing viewpoint (I’m not it’s an example of what I could say). That though is not helpful. Perhaps take the invective out and we’ll all get along better. Yes this is contentious but don’t let it eat you. I don’t think inflammatory language helps anyone.

As has been said the Arbcom decision is ambitious let’s focus on that and not go after each others throats with barbs and alike. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "policing" is the correct term here, and it's not invective. You are taking the interpretation of the rules and attempting to enforce it on the public, which is the definition of "policing". I don't feel like squabbling over terms or causing a derailment. This AN/I doesn't strictly involve me, so I'll be going now. BugGhost🎤 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You may consider it correct but it is inflammatory and unhelpful to furthering the positive moving on by all. If you do not wish to withdraw it then I will know the colour of the person I am talking to. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Demanding apologies for every minor infraction does not seem to me to be in the interest of "furthering the positive". You may be interested in reading the essay WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@PP666, appointing yourself as moderator of that that talkpage and posting your interpretation of policy/consensus on what restrictions imply is a bad idea. We're trying to do this with a light touch. Please revert your notes on who can and cannot post. You are not an uninvolved party. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This is done but the irony of your comments is not lost on me. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this wasn't done. The posts weren't reverted, they were simply wikicommented out and your instructions still sit uncorrected and visible to other editors of the talkpage, just slightly obscured. Commenting-out is not the same as deleting and I don't think it should be used in this way. BugGhost🎤 10:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Having read the guidelines on talk pages the guidelines frown upon deletion. I don’t think a strike through is a good idea as the comments themself are still visible. I did though remove them from being viewable. This way content is not deleted as the guideline frowns upon that and the inflaming content is not viewable. The relevant section is WP:TPO of WP:TALK. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

For wider context, this is part of a longer set of contentious discussions where there are claims of consensus and there have been quite ugly comments on a lot of sides this user included. Would you like me to provide diffs relating to that? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Restricting participation in talks due to edit number is absolutely ridiculous, especially in regards to the fact that, if we were to discard sections launched by contributors with less than 500 edits, we would discard all edit requests from these editors. And they may be pertinent. Also discarding an opinion based on a number is ridiculous. As for my wiki:fr edit number, I mostly bring it up because I am actually more experimented on wiki than my count edit here lets know and I feel infantilized by PP666. I just try to collaborate here because the corresponding project in French isn't active and I like to have opinions from other editors. Block me if you think that is necessary and that my actions are disruptive but I think, once again, that blocking edits on a talk page is ridiculous and counter effective. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous and stupid, but that is the rule. Anyway, you are now extendedconfirmed, so this thread is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your leniency. And with my apologies if my behaviour was incorrect. Maybe I don't have the subtleties of wiki:en yet. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's more a matter of giving you the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation. I don't think your behavior is a matter of concern, it's more a general concern that the talkpage discussions remain within boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to double check, you're using WP:TPO, the section titled "Editing others' comments", as the reasoning for not being able to remove your own comments? BugGhost🎤 13:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems futile now and I am disengaging. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Related question

Can I get an admin opinion on this question/request by a new user on the talk page Talk:Eurovision_Song Contest 2024#Revert neededPicturePerfect666 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything in the disputed content that warrants mandatory removal (i.e. WP:BLP violations), and otherwise edit warring is forbidden, including edit warring over whether or not certain content should or should not be visible while being discussed on the talk page. In other words there is no particular policy or guideline compelling keeping it in nor keeping it out, the important thing is to discuss. Your suggestion to take it to dispute resolution is a good one, but say what your issues are with the content itself, don't just argue about keeping or not keeping it in the meantime. If someone else has restored the content after you removed it, let them, and keep discussing. There's no rush. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the suggestion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Welp, so much for that idea. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m off to the teahouse now see what they say. Also thank you for the close in the discussion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia

Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've repeatedly changed Sidhu Moose Wala's infobox image back to a low-quality one without any discussion ([161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]). They've also edited other India-related pages (e.g. Diljit Dosanjh and AP Dhillon) disruptively. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bilseric Contentious Behavior Continuing

User:Bilseric is a WP:SPA editor dealing with Croatian topics. Last month, there was a discussion about their contentious edits in this area, documented by User:Chetvorno [167] the discussion among multiple editors led to Bilseric filing a very long complaint at ANI [168] that ended with a logged warning to Bilseric for their behavior [169]

The subject of their behavior in this area (apart from the invective found in the ANI filing) continued to be discussed with Bilseric on their talk page by User:Doug_Weller and User:El_C among others. It ended with Doug asking Bilseric to make an informal agreement to stay off the pages until 2025. Bilseric agreed to this. [170]. Doug made it very clear that Bilseric was explicitly agreeing to that so that everyone could move on.

A few days later, Bilseric continued their behavior, arguing about the subject, and Doug reminded Bilseric that the agreed to stay off those pages until 2025, but took no further action [171]. Bilseric noted that the agreement had been made and intimated they were going on a break for the rest of the year [172].

Bilseric made an edit to the Nikolai Tesla/Nationality page that had been a focus point of the disputes today and Doug issued a one-year page block from that page. [173]. Bilseric then denied that any agreement had ever been made [174], accused Doug of retribution [175], accused Doug of making threats [176]. There was more, but in the interest of brevity, one can continue on the page.

Doug's taken a lot of abuse from this editor, and I think given that Bilseric repudiated an agreement that likely forestalled formal sanctions, both denying that the agreement existed or that any agreement would have any validity, more formal sanctions are in order, along the lines of a topic ban from topics dealing with Croatia, broadly construed, or a more generalized community ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Bilseric#Indefinite block. I've already warned Bilseric a few weeks ago in no uncertain terms and more than once. If they want to work towards softer sanctions, like an WP:ABAN or a WP:TBAN, they can integrate that into their unblock request. I, however, will not permit them with a free-for-all unblock request (or otherwise user talk page), and will revoke TPA if they continues being combative against others, including to admins like Doug and myself. El_C 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: In light of their latest personal attack—one that pings Doug to read (in part) Doug Weller, you are a terrible person [...] (diff)—I've revoked TPA. El_C 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sex cult apologetics

This is about recent edits by Maribela777 at Gregorian Bivolaru. They smack of sex cult apologetics. The rub is serially performing WP:OR. Like how would Ion Cristoiu and Gabriel Andreescu know in 2017 what happened in 2023 and 2024, e.g. These are allegations that the press obsessively repeats, even though no official accusations of pimping or prostitution have been made? I.e. information about 2023 and 2024 is WP:V to WP:SOURCES written in 2016 and 2017. More details at Talk:Gregorian Bivolaru#Cristoiu and Andreescu. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The edits aren't of good quality but, despite the poor quality of the edits, there is the question of how to handle WP:BLPCRIME for non-public persons. That article, both pre- and post-Maribella777's edits is not in a good place BLP wise. I'm going to post something to WP:BLP/N shortly. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Maribela777, the latest series of edits were more than enough to warrant it on their own. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: As far as I remember, I have only mentioned the name of one person, namely Bivolaru's French right-hand man. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article after Maribela777's edits is going to be hard work. :-( Robby.is.on (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User: NKing1313

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

---

Can something please be done with this editor?[177] He keeps making changes to actress Allison McAtee article without any sources to back up his changes. Twice now he's reverted info I've added which is sourced[178][179] claiming it to be misinformation. I don't want to end up violating the three-revert rule.

He's been doing this for sometime now. I've warned him and another editor warned him a couple months ago. But he's obviously ignoring them. I've looked at his editing history and the account was made in 2018 and the only edits he's ever made were changing or removing dates on that article. So this may be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Kcj5062 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest a partial block from the article (or all of mainspace - it would be equivalent in this case) until the editor (who, as far as I can tell, is at least as likely to be a "she" as a "he") explains things on the article talk page. I'll start a section for them to do so in a moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (partial): User talk:NKing1313#Indefinite partial block. El_C 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:GamerHashaam

A user, named GamerHashaam has been conducting a series of disruptive edits on the Third Balochistan conflict. He, with no sources or talk page interaction, changed the results of the conflict to “Baluchi victory”. [1] When I reverted it and told him to take it to the talk page, he threw what seemed to be a tantrum, calling me a “bootlicker” and a “faujeet” (a merge of Fauj, which means army, and “pajeet”, which is a racist term for Indians.). [2].

I have constantly attempted to make him use the talk page for a civilised conversation as seen from my edit summaries, and issued him warnings on his talk page, but it doesn’t seem to make him act any more civil. Even accusing me of being an asset of the Pakistani military, accusing me of spreading “bullshit” and accusing me of being a captain in the Pakistani army. [3]

I tried to keep an open mind, but he simply wants to engage in insults and bad rhetoric. I eventually found out that the result I was reverting to (Pakistani victory) had no basis, so I had reverted it to the “ceasefire” result it always had before, I even apologised to him and said I hoped that this would be a fair compromise. But to no avail, he constantly puts it as a “Baluchi victory” despite no sources, and even has the audacity to tell me to use the talk page, when he has been editing the result without the consultation of the talk page, and only eventually using it to insult me.

What’s even more suspicious, is that an IP created the same exact edit to the result parameter he did, only 9 minutes before. I’m not sure if this was merely an accident, but I’d just thought to mention it anyway.[4]

This isn’t the only page, he edited the casualties on the 2024 Azad Kashmir demonstrations and simply stated “per local sources”, with no citations and links. And even when it was reverted, he simply re-inserted it back. [5]

In summary, I have attempted to rectify the issue, even apologising to him for my mistake.[6]

I urge the administrators to take action against GamerHashaam, he has been disruptively editing and extremely insulting and uncivil. His disruptive editing is still on the Third Balochistan conflict page, as I do not want to continue an edit war. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to you of any ill behavior but I thought that you were promoting the narrative by the state as a military handle of ISPR but I recognize that claim is bogus without evidence so I apologize for that. I changed it to a Baluch Victory with some more edits such as changing baluchis to baluchs as baluchis is used by only punjabi people in pakistan as they tend to use a "i" with "s" to pronounce plural of ethnic groups or peoples.

I changed it to a baluch victory as I clearly defined that the demands of the Baluch had been accepted by the government as even in the article original state it mentions that yahya sued for negotiations and reverted the one unit scheme aswell gave a general amnesty not to mention releasing all captured insurgents. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly defined without a source. 48JCL (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297949740_The_resurgence_of_baluch_ethnicity_and_nationalism_in_Baluchistan?enrichId=rgreq-7b34a998ca96ef754c3352b1de0972d1-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI5Nzk0OTc0MDtBUzo1MzY5NTQ1Nzc5NzMyNTRAMTUwNTAzMTM1NTgzMg%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

This is one source I citate for the research, Its from Multan Zakariya University. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RESEARCHGATE ResearchGate is not reliable according to Wikipedia. 48JCL (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

He (VirtualVagabond) continued to make the claim that the rebels wanted Independence or sucession from Pakistan and provided no sources or citations for such claims and as per the demands, we have of the rebels , nearly all were fullfilled. thus I saw it to edit it into a baluch victory from a ceasefire or pakistani victory. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The military dictator General Yahya Khan sued for a cease-fire with the Pararis. In spite of their recognition of a cease-fire, the Pararis were persuaded a revitalization of hostilities with Islamabad was only a matter of time. The Pararis upheld their guerrilla forces unharmed and enlarged their reach, powers and numbers after the 1969 cease-fire. In certain areas, they were capable to run a virtual parallel government. General Yahya Khan broke up of One Unit on July 1, 1970 and Baluchistan for the first time became a full-fledged province. But no attempt was done to take the internal administration of the province in line with those of other provinces. The general elections were held under the Legal Frame Work Order in December 1970 for the first time in the history of Pakistan and the result of the 1970 elections unleashed a whole set of new and contradictory forces into the political agenda.

here's the text

We need to verify it in a journal

ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). GamerHashaam (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree it was a ceasefire, which I had inserted. On the other hand, nothing says about a full-fledged Balochi victory.

It doesn’t matter about your claims about ResearchGate doing “fact checking” or whatever. Wikipedia policy deems it as unreliable, through and through. It even states that it does not do fact checking on WP:RESEARCHGATE, and states it as a “self-published source.” VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

yes a self published source although we can find a factual journal on a other site for it.

Second I didn't say it was a full-fledged baloch victory rather a simple baloch victory due to there demands being accepted for which we can find other sources in the article other then me as listed below:

Third Balochistan conflict#Insurgency

Sher Muhammad Bijrani Marri led like-minded militants into guerrilla warfare from 1963 to 1969 by creating their own insurgent bases. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders and lifting of One Unit Scheme. The insurgents bombed railway tracks and ambushed convoys and raided on military camps.

Third Balochistan conflict#Military response

This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire granting general amnesty to the separatists as well as freeing the separatists. In 1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy, which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km² coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.

Also I humbly require you to use proper pronoun for the balochs not balochi as balochi is the language not the people. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@GamerHashaam: Please stop WP:SHOUTING. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not shouting rather just highlighting the important text in the passages GamerHashaam (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about your response, not the quotes, we can read it just fine without the bold. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright GamerHashaam (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What even is a “simple victory”? Your claims don’t make any sense. Wikipedia policy doesn’t accept that.

What is this other factual source? You didn’t send a link or citation, nor any other source, but regurgitated what the unreliable source said.

Please, let’s take this to the talk page of the conflict. Let the administrators here do their job easier. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia policy on a military victory works. Again, please take this to the talk page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright take it to the talk page , add some sources and context please I request for it to be a ceasefire or pakistani victory. I have to go now but I will Inshallah Review it in 12 hours and provide a reply. Allah Hafiz GamerHashaam (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Also Its baloch not balochi , Please fix the pronoun GamerHashaam (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to ask, does anybody know when an admin will come to make a decision? It seems that the reports before and after this one have mostly been solved or at least have been looked over. But not for this, I understand it might take some time but I’ve heard that ANIs get archived if there’s no activity for three days. Hence my curiosity. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § User:Kautilya3

 – Geardona (talk to me?) 00:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Wikipedia. Today I've been on my toes all day from the user in question who keeps reverting my edits pertaining to Sikkim, ostensibly due to my source, the book "Sons of Sikkim" by Jigme N. Kazi, being self-published.

When i took to Talk:Sikkimese monarchy referendum to explain that the source used fell within Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources, being written from an established Sikkimese writer, as well as give the sources that the author himself used in the book, one of which is already cited in the article on its own long before I ever made any edits to it, I have yet been met with zero response to this section on the talk page, despite said user being active in that time and continually removing my edits, which I keep going back and undoing, which is very frustrating for me, and frankly my patience is wearing thin to having to keep an eye on these pages while my requests for dialogue are continually ignored.

Furthermore, I have reason to believe this user is not acting in good faith with these edits and is instead trying to push a viewpoint in favor of the Indian nationalist interpretation of the events in Sikkim in the first half of the 1970s.

• Only edits I made with this source concerning these events have been challenged, I used the same book to add information to articles of Sikkimese monarchs going back to the mid-17th century. I find it suspicious that only information pertaining to these 1970s events was removed, while nothing else that I wrote using this book as a source were removed.

• On the Sikkimese monarchy referendum page, information not posted by me and not sourced from the book I used was also removed at the same time as my edits, primarily China and Pakistan's statements of opposition to the 1975 annexation of Sikkim. If the issue was me or my source, why would these passages that I didn't write and that are not sourced from the book I used be an issue?

• As something of a smoking gun, on Talk:Sikkim, this user makes the statement "This kind of royalist nonsense can be found through the journalistic writings on Sikkim.", showing a very clear bias against the Sikkimese monarchy, and by extension in favor of their deposition by India, and then implying that the Sikkimese king could not have had support as he was from an ethnic minority in the country, which not only goes against what the multiple sources cited by my own have said, but also has an undercurrent of ethnic prejudice, ended by giving a single line from a paper on JSTOR to back up this idea (despite just a few sentences before implying journalistic writings were "royalist nonsense").

I think that it is abundantly clear that this user is not interested in critiquing my writing or my source and is instead only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom.

Edit: (as a final note, I apologize if this is not the right place to open this discussion. I've never really had to do something like this before and have never looked into doing this sort of thing so in a way I'm flying blind.)

Crazy Boris (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems excessive to bring this to ANI over this dispute and to allege a lack of good faith, especially since you don't seem to have established consensus for either the reliability of your source or the changes you want to make. Unless I'm missing something, you're the only contributor to Talk:1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum#On "Sons of Sikkim" as a source. In other words, treat this like a content dispute and use some form of WP:dispute resolution. Which frankly could be just waiting, you posted this 3 hours after your comment on the talk page. Also as a reminder, a source of limited reliability, like a SPS might be could be acceptable for something relatively uncontentious but not for something more contentious. Likewise someone could be a subject matter expert on 17th century monarchs but not some political controversy in the 1970s even if it relates to monarchs. Finally it's perfectly ordinary to notice some changes, and when deciding whether they are good or bad, to notice the article has other problems and so correct both these. Remember also that an SPS cannot be used for anything relating to living persons. This is unlikely to come up for 17th century monarchs, but could be an issue for some 1970s controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Three hours? Probably not even three days. Maybe three weeks... Wikipedia is not a chatroom, so waiting a few days for a response is expected. Where is the proof that this represents urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems? This is also a topic falling under WP:ARBIND, which makes this premature submission even more problematic. El_C 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it is my first time ever in a situation like this (or even seeing such a situation), so I admittedly don't really know how this works. I just think it's very obvious (particularly illustrated by my second and third bullet points) this person is going after my edits purely to wipe any information disagreeing with their own perspective off the issue, and it should be dealt with, I'm not sure what the proper channel for that is, and this is just the closest thing I could think of. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Given your comment that "only interested in removing anything critical of the actions of the government of Indira Gandhi towards Sikkim or implying there may have been any misconduct in the Indian annexation of the kingdom", it clearly seems to me that you are the one being problematic here. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I may have worded that poorly (I hate to pull the autism card, but I can be pretty awful at speaking), what I mean is that this person is removing information pertaining to the events in question that do not follow the Indian nationalist narrative that the annexation was totally willing and peaceful, which, as far as I'm aware, according to primary sources cited by the author of the book I used as my own source, is untrue, it's not unlike when Chinese nationalists argue that Tibet willingly joined China without any objections. Edits downplaying or denying aggressive Chinese actions in that situation would not be tolerated, very rightly so, and so the same logic should apply here. This person is very clearly and openly biased on this topic, and as illustrated by my second bullet point, is not interested so much in the validity of my source as in enforcing the Indian government's narrative, that is in itself infinitely more "problematic" than anything I have done. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem for the article. Crazy Boris (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  You do not have to explain why diverging viewpoints might be a problem, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the problem is relatively well known. Nonetheless, assertions of edits that overtly promote a particular POV should come with a lot of diffs as evidence, which was not done here. However instead of finding diffs and trying to figure out something on AN/I, it would be advisable to continue discussion (in good faith) and then follow further WP:DR where needed. CMD (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• My comment on "journalistic nonsense" was directed at an article published in The New York Times in 1981, regarding the former queen of Sikkim who happened to be American. I countered it using a peer-reviewed journal article published by the University of California Press, who says that India, rather than being "bent on annexation", was in fact protecting the king from 1950 to 1973. So, this gives you an idea of the level of divergence found in what we normally regard as reliable sources.

If we bring into this mix a non-reliable WP:SPS, and start claiming that it should trump everything else, it is not going to fly. I have had a brief look at the book. It is certainly pro-royal, polemical book, throwing around conspiracy theories everywhere. But the high level of understanding as in the journal article I mentioned is nowhere to be found. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Still, The NYT is the most prestigious of the 4 American papers of record listed in Newspaper of record#Examples of existing newspapers, so journalistic nonsense seems a bit much. El_C 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should consider the possiblity that you may be incorrect, instead of parroting whatever apologetics you've been fed by the anti-Chogyal disinformation campaign. It's laughable you'd call Sons of Sikkim "polemical" and "conspiratorial", when it is very well-sourced itself as previously established (which makes the claim of it "throwing around" conspiracies downright insulting, conspiracy theories don't exactly tend to be backed up by much of anything), and your counter is an article that is so blatantly one-sided it may as well have been written by Indira Gandhi herself as Indian soldiers had their guns raised at the palace guards in Gangtok. I'd wager the ex-Gyalmo interviewed by the NYT probably knew more about the situation in Sikkim than the pseudointellectual propagandist you're toting as if he were Moses bringing down the ten commandments, seeing as she, you know, was there for everything and saw it happen. (and very convenient you don't aknowledge my second point where you removed text that wasn't even put there by me or cited in Sons of Sikkim that showed other countries expressing negative reactions to the annexation, I can't see that as anything other than an intentional obfuscation) You have a single article from a university journal, which, let's be frank isn't necessarily authoritative, any bozo with a degree can get published in one of those by packing an essay with jargon that reaffirms the journal's own biases, it's hardly much better than self-publishing, I have a whole book that backs itself up with dozens of primary and secondary sources. Self-published or not, it's more rigorous and objective than anything I have seen otherwise in my 12 years learning everything I can about Sikkim. You yourself said that journals are supposedly full of quote "royalist nonsense", if it's so widespread, is it not worth at least considering you may be in the wrong and approaching it with an open mind? When everyone agrees Copernicus was right, the man who still believes in geocentrism may want to reconsider his position instead of stubbornly refusing to listen to any opposing viewpoint.

You show a clear bias on this topic as I outlined in my three bullet points (to which I would like to add the fact you removed "disputed" from "disputed referendum" on the main Sikkim page, when the very fact we're having this conversation shows it is in dispute, and frankly, I could have been a lot more forward and called it a "rigged referendum" but I wanted to be charitable and fair), that, in my opinion, make it glaringly obvious that you don't care about the truth at all, and just want to promote the official narrative in a nationalist fervor. There is no place for that sort of thing frankly anywhere, let alone on what is ostensibly supposed to be an educational website. Truth is apolitical, and this blatant attempt to stifle anything that doesn't fall in line with a certain perspective is no better than if I were to ransack articles pertaining to the annexations of Tibet or Hawaii to try and whitewash those events to support my own biases (for the record, this is just an example, I'm not really interested in opening up those cans of worms). I stay away from certain articles that I feel I may have too much of a personal bias on specifically to avoid causing trouble and letting my own feelings override objective fact, I suggest you learn to do the same. I'm just here to share things I learn with the world, not to try and reshape reality to fit what I want it to be instead of what it is.

I really don't want to deal with this, I hate that I've ended up causing a problem, and I hate having to argue, especially when it feels like people are not willing to listen, I'm under a lot of stress as it is, so I won't be making any changes to any articles to reinstate my edits or debate further, I want to be done with this, and I will leave it up to the Wikipedia community and leadership to decide how to end this situation once and for all. Whether they take your side, mine, neither, or a little of both, I won't protest, but I will close by asking people to really think and consider everything that's been discussed before coming to a conclusion. I've made my case, it's up to people higher up than me to decide now, and I will accept their judgment. I really do feel terrible for having caused this, and I will be leaving Wikipedia after this so as to not cause any trouble in the future, I don't want to be responsible for any more stress or conflict for myself or others. Crazy Boris (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The length of this comment is excessive. Please condense. We're all volunteers here. You are asking a lot of others when being so un-concise. El_C 15:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

condensed comment: I believe you're being stubborn and unwilling to engage due to your own biases, which I believe there is good evidence for, when really we're both probably near the same level when it comes to how authoritative our chosen sources may appear to the other. You should be more open to the possibility you may be mistaken instead of being so dismissive of everything I say. I will no longer take part in this debate and leave it up to whoever decides these things to make the call, I want to wash my hands of this whole sorry situation. I feel ashamed for having caused this, and will take my leave from editing Wikipedia because I don't want to risk being the cause of anything similar in the future, I'm a very conflict-averse person and the last 24 hours have been incredibly stressful for me.

Noted, I've added a shortened version to the end of the previous comment Crazy Boris (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

RE: which I believe there is good evidence for — yet not a single piece of evidence in either the full or condensed comment! Also, please don't adjust the order of comments. El_C 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't modify or remove comments that have been replied to! El_C 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that Crazy Boris has chosen to vanish themself. – robertsky (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

New editor, mass changes in article descriptions, what could go wrong?

ByzantineHistory435 (talk · contribs), changing "Byzantine" to "Eastern Roman" in dozens of article descriptions without discussion or edit summaries. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh joy, it had been far too long since someone decided to mess with the delicate status quo there... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've mass reverted most of the problematic edits and issued a Final Warning. This is a new editor, so I am not inclined to block them for now. Hopefully they will take the hint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Ad Orientem. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

IP 2409:4070:4403...

2409:4070:4403:4E16:0:0:2366:30B1 is a one-purpose vandalism IP causing disruptive edits such as changing and adding false years in film-related articles. Carlinal (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Carlinal, I see you reverted their edits to Disney.com. Since they'd already had a level 4/final warning recently for vandalism, the quickest remedy is to report them to WP:AIV. (I've done that now.) Your Twinkle dropdown menu (the ARV option) makes it simple to do. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I hope I did this most responsibly. Carlinal (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism by User:UsernameTalk

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

---

UsernameTalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE. They have been observed vandalizing multiple pages on WP Pakistan. For instance, it is unreasonable for someone with constructive intentions to change the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) from Nawaz Sharif to Abid Sher Ali. Are they here just to have fun and waste others' time? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, SPI filed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Dmytrootamanenko

I alerted Dmytrootamanenko (talk · contribs) on their talk page about WP:RUSUKR on 7 May as they are not extended confirmed and I gave them a final warning on 12 May as they continued to make edits about the Ukraine war. Despite this, they continued to make edits about the war. For example on 19 May they made a series of edits on Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas such as this. As another example, they created the article Volodymyrivka (Subottsi rural hromada) which references the war. They have not responded on their talk page. Mellk (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a requirement to use the GS/ALERT template to make a user formally aware of such general sanctions? My understanding is mostly from Arbcom sanctions where the appropriate templates are generally required. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, neither Olenivka prison massacre nor Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbas appear on the WP:RUSUKR list of page level sanctions from what I could see. I guess my question would be whether this user is doing anything disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line, During the Russo-Ukrainian War a local volunteer Viktor Yarmoshevych died, a memorial plaque was opened in his honor. into a page then I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, the template looks to be a relatively recent addition. It was sufficient to simply notify without any sort of template, but I am not sure if this has changed. Perhaps an admin who is familiar with this area can say for sure. I do not think there is any exception for non-extended confirmed editors to edit such pages since it is broadly construed. Regarding disruptive edits, they made this edit which is disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they have still not acknowledged anything or even responded while continuing to make edits is not a good sign that they will stop making edits in the topic area. If we do not want to enforce GS, then why have it in the first place? Mellk (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Siya johnson3

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

---

• Siya johnson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated addition of spam links to online shop:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

WP:NOTHERE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Siya johnson3 as a spam only account. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Need advice for courtesy on problematic user

An editor who has recently been unblocked for ARBPIA after a month and who has been flagged for WP:CIR has resumed making the same WP:CIR violations and inserting poorly-written content into certain articles, the most terrible of which is this [[180]] on Timeline of Isfahan. I have just bluntly warned the user, but given that they have had a record on ANI, can a third case be filed directly against them? Withholding full name of offender until I get clarification on this. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not if their edits outwardly demonstrate lack of competence. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case, can I rename this section or do I have to file a separate section for this? Borgenland (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Mass AfDs despite warnings to gain experience

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

Since creating this account on November 30, 2023, 54% of their edits have been to Wikispace[181]. These edits have consisted of mass-nominating articles to AfD at a rate that would make TenPoundHammer jealous. They appear specifically to want to delete articles about sports broadcasting. Of their edits to mainspace, most of those are either AfD notices or merges.

On their usertalk, the user has been repeatedly told, either directly or implicitly, to gain more editing experience by established users such as @Legoktm:,[182] @Vossanova:,[183] @John B123:,[184] and @Liz:.[185] Additionally they appear, based on the comment by John B123 linked above, to not understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration.

This issue is compounded by several factors which all combine to make this actionable, in my opinion.

Firstly, copy/paste rationales. The user started the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndyCar Series on NBC discussion with a rationale saying "Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans"; however the article in question is not a list, nor is it even a NASCAR article! How can we trust that this user is doing WP:BEFORE checks when they are making it so painfully obvious that they don't even bother to read articles they nominate? We also have a strikingly similar rationales for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Orleans Bowl broadcasters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on CBC commentators that similarly show a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side.

Secondly, on that same IndyCar on NBC AfD, they refactored their rationale after I called them on the NASCAR error, without striking that part of their comment, and ignored my request to do so.

Thirdly, they appear to have found a WP:TAGTEAM partner in Conyo14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). editor interaction history shows several recent instances where Conyo replies within hours, if not minutes of SF starting a new AfD, and indeed AfD Stats shows these being delete !votes overwhelmingly so[186][187].and then we have this this talk page comment. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list.".

Lastly, SF was warned for incivility by Liz on their talk page on May 13 and has been brought to ANI late last month[188] for similar incivility. Since the warning by Liz was more recent than the diffs I have, I won't post them unless asked so as not to risk double jeopardy.

In one rare instance where Conyo !voted keep in an SF AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes who came out of retirement, SF shows a lack of knowledge or desire to fix articles rather than go for the deletion option, "But I think that list needs fixing....Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD.".[189] For an editor spending the vast majority of their time at AfD, this is a huge problem that needs addressing. That the majority of their AfDs result in deletion should not distract from these core issues that lead me to conclude that SpacedFarmer is not fit to edit in deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• My main concern about all of these nominations is the overall incivility and bludgeoning attitude of Spaced; I've voted on one nom only specifically because of Spaced's overall harassment and that all of their noms do not have unique rationales or just misabuse drops of WP: links. I'd like to hear what they say, but they really need to improve their overall attitude in editing, because as-is, they are refusing to compromise, much less apologize for the personal attacks they have been giving out towards those who disagree with them. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If I may absolve myself of some of the accusations, I tend to lurk around AfD like everyday. One of the AfD's I decided to nominate this year was in my primary scope of editing: List of NHL Western Conference finals broadcasters. So, my interest in deleting articles that this user nominates is similar to mine. However, the premise that I notice his articles for deletion are a WP:TAGTEAM is inherently false. I'll admit I did indeed copy-paste some of my rationale within his hour of nominating. That being said, I performed a WP:BEFORE search on all of these articles. I would not just !vote into the void knowing my rationale is not backed without due diligence. Hence, I wanted to tell him to slow down as users like him tend to get placed into ANI and told formally to slow down or else. Also, in case it wasn't noticed, I do have the ability to change my !vote if proper sourcing is given.

I will also accept any formal warning from any admins if they deem my conduct to be misbehaving. Conyo14 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Before this gets any more lost in the shuffle, I'll say that I'm satisfied by this explanation that there's nothing nefarious going on as far as this aspect is concerned and have struck that part of my post. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While I agree this editor may need some patience (I think it is good practice to not make mass deletions your sole contribution to Wikipedia), I dislike the onesidedness of these accusations. Mass nominations at a rate no one can keep up with are of course a problem, but so is dumping piles and piles of listcruft into article space.

Their current record is around 91% deletion success rate - https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=SpacedFarmer. That puts them above average for nominations.

Honestly, if people want these articles to be not deleted, they should consider looking for encyclopaedic coverage to meet WP:NLIST. I agree with the vast majority of this user's nominations. There's a huge backlog of terrible articles that ought to be banished, especially those relating to sports. Lugnuts created over 93000 articles in their lifetime before someone put a stop to it. There's no limit to the rate at which people can vomit terrible articles into mainspace, and so reporting someone to ANI for nominating quickly (unless accuracy is exceptionally poor) is also not against the rules. On the question of copypaste rationales, while this can indicate bad behaviour, it can also indicate that a very persistent fan has blasted (and even, shocked gasp, copy pasted) dozens of very similar articles into existence.BrigadierG (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? BrigadierG (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Press releases are not automatic disqualifiers for a source and Spaced has been told this and refused the advice on what a reliable source is. They're expecting to paint a wide brush like Dan said to get these articles deleted by obfuscating their rationales or bludgeoning with so many WPs an average voter wouldn't question them, when most who do read the sources do. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

A source being reliable is not the same thing as indicating notability. Press releases do not contribute to an indication of notability because by and large they are primary sources that are published without editorial oversight, although they may be suitable to verify basic facts that are unlikely to be contested. WP:ANTECEDENT - being verifiable and notable are both necessary conditions for an article to exist, but on their own are not sufficient. A notable subject that can't be verified doesn't get an article, and neither does a verifiable one that isn't notable. The standard for notability requires being noted by a secondary source - hence the existence of WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH.BrigadierG (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While this guy could use a little work, he seems to be correct much more often than not. Wikipedia is filled to the brim with useless lists. I'd say all he needs to do is take a little more time to make sure he is AFDing stuff with a correct reason and to remember to not get into pissing matches in AfD. This, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the level of sanctions being needed. Jtrainor (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I take back the nice things I said about this guy. I gave him a little friendly advice and for some reason he decided to revert my post (fine, it's his talk page), and then caution me for a personal attack (what?) on my own talk page and then revert it. This guy needs an attitude adjustment. Jtrainor (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah! This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do. He is totally wrong when he accuse me of showing "a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side" as they have been checked through before making the nominations.

Anything Conyo14 involve in my nomination is unexpected and incidental.

I don't see what is wrong with copy/paste rationale as they all have everything in common, low quality garbage that plaque Wikipedia which needs to be put out of its misery, I checked through them before via WP:BEFORE and nothing, so I just put on my black hoodie, get out my big sickle and execute the decision. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps those YouTube parasites at bay but then they won't touch those lists with a 10ft bargepole.

I have done my attempt of "a little work" but after discussion, they got pissed down the wall. Also, there is nothing to write about anymore.

As he had pointed out, one or so was done in error as I have just being back from work, unaware I was tired. I only had just woken up when I got that message and logged off soon, so I couldn't get back to him. I nominated these are I cannot see them passing notability guidelines.

This guy now can relax as I am going to slow this AfD down for the summer given most of the easy nominations have been done and many others is less likely for this time being, as time is needed to look the sources through. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone a "fanboy", saying they are "[spiting]" you and that they have a "hateboner" is not the way I'd reply to an ANI report about myself if I had just been warned twice in the last month over incivility. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your standard of discourse here is a bit troubling. There are reasonable standards of behaviour expected of all editors everywhere on Wikipedia, as you have already been made aware. Phrases like "hatebonering" and "pissed down the wall" don't seem appropriate to me, neither does describing another editor as a "fanboy" and I'm not sure whether "YouTube parasites" is meant to refer to something on that site or YouTubers/viewers editing on Wikipedia. It is not difficult to be civil in online discourse, and failing to do so here could result in your editing privileges being withdrawn.

On the subject of your AfDs, I have no strong opinion either way. They do seem broadly correct, if a little too frequent. But your interactions with other editors leave a lot to be desired. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

> This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do

This is disappointingly dismissive behaviour. BrigadierG (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

So rather than improving the quality of list articles which always appreciate new sources, you decide to denigrate editors as "fanboy...YouTube parasites", cast yourself as the Wikipedian version of the Grim Reaper who has no designs on improving anything and only removing through bludgeoning, make a blanket statement that these list articles are 'low quality garbage' and dismiss everything you've done as 'work' and 'easy nominations'?

I can't assume any further good faith with you, Spaced, and I am highly doubtful that you performed most BEFORE as intended. You are to assume good faith of all editors, not just select ones. I know working with others can be frustrating, but you need to talk out things rather than dismissing them out of hand because they were part of the YTTP or whatever Roblox/Discord friend group you think is an affront to your deletion spree. Your attacks on others are uncalled for, and your civility needs some serious work. I do see a point to some of the deletions (which long needed to be prose rather than long lists), but the way you're going about it is not in the normal manner of the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You also need to put down the WP:STICK and walk away - a WP:BOOMERANG can fly both ways. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm allowed to state my views properly and from experience and have understood how AfD works at its best for years, along with these mass noms. They are poorly done and Spaced's continued insistence on being rude and brusque will not lead to a long editing career if they continue as-is, nor taking my comment as an immediate PA. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing everything you've nominated, which include some articles such as List of MLS Cup broadcasters that are well-written, extensively researched ~300 reference articles – as low quality garbage, and that you're the grim reaper who needs to execute such articles, while describing any who don't support such actions as "parasites" – because there's nothing to write about??? Wow... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think for Spaced, it is important to realize that while some nominations have been clearly flawed, the use of how sources are analyzed can get exhausting (and frustrating when editors confuse reliable and notable) when doing mass nominations as he's been doing. So, I think at this time, perhaps they should stop commenting or nominating for now. Let the current AfD's run their course. Conyo14 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer, while I have agreed with most of your nominations (if not the entire rationale), a few have made me question how much of a WP:BEFORE you have been doing on them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find numerous sources showing that List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports was notable, and several others I found to have sufficient sources present fairly quickly. I am wondering what exactly does your BEFORE entail?

Part of the issue for some editors here is the lack of bundling (as seen with the recent nominations of the Monday Night Football results articles and a handful of other nominations), leading to more spread out and lesser attended discussions for articles that are similar to each other. Perhaps bundling 3-4 similar articles (but no more) in each discussion would help with determining a broader consensus on some of these articles, along with slowing down of the overall number of nominations. Copy and pasting rationales which don't make any sense (such as the NASCAR mention in unrelated articles) doesn't help the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It entails a check through each one of the source first then a search via Google. Having done the first, I don't see it surprising that they would be nominated. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised to see this here though I had hoped it would never come to this. I agree that the behavior of User:SpacedFarmer at AFD has not been good. The copy and paste rationale on his requests shows that a BEFORE is not being done, but the replies are far worse as evidenced by the users own comments above. I think a very short ban could be useful here, but I would hope that this thread alone would be enough to change some of the behavior. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a rate limit of 1–2 AfD noms every day? Although I expect that's much more difficult to enforce than a technical partial block from creating pages with prefix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*. Agree that the response by the reported user above in this thread is distinctly unimpressive. Folly Mox (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I had planned to slow my AfD noms to 1–2 every day. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How about not doing AfD nominations at all. Anyone who accuses people of being "fanboys" and "parasites" (which are personal attacks and you still haven't struck them/apologized for them btw) clearly doesn't have the temperament to work at AfD. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A 91% success rate at AFD says a LOT. Looking at the list, most of those articles/lists look like (compound criteria) list articles that are so overspecialized that nobody is going to be looking for such a list. But their wording that they used in this thread (and apparently elsewhere) particularly when referring to other editors and their motives is pretty terrible. Looks like a newish editor who got very active in "hot areas" pretty quickly. Maybe has yet to learn that what's considered normal discourse on most on-line forums is far over-the-top at Wikipedia. Suggest realizing and learning the latter more quickly and maybe slowing down on AFD work until they learn that. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A 91% success rate at AfD says nothing (or even NOTHING). It easy to achieve a far better rate than that without performing any WP:BEFORE. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious how to do so, but there seem to be some people who don't realise it, so, in the spirit of WP:BEANS, I won't reveal anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be 3 separate issues with SpacedFarmer's editing. As a relatively new user their understanding of WP policies and guidelines is limited. Whilst this is to be expected with newer users, the problem here is they take no notice when things are explained to them. For example they were warned that copying within WP requires attribution[190], yet still continued to copy and paste between articles without attribution. Secondly, their attitude towards other editors who disagree, as witnessed in this thread, is unacceptable. Lastly, given the sheer number of articles sent to AfD of which, as mentioned above, some are clearly notable, it would seem a diligent WP:BEFORE is not being carried out and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability.

I'm sure SpacedFarmer could be a useful editor if they take note of what's been said in this thread and modify their behaviour appropriately. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time with the understanding that should this behaviour continue more severe action is likely. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"...and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability." I think this is the key takeaway from your post, John. Based on their behaviour in here, I am unfortunately suspicious now that SpacedFarmer's primary motivation for editing is to delete this certain type of article, other opinions be damned. This apparent refusal to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with editors having many different opinions will only see them taken here more if they do decide to do other things.

I'd like to see them at least address the civility concerns that have been brought up since their initial response. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Harassment

I have been the subject of reversions and harassing comments from Bloom6132. He has reverted two of my articles because he objects to the use of the title "Biography" in my articles. I asked him to show me in the MOS anything that prohibits that usage and he has failed to do so. In his latest response to me, he has threatened to revert any other articles I edit if I continue to use "Biography". I have no objection to him changing that in any articles, but I object to him reverting entire edits because of it. I don't know why Wikipedia allows editors the power to do this, but that is another story. I want Bloom6132 to stop reverting me.

This is part of the communication from my user talk page

I've never edited an article called "John Carroll" (I'm assuming you're referring to this one). Frankly, I'm not surprised to see there are others who want to revert your problematic edits (which you mistakenly believe to be "improvements"). I'm certainly not going to be lectured about "taking the lazy route" or how I should spend my time usefully by someone who (1) can't give me the correct article title of the page I was editing; or (2) thinks that copyedits like "The Redemptorists then sent as a missionary to Vieux Fort …" are an improvement – they're evidently not. And so what if it is just my opinion that we shouldn't be using "Biography" as a section heading? I've brought 34 articles to good article status (18 of which are biographies, with 4 of them on Catholic bishops). None of those biographies use the heading "Biography". What quality content contributions have you been making lately that use "Biography" as a heading? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not going to waste my time debating you. If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it. I don't appreciate your condescending remarks either. I also don't care what awards you have gotten. I love Wikipedia, but editors like you make it less pleasant sometimes. Rogermx (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "I am going to continue doing it" – and I'll continue reverting you. Regarding "condescending remarks", don't throw stones when you're living in a glass house. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC) And I will file a harassment complaint against you. Suggest you review Wikipedia:Harassment Rogermx (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 18:30 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• You really should take the content dispute to the article TALK in question. I would also recommend linking to the correct article and proofing your comments. Nemov (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rogermx, your signature is not functional. Clicking it does not lead either to your user page or your user talk page. Please fix it. On to other matters. You are not being harassed. When another editor disagrees with your edits, that does not constitute harassment. As to the dispute, a Wikipedia article about a person is a biography. Every aspect of such an article is part of the biography. When you create a section header called "Biography", that implies that the content in other sections is not part of the biography. In my opinion, that is incorrect and misleading. When you write If you having nothing in Wikipedia policies that says what I am doing it wrong, I am going to continue doing it, I am telling you that is a very bad attitude. Policies and guidelines are not all-inclusive and cannot specifically forbid every single bad practice. Look at Good articles and Featured articles that are biographies, and model your section headers on what is commonplace in those articles. Adopt a collaborative attitude and do not edit disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Cullen summed it up perfectly. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't need your lecture about attitude. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2007 and have over 50,000 edits. What gives this guy a veto over what i do in multiple articles? What gives him the right to threaten to revert my articles in the future because he disagrees about the use of a single word?

I use the biography heading because it is an article, first and foremost. There are sections for bibliography, see also, references that have no biographical information. Secondly, by creating a biography title, it gives a reader a cleaner view of the article contents when they look at it immediately. If this makes the Wikipedia bureaucrats happy, I will stop use the biography title in future articles.

As for editing disruptively, I am not the one who reverting all the edits in article instead of simply changing the one that he does not like. If you bother to read my statement, I told him that he is free to change anything in the article that he does not like. I do not revert articles over typos, spelling mistakes and edits that I don't agree with. I read this stuff on Wikipedia about being bold, but it is just nonsense.

It also very difficult to be collaborative with someone who doesn't treat you with respect. I thought that was another requirement of Wikipedia policy, but maybe that is bullshit too. Rogermx (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References are the resources that are about the person and their biographical details (otherwise, why would they be listed?) SeeAlso are other WP articles related to this person. Cullen328 is right...the whole article is their biography, otherwise it is content that does not belong on that page. The alernative is that all body-sections are subsections of Biography. So why is that container section needed rather than making the secions of the biography more prominent? But again again, this is all a content issue not an administrative or behavior issue except to the extent that editors are expected to discuss with each other and get input from others as relevant on the various talkpages, remembering that reasonable people can disagree reasonably. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rogermx Your edit count doesn't exempt you from requirements of civility and/or collaborative editing; and, respectfully, I suggest a focus on quality of contributions over quantity could be helpful. Your proposed structure is well out of step from the standard structure of biographies on virtually every other biographical page. Local Variable (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I mention the edit count in response to a previous comment about my supposed bad attitude. The reason I put in this complaint was because of the incivility of Bloom6132 and his threats to revert my articles. I have already acceded to the request about using not biography. Suggest you look at any of my edited articles before you lecture me about quantity over quality.

The point is that I want to be treated with respect by this editor and not have to listen to him threaten to revert articles that he could easily edit himself to his own satisfaction. Obviously, it was a waste of time to make this complaint. Rogermx (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly was. Next time, listen to people instead of accusing them of harassment and incivility. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and original research from Itisme3248

Itisme3248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Itisme3248 has been making personal attacks at the meat talk-page. The user was blocked for personal attacks WP:PA and repeatedly inserting WP:OR] in August 2023 [191], [192], so since their last block they have not taken on any advice they were given.

Examples of personal attacks [193] "Vegan editors like Psychologist Guy, who promote a vegan perspective, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same" and this edit accusing another editor of adding lies [194] which the user was warned about [195].

If you read over my posts on the talk-page I have not accused anyone of being biased nor I am bullying new editors. I said this user was not acting in good-faith because it's obvious they were not. They have repeatedly argued on the talk-page that the systematic reviews cited on the meat Wikipedia article do not account for BMI or smoking. I cited several of these reviews (they all account for these) and this user doesn't reply to that, then they went on a rant about something else. All I see from this user on the talk-page is a long list of spam, personal attacks and WP:OR.

There is a repeated pattern of disruption here involving original research and personal attacks. They disrupted the Ancient Greek cuisine article. They disrupted the Race (human categorization) article and now this type of behaviour has spilled out onto the meat article and talk-page.

I do not see how this user is improving the project. If you read their talk-page they have already been given plenty of warnings about adding original research and making personal attacks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You've accused multiple people of bias simply for citing better and more relevant studies. Not only do you first personally attack them that they are biased, but you also accuse them of rule-breaking when they point out your bias and dishonesty after you personally attacked them first. To hide this, you even deleted my comment that exposed the truth about your behavior. You were the first to accuse me and others of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Itisme3248, please provide evidence that uninvolved editors and adminstrators can evaluate. This is not an argument between you and the OP. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the attack text from the Talk:Meat comment but otherwise left the comment in place. That whole subsections almost needs closed because more time is spent talking about the editors than the material. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

An example from the meat talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisme3248 (talk • contribs) 20:41 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged. Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet" [2]. You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] [3], again this is bad-faith editing. There are good reviews found on the article in the health effects section [4], [5], [6]. You have not explained why these sources are not "proper sources". Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)"

Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [196]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You even have accused people of being conspiracy theorists, further demonstrating your tendency to discredit others by questioning their motives. ::::::::::Itisme3248 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content
"Medical organizations are not reliable sources? Ok sure, next you will be telling us the earth is flat. This talk-page is not a forum to promote your conspiracy theories. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article suggest them, otherwise cut this nonsense out. You do not need to keep creating new accounts either. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

That comment was left a month ago on a completely different article. The drive-by IP was claiming that the entire medical community is wrong and that all medical organizations are unreliable. That is a conspiracy theory. No, it's not a personal attack to call someone's nonsense a conspiracy theory. We have established here that you are disruptive, you have not provided any evidence I have personally attacked you, so now you are going through my editing history a month ago to try and dig up anything unrelated to this that you think looks bad for me. Can an admin just block Itisme3248 before their disruption goes any further? I am tired of this now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring and misinterpreting what I said? I stated that the systematic reviews cited in the meat Wikipedia article repeatedly fail to account for BMI or smoking on the talk page. However, I also mentioned many other important confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, race, country, exercise, macronutrients, and more. Additionally, I emphasized that the total mortality rate is the most important factor, which is being ignored on this Wikipedia page. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making false claims without any evidence [197]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Itisme3248's personal attack was removed but now they have just re-added it to their talk-page [198]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am probably WP:INVOLVED in the 'discussion' (for want of a better word) at Talk:Meat, but in my opinion Itisme3248 is creating a lot of noise, and behaving in an uncollegiate manner, and their wall-of-text-bludgeoning is making productive discussion very difficult. Looking a bit more closely at their editing history makes me more concerned - they seem to make a habit of wading into potentially contentious areas and demanding that their additions, which are often based on their own interpretation of primary sources, be allowed to stand. See, for example, this discussion at Pederasty in ancient Greece. Or this one at Race (human categorization). I don't doubt that they are sincerely trying to improve articles, but by 'improve' I mean 'make them reflect what they know to be The Truth', and they do not seem willing to adapt to our way of doing things. I personally believe that we're in time-sink territory here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A timesink with a dash of WP:RGW, methinks. This comment is fairly indicative of their apparent mindset. You cannot form a consensus with someone who above all actively wants to believe that you are wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment by 50.88.229.139

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

---

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

Please can we yank this guy's User Talk page access and extend his block by a few weeks? Since being blocked he is making personal attacks against multiple people (including myself) on his User Talk page. The attacks include homophobia and allegations of paedophilia (1), (2). Before being blocked from article space he was trolling on multiple subjects dishing out both transphobia and islamophobia (3), (4). The IP seems to be fairly stable and has not been used to make any constructive edits recently. It might be worth revdelling some of the edits although, insofar as they refer to me, I don't really care that much. DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Kvwiki1234

Kvwiki1234 (talk · contribs) WP:CIV problems on a CT.

Talk page edits:[199] [200]

Warnings between the edits: [201] [202]

Not suggesting a block. It’s a difficulty area. But perhaps someone above my paygrade could suggest the editor take it down a few octaves. And perhaps avoid such articles for a while. Particularly since those of us who are danglers cringe at the word eunuch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my use of the word eunuch was misconstrued. I meant it purely to describe the cowardly notion that a 19 year old girl who was a peace activist and rape victim who only held a ceremonial non-combatant position in the IDF to complete some university credits is even being considered an IDF soldier and a legitimate captured enemy soldier of war.

Yes, I am appalled the discussion is even being had. It angers and triggers me.

I accept your suggestion that I take it down a few octaves in good faith. Thank you. I will avoid such articles in the future.

I am otherwise a productive and contributing extended confirmed editor to wikipedia with over 7000 constructive edits with a particular focus on the tennis wikiproject.

I accept your feedback and will avoid politically charged commentary here.

Thank you,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to step back, Kvwiki1234. Just to be very clear, though: any more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that Kvwiki1234 should be banned or blocked, but I'd encourage you to reflect some of your reasoning for why your uncivil behavior was justified, as well as reconsider the insults you use in the future.

Your language is pretty problematic for people of all genders, not just the danglers. It has some pretty sexist and ableist undertones implying that only able-bodied men with sex organs can be brave. I'd also encourage you to reflect on your argument that you have 7000 edits. Does that mean because I have 500000+ edits, I can say even more ableist, sexist things out of frustration because I've made a lot of edits? (Personally, I don't think it does). Mason (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It was in no way meant as a gender based slur. I meant it as something approximating extreme cowardice. However I accept your point and see how my language was problematic. I was overcome by anger when I made those edits. Therefore I was temporarily not of sound mind. I apologize, it won't happen again.

Regarding 7000 edits, I only pointed that to show that I am not some random vandalism troll and I value contributing positively to wikipedia. I take pride in being an experienced extended confirmed editor and my past contributions have been constructive and well received and open for all to examine. It does not excuse what I said in anger, it was simply to show that I am not a random vandalism troll.

My language in anger may have been problematic, I accept, and I fully understand and respect wikipedia's policies around gender based bigotry and our commitment to inclusivity. Yet there is an open discussion on wikipedia whether a 19 year old non-combatant girl rape victim was a legitimate enemy soldier captured in war? Not getting into a political debate regarding this, but it is food for thought for wikipedia going forward.

Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I mean that sincerely and in good faith.

Thank you,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning. I will avoid topics that anger and trigger me in my personal life here on wikipedia in the future. As I mentioned before, my main areas of interest in wikipedia are tennis, other sports and sometimes Asian history, not politically sensitive current events.

Just for my own understanding, what does 'block' mean in this context? I will be blocked fom editing that particular page, or blocked from contributing to wikipedia entirely? I hope it never gets to that point, I am simply asking for my own knowledge. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKDISRUPT Mason (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Kvwiki1234, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Second Skin violating topic ban and other issues

• Second Skin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912#Genre warrior disrupting the Babymetal article - once again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Being hounded by an administrator

In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. @Doug Weller: talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. [203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]

User also has a history of flagrantly ignoring communications and warnings from other users and admins and directives from admins and using edit summaries to have discussions despite being told by Drmies to cease doing so, and ignored suggestions from other admins such as NinjaRobotPirate (these include arguably legitimate blanking of own talk page but reflect ignorance of the messages): [212][213][214]"fuck off" to Drmies"lol go away"[215][216][217][218]"fuck off"[219]"fuck off""fuck off""fuck off"[220][221][222]

Currently engaged in a silly dispute over whether Aztec, New Mexico, apparently legally classified as a city, should be called a town. Refuses to see that inserting user's own opinion on this is OR, cites other Wikipedia articles as sources for it being called a town. [223](alters citation to US census describing it as a city)"empty threats"[224]

Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on music articles. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different.

Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What?

Never told Drmies to fuck off.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway

Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time Second Skin (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Second Skin: Witch house (genre) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 7 edits this year. It's literally an article about a music genre. This could get into WP:COMPETENCE if you don't see how an article about a music genre violates a topic ban on all pages and discussions related to music genres. The history is not all years ago some of it is recent, and it's necessary to show the pattern. You don't give a damn what people say to you. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are unable to understand that Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? - Short answer is No. Here is the diff where it explicity states: If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. What made you think that Witch house (genre) and Horrorcore were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised? Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?" No, you cannot. If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making any edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here. Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here.

Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here. First off, you are not allowed to tell anyone to "fuck off" here, admin or IP. Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months. I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and your inability to address the issue so complete. The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded. But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion. Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for WP:CIV, even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging everyone involved in the ANI that resulted in a TBAN other than those already pinged: TheDragonFire300 Viriditas GhostOfDanGurney Acroterion (omitting Tazmin because I believe they don't wish notices about admin-related things) Black Kite Objective3000 Eyesnore Hammersoft Lourdes Cullen328 Ravenswing WaltCip Deepfriedokra Bishonen Siroxo ARoseWolf GiantSnowman Uncle G Nil Einne Beyond My Ken Ad Orientem Snow Rise Equilibrial —DIYeditor (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Second Skin, it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands his topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As Cullen already said, [User:Second Skin]], it's simple. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur. @Second Skin Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur with all stated here. --ARoseWolf 16:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As do I. Ravenswing 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

172.59.210.96 disruptive editing

Stumbled across this IP at WP:RSP, where they pointlessly added and removed the word "vandalism." Per their talk page, they've been involved in multiple edit wars and generally questionable behavior for a number of days, since they started editing on May 16 - most recently, they were in an edit war at Abby Lee Miller (the page history of which indicates they may be the same editor as this blocked IP, who was also edit warring). Said talk page displays numerous warnings for this behavior.

In the last several hours, they started to disruptively edit Operation Enduring Freedom, once again adding and removing their own vandalism. With such edit summaries as "Sleepy joe," "THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH MY EDIT, PLEASE STOP," "what do you think? Idiot," "FIX IT YOURSELF," and... whatever this is, I think there's a pretty clear case that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a month. —Ingenuity (t • c) 02:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also did an old-fashioned selective deletion to clear out the one edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Is that why one IPv6's recent revision now claims it added +62,626 bytes, which is the size of the page? Perhaps a not-so-old-fashioned revdel'ing of the summaries would have been easier. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ordinarily yes, but in this case it wouldn't have entirely fixed what was making that edit summary so disruptive. Though now that you mention it I'll apply revdel to a few of the revisions there now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886: WP:NOTHERE edit warring

Tommygunn7886 has been doing some edit warring over at eye color that I would like to bring to your attention.

• 20:27 May 22 2024: TommyGunn7886 removes content, restored by Adakiko at 20:29.

• 23:32 May 22 2024: Tommygunn7886 removes content a second time, partially restored by myself at 23:39.

• Tommygunn7886 then deleted this content from the article two more times.

Attempts to explain to this individual that they are wrong have lead me to suspect that they may have WP:COMPETENCE issues. They do not seem to be capable of understanding that they are wrong when another editor attempts to explain this to them, and this has been my experience as well. At the article's talk page, they refuse to engage in discussion about the references and instead make outlandush allegations of transphobia and personal attack.

Tommygunn7886's edit summaries are also nonsensical. They accuse me and the references of using transphobic language, yet there is nothing transphobic or trans-related in either. All references added are peer reviewed and published in high quality journals, and have nothing whatever to do with trans people. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The other administrator ruled in my favor and also removed the content from the thread. This user, A Rainbow Footing It is harassing me over edits they are making which are transphobic. The edits in question are purporting that there are physical differences between gender identities, which as stated before is transphobic.

This user is not an administrator but has made numerous threats on my talk page threatening to ban my account if I keep up the "edit war"(that the same user is also partaking in, even after an admin ruled in my favor).

This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, when you make an extremely grave accusation like This user also has a history of problematic white supremacist posts on other pages, claiming such things as white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desirable. Clearly a 4chan troll, you are required to provide convincing evidence, which you have not done. So, provide the persuasive evidence now, or you at very high risk of being blocked for unsubstantiated personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I will do so, but I will not be fast as I am still new to this platform. I apologize for making such a claim, this user has been harassing me so I looked at their profile. Please allow me a little time to find out how to link it properly. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tommygunn7886: Make sure you have [ subscribe ]ed to the thread for further notifications as not everyone will ping you. "Harassing" is also something that you need to provide evidence for. You may wish to read WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to the talk page where the user created a talk section sith my personal name, rather than about the content. I find this to be harassment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eye_color

Here is a link to my personal talk page where the user posted two separate threats to have me banned for edit warring(despite also taking part in it themselves), I deleted the initial one but kept the one they sent later. It is notice 3rr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tommygunn7886 Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid Talk:Eye color#Tommygunn7886's removal of content looks pretty bad for you from what I can see. A lot of unsupported accusations of singling out, harassment, transphobia because of reference to biological sex, etc. I was going to point out the 3RR issue as well. I don't think a legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice is harassment by the definition at WP:HARASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It was not one sided it was back and forth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

legitimate (if one sided) 3RR notice means the notice was possibly one-sided. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying is improperly cited about that material? A Rainbow Footing It is presumably not the source of the information. It's a lot of information about dating preferences that all seems to be from legitimate studies and analyses. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I won't say more, but wow. I thought wikipedia was more enlightened than this. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tommygunn7886: You removed cited material about differences in eye color between men and women. I don't think a scientific study referring to biological sexes is transphobic. We report the sources, not interpret them. Again, Wikipedia is based on sources, not our opinions. If you were to remove every reference to physical differences between men and women on Wikipedia you'd be making many thousands of edits to remove properly sourced material. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea that there are biolgical differences between men and women is itself transphobic and false. Gender and sexual identity are not biological. Maybe if the article stated something like "those who identify as female and those who identify as male", but even this is tricky as the study itself was presumably done with those who were simply assigned male and female at birth. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You have a ton of articles on biology you'd need to strip of any reference to differences between sexes. Don't think it is going to work out well for you. We can fine tune wording to align with what the sources actually say, if necessary. This notice board is not for content disputes though, only behavioral issues. This is a non-starter in my view. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no differences between sexes. A man can have a vagina and a woman can have a penis. Men can get pregnant. Men can have very high estrogen and low testosterone, women can have ver low estrogen and very high testosterone. Gender and sexual identity are social constructs that have no basis in biology, they are simply an identity. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, you'd better start with Man and Woman if you want to pursue this. Wouldn't be the first person to make this assertion. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@A Rainbow Footing It: Could you provide convenience links to everything (e.g. the edit summaries) you are referring to? I'll do this:

• Tommygunn7886 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Rainbow Footing It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• 03:54, 23 May 2024: Gender and sexual identity do not determine physical traits. This transphobia does not belong on a wikipedia article. I hope admins will agree against transphobic language.
• 01:02, 23 May 2024: Study is based on outdated notions of gender and identity and does not belong on a wikipedia page. This is offensive to those who are transgender.
• 01:02, 23 May 2024:Again, it is problematic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity, as the terminology presented is based on western heteronomative ideas of identity that do not correlate to one's individual identity
• 01:02, 23 May 2024: Using control F, there are no mentions of any populations other than Spanish populations in this particular study. It is also highly probelmatic to try to tie eye color to gender or sexual identity
• 23:39 22 May 2024:Partially restored content without Spanish data points. Contrary to what was claimed by TommyGunn, Martinez-Cadenas et al. 2013 and 2016 both use previously published studies from across Europe, which show the same effect. Added quote to Martinez-Cadenas citation and secondary source (Pilli-Berti 2021), which mentions studies published afterwards which observed a similar effect.
• 03:27, 23 May 2024‎: Restored reliably sourced content. As explained at talk page, both Martinez-Cadenas 2013 and 2016 describe multiple studies from across Europe and Auatralia, which corroborate their findings. Additional studies performed afterwards also replicated an eye color gender asymmetry. Tommygunn needs to give a sensible explanation at the talk page for these edits, and stop edit warring."

A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A Rainbow Footing It

This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve.

This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes so I do not know what you are talking about. Where is your evidence? Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

an admin ruled in my favor

This is a lie. An admin partially restored one of your edits after having been misled by your edit summary, but did not make the blanket removal of content that you have been doing, which Adakiko and I have tried to restore in full. Earlier you accused that admin of "following you around" for calling out your dishonest behavior.

As usual, this editor is failing WP:GOODFAITH with their endless stream of outrageous allegations. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Adakiko did not try to restore your edit later on, first they just stated that I needed to provide an edit summary. After I provided an edit summary, the other admin ruled in my favor and undid the deletion by Adakiko. Adakiko has not changed the page since, only you have. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the blanking of seemingly properly cited scientific material. If you wish to check whether the first source used the term "gender" or "sex" we can look into that. You should not remove material that refers to biological sexes on the ground that it is transphobic. We go by sources, not our own interpretations. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If this is a thread about behavior and not content moderation, why did you perform content moderation? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I restored cited material which had been blanked because I noticed it. This board is for behavioral issues not content, so what we discuss here should focus on behaviors and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as relate to behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886, I have asked you twice for evidence to back up your extraordinary accusations, and instead of providing evidence, you say silly things like the other admin ruled in my favor even though you have already been informed that adminststrators do not adjudicate content disputes. If any adminstrator expressed an opinion about a content dispute, they are speaking as an ordinary editor, with no more power than any other editor in that context. So again, I must insist that you provide the evidence in your very next edit, or I will block you for grave and unsubstantiated personal attacks. That is a power that I actually do have as an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I am simply in too many chats to keep track of this. I provided evidence of the claim to the other user who I assumed was the admin. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222675967&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_dating&diff=prev&oldid=1222677541&title=Online_dating&diffonly=1

First link they edited but kept information stating African Americans were the least desirable, second link they explictly wrote that white males and Asian females are the most desireable Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If A Rainbow Footing It is misrepresenting what the sources say, that is a behavior problem. If the sources are not WP:RS that is a content dispute. If the sources are not WP:DUE that is a content dispute. If the article is not WP:NPOV that is a content dispute. You can bring all that up on the relevant talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886 I almost have to call this trolling or WP:CIR. You are making it say the opposite of what you seem to want it to say. And again, beware of 3RR. I believe you have already violated 3RR perhaps multiple times. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This has gone on far too long. Tommygunn7886 has failed to provide convincing evidence for their extremely grave accusations, and has provided an exceptionally flimsy explanation. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment, and failure to assume good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked much at the editor's editing but from what they're saying here, it seems fair to give them a ctop alert for gensex. Perhaps if they come back and get into edit wars over these issues without properly discussing on the talk page or are otherwise disruptive in the area, a gensex topic ban is one option if it's felt an indef is too harsh. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree. I'm certainly not heartened by Tommygunn's repeated waving of "An admin agreed with me once so that means I'm right with everything" as a free hall pass for every one of their flights of fancy going forth. Ravenswing 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by 2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64

This IP has been 'creating' a fair amount of human name pages by inserting a new page inside of existing pages by similar names. The pages are all good, to be clear – the only issue is that they are going in the completely wrong place. They have been asked to use drafts many times, but given that their address is so variable I really have absolutely no idea that they've even seen those messages. I don't want to see them gone, their work is useful, but it is currently creating extra work for others. Perhaps a block with a pointer to a detailed explanation of what they should be doing instead, and an unblock after they simply confirm they understand, would be able to get their attention. They've been temporarily blocked before for this exact thing but the block message was less than useful so they just kept doing what they've been doing after it expired. Tollens (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Socks - Millat Ahmad

Here you can see socks. Can admin here take action based on Meta's CU? AntanO 06:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and will block the accounts, based on their talk page admission that they are connected to the film they're writing about, and their creation of a second account to evade scrutiny. Noting that MillatAhmad15 has not logged in here, and so is not registered - we can't take action against that account. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hate speech / personal attack by Yyg850c

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

---

Just noticed this comment by Yyg850c (talk) at Talk:History of the chair: "Here's a quote from the Wiki page to enrich your underdeveloped black supremacist prefrontal cortex" (bold emphasis mine). How this escaped attention, I have no idea, but that can't be okay. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. We don't tolerate that sort of garbage here. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri

User:Kashmiri has alleged without any proof that my account is a sock-puppet and is concerned about my lack of efforts (where I am uninvolved) in an ongoing edit war over at Talk:Tamil genocide.

For full disclosure, I did have another account a few years back, but I stopped using that account years ago since it had identifying information on it. I have also emailed checkusers at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org to bring my old unused account to their notice. This is all completely allowed as per WP:Clean Start.

At the bottom of the discussion at [225], User:kashmiri has been implying that I am engaging in sock-puppetry and has complained that I am displaying no collaborative efforts (even though I am completely uninvolved in the discussion). I was patrolling the pages (as part of my watchlist) and decided to warn both the editors involved in edit-warring ([226], [227]) and requested temporary protection for the concerned page at [228].

I was a Wikipedia editor for a long time before retiring and starting a new account. As such, I was very much involved in recent changes patrol and decided to continue doing so when I started this new account.

I am deeply baffled by the allegations being levied against me here (without any iota of proof) and believe this is completely against Wikipedia policies. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9, you registered this account 8 days ago and immediately went on to issue warnings to various editors[229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236] and many more – including warnings to long-standing editors like Ravensfire, Espenthordsen or myself; proposing an article for deletion[237], and closing a discussion[238] (even though your account is not in good standing as it's not even extended confirmed). All in just 300 edits. It doesn't look like a very clean start to me, and my advice to you is to slow down and stop challenging everyone here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I was a wikipedia editor for a long time before changing my account to hide my identity. All the warnings issued by me are completely valid and almost all reports filed by me so far have been actioned on (including the most recent page protection request on the page you are edit-warring on). I have also shared details of my previous account with the checkusers. However, I don't like your personal attacks against me when I simply warned you about a Wikipedia policy you were violating. You straight up jumped to implying I am a sock-puppet (especially with your veiled comments like "Let's see...").

You also chose to report my current account as a sock-puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110 after I shared with you about my previous account and opened this complaint against you (where I even mentioned that I have shared details about my past account with checkusers). (You have not even notified me about that report, and I just found it from your edit history).

I can't figure out why you are acting in such bad faith against me. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9 There's no obligation to notify accounts about SPI, and I don't routinely do it. As I wrote: your start here is quite concerning, it's as far from collaborative editing as possible. You just go around and drop warnings on various users' pages (it's secondary here whether they are justified or not). At Talk:Tamil genocide, you made zero effort to engage in the discussion, present arguments in support or against the proposal. You just played a cop – much like in other articles. Now, being so unhelpful, and with such a suspicious editing pattern (see my SPI, which I reaffirm), do you really expect hugs and love here?

WP:CLEANSTART says: It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. I'm not at all sure that's the case here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that Tamil genocide was "on your watchlist", I wonder how it got there when you never edited in this area – and at the same time when several new accounts became active on that article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I highlight my concern with your veiled personal attacks again: "do you really expect hugs and love here?". Is this seriously the kind of tone that "experienced editors" use these days? I have replied to the SPI report as well. My previous account was in good standing and this new account was only started to disassociate my real-life identity. I didn't realize patrolling recent changes and countering vandalism is now frowned upon at Wikipedia.

Also, I don't really have to explain myself, but it got on my watchlist because I participated in a Requested Move discussion just a few sections above at Talk:Tamil genocide#Requested move 12 May 2024. I was only warning you as I noticed you were on your 3rd revert and that the topic was considered a contentious topic. Didn't realize issuing a simple warning to you would waste so much of my time here or I would have never done so. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing you're using any RCP tols, and Recent changes patrol doesn't include Talk pages anyway, even as you were coming to talk pages. It all gets muddier. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used WP:Twinkle to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also want to clear up the issue of issuing warnings to long standing editors. For Ravensfire, if you look just below the warning, you'll see a friendly discussion of the issue at hand where both of us agreed it was just to avoid any future issues.

In the case of Espenthordsen, it was due to a file they uploaded which missed a copyright tag altogether.

Both warnings are advisory in nature and my warning to you was similar in nature (hoping to stop you from violating policies and getting yourself blocked).

You simply decided that qualifies me as a sockpuppet? All my edits so far have been in good standing and I've not acted hostile to you in anyway. Yet, you have only been hostile to me so far and didn't bother to assume good faith, going so far as mocking me and challenging everything I've said.

Honestly, all this makes me rethink my decision to even start my Wikipedia account. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Look, people come here to build an encyclopaedia; develop content, sometimes argue about it in order to work out a consensus version. Yes sometimes formal warnings are necessary. However, you did not try to build anything: you just waded into a lengthy discussion with an the Template:uw-3rr usertalk (!) warning followed by two[239][240] warnings to discussion participants. This was not only unnecessary but outright rude. At the same time, given that yours is not the first newly created account that went straight to discussing Tamil genocide in the last few days, a CU request (not: decision!) was a perfectly valid move. My concerns were also shared by another editor[241].

With your every 15th or so edit to-date being a formal notice or warning, your demand of assuming good faith seems somewhat misplaced.

I'll repeat myself: you're welcome to build an encyclopaedia (providing your CU check comes out clean). But if you as a new, non-admin account only intend to police others, close discussions and, generally, go to contentious places, don't be surprised about a backlash. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Further, I'll repeat what I just posted on the talk page:

just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard).

You seem to think I'm rooting against your page change but honestly I've no opinion of it (and will now stay far away from it since it's clear there is something way bigger than normal Wikipedia going out here).

I've also decided that I'll just quit Wikipedia and you can all be happy and maybe even throw a party over it? Sick of all of this nonsense. I don't have time for this. And I don't appreciate anyone who has time to scrutinize every single one of my edits. Maybe if you spent that time actually building Wikipedia (like you just said). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Goldenarrow9 Glad that yours is not. (Link to some company profile removed) — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, isn't this Outing? Nobody (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Do we need to wait for an admin to delete it or can a regular editor do so? BoldGnome (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, my username was simply chosen by a random username generator. But this behaviour scares me greatly. It seems like kashmiri is now actively trying to find out my real identity. I am now genuinely worried about this, and hope admins take notice. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Note I've closed a complaint concerning Kashmiri at AN3 (not from Goldenarrow9) to keep the discussion in one place. There is no prejudice to any outcome from this discussion here. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to activate a 'clean start', it is really unwise in my opinion to go straight into a contentious topic like Tamil genocide. This is actually clearly covered in the clean start policy, Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the actual edit war (or the discussion thereof). My only participation was in a move discussion where I wrote 1 single line opposing the move. Here, my only participation was issuing warnings to both the editors and requesting a temp page protection (which was granted) in view of the edit war. My issue here is strictly related to the personal attacks being made against me which have somehow continued unchecked even on this noticeboard.

Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here. In any case, I have mostly been spending my time here patrolling recent changes and didn't really participate much in any heated discussions. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here.

That is incorrect. The entire point of CLEANSTART is to break away from the previous editing areas, which is important if protecting your identity matters. Otherwise, people are easily going to put 2+2 together and you're right back where you started. I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move away from those areas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider that. I have mostly spent time doing RCP (and yes, this was something I was previously involved in as well). I don't target specific pages or projects but occasionally participate in some random discussions. Until this issue started, there was no indication on my account that I even had a previous account. Now, I will have to re-consider if I even should spend time on Wikipedia at all. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Acroterion they are unrelated this report is about personal attack while the that report is about edit warring.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. My only relation to that edit-war is issuing a warning and requesting page protection as an uninvolved editor. Replies to my warning started this altogether separate issue here. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No, SPI doesn't work that way, and like the AN3 report, it's there for anyone to see who looks. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Note to Closing admin.Please take a look at this 3RR report 3RR Report here as admin did not want it to be at two noticeboards.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• On a unrelated note, Goldenarrow9, how did you come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. N. Srinivasa Rao? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  On some wikiproject dashboard/list. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Chilufya Tayali

A few issues at Chilufya Tayali, among them the addition of unsourced and promotional content, likely conflict of interest, and an editor who claims to be corresponding with the subject, who as of last month was reported to be missing and wanted by Interpol. See the discussion here [242]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

From the comments made by ClementSyuulu (talk · contribs) on their talk page, this seems to me more like WP:OR rather than WP:COI. FYI, there are noticeboards for both original research and conflicts of interest. It might be more appropriate taking this to one of those noticeboards. Adam Black ^{t • c} 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This report is fine for this noticeboard, so I wouldn't worry about it. El_C 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure. Adam Black ^{t • c} 06:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD

Am I allowed to modify an opening statement in an AFD discussion that I opened? I have been reverted twice by an editor who insists that I make a new comment who then tags me as a commenter in what may be a bad-faith assumption of me trying to rig a consensus. Borgenland (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Presumably here. No, you are not allowed, since that wasn't what was replied to. Any additions or modifications need to be accounted for, with a diff or a new comment. HTH. El_C 06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. Local Variable (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd probably just ask the editor to revert and definitely make sure to personally notify them (i.e. via their talk page) if I ever did anything like that. But I also don't think reverting an editor's change to their own comment counts the same when it comes to editing another editor's comment. Especially if the change was made a significant time after the comment was made, had already been replied to, and the change wasn't fixing a simple typo or some other clearcut error. The point of not modifying someone's comment is IMO primarily because we don't want to modify someone's signed comments. But reverting a change isn't really modifying someone's signed comment, it's reverting someone's modification to the older version. The editor had already decided to post it. It's similar to the way removing someone's comment wholesale or hatting it isn't generally as big a deal than modifying it. And a closer example, if an editor wholesale removes a comment of their which had received replies rather than just striking it, it's hardly uncommon to just revert this removal and ask the editor to strike it instead. And for archived discussions even that might be controversial. It's not putting words into an editor's mouth to revert to something they willingly said at one time even if they later changed their mind. (If the editor's account was compromised that might be a different matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

PicturePerfect666

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

---

I would like to ask for a topicblock on PicturePerfect666, both on all Eurovision articles and on any other topic that relates to either Israel or Palestine. They are being a disruptive editor in the Eurovision 2024 article, through bludgeoning multiple talk topics, disruptive editing, unnecessarily policing the talk page, ignoring consensus, breaching NPOV, deleting sections they personally disagree with, refusing to lose an argument, and malicious editing of the article in order to leave hidden instructions to warn editors to not make particular changes that they disapprove of.

Bludgeoning the talk page

Warnings - [243] [244]

Example: The Israel Campaign for Votes talk section

Here there are 44 comments, and PP666 made 16 of them, over 35% of the comments in this section, double the amount of comments of anyone else involved. They continually changed what they thought was deemed wrong with this proposal, from "speculation and cruft", to "unreliable source", to "what is the relevance", to "the Eurovision rules weren't even broken", to "lets wait for further discussion", in order, when each of the previous reasonings were found to be incorrect. When examining that talk topic for consensus, there are 7 votes for inclusion, and only 1 against (PP666). When this was addressed, PP666 said "This is not counting votes", and immediately opened a request for comment about this exact discussion, presumably in the effort to delay anyone acting on the newly-established consensus. This disruption has been working, because despite consensus and the fact this was suggested a week ago, it is still not included in the article.

They have now seem to be not gaining the intended response in their newly opened RFC either, and have started bludgeoning the people replying to them there [245] [246] [247]

In PicturePerfects666's two RFCs (one which they asked an admin to open, and the other they opened themselves), so far every person who has replied to either of them has disagreed with PicturePerfect666's position, again. Multiple people replied to the RFC acknowledging that this was just a repeat of a recent already-settled discussion and not necessary [248] [249] [250].

Doing a rough count (doing some ctrl+f tallying), currently on the talk page there are 276 comments, and PicturePerfect666 has made 78 of them. Over a quarter of ALL talk page comments are made by them. They are dominating every single topic they are involved with and they refuse to back down on anything, even when there is a large consensus against them.

Disruptive editing and incivility

Warnings: [251][252] [253] [254]. Individual problems below often included their own pushback and warnings specific to the issue.

In the last few days, PP666 has:

• Incited an edit war by repeatedly removing a section that describes the multiple Palestinian symbols displayed on stage at Eurovision [255], despite multiple editors asking them not to [256] [257].
• When told they were edit warring, they started personally attacking the user that pointed it out to them [258] - see edit description ("Reply to bad arguments, point scoring and attempted gotcha moments by a user with unclean hands.")
• Got 48 hour site blocked for further personal attacks made during the edit war AN/I brought against them [259], as well as edit warring.
• Attempted to escape that block via wikilawyering [260]
• Opened a dispute resolution request that included 24 people, including a probable sock-puppet account listed as the first person involved. The sock has 3 edits in total - the first was to request someone restart PP666's edit war [261] (the edit war that happened 2 days before they signed up), the second was to "retire" the account exactly 1 minute later (5 minutes after signing up)[262], but they came out of "retirement" to post their third edit: literally posting "I agree with PicturePerfect666" on PP666's dispute resolution request. They have no other edits. Also note the similar username motifs.
• PP666 added wikicomments in the article source, demanding that adding anything critical of Israel to the lead was against consensus and not allowed (despite knowing that was not true). They did not remove this message when this was pointed out to them. [263]
• Moved the section that outlines the Israeli participation controversy further down the page to "alphabetise" [264]
• Moved large sections of the Israeli participation controversy into a lower traffic article without consulting the talk page [265]
• Removed large amount of detail about the Israeli inclusion protests without consulting the talk page [266]
• Repeatedly removed an image of protest against Israel's inclusion happening in Barcelona because, as per the edit summary "we all know what a protest looks like" [267]. Also justifying removing this image again later using the reasoning "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" [268] (despite other sections having images at the time), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later [269] [270]
• Removing a one-sentence reference to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see [271]). Asked to revert, [272], but didn't.
• When an admin removed some comments (full disclosure: my comments[273]) from the talk page because of the extended-confirmed protection, PP666 took it upon themselves to use this as justification to police everyone else in the talk page [274]
• This led to PP666 opening a spurious AN/I, which was promptly shut down[275]. One admin said "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them". During that AN/I, admins asked them to revert the policing comments, something PP666 pretended to comply with, but instead just wikicommented out instead[276]. The policing comments are still in the talk page code without any clarification that they are inaccurate and unwarranted. They refused to actually delete them when I pointed this out to them[277], quoting WP:TPO as the reasoning, which is completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and does not suggest wikicommenting at all.

Since my comments got deleted and I had the contentious topic explainer posted on my page, I have stopped interacting on this article's talk page (apart from one extended-protected change request), but I have still been observing what's been happening from the side-lines, and I think that PicturePerfect666's behaviour is massively disruptive and unhelpful, and they show no sign of self reflection or acknowledging a behavioural problem. This list was initially even longer but I decided to trim it down. There's no way of having a meaningful discussion or improving the article while they are involved. BugGhost🎤 11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

[278] might be an interesting diff regarding bludgeoning. _Dial^mayo 11:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This largely factual incorrect. For example I only started one RfC and only did so after dispute resolution was declined after being advised to try routes that are different.

the matters complained about are already administratively dealt with as a block on me and another were rendered and have passed.

I’d like the reported to be boomeranged for this waste of time as this is already dealt with previously. They are also in my opinion on a campaign targeting me as they dislike the position I take compared to them.

if they have content disputes fine but this is targeting and bullying through gaming the system. An example was when an admin asked they and everyone else to not comment on my talk page and they carried on regardless.

this is the most nothing burger feet stamping laundry list complaint I’ve ever seen from someone doing so here because they dislike the processes of Wikipedia and can’t stand that contentious topics are going to need more input and have more people with different views than they like.

yes this reply is personal but I’m sick to death of the attitude of this user that they get to try and push an opposing voice on a contentious topic off because they can’t get their own way they should be trouted and warned they can’t go forum shopping on things already dealt with. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lines like this “one which they asked an admin to open”

Show how absurd and bad faith assuming this complaint is. I never asked any administrator to open anything I would therefor like that to be taken as prima facia evidence of bad faith and this nonsense closed with appropriate action taken against the filer. Accusations like that cannot be allowed as they damage the whole process and nature of Wikipedia.

I am pinging the admin being accused of being my patsy @Ivanvector: PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and when that fell through, and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the second RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your badgering of people trying to contribute to those RFCs. BugGhost🎤 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, for the sake of stopping a derailment - if you insist, the phrase "asked for" could be improved. You may not have directly asked for it, but it was made to placate your concerns about the article, because your dispute resolution request didn't go ahead. Again: I have no concern about them whatsoever. I have no problems with the first RFC being open, this has nothing to do with this AN/I, and whether you "asked" for it or not makes no difference. I am making no claims about Ivanvector's behaviour and everything I have seen from them has been neutral, fair and in good-faith. The fact that you are trying to redirect this AN/I away from yourself and imply that I am actually attacking a third party is astonishing. This is a complete derailment, and I am surprised that this detail, out of everything in the original post, is the one you are fighting. BugGhost🎤 14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am bad at Wikipeding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uh, your diff is broken, Dialmayo, it doesn't have the revision IDs and is just going to the main page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Looking at the reply in the edit history, I think Dialmayo intended to link to this diff - please correct me if I'm mistaken though BugGhost🎤 11:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) I fixed the diff seconds before you wrote that after you wrote that haha, yeah that's what I meant to link to, I forgot how the diff template worked Dialmayo 11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Bot control

Why is a bot allowed to control what is posted to drv [279] . duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Duffbeerforme, because the report was malformed. You have to add it outside of and after the hidden comment syntax (<!-- -->). You placed it inside of the hidden comment. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)