Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147

Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior

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

---

Over the past few months, I've observed a concerning pattern of behavior by Horse Eye's Back ("HEB", formerly Horse Eye Jack) that is characterized by vicious battlegrounding through unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments. These issues have been observed and called to HEB's attention at least as far back as 2020, and they have not stopped.

I'd like to ask the community to issue a formal admonishment or other action, as you all deem appropriate.

Here's the history:

• In May 2020, Atsme said that "Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go. I think an admin warning would go a long way in helping to get this editor back on track." In June 2020, HEB was blocked by Floquenbeam for "repeated feuding" with a now-blocked editor, with behavior that included "following each other to articles to revert the other, and near constant bickering and templating and insults and harassment."
• In 2021, HEB was told by El_C at ANI that "Horse Eye's Back, you need to take a step back, maybe two. [...] It is combative. It is adversarial. It turns the discussion into a battleground, so you need to start reigning it in better. There's no other way."

In 2023 and 2024, Horse Eye's Back has continued practicing battleground behavior. In recent months, they have done the following:

• After tagging a swath of articles written by TCN7JM, HEB told them that "I clearly said we had a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. You are now complaining about those low quality articles from unskilled writers and researchers being tagged." (i.e. HEB is calling TCN7JM unskilled; August 2023)
• Told James500 that their comment was a "Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you." (September 2023)
• Called Rschen7754 "a leader of the extremist wing" of WP:ROADS editors. (October 2023)
• Told BeanieFan11 that they "appreciate how proudly ignorant you are of that though". (December 2023)
• Went after Simon Harley for a lightly critical blog post about Wikipedia, and then accused Simon of holding a conflict of interest because of edits made about their secondary school 15 years ago. (Yesterday)

Last October, HEB told LilianaUwU and Drmies that they would take their feedback about personal attacks "to heart". But I believe that the above evidence, plus a number of fruitless recent attempts to bring concerns to HEB's attention, demonstrate that they will not alter their behavior without formal action. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Seconded (not independent, as I participated in the discussion on listed buildings noted above, and we've been on opposite sides in a number of AfDs). The critique of Simon Harley is startlingly inappropriate. I'd add that "I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument?" reads as aggressive to me, rather than a promise to behave more collegiately in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO it reads as frustrated but trying to do my best to stay on track content wise. I can definitely see how it would read as aggressive though. I would note that in the same way my worst edits have been cherrypicked you could also cherry pick collegiality, for example from this very discussion before it blew up "Despite being in an argument with Ed on another page I heartily Agee with them here..."[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• That is not a now-blocked editor, thats a LTA who was blocked years before I ever interacted with them. I did not attack Harley for a blog post, I pointed out they had gotten our policy/guideline wrong and that the restriction they thought existed actually didn't... We are in fact allowed to use sources which are publicly accessible but not online. I would note that The ed17 has omitted the key context here... They end at Harley, but they only brought this to ANI after this happened [2][3]. I find it baffling that the most important context was omitted from the report. Also just a note I currently have a LTA stalker undoing my contribs en-masse so if my comment disappears its almost certainly them and not a participant in this thread good hand-bad handing, I apologize in advance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, screw the LTAs that decide to revert people for no reason. That's a fair complaint, and may be worth a separate discussion. On the subject of this discussion, though, while there are tons of articles that leave a lot to be desired, I feel like you've been going way too far in the direction that all articles better be fixed right now, which includes the battleground behavior you've exhibited. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean I gave them a reason... I kept opening SPI... Its a poor excuse but I wasn't in a good head space yesterday on account of the LTA. It must have been more than 100 reverts in 24 hours, maybe much more than that (most were repeats and dealt with by other editors who I am forever grateful to). If I may thats never been my editing philosophy, I believe in tagging *right now* but fixing over years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thirded. (Like user Espresso Addict, I am not independent of the situation; I have not participated in the linked discussions, but have interacted with Horse Eye's Back in other talk pages). I have also seen HEB's unnecessarily personalized and aggressive behavior toward editors. Late 2022 they received a warning at this noticeboard for aggressive and inaccurate accusations of COI against an appropriately disclosed paid Wikipedian-in-residence. Over the past month or so, HEB has turned attention to similarly disruptive cross-posting that has involved attempts (1) (2) to make public claims about another the personal information of another user (myself), including expressing belief that I should have "zero expectation of privacy" (this fits the pattern of making disagreements personal, about a user's identity, rather than about the substance of edits or content on Wikipedia); and more inaccurate accusations of COI. Of the inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation, User:DJ Cane said that HEB was "operating on a very liberal reading of WP:COI" and that HEB's "zeal in confronting opinions opposing your own in this discussion is both non-constructive and alarming, and I agree with the discussion provided by @P-Makoto that your cross-discussion comments targeting specific editors is concerning and possibly worth an outside review on its own". Based on this widespread pattern of aggressive, battlegrounding behavior, I support the proposal to issue formal action. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation"? I don't think it was aggressive and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. Yes they disclosed (but only on their user page, not on affected talk pages and not whenever they discussed the topic)... But they're also the author of 75% of the article on their employer... See [4]. Disclosure doesn't free you from the other restrictions and expectations... For example "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;" "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" and "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;". Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The "inaccurate and aggressive COI accusation" I linked to has nothing to do with the Harold B. Lee Library page or Rachel Helps (BYU). I linked to an AfD discussion about a different page where you were accosting Heidi Pusey BYU.

In any case, merely to clarify the particular matter you refer to: Rachel Helps (BYU) does in fact openly disclose that on her user page: I wasn't going to edit the page, but a previous copyvio put the page out of commission. I completely rewrote it so a page would exist. My edit history is available for anyone to examine. Other editors looked over the page. Since copyright violation is illegal and should be promptly replaced with non-copyvio content, this—while not ideal—is, I would posit, understandable (as a rare occurrence to not be recommitted), especially since Rachel Helps (BYU) is completely up front about it on her user page, has not repeated that, has made the disclosure on her user page, and has made sure other editors reviewed the contributions.

An occasional, rare questionable moment is understandable amid a long history of responsible editing; Rachel Helps (BYU) has a long history of responsible editing. Frequent, consistent misbehavior is much less understandable, especially when set against the backdrop of a pattern of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding; unfortunately, you have a long history of battlegrounding, sealioning, and hounding. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a long history of responsible editing, even my greatest detractor wouldn't argue that more than 1% of my edits are misbehavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

People aren’t here to call for you to be subject to an outright ban as you do make plenty of good contributions to the project. We’re here because you have a sustained history of aggression, targeting, and tendency to go off topic in discussions when another editor disagrees with you. Additionally your inaccurate interpretation of COI appears to lead to many of these interactions. DJ Cane (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a single person has called for me to be subject to an outright ban unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this notice to my attention @P-Makoto. To expand on what’s quoted of me there, it is clear to me that HEB has decided that any affiliation at all with the subject matter of an article to constitute a COI violation and they defend their opinion on that and any other subject I’ve seen in an aggressive, non good faith manner. DJ Cane (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I do not wish to devote too much energy to this. I was not the kindest person in the world during these discussions and have since moved on to building the new AARoads Wiki and generally doing other stuff with my life. However I was pinged in the initial post, and the reason I was not kind in these discussions is because I feel so strongly about this, so I'll say this much: this is long overdue. The listed jab at me was especially out-of-pocket because my initial diatribe in that RFC did not mention or even name HEB, but not long after it was posted, he found it within himself to go back and tag a buttload of articles I had written and contributed to a decade ago. Just deeply petty and mean to the point that it could not be construed as anything other than a personal attack. It also feels worth mentioning that relentless sealioning is another card in HEB's deck, so if he starts ignoring the crux of your argument to keep asking for more proof/diffs, just know it's a pattern. I decline to answer any questions or comment further on this matter. Good luck. TCN7JM 06:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats sealioning? Good grief... I would say more but what's the point if you're not participating further. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just so this doesn't get overlooked, I want to point out that the comment from TCN7JM that HEB is replying to was You know this, otherwise there'd be no reason your side has been so heavily pushing for it. C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this. That is a blatant provocation; it's WP:ASPERSIONs against an entire group of editors, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and incivility rolled into one. And HEB's response was to ignore the uncivil second part and just ask for evidence for the aspersion in the first part. That is, by any measure, restrained. Wikipedia is not a casual discussion forum; editors who make accusations against others are in fact required to back them up. If discussion weren't already swamped with so many different discussions, I would say that this is the sort of thing that would call for a WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  1. Diffs without context are my least favorite aspect of ANI. This one is particularly thin in terms of proving any "pattern". PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have been personally warned by more than one user from interacting with HEB due to what they characterized as trollish behavior. I don't think any of them have commented here yet. My experience with HEB does not deviate far from their descriptions. Qiushufang (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Considering HEB is one of the reasons roads editors forked, you were better off not interacting with them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  If I was a reason it was a very minor one... Note that the AA roads contingent was considering forking long before I entered the topic space [5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say except that in the discussion on Talk:Simon Harley I was concerned by the pattern I was seeing. Hostile posts followed by demands for details and clarification and at every point adding new issues is a pattern I've seen in other users before. It is a very negative one as it makes the conversation exhausting for all concerned. If HEB consistently demonstrates this pattern (and I have not examined all the diffs other people have provided, so I don't exactly know how valid their concerns are) then the community should have very little patience for it. The Land (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see a great deal here except content disputes. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the difs above extreme enough to warrant ANI involvement. Most users who edit a lot will have edits which display their frustration, and the above difs show nothing more than that. What are we here for? What policies is HEB supposed to have violated? In many cases, established editors are (probably unfairly) given much more leeway than newer users, I don't see that happening here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Huh? Behaviour during content disputes is very much what 'warrants ANI involvement'. For policies, try WP:NPA for a start. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but my point is that I don't see anything in the behaviour outlined above that would warrant an ANI case.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Then you don't understand ANI. Longterm serial aggression and personal attacks, despite numerous warnings, a block, and promises to change, are very much what ANI is exactly for. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a massive degree of aggression there. I have seen cases showing lots more evidence of aggression laughed out of here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• (I wrote this last night, but got tired and went to bed before I could proofread and post) I have to say, although I'm biased, this user seems to get into ridiculously long arguments over ridiculous, petty and irrelevant things with just about everyone a LOT. Not to discount any work that Horse Eye's has done, but the majority of his contributions seem to fall under either (i) maintenance tagging and removal of content from articles, (ii) getting into silly battleground arguments with users and (iii) arguing over the reliability of sources (and, now I could be wrong, but his reliability standards seem wildly off view from what is generally accepted, e.g., stating that there's only a few people in the world who can be cited for all articles on American football, a vast, vastly covered subject which has over a hundred million followers - something that result in the deletion of 99% of articles on the subject).
  

His talk history seems to be riddled with other editors pointing out problematic edits, rude behavior, etc. A few that immediately came to mind (I don't have the time to come up with an extensive list):

From the ANI regarding myself from last January, User:Rlendog kept a list: User:Rlendog/Sandbox6

Several WT:NFL sections (see 43 mentions of his name at one NFL archive, even though he seems to have little interest in the sport (no edits there previously), he appears to have watchlisted it after the ANI about me to complicate and oppose actions there).

Especially unhelpful comments like here, where an attempt to defuse a conflict resulted in him calling me "ignorant" and making clearly unhelpful comments such as No. You're wrong and its as simple as that.

Absurdly long stalling of a DYK nomination, including what seems to be suggesting that being religious means one has a COI on religion and are worthy of receiving topic bans / ANI if they do not follow all COI procedures for all religious subjects and suggesting that users with tens of thousands of edits are SPAs for only editing religion-areas: Talk:Coriantumr (son of Omer). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The second half of that statement is key, I said that "You have potential..." and you have largely lived up to that potential in the time since (your editing certainly has improved, you're much less tunnel vision these days) even if I wish you would spend more time in non-NFL topic areas (I love your overwhelming passion for the topic area, but your passion for the topic area is also problematic). The idea that I am only on WikiProject NFL to mess with you doesn't pass the smell test[6]. You are a gifted researcher and there are many areas of the project besides American Football which would benefit from your input. It is news that Rlendog is keeping a dossier on me (complete with calling me a "horses behind"[7]), note that they appear to be misrepresenting the content of a number of those diffs... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I hadn't seen that HEB had called you a single-purpose account without a firm basis. Saying "note that BeanieFan11 is themselves a SPA" for the frankly ridiculous reason "it all looks like sports to me" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green is something I'd have added to the OP had I come across it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have had unpleasant interactions with HEB myself, and the tone of it fits the pattern of what other editors describe above. In this series of edits on a banned editor's user page, HEB seemed to me to have a battleground-y rigidity about wanting to put a "badge of shame" there: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Now I'll say that I know full well that editors disagree on the substance of when to tag or not, but this is a matter of the attitude that HEB brought into that disagreement. One can see a wall of text of editors disagreeing here: [12]. No need to read all of it, but just start at the top and see the attitude adopted by HEB in replying to various editors, not just to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna say here that while I haven't read the OPs diffs, if they're like these ones I really don't think this deserves to be at ANI. Nothing here seems off even attitude-wise and I read the last diff as the majority of editors agreeing with HEB about the underlying dispute. Loki (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I do sometimes bring a bad attitude to talk pages (we all do sometimes), but that talk page doesn't seem to be among them... I certainly give you attitude in the linked edit summaries (not more than is acceptable), but not on the talk page... That actually looks better than I remember it being. None of those twenty comments are problematic unless I'm missing something (and if I am please link the diff). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a back-and-forth with anyone here, but editors/admins can decide for themselves what they think of the interaction with Tamzin at the very start of that long discussion. I'm not saying that's the only example, just an easy one for other editors and for admins to look at. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The innuendo isn't helping, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the edits there and the same *can not* be said about many of the edits that others have shared... They really are my darkest moments (have I made 50 bad edits? Almost certainly, but its out of 50k)... What you shared just isn't, I would actually present that series of interactions as evidence that I'm a decent editor (I don't seem to disrespect anyone, I don't bludgeon, I don't make sarcastic comments, I don't make jokes, I don't do anything objectionable as far as I can see). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon on Talk:Coriantumr_(son_of_Omer). He told my student that she couldn't vote in an AfD about a Book of Mormon topic she wrote a page on because we work at the BYU Library (and according to his logic, have a COI on all topics related to the LDS Church). In the same AfD, he wrote that the Book of Mormon "describes a religious fantasy world" and that there are "no 'possibly historical elements' in Mormon scripture". Not only were these comments irrelevant to the AfD, but they were also dismissive of my religious beliefs. HEB refuses to escalate to actually nominating pages he tags with notability cleanup banners for deletion, claiming to want to continue discussion. However, discussion with HEB is very frustrating because he continues to try to enforce his own idiosyncratic interpretation of COI and independent sources. Maybe there is an important discussion to be had about what really can be an independent source about religious topics, but I would much prefer that it happen with people who are not going to make me feel like crap. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, HEB’s insistence that the Book of Mormon should be treated as a work of fiction is not in line with established Wikipedia guidelines (see: WP:MVF and others) but when pointed out HEB aggressively doubles down on their interpretation. DJ Cane (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't think anything being said there is excessively aggressive, I do agree that this series of diffs indicates that HEB's interpretation of COI is way too expansive. The idea that working at BYU (or heck, directly for the LDS church) means you can't vote in an AfD about Mormon scripture is IMO nuts. That would mean that rabbis have a COI about Moses. Loki (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @LokiTheLiar: Its not working at BYU, its being a paid editor... "you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;" if they're paid to edit pages on Mormon scripture then they can't act as a reviewer for Mormon scripture at AfD. The Rabbi is fine, so is the BYU student or professor who isn't a paid editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    As I noted in this discussion, paid editors by the BYU Library editing subjects related to the LDS faith (including relevant discussions) is not a WP:COI violation per WP:COIE but if they were to edit articles about BYU or its professors that would be. This is a Wikipedian in Residence program and is even listed as such by Wikimedia. Nobody would bat an eye at paid editors from a state university contributing to pages about state government or adjacent topics. This, of course, is not the topic of this conversation but represents an example of how HEB has adopted a standard of their own to hold editors to that lies outside the standards agreed upon by the community. DJ Cane (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    By "articles about BYU or its professors" do you mean articles like Harold B. Lee Library, Hugh Nibley, Leonard J. Arrington, Merrill Bradshaw, Brigham Young University Museum of Art, BYU Family History Library, Ronald W. Walker, Brigham Young University Student Service Association, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, but a quick review of each of those shows only minor edits (spelling, ref fixes, etc.) by a BYU paid account since about 2021 with the exception of on Hugh Nibley who, while he was a BYU professor was also a major figure in LDS apologetics which may or may not constitute COI depending on a deeper review of the content of those edits using systems we have built as a community to counter problems. In either case, COI issues with those articles doesn’t justify targeting or stirring up trouble in other places.

    Note: I acknowledge a more thorough review could show more but I was looking for accounts with BYU in the name, which appears to be the standard these editors are using as part of how they identify themselves. DJ Cane (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    This isn't entirely on-topic but you need to go back further, for example Rachel Help's first editor at Harold B. Lee Library is in 2016 (diff unavailable do the copyright strike) and there are substantial edits along with the minor edits... So many substantial edits in fact that she is the author of 75.2% of the page. In 2017 she re-wrote the page [13] with a significant new emphasis on awards and positive rankings. You will also note that there isn't a disclosure on most of those talk pages which is required, we have a system and these editors aren't following it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Whataboutism based on issues 6 years ago that aren’t ongoing isn’t a very effective argument. DJ Cane (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

    Appears to be ongoing, this edit from the 5th is the sort of edit that really needs to be proposed on the talk page not done directly [14]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    Another prime example of what is not a COI in this situation. DJ Cane (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    How so? It appears to be both a paid edit (all of which incur a financial conflict of interest per WP:PE) and to have additional conflicts based on organizational affiliation (in case you didn't catch it some of the removed text concerned the "Museum of Art at Brigham Young University"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    The edit summary should be sufficient for a reasonable observer - the portion removed (a collection at BYU) was not relevant to the article (which covers art with Mormon themes and from Mormon artists). The collection could be appropriately added to Brigham Young University Museum of Art but not by @Rachel Helps (BYU) because that would be a COI, or possibly elsewhere which may or may not be a COI. DJ Cane (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

    I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. One thing thats become clear from this conversation is that COI might be the most nebulous part of wikipedia, no two editors have provided the same standard or expectations for how COI should be perceived and adjudicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The paid editing standards apply to all edits which have been paid for which for these accounts is all their edits. I think you're getting standard COI and PAID confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Voting in an AfD (or RFC or similar) is not what that line refers to. It's being a reviewer. Also that line is from WP:COI not WP:PAID, so it only applies if the account has a COI, which the person you were accusing still very much did not. Loki (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PE says "Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals." We can have a discussion about whether or not AfD is included in "or similar" but AfD is clearly similar to AfC so if its not included some clarification is needed. WP:PAID says "Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published." The paid BYU editors edit the articles directly and create the articles directly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who's sometimes disagreed with Horse and sometimes agreed with him, I think that nonetheless the bedside manner can be a bit lacking. Also, this seems rather bizarre — wtf is that? Homeslice hasn't edited the page in 15 years and has very little current authorship, what could this possibly have had to do with the dispute at hand? jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• This thread cited above by Rachel Helps is absolutely bananas, both in terms of HEB's ridiculous interpretation of COI, and his blatant attempts to cow others into submission with threats of topic bans. The gravedancing on Roxie the Dog's user page cited by Tryptofish (and HEB's refusal to either walk away or admit his edits were not helpful) is also troubling. This pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop, given their history. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the fact that this "pattern of behavior seems to be widespread and unlikely to stop" is the nub of what ANI ought to evaluate here. I recognize that HEB also has a long track record of making good contributions, so this gets into a "net positive" versus "net negative" kind of balance. How that balances out, I'm not yet sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. It would at the very least stop one area of targeted harassment and put HEB on notice that more sanctions may follow if the behavior does not improve. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  That might not be the best idea, LDS topics are already heavily-skewed in *favour* of the topic, largely due to the fact that the majority of editors who work on it are mormons. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having HEB’s aggression/targeting mixed in will not resolve or add any value to that issue. DJ Cane (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that HEB is being particularly aggressive, and I very much am not convinced that their overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing. Loki (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Softlavender's proposal that a TBAN on LDS and BYU topics, broadly construed, would possibly be a good starting point. I have seen HEB's behavior become highly disruptive in that part of Wikipedia, since 2022 and up to the present.

  Respectfully, Loki, I disagree with your assessment of HEB's behavior. I think it's important to keep in mind that this is not about these interactions and confrontations in isolation, but how they have accumulated into a disruptive pattern. What most alarms me is how even after receiving a warning for harassing Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has continued to be sufficiently preoccupied with WP:HOUNDING her that over a year later HEB now is attempting to threaten her students with topic bans. If HEB's behavior were more isolated or didn't have a history behind it, then I could understand not raising it to ANI. However, the extent of it across time, topics, and people lead me to agree with at a minimum Softlavender's proposal.

  Finally, I would say that whether or not HEB's overly expansive interpretation of COI is worse than POV-pushing seems like a potential inadvertent distraction, inasmuch as it may lead us to be dwelling on other people's behavior (POV-pushing) when that can be considered independently of HEB's behavior, and the latter's what this ANI thread is about. If there are concerns about POV-pushing from editors who aren't HEB, then they and their POV-pushing can be taken up in a separate thread or separate threads. For this thread, my comment are about HEB's behavior, and I include the overly expansive interpretation of COI. For what it's worth, if this is referring to Rachel Helps (BYU), my experience has been that she and her students make good-faith efforts to be careful about POV and have been, in the handful of times I have seen missteps, receptive to good-faith feedback on their edits. I've found them much easier and more productive to work alongside than HEB, who so quickly escalates to deploying their overly expansive interpretation of COI to try to disregard and eliminate editors from topics and pages. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I've proposed a formal admonishment below but left it generalized because it's difficult to pinpoint the one true concern. HEB's interpretation of COI is at the root of several—but definitely not all—of the problematic behaviors/concerns identified above, which is broader than LDS/BYU. Still, I'm not sure thatthere would be appetite for enforceable editing restrictions that instruct HEB to bring any COI concerns to the COI noticeboard in lieu of a talk page in any namespace. Regardless, I would personally encourage HEB at least ask general questions about their interpretation of COI at COIN. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

As a voluntary restriction I could get behind that... The only problem I see is thats its more of a privilege than a restriction and some apparently want to see me punished... Normally you're supposed to go talk page first, "If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline." but I wouldn't mind being able to start at the noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the argument here is that we should just not enforce our own policies as long as someone has a particular POV in a topic area -- I do not think this is a good idea. jp×g🗯️ 09:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Like boynamedsue above, I'm struggling to see anything ANI-worthy here. I'm seeing a lot of misrepresented diffs here (the diffs in the OP are not vicious battlegrounding, the COI diffs are not harassment or "going after" anyone), I'm seeing a lot of editors who have previously had content or policy disputes with HEB piling on (in some cases after being pinged here). I would oppose any sanctions on these diffs. Everyone makes snippy remarks now and again, the quality and quantity of HEB's remarks don't seem particularly bad, and while conduct concerns like COI would be better brought to COIN than raised with the COI editors (who will never agree they have a COI), I think this ANI pile-on is worse than the alleged incivility. And FWIW I believe if you put it on your resume you have a COI for it, whether it's education or employment. Levivich (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, in terms of COI, people with a personal connection to a topic, especially potential economic benefit from its positive reputation, have a COI. That may or may not be the mainstream interpretatiob of COI (I almost never edit in fields where this might be relevant) but it surely isn't an ANI matter to be reasonably wrong here?Boynamedsue (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation of COI. I do think HEB's interpretation goes beyond that in the cases above, although I also feel there's more nuance to what is COI when it comes to editors from religious schools and BYU in particular. The bludgeoning and targeting are problematic. I think that this might be exacerbated by the frustration inherent in 1v1 and 1vmany arguments where he knows there is PAG/MOS violation to some degree from the "other" side, and they're just not getting it so he tries to approach the problem from different angles or catch them out in some other way. JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, more nuance in BYU's case: All seem to agree that the school owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is — and should be — different from other universities ... the school 'stands unquestionably committed to its unique academic mission and to the church that sponsors it.' ... 'being a university second to none in its role primarily as an undergraduate teaching institution that is unequivocally true to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the process' [15] Levivich (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• After reading all the various diffs, the only problematic thing I'm seeing is that HEB has a very expansive idea of what a COI is. I don't think that HEB is being particularly uncivil or aggressive in any of the linked diffs. (Given this, I would also like to object to ScottishFinnishRadish's closing of the COI section above, because I feel that section and not this one has the more meaningful part of this complaint.) Loki (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• I don't really see much aggression or incivility; what I do see is that Horse Eye's Back is inexplicably ultra-confident in what they are saying, even when that is absolutely ridiculous to everyone else. This discussion cited above is just bewildering, where they ardently and confidently misunderstand, inter alia, what being a reliable source is, what subject-matter experts are, what the meaning of "niche" is, and probably more still, and yet they still carry on in possibly the most self-confident manner imaginable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: Perhaps "aggressive" is the wrong word to use, and if so I'd be happy to use a different descriptor if you or others have one. "Sealioning" was one potential descriptor I used below. The intent in my use of "aggressive" was to describe that sort of passive-aggressive(?) relentless attack and defense without self-reflection. As I said below, "It's not that HEB is consistently uncivil, but that they frequently exhibit aggressive battlegrounding behavior with individuals who either happen to disagree with them or HEB thinks have violated a Wikipedia policy/guideline." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Fourthed (or whatever number we're one now). Battleground behaviour is evident as presented by Ed and others. I myself have had a few negative interactions with the editor in question where similar behaviour was exhibited. JM (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a very self explanatory piece. Baiting and harassment in its finest. [16] — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not harassment, by any stretch. And I hardly call it baiting. Expressing astonishment that someone reviewed something so quickly is not either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is his usual method of trying to provoke an argument with editors of WP:ROADS. Even the language shows high levels of passive aggressiveness. Even the angry "Don't you dare" shows it. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 20:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable response to an editor removing another editor's talk page comment with the edit summary "rm bad faith comment." I'm not the one in that series of discussions openly engaging in battleground behavior "regardless its no longer my battle" [17] yet I'm the one thats been dragged to ANI. Odd no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707, no it doesn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It's examples like that why me and many others didn't think twice about opposing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

COI clarification

Not a matter for ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the user talk page @Parsecboy: said "On what planet does having attended a school constitute a WP:COI? Let me be clear: it doesn't."[18] with @The Land: saying "Hello Horse Eye's Back. Like Parsecboy, I can't imagine circumstances where regular, non-controversial editing pages on a school one attended would be a COI requiring declaration."[19] and I just wanted to check whether that was true... Thats not how I've seen COI applied in practice and it certainly clashed directly with what WP:COI says but if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My intuition just from reading WP:COI is that making edits about a school that you are attending is probably a COI, but not a school you attended. I would guess that most edits about otherwise obscure high schools are from people who attended those high schools. Loki (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC) The context here includes both edits while attending and edits after attending. I agree with you vis-a-vis obscure high schools but I'm not sure that its ok just because a lot of people do/have done it. For me the biggest aspect is self promotion... Lionizing anything which is on your resume is effectively self promotion, but the seriousness of education COI goes in descending order from post-doc lab to pre-school. IMO high school is about the cutoff for where I'm worried about it. We all know the first thing recruiters do when they see a school on a resume is look it up on google... Which takes them straight to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC) HEB, this ANI has been opened about your behavior, and I'm concerned you created this section to distract/deflect from that. If you want a clarification about our COI policies, WP:COIN is available. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes, my behavior... Hence "if Parsecboy and The Land are *right* I am definitely the asshole here." What appears to be deflection is pinging in a whole series of editors I've had issues with over the years to dogpile on me while omitting the actual context of the complaint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There is absolutely no blanket COI between an individual who attends a school and an article on that school. The argument that it does belies a complete misunderstanding of what a conflict of interest actually is. If the editor works for the school in any capacity, then yes, there's a COI. If Horse Eye's Back's interpretation is correct, you can go through the edit history of probably every article on a school and block all of the editors for violating this conception of what constitutes a COI. You could count on one hand the number of editors who have contributed to schools they didn't attend. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC) There absolutely is a blanket COI, the only question is whether it’s a concern to wikipedia. I think it might actually be you who misunderstands what a COI is. I don't believe I ever called for blocks, I've only asked for disclosure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Absolute nonsense. Please explain what interests the average student have that conflicts with Wikipedia’s goals (beyond petty vandalism, which isn’t a COI issue). Are you arguing that the average student as a financial interest in how their school is portrayed online? Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOAPBOX points 1, 4, and 5. The only way for them not have a special interest is if school reputation plays no role in hiring or advancement in their field nor do they ever plan on working or seeking employment in such a field... If it’s on your resume you have a conflict of interest with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Still no explanation about how that applies to students of a school (and numbers 1 and 3 have nothing to do with a COI, and would apply equally to non-students as well). As for 4, the editors in question never worked for their schools, nor were they writing articles about themselves. Are you arguing that they benefit by making their school appear better than it was? If so, that’s so damn thin it’s transparent, my friend. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC) 1, 4, and 5 not 1, 3, and 4. #4 covers writing about yourself *and* "projects in which you have a strong personal involvement." Yes that is my argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Then your argument is a joke. The idea that anyone could personally benefit from making their high school seem better on Wikipedia is cosmically absurd. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC) What if you're currently in the college application process? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Lol no. Have you ever worked in an educational system? Heck, even applied to college? Nobody is researching highschools on Wikipedia to make decisions on who gets accepted. We’ve crossed over into parody, right? Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "unnecessarily personalized and deliberately aggressive comments" indeed... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) My comment was in no way aggressive, and the only personalization was questioning your experience in this area, which seems relevant, since you are making an argument that is ludicrous on its face. At what point are you going to stop digging in your heels on this obviously wrong position and admit you have grossly misinterpreted COI? Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I worked in college admissions for two years. We used wikipedia daily, its simply not possible to memorize thousands of highschools. I applied to college. Is there any other personal information you would like to know? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) And what did you use it for, praytell? Surely you are not seriously suggesting that, for two students who have identical GPAs, ACT/SAT scores, extra-curriculars, etc., you would break the tie by checking the Wikipedia article on their high school. If not, then the student has no particular interest in their school's iamge on Wikipedia. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Not directly but we would assign the school an "academic reputation" score of 1-5 which for prep schools was pretty easy because there are actual rankings but for the random public schools yeah it pretty much was just googling the school and assigning an arbitrary score. We had less than 20 minutes to review their entire file including essays and letters of recommendation. I don't know what you're imagining but its not a terribly fair or scientific process. In my own professional life I have had a recruiter quote the wikipedia page for my college to me so I'm assuming he looked at it. Maybe that is what colors my perception of COI, I know how much it matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that it's a policy that should be applied with common sense. To my mind, what school someone attended is only loosely an 'interest', let alone one that is likely to come into conflict with anything else. The idea that editing one's secondary school is effectively self-promotion on the grounds that some future employer might care about what the Wikipedia article about the school says. This would be quite an innovation for our COI policy. As I said, there might be some edge cases where the school or edits about it are particularly controversial. But that's not the case here and there's no justification for jumping on Simon Harley's talk page with threatening messages. The Land (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC) When does it become a COI which matters then? When you're editing your thesis advisor's page? Also note that these edits are controversial because the articles (List of headmasters of St. Bees School and History of St. Bees School) don't actually appear notable... Making a page for a non-notable thing you have a COI with strikes me as a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:COI says that Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest [emphasis mine] and later How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. I do not think "I previously attended this school" is a conflict of interest which requires disclosing. If it is, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of substantive edits about schools across the entirety of wikipedia are in violation of it! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) @Caeciliusinhorto-public: what about currently attends or works at the school? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "Works at the school" I would consider the same as working at any other institution; WP:COI explicitly says that being an employee of an institution is (not just can be) a financial conflict of interest. Even if someone is editing an article about their employer off-the-clock and not as part of their job, I would think it should be disclosed, though such editing might still be completely unproblematic. "Currently attends" I think is okay and generally does not require a COI disclosure; I suspect that there might be less community consensus on that though. Fundamentally I just don't think that attending or having attended a school gives the average person any particular interest in presenting a school in a particular way that would conflict with their duties as a Wikipedian. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Is there a difference to you between a public school where education is freely provided and a private school at which the student has a strong financial relationship with the school? (or for that matter a public school which charges tuition) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I can't see how it makes a difference. I can't see how an editor who went to a fee-paying school should have a conflict of interest wrt that school any more than an editor who shops at Walmart has a conflict of interest wrt Walmart. If we consider that a disclosable COI, then Talk:Walmart is improbably light on required COI disclosures! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) They don't seem to be the same relationship... Surely a business owner has a COI with their employee in the way that a employee has with the business owner? Its not only the employee who has a COI. If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) If the school pays you 45k a year you have a major COI with the school, so why would there be no major COI if you pay the school 45k a year? Why should these two situations be equivalent? If you are employed by someone, they have the power to punish you (up to and including firing you) if you do things which reflect negatively upon them, and to reward you with bonuses or promotions if you do things which help them make money (and, of course, if you do things that help them make money then they are more likely to remain solvent, and thus you are more likely to keep your job). If you regularly pay an organisation thousands of dollars, they have no such power over you. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) So you're saying that employers don't have a COI with their employees? Its only employees who have a COI with their employer? I don't think thats right, if I employ Rudy Giuliani as my lawyer I have a conflict of interest with Rudy Giuliani. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC) No, that's not at all what I said. I haven't got a strong opinion on whether a business owner prima facie has a COI wrt all of their employees (certainly business owners have a COI with respect to at least some of their employees, but would for instance Jeff Bezos have a COI with respect to any random person who happened to work as an Amazon delivery driver? I'm not convinced he would). Even if we accept arguendo that they do, the school you go to is not your employee, even if you are paying them directly through school fees rather than indirectly through your taxes. A fee-paying school is a business and their students are customers. I do not think that people in general have a COI with regards to businesses they patronise which requires disclosure, even if their financial commitment to that business runs into the tens of thousands of dollars. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that simply attending a school could give someone a COI. If we included that, why not include, I don't know... "anyone who lived in town X" or even "anyone who lives in country Y"? Are we going to ban every New Yorker from editing New York? Should every American citizen be considered to have a COI with regards to WP:AP2? Or (and this is the classic example to me), would we consider every citizen of Israel, and every citizen of Gaza and the West Bank, to have a COI with regards to WP:CT/A-I? And maybe every Jew and Muslim to boot? For that matter, what about religious beliefs in other contexts? Could anyone with a strong religious belief (or staunch atheism) be considered to have a COI not just with regards to their own faith, but everyone else's? Should we extend that to everything their faith has weighed in on - which, for some major faiths, could be almost everything? There are clearly some relationships that an observer notionally could conclude could incline someone to bias that don't rise to the level of a COI. While financial COIs are of course not the only ones that exist, I think that it's reasonable to say that something should rise to at least the level of a serious financial COI (ie. something that a reasonable observer would assume is as significant to the editor as large amount of money, just based on whatever detail is known about them.) People could be presumed to have that sort of COI with regards to their family members or the like; but I don't think you'd usually presume that level of COI with regard to your hometown, nation of origin, alma mater, or the like. Even religious belief - which might rise to that level - isn't usually considered sufficient for a COI. (Though that said, I personally don't think it would be amiss to treat people whose nationalistic, political, philosophical or religious beliefs rise to the level of "as important to them as life itself" as having a COI with regards to core articles about those things - but it would be a very difficult thing to practically enforce. And that is stuff that is way more weighty to most people than their alma mater.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Yes all of those people have conflicts of interest, they just aren't significant enough to matter most of the time. Thats the nuance that I think most people miss about conflict of interest, we are all immeshed in a massive web of conflicts of interest. Each of us has nearly innumerable conflicts. I'm interested in where you would draw the line, where does education become a significant COI? Professors you had? Thesis advisor? Former lover/professor? When you donate to your alma matter? When your kids goes there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Admonishment proposal

About a dozen editors above have voiced concerns with HEB's behavior; two editors called it "sealioning", which to me looks to be an apt descriptor in the general internet sense. It's not that HEB is consistently uncivil, but that they frequently exhibit aggressive battlegrounding behavior with individuals who either happen to disagree with them or HEB thinks have violated a Wikipedia policy/guideline.

Unfortunately, HEB is not understanding those concerns, as he has chosen to dispute nearly every negative characterization brought up in the above discussion.

As such, I'd like to move for a formal admonishment. As part of that, HEB would be warned that if their battleground behavior continues, admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied.

Pinging the users who have commented above: Espresso Addict, Horse Eye's Back, LilianaUwU, P-Makoto, DJ Cane, TCN7JM (apologies for pinging per the end of your message, please don't feel like you need to comment again), Qiushufang, The Land, Boynamedsue, Johnbod, Softlavender, BeanieFan11, Tryptofish, LokiTheLiar, Parsecboy, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Aquillion, Rachel Helps (BYU), JPxG, Levivich. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support my own proposal. I'd be thrilled if this formal action curbs HEB's worst impulses and sets them on the path of being a better collegial editing partner. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like I say above, apart from the COI stuff I'm not seeing it. Loki (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support if it gets them to stop being needlessly antagonistic about literally anything and everything. Qiushufang (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Reading through Rachel Helps' talk page archives, this seems like pretty clear sealioning behavior to me. There are countless warnings of their behavior, yet also many people that have come to the users's defense - WP:UNBLOCKABLE comes to mind (although a formal admonishment seems the best option here). I would recommend HEB try to focus on other activities on the wiki besides posting COI notices/enforcement on user talk pages. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note that while I do not meet the definition given in the link both Ed and Parsecboy do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- like I said, the bedside manner could stand to be improved. (As a parenthetical note, I didn't get a ping from that comment above, even though I was pinged with the {{u}} template -- maybe it failed?) jp×g🗯️ 09:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  What's astounding is that the people who personally warned me (multiple) about HEB haven't even commented yet. The fact that multiple complete strangers who I had zero prior interactions with would individually send me warnings about another editor's behavior is insane. I have been editing for as long as HEB practically every other day for five years and have gotten into good deal of disputes, but this is on a whole other level. Qiushufang (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  If you want my blessing to link those warnings and ping them without anyone being able to call "canvassing" you have it, I have nothing to hide and we've certainly got a party going already. Would also like to know if you're going to open a SPI anytime soon with what I brought to your talk yesterday, if you're not let me know and I'l open the SPI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - as written - admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied - is too vague and doesn't offer any specificity. Admin discretion would allow an admin action to be just another warning, and what editing restrictions are you asking for? You stated there is a "concerning pattern of behavior" by HEB, "and they have not stopped", but this proposal falls short of actually stopping and/or curtailing that behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: I didn't think there would be support for specific sanctions as we are talking about a broad pattern of behavior. The hope is that a final and formal warning shot would set HEB on a better path, while also giving admins broader leeway for tackling issues in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that having this ANI opened is punishment enough and should give HEB plenty to think about. No formal warning required. Tooncool64 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tooncool64: Were the six attempts I linked in the OP, plus the plethora of time HEB has disputed negative characterizations in this discussion, plus the multiple times HEB has been discussed on this noticeboard, not proof that informal curbs aren't enough? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see any behaviour that would warrant a sanction of any type. I think we are perhaps dealing with users who are over-estimating what is required in terms of politeness to suggest WP:NPA excludes any display of exasperation at all.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the diffs are not frequent, not aggressive, not battleground, and not sealioning. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the additional suggestion that further formal action be proposed and discussed. I agree with Isaidnoway that the proposal as written risks doing too little to dissuade HEB. HEB has been warned here at ANI previously (see Drmies's comment at the end of this thread that I linked in my "thirded" comment about HEB's persistent, disruptive, and targeted behavior against a user, including accusations based on inaccurate interpretations of COI, stating Horse Eye's Back, you need to back off. This is your clear warning: drop the stick.), and has chosen to persist. HEB's behavior has been long-term over the past couple years, widespread across topics, disruptive to editing, beyond mere expressions of exasperation, and unrelenting (if anything HEB has expanded the scope of behavior, e.g. see how targeting Wikipedian-in-residence Rachel Helps (BYU) in 2022 has turned into targeting students working for her in 2023–2024). Formal action should be taken. As far as my suggestion to propose further formal action (beyond the proposed admonishment), in the linked thread Awilley suggested a one-way interaction ban. Maybe some one-way interaction bans would both stop HEB's targeting of some users and provide a clear disincentive against further behavior like this. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support with the additional note that I’d like to see one or more specific consequences outlined in this forum for if HEB continues the unwarranted aggression, targeting, etc.

DJ Cane (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Further comment: there’s a lot of people voting oppose who are right in saying that none of the concerns brought up violate any policy on their own, but at least in my opinion these editors are taking issues individually as if they are occurring in a vacuum. They are, of course, right if that was the case but it simply isn’t. There is a clear pattern of hostile behavior from HEB stemming several years and some of the sealioning reported by other users was later exhibited in this discussion (such as when HEB tried to justify themselves multiple times using years old edits). Furthermore, this crowd has started what appears to be an unjustified discussion claiming canvassing is present here simply because there are editors who take issue with HEB’s behavior. There is a lot to unpack from what has been said in this discussion, but none of the “side quests” should be used to distract from the issue at hand which has already been formally warned against at least once yet continues.

DJ Cane (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

For me, that "further comment" exactly pinpoints what I see as the issue here. I hope that this proposal does not get lost in ANI indecision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't understand what sealioning I because what's been presented here doesn't seem to meet any of the common definitions of sealioning... If there's a pattern here it certainly isn't clear. I don't think I've "tried to justify themselves multiple times using years old edits" so you're going to need to actually make that argument rather than just cast aspersions. Also note the irony of referring to editors who disagree with you as "this crowd" and casting aspersions against all of them in a discussion about supposed battleground behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Bringing up years old edits to justify and/or sidetrack the discussion, see references to issues from 2021 and issues from 2016-17. In the latter example, it is admitted that it isn't on topic. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In neither diff do I "try to justify themselves" unless I'm missing something. "it is admitted that it isn't on topic" would appear to misrepresent "This isn't entirely on-topic" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced that the totality of evidence here rises to the level of a sanction. FWIW, called Rschen7754 "a leader of the extremist wing" of WP:ROADS editors. is hardly false, is it? Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Black Kite, just because something isn't false (and it is false) doesn't mean it should be said. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one can argue that either way, but it's certainly not an unreasonable position to take. I would expect a sanction to be applied where aspersions had been made that were clearly unreasonable. Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, calling somebody a religious or political extremist may be classified a personal attack. Calling someone an extremist in terms of their interpretation of wiki policies is definitely not a personal attack. HEB wasn't suggesting the user belonged to some secretive far right sect, he was saying that his interpretation of the rules was a minority view at the far end of a continuum. From the COI squabbling on here, I get the impression that HEB might well be "a COI extremist". I trust nobody will be reaching for the New Section button upon reading that? Not even HEB himself.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, precisely. Rschen's interpretation of the sourcing required for ROADS articles was certainly at the extreme end of a continuum, which is why I don't think HEB's comment was unreasonable. Yes, HEB could perhaps wind in the level of their comments sometimes, but as I said above I don't think that they're running past the levels required for a sanction. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Given the way the word "extremist" is almost always used outside of Wikipedia, which is to say that it's used to describe terrorists and the worst of people's political/religious views, it's a heck of a word to use when you merely disagree with a person's stance on a Wikipedia policy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can't say I would like to be called an extremist in anything, and I bet rschen wouldn't either. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Saying stuff another editor doesn't like isn't what a personal attack is. This comment is entirely about on-wiki behavior, and it's also, frankly, obviously true. Loki (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because calling someone an extremist isn't a personal attack? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  If a description of their behaviour is at one end of a measure of on-wiki behaviour, absolutely it isn't. In fact I'm slightly bemused that it could be taken as such (unless it's untrue, of course). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm reasonably certain Rschen7754 has called me an extremist on notability at some point - and if they haven't, someone else certainly has. So long as the allegation is made in an appropriate location - and HEB's was - such allegations don't amount to personal attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you thinking of this from (ironically) @The ed17: in that same conversation "That's a pretty extreme stance."[20] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Could be, not sure - although I’m surprised to see The ed17 make such a statement given their expressed concerns about similar wording; I hope they will now be willing to withdraw those concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Extremist" is almost always used to describe the worst of society. That the word is derived from "extreme" does not mean that they are similar in use or impact. I'd invite you both to re-read what I posted above, where I called out the problems with using "extremist" in that context, and continue on to explore how the two words are used outside of Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I find that very disappointing and hypocritical; there is no significant difference between the two statements, with the Cambridge Dictionary even clarifying that a "group of extremists" is equivalent to "people with extreme opinions". BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I invite you to log off the dictionary, walk into a crowd of people, and see what happens when you accuse one person of being an extremist vs. accusing another of stating an extreme opinion in a social context. In any case, we're now off the topic of this ANI. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I genuinely doubt I will get a different response to saying someone is an "extremist on non-political topic X" than I would for saying some has an "extreme opinion on non-political topic X".

  I also disagree this is off topic; it is appropriate to consider your behaviour here as the filer, including whether you engaged in the same behaviour you are objecting to others engaging in. Regardless, I’m happy to drop this now; we’re not going to agree, and I believe I’ve made my point. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think the difference is that "extremist" is seen negatively when it refers to political issues, but elsewhere it can just be descriptive. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would have absolutely no problem with it, indeed I've described myself as an extremist on several occasions in terms of questions such as teaching practices and views on mobile phones. I'm wondering if this is perhaps a difference between linguistic variants.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're absolutely free to call yourself an extremist if you like. I don't know whether it comes down to linguistic variants, but from what I gather, in the context of the diff, and in the context of calling others extremists on Wikipedia, doing so has registered as a personal attack because it shifts the conversation away from the disagreement and the interpretation being wrong, toward the character of the person, suggesting that they are are wrong not because of a different perspective or disagreement, but because they are, as a person, "extreme" and therefore unreasonable and illogical, not to be reasoned with as a thinking interlocutor but instead dismissed as a force of nature. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, of course. While my interactions with HEB have been mostly positive, I understand that it hasn't been the case for most, especially the roads crowd. I would say further discussion of sanctions might be needed, as well. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I want HEB to stay an editor for years to come–they've been kind and productive with me for some time now–but polemic comments on LDS issues in particular (like this one) seriously worry me. A formal warning is often the least invasive but effective measure, and I hope this is the last of the issue so we can all go back to working together. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I've seen some of the fictional character articles coming out of paid BYU accounts. Reasonable people can disagree, but I think some push back against minor character articles is reasonable. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Leaving aside a few issues which I assume will lead a closing admin to discount this comment (that this ignores the conversation above in favor of a content dispute, that this account knew Wikipedia policies from its first edit one month ago, and that this account could also make references to edit summaries, original research, markup, and wikicode a ~week later)—is your use of the phrase "fictional character articles" meant to refer to figures from the Book of Mormon? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  The disagreement amongst some editors as to whether the Book of Mormon is a work of fact or fiction is the single most alarming aspect of this entire dispute. Levivich (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, myth or fiction. I don’t even think the BYU editors are trying to argue the Book of Mormon should be treated as fact in this context, though one can reasonably expect that their religious beliefs include such. In fact, the BYU editors have responded favorably to rewrites that improved POV. DJ Cane (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Having been the editor involved in that example of favorable response, I can comprehend the trepidation Levivich expresses, but I want to emphasize that the gracious response to edits I've made (including edits that connect Book of Mormon content to the early American context) has left me optimistic that these editors are willing to meet the Wikipedia project on its terms as NPOV goes. I think the way DJ Cane assesses the situation is spot on. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree my interpretation of policy on my first edit was correct? Please help me fix that page, as someone reverted me for not understanding policy correctly there. I thought user generated content wasn't reliable, but was told there is an exception for video game walkthroughs. I left it be because unsure. I try to read all of the linked policies but there are so many Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per the comments that I and numerous other editors have said above. I agree with some of the concerns expressed here, that this may not be a strong enough outcome to ensure adequate compliance. On the other hand, I think it's acceptable to go a little gently at this point, in the hope that HEB will actually take this to heart, as he has already suggested above that he might do in some form: [21]. As for those editors who oppose the proposal (a significant number of whom I recognize as perennial opposers of any criticisms of civility failures by anybody), I do think it's worth noting that HEB did say that, and this is a pretty gentle sanction to place: it's basically just asking that he do as we expect all editors to do, but with the added condition that he has been warned that significant failure will come under administrator discretion. (And I'm not buying the arguments for oppose that rest on the desire to strengthen one "side" in the LDS POV dispute.) I see this as a kind of WP:ROPE, although given the past history, the rope will not be infinite in length. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much as per Tryptofish. I definitely have stronger views about what constitutes acceptable conduct than some of the other people in this discussion, but I'm also pretty certain that HEB's conduct if continued will be a disruptive drain. I could probably be persuaded to support a stronger sanction, but have nothing in mind to propose myself. I would prefer not to conflate patterns of behaviour that occur across articles with limited issues about Mormonism. Hopefully HEB will read this discussion, regardless of whether this specific proposal passes or not, and take peoples' concerns on board. The Land (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I’ve been very concerned about BYU paid editing. I think it’s inherently a COI issue, and I’ve brought this up before. These are people being paid by the Mormon church to edit articles about Mormonism. I think in general BYU funding editing is a good thing – the Mormon church has great records, and I’m sure most of their edits are helpful – but we do need to recognize these folks do have a COI, and we do need to oversee these edits.

HEB may be too aggressive, but we shouldn’t restrict anyone checking these edits from being able to do so. These edits are COI edits and need to be checked, and we need this oversight, even if it’s occasionally a bit aggressive. Valereee (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Valeriee, "paid by the Mormon church to edit articles about Mormonism" isn't really a fair representation of what's going on. Rachel Helps, if I remember correctly, is paid by the BYU library to make some of the unique resources of that library available to Wikipedia. Yes, the library is owned by BYU, which is owned by the church, but the degrees of separation matter. There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits. I hope you'll take a few minutes to read her user page where she makes that relationship clear and is very upfront about her COI and POV. In practice she gets more scrutiny than many other editors in the topic area (probably because of her username). Whenever I review her edits I find careful, helpful, gnomish editing. I've seen a number of somewhat contentious issues where she offers helpful resources or ideas but holds back from !voting or taking a side. For example I remember her staying fairly neutral in discussions about eliminating the word "Mormon" after the LDS Church asked its members to stop using the word.

I also remember when HEB started stalking and hounding Rachel. It went waaaay too far. I'm traveling and on mobile right now, but if the diffs aren't linked somewhere above I can track them down if you want.

Anyway, you can research and form your own opinion. I just wanted to share my own findings. ~Awilley (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits." I don't think thats true, for example recently they've been focusing on The Book of Mormon to get wikipedia ready for a new Sunday school curriculum on the Book of Mormon which is being rolled out. So these edits are coordinated with the Church at large and meant to advance its purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I consider it more likely that, being a Latter-day Saint who works at BYU, Rachel Helps (BYU) noticed that the LDS Church's Book of Mormon Sunday school curriculum (which has been announced ahead of time for years) might prompt more attention by people on Book of Mormon topic Wikipedia pages. I'd compare it to how, say, for example, with a U. S. presidential election on the horizon in 2024, there are probably American Wikipedia editors who are giving more attention to U. S. presidential election articles. I consider it a win for Wikipedia if responsible and responsive editors like Rachel Helps (BYU) and the students she trains help us as experienced editors get out ahead of masses of lay members (who, less familiar with policies like Reliable Sources and NPOV, might want to add citations to things like the Sunday School manual or scripture verses, rather than to the published scholarship Wikipedia should cite). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

They plural not they singular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like me using the singular "they" to refer to you, I am sorry about that; I didn't see information on your HEB user page about what pronouns are appropriate so I figured using gender neutral terms was best. But I don't understand how disagreeing about whether or not "they" can be singular is ultimately relevant? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't refer to anyone using they and you have no basis for thinking anyone here has a problem with using singular they. If you don't understand what heb meant, why not ask instead of low key suggesting heb has a problem with gender neutral pronouns. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think something has been lost in translation, I prefer the singular they (but don't make a big deal when people use he/she, the OG account name made a lot of people think I was a man because they read it as a reference to Jack (name) not Horse-eye jack) for myself. What I meant there was that by "they" I was referring to the whole ecosystem of paid BYU editors, not just Rachel Helps (BYU). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think that talking about how Rachel Helps (BYU) goes about this covers the matter. All the other BYU paid editors are employees of Rachel Helps (BYU) whom she supervises, as she discloses on her user page: I employ BYU students who edit Wikipedia under my supervision. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Awilley, I have read her user and those of multiple of her interns. I've read multiple articles created and edited by her interns. I have zero doubt that Rachel and her interns are operating completely in good faith. That doesn't mean they don't have a COI, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't regard their edits as COI edits and give them the additional attention we'd give the edits of any other well-intentioned COI editor. I wish HEB would be less aggressive and I have no problem with us telling them so. What I object to is the threat of a t-ban from LDS. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's any reassurance, only Softlavender and I have suggested any kind of topic ban. The actual proposal before us states that HEB would be warned. Are you willing to support a warning in which ANI tells HEB to be less aggressive, on not only Mormon studies topics but in the other topic areas addressed in the OP and some of the comments that followed? (e. g. targeting user Simon Harley and contributions made citing the Dreadnaught Project, condescending interactions with users on football topics, etc.?) And as far as COI goes, I find that I agree with DJ Cane: Having HEB’s aggression/targeting mixed in will not resolve or add any value to the process of paying responsible attention to the activities of paid editors. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

P-M, the proposal goes on to say As such, I'd like to move for a formal admonishment. As part of that, HEB would be warned that if their battleground behavior continues, admin action will be taken and/or editing restrictions applied. A lot depends on the closer, but depending on the close language, with a close that includes that language, an individual administrator could indef for a minor infraction and require agreement to a restriction for unblock. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no religious leader higher up in the church telling her what to do or reviewing her edits. Reviewing her edits, maybe not, but telling her what to do? Absolutely. That's the issue with BYU: policy is set by LDS Church. BYU faculty/staff/students/alum have raised these concerns for years; somewhere up above I linked to a newspaper article about it, and it's discussed in the Wikipedia article about BYU. Theirs is a very widely known and ongoing issue with LDS Church constraining academic freedom at BYU. [22]. We even have a whole article about it, Academic freedom at Brigham Young University. As I understand it, BYU's mission is to support/promote the LDS Church and BYU employees are required to further that mission (or at least prohibited from impeding it). This is what makes BYU unlike other religious-affiliated universities. It's not just like "oh we're a Christian university" by vague values or precepts or history, it's a university actually wholly owned and operated by a church. That's more like a seminary than a university. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, particularly Black Kite. BilledMammal (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Come on, BilledMammal. If I said you were an extremist regarding Wikipedia policies, and doubled down on it being the truth, you wouldn't like that, huh? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your select responses to opposition votes feels borderline WP:INAPPNOTE. Tooncool64 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am 90% certain you meant to link to WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you for the correction! Tooncool64 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  See the reply that I made to one of your earlier comments in this section. BilledMammal (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Given both the scope of the OP and the breadth of the issues raised semi-independently by many different editors above, I don't think it's appropriate to suggest that any kind of sanction or admonishment here should hinge on whether one agrees with HEB's interpretation of COI in one narrow context. First off, even just looking at what has been shared in the diffs here, some of their comments in that area are deeply WP:battleground and entirely inappropriate for a collaborative project, even if (and it's a big if) we adopt their view on the COI issue. top to bottom. I share the concern of others here that many of these comments seem to come as an effort to cow other editors once a dispute has begun, with comments rapidly escalating into needlessly personalized comments (that is to say WP:PAs, really), and accusations of impropriety seemingly designed to undermine the rhetorical opposition's credibility.
  But even if we dismissed the entire cluster of issues connected with their disputes surrounding accusations of COI, there's still more than enough here to warrant community response: and an admonition is an incredibly weak form of response at that. However, perhaps the factor that most prompts my support, as an uninvolved but concerned community member, is the massive display of WP:IDHT throughout this thread. HEB is not categorically incorrect that a high degree of productive edits and many edits made in less disruptive interactions go towards buffering against criticism when their conduct is found to be sub-par. I for one do consider those ameliorating factors when forming an opinion about whether the time has come for community action. But only up to a point. And when I say "up to a point", I don't mean that we should measure such things as matter of a ratio of volume of good edits vs. disruptive behaviours. Rather, I mean, there are certain thresholds that once passed, require the community to intervene. And there's evidence of plenty of that above. Honestly, I might very well have supported a sanction with more teeth under the circumstances, and I feel a warning at the least is more than appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, just not enough there. I'm particularly concerned about the characterization of the BDS and LDS edits as "harassment", which by my reading is sufficiently baseless to qualify as WP:ASPERSIONS. Editors can disagree over what qualifies as a COI; doing so is not a basis for sanctions. The discussions should have been taken to WP:COIN by the editors involved; while in HEB's position I would have gone to COIN myself, the fact that the people on the other side of the debate didn't go there to seek affirmation for their actions suggests that they were not completely confident that that affirmation would be forthcoming, which implies that the dispute fell into the grey area that forms reasonable disagreements over policy. COI itself is an extremely important policy that often has vague borders at its edges; I'd be opposed to anything that might create a precedent that editors can essentially ignore COI concerns and then accuse the editors raising them of harassment if the issue doesn't disappear. We have valid resolution channels to resolve those disputes, which everyone involved was aware of, and which and (as far as I can tell) nobody here was confident enough in their position to go through them; therefore, it was just a protracted policy dispute, which isn't sanctionable. I'm also deeply concerned with the characterization of edits here as sealioning; Wikipedia isn't a casual discussion forum. Sealioning is a serious problem in places where the demand for sourcing or evidence is inappropriate and is being weaponized to place undue burden on one side of a discussion, but here on Wikipedia, you are, in fact, required to produce evidence for most major assertions you make related to editor conduct or article content decisions; if someone repeatedly asks you to produce evidence you've already produced, that would be misconduct, but that's not what I'm seeing in the discussions linked above. Looking over the evidence above, the people interacting with HEB were often making sweeping WP:ASPERSIONs with no evidence, for which a request for evidence was appropriate - eg. [23], which I'm shocked TCN7JM would have the audacity to present as evidence against another person. TCN7JM's statement there, which HEB was responding to, was You know this, otherwise there'd be no reason your side has been so heavily pushing for it. C'mon buddy, you're smarter than this; and HEB's response to that blatant provocation was a fairly andodyne request that TCN7JM provide something to back their sweeping assertions up. TCN7JM made sweeping WP:ASPERSIONs against an entire group of editors with no evidence, phrased in an obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND manner, then had the audacity to call for sanctions against someone simply for asking them for evidence? That is the sort of thing that, to me, would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as an aside, reading the above, has some agreement been made among the parties that this question must be taken to WP:COIN once this discussion is concluded? It seems pretty evident it should, given it is largely disagreement on this policy which has created this situation. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a formal admonishment. (Didn't receive the ping.) The editor frequently personalises disputes and engages in behaviour that reads to me as bullying, yet seems incapable of understanding that this is wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose When looking at the diffs in context I'm not seeing it and agree with the comments of Levivich and Black Kite. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per Ed, but I for one think it should be more than that. JM (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a formal admonishment. Per Espresso Addict, who puts it well. This is nothing to do with roads or LDS, neither of which I was previously aware of, but seeing him around elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, without prejudice to a further discussion about more serious sanctions. HEB serially tags pages for notability without any attempt at article improvement. Given the rapidity of these tagging runs it is clear they conduct no WP:BEFORE checks to confirm if the article is notable. Examples:

1. January 4, 2024 tagged 12 articles in 14 minutes with 10 further edits in between.
2. June 24, 2023 tagged 28 articles in several rapid bursts.
3. June 14, 2023 tagged 15 articles in 26 minutes.
4. June 3, 2023 tagged 21 articles in 26 minutes.
5. June 2, 2023 tagged 16 articles in 12 minutes.
6. April 28, 2023 tagged 9 articles in 19 minutes.
7. April 27, 2023 tagged 11 articles in 13 minutes.

Their MO seems to be tag the article then demand anyone challenging their tags prove themselves, as shown above often aggressively. Yet they have only ever nominated 5 articles for deletion [24] with a 0.00% success rate. A further question should be, should HEB be topic banned from article tagging? 1.145.151.182 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Given the rapidity of these tagging runs it is clear they conduct no WP:BEFORE checks to confirm if the article is notable". No that's not clear. That's a ridiculous statement. If you're going to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, you need to provide incontrovertible evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 03:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging an article for notability does not require a BEFORE check. JoelleJay (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

and I hardly think being unsuccessful on a total of 5 RfCs that they've nominated in a bit over 3 years is noteworthy. TarnishedPath^talk 03:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I only nominated those pages when asked to by others, generally I think that the appropriate time between tagging for notability and nominating for deletion is measured in years. Note that my approach is the opposite of aggressive... You're seriously criticizing me for not just sending them straight to AfD en-mass? Also note that the close edit times are based on lining multiple articles up in tabs because thats often the most efficient way to research related topics (one source might be applicable to multiple pages). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am criticizing you for what appears to be a lack of diligence. While WP:BEFORE is not mandatory before tagging an article for notability, conducting a basic search for sources to confirm your suspicions is just good practice. It takes even the fastest editors much more than a minute to search Google, Google books, Google scholar, the Internet Archive etc under various search terms (and that is a basic search). This diff from above springs to mind if you claim you do this for the thousands of articles you tag in exceptionally short timeframes. And reviewing your AFD noms, personalized WP:BLUDGEONing those who oppose your noms seems to be the common trend. I agree completely with the comment directly below, you take an uncompromising approach in relentlessly enforcing unconventional interpretations of WP policies and guidelines. And you from what you have written here, you seem to be steadfast in the face of all criticizm. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

Good practice according to who? Which policy are you relying on in your sweeping generalisation when you attack HEB's character? You've not providing anything substantive here which backs up any of the tenuous assertions you've made. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not unique in holding these views: WP:DRIVEBY / WP:CLEANUPTAG / WP:RESPTAG. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm sorry but you don't have me at all. You were accusing an editor of not following some policy you made up prior to placing notability tags and then when challenged you refer to a help article, a information article and a essay which don't pertain to your assertion that they ought to have been doing a full AfD-before every time they place a notability tag. This is weak sauce. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my productivity by an order of magnitude, we simply aren't talking about thousands and thousands of articles (I only have 60k edits total or something like that). Also note that the diff you provided is not from a page I tagged for notability, its a page I tagged for verification (I have no doubt that the topic is notable). If you think that my notability tagging is bad perhaps you would like to provide substantive examples of pages I tagged for notability where reliable sources could easily be found (aka where it doesn't seem like I looked for sources)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure: [25][26][27]. All of your AFD nominations were argued on notability grounds, the fact that 100% of them have failed would suggest your understanding of notability is at odds with the community's. 1.145.151.182 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB has nominated 5 AfDs in his 3 and a bit years. Yawn. Ultra weak sauce. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Two flaws in the complaints here. "tags pages for notability without any attempt at article improvement" makes no sense. WP:Notability is about the topic, not the article quality. Also wp:before is merely a recommendation for AFD and not even a recommendation for tagging for notability. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I've raised concerns about HEB on previous occasions, including the NFL discussion and the 2022 discussion about Rachel Helps. My impression of HEB is that they're a good editor who has three tendencies which when combined cause problems: (1) they hold some heterodox views on policies, (2) they're unwilling to back down on arguing in favor of those views, and (3) they cross the line into personalizing disputes. This combination is unfortunate, and if you're on the wrong side of a policy discussion the effect is aggressive and disconcerting. Skimming above, they're participating in the discussion (good) and don't agree that they need to change their approach (less good). Being "right" isn't enough in a collaborative project, and it's not all clear that their interpretation of COI policy is in line with the community's. Mackensen (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I have in fact agreed to change my approach around COI, I will be bringing issues to COIN if a brief talk page discussion proves unsatisfactory to the involved parties rather than entering into an extended talk page discussion or one spanning multiple talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I'm a little surprised to see that you've "agreed to change your approach" (on what I assume is the basis of this comment?) when that changed approach above doesn't agree with what you said you "could get behind" in that diff. Changing your approach is not the same thing as a voluntary editing restriction, and a brief talk page discussion is not the same thing as "in lieu of a talk page in any namespace." I'd personally want to workshop a voluntary restriction with other individuals in this discussion and ask you to formally commit to it, so I've started a new sub-section. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The comment above about "heterodox views on policy" certainly rings true. I was astonished to lectured be HEB last year on how apparently scientific knowledge is just "opinion" and needs to be attributed on Wikipedia. They informed me[28] of my apparent misunderstanding and suggested all my work on Wikipedia (that's 60,000 edits) would need "cleanup" with their help. Fortunately in the articles I edit there is enough weight of consensus this sort of thing is just dismissed as HEB going off on one, to be ignored. A combination of extreme zeal and fundamental misunderstanding is not a good thing, and even where HEB is "right" on the merits (as they often are), it should be noted Wikipedia has been changing over the years and these days WP:BRIE. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Support. The potential conflict of interest is not the point here. There are ways to address conflicts of interest on Wikipedia without bullying, harassing, intimidating, and personally insulting editors. HEBs behavior is simply unacceptable in a community that values open discourse and communication. It discourages potential editors from participating in the process and has a chilling effect on newer and less experienced editors. HEB has consistently violated the basic rules of civility and respect that the Wikipedia community relies on. There have to be consequences for this kind of behavior. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@BoyNamedTzu: is this noticeboard discussion being talked about off-wiki in LDS forums? You haven't edited since November and have never before commented on a noticeboard before so this is a bit puzzling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB raises a valid point here. @BoyNamedTzu, given your contribution history, what exactly is your knowledge of this? TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal could be better handled with a WP:TROUTing of HEB for being too personal / biting with some of their comments. Nothing else formal needs to happen here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Everything - I will keep this brief for fear of a swift indeffing, but suboptimal behavior is not malum in se. If we go about judging everyone on their bad interactions on bad days, there will be no one left to obsess over the minutiae we all crave. Perhaps others have different experiences, but in my life, I have known collegial people to disagree, to verbally spar, and even sometimes to end up using intemperate words. Should HEB do better? Absolutely. So should we all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Further comment. I already said above that I support the proposal, and further up above I showed diffs of the gravedancing edits, but I just remembered something that really needs to be pointed out here. Just after the gravedancing incident that I detailed above, HEB followed me to an essay that I had written, and made disruptive and WP:POINTy joke edits there: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. He also made constructive edits in the course of doing that, and of course there's nothing wrong with trying to improve an essay that someone else had started. But the edits I highlight here range from not particularly constructive to plainly vexatious. Coming as it did, immediately after the gravedancing incident, it seems to me to be a mean-spirited settling of the score. And that fits very much into the pattern of conduct described by so many other editors here. It seems to me that an admonishment here is pretty lenient. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  This definitely fits the pattern of behavior: after not immediately getting their way with a user on one page, HEB's subsequent edits end up including confrontational attention on other pages that user is involved in. It was the same way Simon Harley: HEB started cutting citations to the Dreadnaught Project after seeing Simon Harley's blog post. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's annoying that the allegation of canvassing / alleged canvassing is distracting from the actual pattern of behaviour here, which is problematic. JM (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Just don't see enough evidence here for this action to be needed at this time. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing here rises to the level of sanctions or even a need for a slap-on-the-wrist formal criticism. The worst offense seems to be the way-too-quick-tagging behaviour, which could draw a few trouts if not done very carefully and correctly. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• I dont particularly like HEB and have generally found it to not exactly be a joy to participate in the same discussions with them, but I dont see it here, so oppose. nableezy - 17:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion closure discussion

Comment I'm reading 17 for and 18 against. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Additionally there has been strong allegations of WP:CANVASING for the for side. I don't see any community purpose in continue this. Everyone needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Can an administrator please close this as there is no consensus for anything. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Consensus is not vote counting, nor are there "strong allegations" that canvassing has significantly impacted the people who have participated here. See #Canvassing here? and JM's comment above: "It's annoying that the allegation of canvassing / alleged canvassing is distracting from the actual pattern of behaviour here, which is problematic." Please don't misrepresent this discussion in an effort to achieve your preferred outcome. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Ed. I agree that there have not been "strong allegations" that significantly impacted the participants. Editor boynamedsue, one of those who initially wondered if there was canvassing, concluded a bit later that {{[tq|There is no definite evidence of off-wiki organising}} and added that as things go we are still in AGF territory.

I think that users who have commented in favor of formal admonishment have presented well-documented concerns about serious behavior from HEB that violates WP:HOUNDING and WP:CIVIL. I acknowledge I say this as one of those who commented in favor of formal admonishment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

While consensus is not a vote, it is supposed to represent the, y'know, consensus of the discussion. I really don't think any reasonable closer could describe this discussion as having a consensus to do anything. Loki (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously on one "side" of this, but it seems to me that those supporting an admonishment have provided very specific evidence of the reasons for it. Although I don't think it is true of all those who oppose the proposal, a significant subset of those have failed to refute that evidence, saying either that they just don't think it matters enough (apparently not even enough for an admonishment, which is much milder than an block or ban), or saying that there is canvassing or other bad behavior on the other side. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1. The consensus level needed for an admonishment may be lower than the consensus required for, say, an indef block. Like RfA vs. RfB. But that's for someone else to evaluate. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add anything to my comment because I felt the support side hadn't shown convincing enough evidence, but all this is up to the brave editor who ultimately makes the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the support side has provided a list of diffs, but in my opinion they don't show what they're alleged to. Loki (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

^ Which is exactly what I described. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is?

The side supporting an admonishment provided a list of diffs. I read all those diffs and none of them seem particularly battleground-y or aggressive to me in context. Aquillion gave a thorough debunking of one above and we also discussed the "extremist" diff at length, but the long and short of it is that if you read the individual diffs they're all like that. Loki (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In context, HEB began removing citations to The Dreadnaught Project (an online encyclopedia co-edited/co-authored by Simon Harley) across multiple pages (1) (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12) around the same time that they read a Harley-authored blog post they disagreed with. In every case, HEB claimed the source was not reliable, disregarding prior discussion about The Dreadnought Project at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. When asked to not unjustifiably remove citations to The Dreadnought Project, HEB accused Simon Harley of failing to disclose COI.

In context, after Rachel Helps (BYU) gave HEB some advice about source-text integrity, then HEB started making disruptive edits on pages Rachel Helps (BYU) had been contributing to, removing content and calling it "irrelevant" and inaccurately accusing her of COI.

In context, after receiving a warning here at ANI to stop hounding Rachel Helps (BYU), HEB has circled back around to her and her student employees. HEB posted inaccurate COI accusations to multiple editors' pages (1), (2), posted another such accusation on an Articles for Deletion page, told Heidi Pusey BYU and other BYU WiR editors to not participate in an AfD discussion or they would nominate them for topic bans for topic bans and said Y'all wouldn't be playing games with me now would you? when editors continued to participate, disregarding the inaccurate instruction.

Whatever HEB's intent may be, the result that emerges in context is disruptive editing that starts after perceived disagreements, and an inability or unwillingness to recognize that disruption. The extents to which HEB is willing to go—numerous questionable removals of sources, multiple questionable COI accusations—amounts to a pattern of behavior on HEB's part which is contrary to WP:HOUNDING and WP:CIVIL.

I think that HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and their long-term behavior toward Rachel Helps (BYU) (which has extended to include behavior toward student editors as well) are sufficient to warrant formal admonishment. I consider the diff Aquillion addressed and the "extremist" diff irrelevant to the way HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and toward BYU WiR editors warrants formal admonishment. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of that doesn't seem to be right... For example if Rachel Helps is a paid editor then there is nothing inaccurate about the COI claim... And unless I'm missing something they are a disclosed paid editing account and as such have a financial COI with every single paid edit they make. I also didn't disagree with the blog post, I pointed out an error in it... Overall I agree with its contents. I would also note that if I had so inaccurately summarized either of those positions by other editors they would be in the diffs against me, but we have a double standard here. You are welcome to bring diffs against me, but it has to be real. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To quote another user who expressed the matter well, this series of diffs indicates that HEB's interpretation of COI is way too expansive. The idea that working at BYU (or heck, directly for the LDS church) means you can't vote in an AfD about Mormon scripture is IMO nuts. That would mean that rabbis have a COI about Moses. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had much to do with COI on Wikipedia but if his ideas about COI don't align with Wikipedia's policy then perhaps Wikipedia's policy should change.

A story about how COI's are handled in professional environments. Recently in my local shire council there was going to be a vote about lease agreements to childcare/kindgarten centres which lease council premises. The current agreements are extremely generous as the centres are not-for-profits, which benefits the community by providing childcare at much reduced prices than commercial operations. However council is under severe financial strain and is looking to increase revenue wherever it can. The Councillors were extremely polarised on the issue and it looked like it was going to be a vote going against community wishes. One of the councillors who was going to vote for on the side of the community at the start of discussion declared he had a COI as his partner worked for one of he childcare centres and thus he was not allowed to participate in any discussions regarding any proposal to change the lease agreements or vote. My workplace has even stricter arrangements concerning COIs. TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my interpretation of COI is more or less accurate... Which is why none of the editors who oppose it seem to have actually based their arguments on policy/guideline but personal opinion (or at least I don't think they have, as always open to correction). Wikipedia's COI restrictions are *very* loose (like you my workplace's COI policy is *much* stricter), which is why its so odd to see people calling them onerous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

See this comment as an example of relevant policy being referenced to you. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean "is not a WP:COI violation per WP:COIE"? COIE is an explanatory essay, COI is a guideline (and doesn't even appear to have been referenced, just linked). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, hold up, are you seriously claiming that a discussion where as many editors of the Dreadnought Project itself commented as neutral editors advocating for using it (two) counts as binding consensus across the entire project that it's a reliable source?

This sort of thing is exactly the issue with the evidence presented: everyone who is for sanctions seems to think that posting many diffs is sufficient evidence even if each of those diffs individually is terrible evidence of any misbehavior on HEB's part. But garbage in garbage out: you can't expect to post a bunch of diffs-that-don't-prove-anything and expect it to add up to a sanction no matter how many of them there are. Loki (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm seriously claiming that HEB all of a sudden excising references, across multiple pages, to a source that academic journal articles and numerous military history books have cited as reliable, with no explanation other than "not reliable", after happening to read a blog post they say they found a flaw in written by one of the editors of that source, is hard to look at without wondering if something retaliatory happened. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just re the difs question, a lot of difs have been provided. But within those difs there is very little evidence. The people who have presented these difs often have a long history of personal disagreements with HEB, the people who have opposed them do not. Could the history of disagreements be colouring their perception of these difs?

As to my mention of off-wiki organising, I was talking only about LDS, I have not looked in detail into the roads section, so I have no idea about that. As it stands, I strongly suspect that some LDS off-wiki organising has occurred. However, I recognise my suspicion is not enough to override AGF.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The people who have presented these diffs often have experience interacting with HEB when HEB disruptively removes references without providing reasons or derails talk page conversations with COI accusations that don't comport with Wikipedia policy. The people who have opposed them seem to have less experiences like that. Could unfamiliarity with HEB's patterns of behavior be coloring the latter's perception of these diffs?

Inasmuch as we're assuming good faith, I'd appreciate you setting aside that suspicion. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a reason provided in all of the diffs presented so far, if you look hard enough you can probably find a fat fingered edit without an edit summary but there certainly isn't a pattern of them. The rest ("disruptively" "derails") is largely opinion and you are welcome to it but its a bit odd when combined with a call to AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've come across HEB in talk discussions, although we have not interacted directly, and I find your comment to be off mark. TarnishedPath^talk 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I disagree that those who oppose have failed to refute the evidence. A large number have stated categorically that they have looked at the diffs and that in context they do not see it. That is very different from your claim that those voting to oppose are saying that "they just don't think it matters enough". TarnishedPath^talk 10:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to see how simply stating that one doesn't see a problem with the cited diffs amounts to an effective rebuttal of the issues presented. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 11:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@DJ Cane a user above gave Special:Diff/1113148084 as evidence of battleground behaviour by HEB. One does not need to go out and collect expert options about such matters to refute it. Saying that no, your evidence does not support your assertion is an effective rebuttal. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that that diff is a non-issue, but there has been evidence offered of multiple instances of behavior more problematic than that and reasonably brushing off a few bad examples doesn't refute all of the behavior presented. Multiple oppose votes simply reference Black Kite's vote which itself only references one example. Black Kite's example, for what it's worth, is also one that I think doesn't represent the meat of the problem which is that HEB can become aggressive and run around in circles, most often (from what I've seen) when they dispute the notability of an article or bring up a COI concern. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 12:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I myself referenced Black Kite's vote, but only after I looked at the diffs myself and a lot of the diffs were not far off the example I provided above as far as not substantiating the allegation. People really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at the arguments "that in context they do not see it", and when I compare and contrast that to "they just don't think it matters enough", my reaction to the argument that these are meaningfully different things is that I do not see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I referenced Black Kite, I did read the diffs and other comments. I'm sure other editors are also literate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Further issue

As long as this is staying open, I want to note: [34], [35]. Sure looks like a deliberate non-answer to me. And with the inevitable scrutiny of a still-open ANI thread, it sure looks like continued conduct, without caring. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Tryptofish this is uncollegial, if I'm wrong and there is another way to get it to thank someone for the creation of an article rather than hitting thank on the creation diff let me know but throwing AGF into the gutter along with civility is just wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pot and kettle. It sounds like, in context, that particular editor did not want to be thanked, nor were they asking you to explain how notifications work. But you are making my point for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you're missing something... First of all "If you liked the page, please just thank the version in mainspace." and second I explained why I liked that specific diff not one of the versions in mainspace. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

She said that it was "a mostly blank draft page in my userspace". But even if this is now a post-draft article in mainspace, it sure sounds like you were "watching my contributions and wanting me to know they are watching". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the creation diff. If you know another way to thank someone for the creation than thanking them for the creation let me know. I liked a single edit which created a page of a book I own, if I was going to try and send that message wouldn't I go about it very differently? I've had people use thanks aggressively with me before, it was never a single thank for a page creation... It was a thank on every page I edited in a certain period of time and some from wayyyy back in the day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I didn't bring it up here because I wasn't sure of it being against rules and wasn't ready to characterize it as part of the pattern of behavior that I considered crossing lines of civility and hounding (see my comments above in this thread). For me it was personally uncomfortable (because I don't know how HEB would have known about that page so quickly other than by apparently watching my contributions and wanting me to know they are watching), so I brought it up with HEB on their talk page, editor to editor. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Which is perfectly reasonable. But given that it made you uncomfortable, I see it as relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: While it didn't make me uncomfortable in context, HEB followed me to WT:MILHIST#MILHIST reliable source database (diff) eight minutes after I gave an opinion there. This occurred at the same time I was calling out his problematic behavior on User talk:Simon Harley (one of the issues I linked to when opening this ANI thread). HEB then explained on ANI that his MILHIST edit could be cherry picked as an example of collegiality. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Same pattern as what I said here: [36]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a point at which nitpicking becomes harassment and y'all passed it a while ago. Levivich (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOLLOWING is not a nitpick. But if you think I'm harassing anyone, start a thread about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

1 to both of Tryptofish's sentences above. There's a reason I brought that MILHIST example up here, in a discussion about following another user, rather than separately. As WP:FOLLOWING says, "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, 'following another user around', if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by [...] disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

HEB has made edits to Talk:MILHIST since 2021. Trying to portray HEB making a post at MILHIST in which he agrees with you as WP:FOLLOWING is... not persuasive. Meanwhile, on Jan 4, you actually WP:FOLLOWed HEB from Simon Harley's talk page to a bunch of articles you had never edited before and reverted HEB's edits. [37] Levivich (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

First, Levivich, he responded to my edit in eight minutes. To me, eight minutes does not leave much room for an alternative narrative. YMMV.

Second, while recognizing that as an ad hominem argument, if taken at face value I'm not sure why you're presenting it as a gotcha. You can see the full prior context presented by P-Makoto in this diff, but in short my reverts were directly related to the discussion on Simon Harley's talk page. HEB removed the Dreadnought Project, a website authored in part by Simon, as a source from several different articles after reading a blog post by Simon that was critical of Wikipedia. As my edit summaries explained ("revert per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368#dreadnoughtproject; more discussion is likely needed"), I reverted HEB's edits as a small reliable sources noticeboard discussion had previously indicated that the Dreadnought Project would likely be reliable.

For why the reverts are not hounding, see WP:FOLLOWING again ("Correct use of an editor's history includes [but is not limited to] fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"). You can also read User talk:Simon Harley#Blog post for how I knew there were edits that needed reverting (specifically, search for "wholesale removal").

Anyway, this is a thread about HEB. If you have concerns with my editing, my talk page is open or ANI's add topic button is above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Since this misconception has occurred twice in this thread chain, discussions at AN/I can cover all parties to a dispute (and all participants), rather than being solely focused on a single editor. CMD (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No misconception here; I'm aware of that possibility. I suggested starting a new thread because the comment distracts from the OP. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That page has been on my watchlist forever... I even disclosed in-comment that we were in a disagreement elsewhere... If disagreeing with someone on one page means you can't agree with them on another or congratulate them on their successes or thank them for valuable edits then what is WP:CIVIL? What doesn't seem plausible is that you thought that my agreeing with you on a noticeboard was intended to harass you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also note that your timeline re dreadnaught and Simon is wrong, I started removing that source before I read the blog post which I only found because a search for the source returned Simon's user page along with the other pages I edited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that following me to WT:MILHIST was harassment, and if I thought it was I would have brought it up in the OP! I did say that it didn't make me uncomfortable in context, and that I brought it up only because it was an action similar to a pattern Tryptofish identified. I've struck the incorrect words above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can clarify exactly what you meant by "To me, eight minutes does not leave much room for an alternative narrative." if thats not an accusation of harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That there is little room for a narrative that doesn't involve following me to that discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And you believe that even after being informed that I am a consistent contributor on that page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been going for 11 days now. There is no consensus for anything to occur. People need to move on and WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I asked for an admin closure days ago, but it was archived off AN. I've restored that request now. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Voluntary editing restriction workshopping

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

---

HEB has indicated that they would be open to a voluntary editing restriction when it comes to confronting editors they believe have a conflict of interest. That seems to be at the root of many, albeit not all, of the concerns expressed by many above.

My specific proposal would be: When HEB becomes concerned that a contributor is editing with a conflict of interest, they will bring their concerns to WP:COIN in lieu of a talk page in any namespace. This would help avoid the concerns with HEB's style of discussion as editors with more experience in dealing with COI can quickly course-correct as needed. I've no idea if this idea is good or could be improved on; perhaps HEB should be punting all their concerns to COIN and not engaging further, or perhaps there's a way to allow HEB limited engagement on user talk pages (their preference). So, please chime in below.

The admonishment proposal should continue above, as I imagine it and a voluntary restriction would work hand in hand (assuming the admonishment passes). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Twice when I've tired of arguing with HEB over what constitutes COI editing for my team, I asked him to take me to COIN, in part to see if his accusations were serious, and also to force the issue (to see if there was consensus about his complaints). When he declined, I assumed that he was not as sure of his accusations against me as he seemed. This also made me feel like he was trying to intimidate me out of editing rather than follow policy. I would rather HEB lodge a complaint against me on COIN than repeatedly make the same arguments about my editing on my talk pages and the talk pages of various pages I edit. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of the issues here is that this has been brought up at COIN before, including by me. What happened there is other WiR objected to the idea that a WiR needed to disclose on an article talk, as that might endanger the program. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Right now we are discussing HEB's behavior. If you would like to discuss mine, let's move to my talk page or COIN. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Rachel, you brought up taking this to COIN. And it's been brought up on your user before, and you rejected the idea of disclosing at article talk. Which I don't really understand. Why not simply voluntarily disclose? Valereee (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've opened a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI Article Talk disclosure. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, same reasons as above. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because this is a proposed voluntary restriction, and HEB has already agreed to some kind of that, this isn't really a support/oppose situation Rachel Helps (BYU) and Levivich. :-) The idea is to improve the proposal so it's effective in curbing HEB's worst impulses without losing their productivity, then ask HEB to sign onto it. Do you have any thoughts about how it could be improved? Or to Rachel in particular, are you saying that you like the proposal as written? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think this would be improved if you dropped the stick and stopped pushing for restrictions. If an editor wants to undertake a voluntary restriction, then let it be voluntary. If an editor wants your help with a voluntary restriction, they'll ask. Proposing a "voluntary restriction" is not fooling anybody. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I'm sorry, can you show were I have been pushing for editing restrictions elsewhere? I believe the closest I've come to that is at 07:55, 6 January 2024, to which HEB replied that they would be open to a voluntary restriction along the lines I proposed. (Note that an admonishment is not a restriction.) While HEB has the ability to do whatever they'd like, I personally think it would have more helpful to them and everyone else if it's collaboratively built. That is the ethos of Wikipedia, after all, plus a voluntary restriction that doesn't impact the concerns raised by many people above is pretty useless. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I like how you added "elsewhere" to your question, as if I said "elsewhere." I didn't. You've pushed in this thread here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich: By "elsewhere", I meant "outside this sub-section". I apologize for the ambiguity and ask for your good faith. I started the larger thread with a call for an admonishment, which is explicitly not a restriction despite you including that in your diff bombing. And rather than advocating for restrictions, I explicitly said that I didn't think there would be support for enforced editing restrictions, which you would have seen while compiling those diffs. So again, I'd politely push back on your assertion that I need to drop a stick, as I was never holding one. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for misunderstanding. I like the proposed idea for COI discussions with HEB. I do not think it will resolve the several discussions about "independent" sources that HEB has been involved in. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment for the time being while I think about this. While COI plays a prominent role in HEB's behavior toward Simon Harley and Rachel Helps (BYU), I'm not sure I would say COI is at the root of many, albeit not all, of the concerns; COI seems to be at the root of a few of the situations. Many other diffs shared both in the OP and throughout the comments on this thread are about battlegrounding, sealioning, incivility, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose both because this doesn't actually address the issue that many people seem to have with my edits and also because once again its a privilege not a restriction (every other editor would have to open a talk page discussion *first* whereas I would have the unique privilege of being able to go to COIN first). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Would you be open to proposing edits that would improve on the proposal? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Without tongue in cheek, this is putting the cart before the horse. A voluntary restriction does not need "workshopped" by the community as if it were some enforceable sanction. And as HEB points out, this could be seen as bypassing the "discuss the issue with the editor first" culture we've developed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Moot because HEB says just above that he opposes it, and anything "voluntary" simply won't work on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I proposed this so people could edit and improve it, not support/oppose, but I guess that ship has sailed. I did intentionally start it from a proposal that HEB said they "could get behind". HEB is free to propose improvements. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. At this point, it looks like the admonishment proposal is more likely to be productive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because I simply don't believe it will make a difference. I think a formal repromand is appropriate (as voted above), but I don't believe HEB will keep to a voluntary restriction created through collaboration in this forum thus I don't think it's worth the time and energy. Let's see how HEB responds to appropriate criticism in this discussion. Outside of the concerns listed in this discussion, HEB has demonstrated themself to be a reasonable and constructive participant in Wikipedia and as such I think they should be able to self correct - in effect leaving HEB to decide what sort of voluntary changes they should make. If, after a formal repromand, HEB continues to be disruptive in COI, notability, deletion, and other discussions I think it would be appropriate to issue formal non-voluntary restrictions. DJ Cane (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Canvassing here?

For the record, this has nothing to do with the LDS Church-side of this dispute. I have no awareness of anything going on with that part of Wikipedia. This has not come up yet. Has no one noticed that:

• MatthewAnderson707, who hasn't been active in months, somehow found this thread just to comment in opposition to HEB.
• 1.145.151.182, who has never edited before on that specific IP, makes their first edit just to criticize HEB. I'm aware that IPs can change, but nothing in this range suggests they would have any interest in HEB before this point.

Those are just the most blatant examples. Two is coincidence I don't accept.

I'd also like to bring people's attention to this comment:

I have been personally warned by more than one user from interacting with HEB due to what they characterized as trollish behavior. I don't think any of them have commented here yet. My experience with HEB does not deviate far from their descriptions. Qiushufang (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Qiushufang explicitly stated they were personally approached by persons whose only intention was to malign HEB privately. I am glad Qiushufang admitted this publicly because I have been aware of this behavoir for quite some time but could not inform Horse Eye's Back about it since it occurred offwiki. From my perspective, it would seem that there is an semi-organized campaign that has existed (either presently or in the past) against HEB. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Qiushufang and MatthewAnderson707, as you've named them.

As the OP, I'm compelled to say that I have never canvassed/been canvassed to take an action related to HEB. That includes this discussion/proposal, which was collated and written without input from anyone else.

My read of Qiushufang's comment was a bit gentler—that they were told something like 'I'm sorry for your experience, we've tried but failed to deal with them, and you might find that it's easiest to avoid them'. They may be able to say more, should they choose. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much. I was contacted by individuals describing HEB's behavior as either unfortunate or trollish after a brief but negative interaction I had with HEB. I don't disagree with them and I assume they have HEB's talk and contrib pages on watch at all times because I had no prior interactions with these people. I did not contact anybody despite HEB saying it was OK to do so. Qiushufang (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you said something because I thought it was just me. It seems wildly obvious that "something is afoot," and I don't think it's limited to this thread: the number of new/inexperienced editors calling for sanctions on this page right now is beyond what AGF can handle. And that's coming from me, the undisputed world champion of new editors posting too much at ANI. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No one sent me a link to this or told me to post here, if that's what you're saying. This was done entirely by my own actions. There was no posting because for the most part, I'm done posting on Wikipedia. Just because I don't post doesn't mean I don't still keep up from time to time through observation. I got involved because this is an issue I personally feel strongly about and felt like it warranted a post. Unless you have proof that anyone canvassed, bringing me here, don't make baseless assumptions or accusations. I do not appreciate that. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You left when roads split and have now come back to comment in an ANI thread with the person you had argued with at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes (which, I now realize, involved many of the editors in this discussion, including me). It's pretty obvious why you're here, and also obvious that you haven't just been reading ANI for three months... somebody posted something somewhere (probably AARoads) that alerted you to this. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a link on HEB's talk page which I do observe from time to time. Again, do you have any proof? — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

OK it would have been better if you said you watch ANI from time to time, because nobody is going to believe you've watched an editor's talk page for three months after leaving the project. The evidence is your contribs and presence here. Levivich (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I do observe his talk page from time to time. Not every day for three months, bit every couple of weeks. It's an obsessive habit caused by baseless paranoia that I admit needs to be broken. Whether anyone believes it or not, that's what happened. You're welcome to go right ahead and look around yourself on AARoads or anywhere else for that matter. You won't find any evidence of canvassing because that isn't what happened. Happy hunting. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What you're admitting to is worse than what you're being accused of. Levivich (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Believe what you will, but I've said my piece. If you want to dispute whether it was against the rules or "worse than what I'm being accused of" over personal bias against anyone who takes issue with HEB, then be my guest. I refuse to give in to your scare tactics or this kangaroo court of an argument, with the mentality that anything I say can and will be used against me. Good day. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a kangaroo court. You admitted to basically only visiting Wikipedia to keep an eye on a user who you previously had a dispute with, then coming here to comment the moment you saw an opportunity to get them sanctioned. Frankly, if you don't just plain step away from Wikipedia, this admission alone would qualify for a one-way interaction ban to keep you away from HEB. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"I wasn't canvassed, I was stalking" is certainly a novel defense. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Hypothetically, he wouldn't be the only one guilty of that. Remember, Qiushufang described multiple people messaging them after posting to HEB's talk page.

I don't believe MatthewAnderson was one of them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused here. I have a few users' pages watched as well for prior negative interactions with them as well as multiple warnings by several users that indicate they are a problem for the wider Wikipedia userbase. Some of them are banned now with confirmed sockpuppets. I would not have been alerted to their behavior if they weren't on my radar beforehand due to their behavior. IDK if this is something against Wiki policy or else why would you be able to watch other users' talk pages? It only seems natural that you would want to know about happenings concerning them, and someone like HEB who's had altercations across various non-related communities would have more than qualified for observation. Is the problem here that the user no longer uses Wikipedia, that they are being accused of canvasing, or the fact that they are monitoring HEB because I do that with a few users as well? Qiushufang (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

At issue is that this user admitted to walking away from Wikipedia except for an obsessive habit of coming back to check specifically on HEB's talk page. Then they ran straight here to chime in while sanctions were being discussed. That carries an air of grievance above and beyond just having someone on your radar while actively participating in the community & editing articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

One thing I did not mention aside from having no relation to these editors who sent me warnings about HEB is that they have no shared topics of interest either. Unless they are using socks, their areas of interest on Wikipedia are completely different and non-overlapping whatsoever, which makes canvassing together somewhat less likely. Qiushufang (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: you're going to need to substantiate those claims with an editor interaction report or links to the edit histories of the editors you've made those claims about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@MatthewAnderson707: What is the dispute you had with HEB in the first place? Have you, like Qiushufang, ever received a warning message about Horse Eye's Back? Have you ever participated in offwiki discussions about HEB?

I encourage you to be honest in your responses. It wouldn't be right for you to be sanctioned for what other people did. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I had been wondering much the same thing myself; whether it had been posted on some private Roads forum - which we do know to exist based on interactions with Roads members in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What is Roads? JM (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• In no way do I mean to downplay the seriousness of the issue here, but in no way does it mitigate the issues with HEB. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I would agree (especially in regards to the LDS Church aspect of this). However, this needed to be said either way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, we agree. But these should be understood as two separate issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, I think that if canvassing has occurred here, it would go a long way to explain the bafflement many of us feel about how the difs above could be interpreted as serious breaches of policies.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue 100%. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• There also seems to be some possible evidence of LDS canvassing further up the page, in the post made by my near namesake. There may of course be an innocent explanation for a user who has not made an edit since November, and who has made a total of 198 edits suddenly finding their way to ANI for the first time. It would be nice to hear it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at BoyNamedTzu's edit log, it seems like BoyNamedTzu has been reading and editing pages with Mormon studies topics, including Mormon literature, which is where some of HEB's behavior took place. Maybe BoyNamedTzu noticed what was going on in pages adjacent to their activity and found their way to ANI for the first time the way I did: concluding that HEB's behavior had become an urgent matter, I came to the ANI board and was going to make a post here for the first time when I noticed there was already a thread about HEB. Rather than make a new thread, I commented on this thread. No canvassing was involved. It seems plausible to me that it could have been similar for BoyNamedTzu. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to make a very conscious effort to use the right spellings here, and correct the above post, given there are two users with very similar names and we risk descending into farce.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that typo. I've corrected it. Guess we're all enjoying Johnny Cash. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto:That seems a remarkable coincidence. Maybe HEB is related to that fella in Montana who keeps getting struck by lightning? Boynamedsue (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess I find it less remarkable than you do. BoyNameTzu's most recent activity in November is drafting an article about Sam, a figure from the Book of Mormon, and HEB has been active in talk pages about Book of Mormon content that BoyNamedTzu could have been looking at to get an impression of what pages covering similar topics look like; then BoyNamedTzu was inactive through December, possibly related to being busy during the holidays; now that the holidays are over, he is on Wikipedia again.

I'm not sure of the relevance of guessing who might be related to HEB. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No more edits have been forthcoming from this account, does that change your opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, not really. People can become busy for all kinds of reasons. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thats disappointing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it disappointing that people can become busy? Neither you nor I know what's happening in BoyNameTzu's life. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The disappointment is that it does not change your opinion, nothing more or less. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any canvassing has occurred on the LDS-church side of this dispute, and I would not feel comfortable speculating as much. From what I can tell there are genuine concerns related to HEB's conduct regarding Mormonism, and nothing I have said should be used to take away from that fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no definite evidence of off-wiki organising, so yes, as things go we are still in AGF territory.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User: Rockchalk717 and disruptive editing on 2023 Kansas City Chiefs season

This user has engaged in disruptive removal of the “more citations needed tag” with simple bare assertions of citations are fine. Even though people adding the tag have given valid reasons for the addition. This seems like WP:OWNership of the article. The article has a lot of uncited material and the user is disruptively trying to make sure the issues aren’t detected or fixed. 100.12.36.234 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not tag what needs a source with {{cn}}? Or better yet, find a source? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff that needs citations is a different column in a box, see 2023 Detroit Lions season as an example. And to why finding a source isn’t practical - they often times demand certain sources. A lot of it is for the NFL Top 100 and for the draft picks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.36.234 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it disruptive editing and I certainly don't believe Rockchalk has demonstrated ownership. If you have an issue with a specific part of the page then you should add the citation needed tag in an appropriate location. For what it's worth, I've found it very easy and efficient to communicate with Rockchalk and I've found they're flexible and willing to budge when a conversation has been had. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that the entire 81,000 byte article, apart from the Draft section and the game summaries, is completely unsourced - that's something like 24 sections - I think using the header tag is a better idea. Because that's a LOT of cn tags. I'm actually amazed that someone with 42,000 edits thinks this article is suitable for mainspace - it should be Draft until it's fixed. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not endorsing the removal of the tag altogether. My reply was more about alternative ways to resolve the issue and to mention that I've had positive and productive experiences when having conversations and trying to work with Rockchalk. I do however disagree that it belongs in draft space until that time. There are external links for all of the game summaries for example, a large part of which make up that 81,000 bytes. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, if that article had been presented at AFC it would have been rejected, because most of it is completely unsourced. The game summaries are a small part; to repeat, 24 out of the 26 sections have no sources whatsoever. Since the topic itself is notable, perhaps it might just be easier to delete all of those sections and they can be re-introduced if and when sources are found. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I just checked and, of the 81,000 bytes, at least 57,000 of them are the game summaries. Some of these sections, such as the staff and current roster sections, are just transcluded templates which include external links that verify the information. I don't want to be seen as trying to endorse the article in its current state, as I do completely agree that there needs to be additional references, but the number of sections unsourced isn't quite accurate.

I agree this would likely be rejected at AfC, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in main space as is. The overall number of sources needs to improve, but it's not quite as unsourced as it looks at first glance. The lead, offseason, and transaction sections absolutely need additional references. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but they are the majority of the article (not to mention that "Additional references" would suggest there are some references there already - there are none). I've restored the tag for the time being as removing it was obviously wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I agree the tag is appropriate the more I've looked at the article. I just don't agree with OP that Rockchalk was displaying ownership or being disruptive. In the future though, I do encourage folks to reach out to Rockchalk on their talk page instead of heading straight to ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am agreeing with all of you. Plus, I think most of that violates [[WP:NOTSTATS]], [[WP:FANCRUFT]] and lots of others. And also, if it is 10 years later, who is gonna remember or know about all of the transcations? Baring important signings/releases/some trades, we will probably not even know about it. Stuff like "cut to 53", "futures contract", "signed and released in the offseason", and many others seems obvious it is violating fancruft. I would say remove unsourced stuff until someone sources it for now. JC2323 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding transactions is a regular occurrence on sports season pages. This was discussed a while back and was decided there was nothing wrong with including it. ANI was certainly not the appropriate place for this. I'll add a source. The entire transaction list can be verified with a single source.--Rockchalk717 21:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added sources, including additional sources that either weren't directly verifiable but the transactions list in the team website or would have been hard to identify in it.--Rockchalk717 22:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, though there are still a few unsourced tables, so you probably shouldn't have removed the tag yet. Can we please (and this applies to everyone reading this, not just the creator of this article) make sure that new articles are sourced sufficiently in the future? Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Favorite girl68 - potential PAID issue

Favorite girl68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This new user has been creating articles about people of questionable notability, some being translations from articles on other language projects. (list) They also created FxPro, which was deleted, and then recreated it at FxPro (investment company). That article was plainly promotional. A review of the logs reveals a consistent pattern of creating these pages in userspace and moving them to mainspace in a defined pattern, which is odd from a 'new user'. It's also worth noting the account was first created on ruwiki, and has been blocked there for block evasion (link).

In short, I suspect this is undisclosed paid editing. I raised this gently on the talk page of the user: See User_talk:Favorite_girl68#Creation of new articles. They responded with a denial, and claiming to be translating the page from the German version. It might also be noted that the user's talk page responses are rather uncivil and unexpected from someone editing in good faith. They also raised a complaint at User_talk:Dcotos#FxPro (investment company), attempting to justify these as being translations from other articles. The obvious question outstanding is - why these completely unconnected articles on non-notable people, as well as a promotional piece on a non-notable company? Local Variable (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Spicy CU-blocked them as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa2004. DMacks (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks for letting me know. If it's necessary (not sure if it's dealt with at SPI), I've tagged the created articles with db-g5. It appears no other editors have made substantial contributions to any of the articles. Also, in any event, none are suitable for inclusion. Local Variable (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusations & AGF issues

Alaska4Me2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have had a series of civility issues from @Alaska4Me2, primarily in the form of baseless accusations and questionable AGF, going back into December, when I had to open an ANI report for edit warring in which I was accused of colluding with another editor to game the system.[38] After that previous ANI, she made additional accusations against me without evidence, and rather than drag it into ANI again, I instead sought guidance from an admin (Doug Weller) directly regarding whether I could have handled it differently.[39]

From what she posted on my user TP,[40] it appears that she presumes that this is some kind of a grudge on my part. I specifically told her it was not, and I was not sure how she got that from my question for Doug (which was summed up as "I'm trying to figure out if it's the other editor (my opinion) or just me (humble enough to say that's a possibility), if I could have done something better (like drop it altogether), or maybe my approach as the other editor indicated really is 'off-putting and rude'.")

At that point, I asked her to cease and that anything else was unwelcome unless it was constructive to the conversation.[41] But instead, after an anonIP reverted one of her edits (assuming this one [42], although she didn't say specifically) she returned to accuse me of sockpuppetry.[43] I shouldn't have to say it, but not only was that not me, it's not even from the same part of the country (which any checkuser could determine) and that obviously, openly accusing someone on that flimsy evidence is not only WP:UNCIVIL, but shows an assumption of bad faith.

As noted, I didn't want to rehash the entire history and make this unnecessarily long. The bad faith assumption and the baseless accusation of sockpuppetry were my biggest concerns. The diffs above, especially what I shared with Doug, link to the history. But if anything else is needed or requested for context, I will assemble it upon request. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday but was distracted. So far as I'm concerned, the only question is the type and length of the sanction. Probably an NPA block but gotta run as dental apointment. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, a block is wholly unnecessary. I said my piece and will be doing all I can to avoid the complaining editor. He pushed me to my limit with starting to follow me to at least one article he's never edited previously AND then actually admitting it. If I'm wrong about him logging out to change one of my edits at another article he's never been to previously, he has my apologies. My hope is this entire incident will convince him to leave me be. If he doesn't, and this happens again, I'll come here in the future for more eyes on the issue rather than deal with it at his talk page. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're wrong? I can't see why you have made such a serious allegation against an experienced editor.with a clean block log. If I find an editor who seems to be making problematic edits, esp. when they are violating our policies and guidelines, I often look at their edits and if appropriate revert them. That's allowed. What isn't allowed is doing that to harass an editor, and I see no evidence of that. You haven't convinced me that your personal attacks are going to stop. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I said I'm going to avoid the complaining editor as much as possible, that if there is another issue with him I will come here first (and probably last, as well) and not to his talk page (or other talk pages). I'm not sure what more you want or need from me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I was just reading Alaska4Me2 classic non-apology apology to Butlerblog on New Year's Eve ("I'm genuinely sorry you are so heated", "I'm sorry you feel that way", "If you were escalated-angry or even mildly upset-escalated by my actions, please [accept] my humble apology.") And above in this thread, I see yet another non-apology apology - the infamous "if-apology", compare WP:NOTSORRY. Alaska4Me2, you're cheapening the very concept of apologizing, and I advise you to read my links. Anyway, nobody should have to put up with these real attacks and fake apologies. I suggest a 48-hour block. Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC).

I thought blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. [44] What is being prevented by blocking me? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The behavior hasn't stopped. Read the link you gave. I was thinking 72 hours but will only block for 48 per Bishonen's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal Threat by Vince Pankoke

I think this might qualify as a legal threat "Before legal action is initiated by the author and publisher, the paragraph should be deleted or at least allow us to publish our rebuttal." diff: [45] Please advise. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a legal threats warning for the moment. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and legal threats from IP editing Christopher Rufo and overlapping articles

• 122.171.17.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Christopher Rufo

For context, Christopher Rufo is a conservative activist who is notable for his promotion of creationism, the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, and 2020s controversies around critical race theory.

A dynamic IP most recently at 122.171.17.251 has been aggressively editing the Rufo article. That article was protected due to disruptive editing about how to describe Rufo's education. That protection has expired, and this editing has resumed. During protection, the IP posted Talk:Christopher Rufo#Harvard University - education (leftist bash against Rufo) which is what you might expect from the title. Very few of the sources discussed in that section are both reliable and mention Rufo, but the IP is adamant that none of this is original research, and also, that "liberal" and "leftist" are useful ways to discredit any anything which is unflattering to Rufo.

I had previously cautioned them to assume good faith a couple of times on the article's talk page. Following that, one of their edit summaries said: "...Why are you negative, biased, leftist and have a "hard on" for Mr. Rufo?" Perhaps "hard on" means something else in their dialect of English, but I doubt it. I warned them directly on their talk page against personal attacks, using a template. They responded with a legal threat: "I am a lawyer. If you are threatening me, I can either put a lawsuit against you or put a complaint in a police station against you?" Previously they also describe themselves as ""an on-campus regular student at Harvard". I personally don't really find this threat credible, but it is still a legal threat, and it's not like there is any way for me to continue that discussion, so it's disruptive, regardless.

While addressing this content issue, I also cleaned-up some related, unsourced additions to the Harvard Extension School article and related articles, and credit where it's due, this has prompted improvements from the IP, as well.

Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 range blocked 122.171.16.0/22 for 2 weeks. I semi protected Christopher Rufo for one year as WP:AP2. El_C 03:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Protection for the Zamorin page due to persistent disruptive edits by anonymous US IPs

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

---

The Zamorin page needs some level of protection, the same anonymous IP user keeps reverting without discussion, removing sourced content and conflicts with WP:MOS. The user has 3 known aliases: Adithya Kiran, 2600:4040:4527:3b00:79d9:76fe:230:4cfe and 68.33.4.126.

He was reported and reverted by other users on the Samantan page as well recently. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@HölderlinRem1 You have failed to notify 2600:4040:4527:3B00:79D9:76FE:230:4CFE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this ANI report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. Shirt58 has done so for you this time. In fact, you haven't even attempted to discuss the revert with them at all. Is there any reason why you have gone straight here rather than trying to ascertain their intent? Also, if you want to make allegations of inappropriate use of logged in and out editing, you will need to present evidence that justifies that as well. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have taken decisive action against explicit caste promotion in Zamorin. Each edit I made is accompanied by a detailed summary to ensure transparency. To foster constructive dialogue and prevent edit wars, I've initiated a dedicated discussion section on the article's talk page. This measure is aimed at encouraging open discussion and collaborative resolution rather than resorting to blind reverts or edit wars.

I urge fellow editors to engage in this dialogue for the integrity and accuracy of our content. 2600:4040:4527:3B00:7C68:B92C:9057:6057 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

IP user repeatedly making racist comments at ITN/C

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

---

24.125.98.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, several times over the last few days, made grossly racist comments and generalizations directed at Latin Americans at ITN/C, in the replies to blurbs relating to the recent events in Ecuador. Examples: 1, 2, 3.

I don't think this kind of behavior is close to being acceptable here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• You would be correct, blocked for a month, we can do without that stuff here. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Surely this is a permanent ban? Describing human beings as "locusts" and characterising the population of an entire continent as "depraved" shows we are not dealing with someone capable of contributing in any way to this project. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  It would be an indef if they were a named account. However, they're an IP, and as a rule we don't indef IP addresses. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Breast-obsessed WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

User:Readthispage exclusively edits with a prurient focus on breasts. Their very first edits were replacing the images on pornstar bios with ones that had more substantial cleavage and their largest edit by far is creating a WP:FAKEARTICLE about “bouncing breasts”. Additionally they’ve also uploaded a ton of useless AI softcore porn to commons. I don’t think I can realistically assume good faith here, they’re clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Dronebogus (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Just so it's been recorded here, too: I've tagged the "bouncing breasts" sandbox page for speedy deletion as vandalism. Patient Zero^talk 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User who cannot learn what WP:V means

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

---

The problem has been analyzed at WP:FTN#Anthroposophy. My two cents are that SamwiseGSix cannot understand what WP:V means. E.g. [46]. Who's making the statement? It is SamwiseGSix's own WP:OR opinion (according to FTN). It is his own analysis, not explicitly stated in his sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Even Steiner's harshest academic critic Peter Staudenmeier recognizes that many features of Steiner's thinking were "anti-racist" - Steiner indeed made public calls to 'struggle against.. prejudice' and 'the tendency to discriminate based on.. race' during a time when the US President Woodrow Wilson was actually actively segregating the US Federal Government - plenty of WP:V evidence does appear accessible in this regard, starting even with the harshest critique itself along with additional original sources/publications: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/db1dad79-53bf-451e-b95b-6982dd24afe3/content SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather then providing links how about three really good quotes that back up your suggestion? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

what has this to do with "Both also acknowledge the extensive ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological bases and arguments upon which the philosophy and social movement is grounded", what is this thread about? Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your source does not claim that Wilson segregated the federal government. Sheer WP:OR.

See also [47]. This is an unrepentant pusher of original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson was of course actively segregating the US Federal Government during the 1910's which planty of WP:V sources can verify - Steiner made the above anti-racist statements (public calls to 'struggle against.. prejudice' and 'the tendency to discriminate based on.. race') in a prominent book he published (Knowledge of Higher Worlds) in 1914 and re-published 1918. Not seeing any original research here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, but unless a WP:RS (not meaning Anthroposophist publications) compares Steiner to Wilson, that is sheer WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Steiner made many anti-racist statements including in books published in 1914 and 1918. Woodrow Wilson was actively segregating the US Federal Government starting in 1912 and continuing throughout his terms into the 1920's. These are just simply basic historical facts, which vast amounts of WP:V sources can easily verify. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that there is a difference between "it's false" and "it's original research"? Or are we speaking in vain, and nothing except indeffing helps? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you seeking to assert that including basic historical facts here for which vast amounts of WP:V sources exist, is in contrast to the WP:OR policies? Upon reading them it does not appear to be the case hm, please do include some of the policy language / references here if possible SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, then the conclusion is that nothing else helps. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

More precisely, Wikipedia can only report those historical facts which have been explicitly described in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia based on Truth, but upon reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

SamwiseGSix appears to have admitted in this comment at FTN that they had never read at least one of the citations they used for article content. MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

wow. Paraphrasing: I'm sure this is what the source I read about some time ago but haven't read says. Narky Blert (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jeez. Are we allowed to use the words 'utterly clueless' here, or does that violate WP:CIVIL? Either way, combined with the above responses, it appears that no, SamwiseGSix does not understand WP:V. Or much else regarding how Wikipedia is supposed to be written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

well, that explains why the sources don't support what they wrote—blindlynx —blindlynx 01:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears that they are just listing random sources now, [[48]] includes a sources about Marx and one about Woodrow Wilson neither of which make any mention of Steiner, anthroposophy or other stuff related to him—blindlynx 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: Seen what you write, I propose a siteban for SamwiseGSix. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu sorry? —blindlynx 16:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

On a side note SamwiseGSix bombing in several hundred page sources without referencing page numbers—while knowing that they don't support their inclusions—is counter productive—blindlynx 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

These are WP:V sources that demonstrate Rudolf Steiner's vast body of anti-racist statements, especially in comparison with those of thinkers like Woodrow Wilson (who was actively segregating the US Federal Government during Steiner's life) and K. Marx and F. Engels, who expressed quite shocking ideas on race - Engels even calling for genocide. No original research, just historical facts 'explicitly described in reliable sources' meeting WP:V standards, and helping facilitate a very important NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia here.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamwiseGSix: Meaning I support a siteban for lacking basic WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

They do not. The relevant ones clearly discuss how he has both racist and anti-racist positions in his work not just anti-racist ones as you claim. The Wilson and marx refs have fuck all to do with steiner—blindlynx 16:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not claimed that he his only anti-racist - just adding NPOV to demonstrate that he made some statements that we would consider racist by our enlightened and progressive points of view today, while also making many anti-racist statements, which are very progressive in relation to the mainstream thought and leadership of his time. Balanced NPOV is important for the Encyclopedia here.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No. you added badly cited sources that only 'demonstrate Rudolf Steiner's vast body of anti-racist statements' if you WP:CHERRYPICKED what they say; and sources that are in no way related to steiner. Cherry-picking is decidedly not NPOV. And doing that ignoring sections of sources that do not support your claims is decidedly unbalanced. Further, listing a 700 odd page thesis without refing page numbers makes verifying that source a lot harder—blindlynx 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamwiseGSix, you deciding to compare Wilson (et al) with Steiner is original research. You need a reliable source that compares Wilson (et al) with Steiner. See the difference? Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: It is not a difference he is willing/prepared to learn. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok @Schazjmd, and perhaps such research could be quite easily publishable.. In the meantime does that mean we should go about adding "Racism" and "Thoughts on Race" sections to the biographies of historical leaders like Marx, Engels, Wilson, and all the rest? It appears some kind of non-neutral exception is being made for Steiner here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

perhaps such research could be quite easily publishable

I'll bite. Could you rephrase this, what does it mean? Remsense留 16:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly @Remsense - if world conditions and Wikipedia TOS truly necessitate it, one would expect to be able to publish a paper through the proper channels comparing Steiner's vast body of anti-racist statements (public calls to 'struggle against.. prejudice' and 'the tendency to discriminate based on.. race' in 1914 for example) during a time when the US President Woodrow Wilson was actually actively segregating the US Federal Government, with many professors at the time and still today citing F. Engals, who actually did call for genocide hm

To place the importance of NPOV in fuller context here, recent academic publications for example do illustrate the need and utility for implementation of Steiner's ideas around 'Social Threefolding' (essentially a full picture for sustainable democracy, helping facilitate the continued existence of the human species) in this time of civilizational risk and increasing 'p(doom)' - ie risk of human extinction via AI or nuclear war et al as illustrated in NYTimes and additional sources hm

https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/business/dealbook/silicon-valley-artificial-intelligence.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

if world conditions and Wikipedia TOS truly necessitate it, one would expect to be able to publish a paper through the proper channels comparing Steiner's vast body of anti-racist statements

...But there isn't such a paper that you've provided, so does that mean that such a paper is potentially not necessary? Troubling is–ought conflation here. Remsense留 16:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm, ok - so does that not mean then that we must be morally obliged therefore to go forth and add such 'Race' and 'Thoughts on Race' style sections into the biographies of Engels, Marx, Wilson and the others then, if we are to truly be pursuing a 'Neutral Point of View' on the Encyclopedia here? It does appear that the NPOV standard is indeed a very important one for Wikipedia here, especially in these fast changing times hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@SamwiseGSix, your NYT source makes no mention of Steiner or "social threefolding", and this just reinforces the concerns in the thread about your understanding of verifiability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SYNTH. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course, been reading the WP:SYNTH section there - the journal article mentions Steiner and social threefolding, the NYTimes article is only for the discussion page here to hopefully help facilitate a broader context, that a range of prominent folks in tech are expressing concerns of a high probability of human extinction/eradication etc through AI et al hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Siteban

• Support as proposer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  On what grounds? It appears you are not able to demonstrate the WP:V or WP:OR concerns you raise here then, is that correct SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Blindlynx: He is an unrepentant pusher of original research, and even in the 12th hour he does not understand what the problem is. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu you've made your point, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. WaggersTALK 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear there's a problem here, but a siteban is overkill. A topic ban would be more appropriate in my opinion but we'd need to determine a suitable scope for that - possibly something as simple and broad as philosophy, broadly construed. These two editors have a bit of previous - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#SamwiseGSix from just a couple of months ago. As indicated above I'm a little concerned about tgeorgescu's dominance in this discussion, particularly in light of their warning for battleground behaviour from ArbCom less than two months ago. WaggersTALK 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, I've seen this on the periphery at FTN and see that Samwise was already warned at AE, so the problems aren't lost on me, but it's also not extremely obvious to uninvolved editors glancing through this ANI what the issue is without obvious diffs. It's not clear cut things you can quote like personal attacks. It makes suggesting a siteban appear premature, which I believe is the case right now (the writing may be on the wall though). In the section above this, I'd suggest just making a few key bullets such as 1. text inserted/attributed to source along with the diff and stating it's nowhere in the source or their statement basically saying they didn't read the source. Right now I have to hunt for those details.

Instead, a topic ban seems like the much better route. Given the caution at AE already on their talk page at least, a ban from Steiner broadly construed under pseudoscience DS seems like a start, though maybe a wider scope is an option is there are issues elsewhere. I think I could get behind a topic ban (either an ANI one or any admin doing it under CT) if it was laid out a little clearer.

Just some general advice tgeorgescu, but it seems like Samwise didn't start up editing again (over a month break) until you pinged them at FTN. When an editor is causing issues in a fringe topic and hasn't been active, it's usually best to let sleeping dogs lie, especially if there's a chance they would have otherwise left the topic on their own and you/others could just fix the problems and move on. It probably would have been better at FTN to just ask for more eyes at the article due to those issues, maybe post a notice on the article talk page itself, but not ping Samwise. That's not to say it was entirely inappropriate since there's also notification considerations for noticeboards where alerting an individual editor makes sense at times, but with hindsight, it may have complicated things more in this case. Maybe they would have shown up anyways too, so that's why I'm not too critical, but just suggest being mindful of that dynamic. KoA (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@KoA: Diffs: [49] and [50]. The second diff was later than level 4 warning at [51]. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Waggers: The difference between me and him is that I got that point: I was wrong about WP:PROFRINGE in talk pages being prohibited. That earned me a warning, and I do not seek to contest it. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I too get the point here guys, I am not seeking to reverse any such edits further. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

In which case I don't think any further action is needed, but don't hesitate to report further disruption. WaggersTALK 08:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Sanjay Govil

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

---

please can we have banhammers, protection and oversighting at Talk:Sanjay Govil – WP:LTA/GRP is active there. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Page protected and users blocked. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

muito obrigado, isabelle. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, BLP violations and edit warring by 2A01:CB19:9086:A400:*

2A01:CB19:9086:A400:B957:9836:3246:A41D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (previously 2a01:cb19:9086:a400:4c6:5a75:59a7:6d4d (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2a01:cb19:9086:a400:211e:1ca1:f686:d5f3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2a01:cb19:9086:a400:a05c:a22f:64c3:db18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has called me an "idiot" twice ([52], [53]) after they have been introducing deliberate errors to Roger Schmidt (footballer). I have tried to stop their disruptive behaviour by creating Talk:Roger Schmidt (footballer)#Disruptive editing by 2a01:cb19:9086:a400:* and User talk:2A01:CB19:9086:A400:B957:9836:3246:A41D, but to no avail. 2A01:CB19:9086:A400:* is clearly editing in bad faith and, therefore, must be blocked from editing that article. SLBedit (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling you an idiot isn't on, and if they keep that up the /64 can be blocked. However, I don't think there's any evidence of bad faith editing, or deliberate introduction of inaccuracies; rather, they're adding statistics based on some sources that count wins/draw/losses in ways that you assert are incorrect. I know nothing about the normal way of counting these things, but if there is a consensus for doing it in the way that you say it should be done here, it would probably be useful to add a link to the relevant guideline to the talk page discussion. At the moment, to a football-illiterate observer, it looks like an edit war that is starting to turn nasty. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 71#Penalty win maked as a draw or win?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 31#Results on penalties

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 119#Season overview, draw / win or loss representation

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 87#Penalty shoot-outs

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 114#Win or Draw? SLBedit (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor making spam articles about non-notable companies

User:Galamore has a very strange and suspicious editing history, and I suspect that they are a WP:UPE sock (they fit the description of Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody although I'm not confident that they are them).

In short, they seem to alternate between two modi operandi: one is to make numerous minor gnome edits introducing errors, including strange comments like "I have added sources and downloaded the template".

The second type of edits this account makes are pasting in fully-written, perfectly formatted articles to mainspace in a single diff. What are these articles about? The most common subject for a new, good-faith editor to spontaneously be interested in: promotional articles for non-notable corporations (perplexity.ai, Holmes Place, . They also add links to said companies in high-traffic articles, with lots of link spam. Here are the articles they've created:

• Perplexity.ai

"Perplexity.ai is an advanced AI-powered search engine, making significant strides in the realm of AI-native search. Valued at $520 million, it has quickly become a notable player in the field since its inception in August 2022."

• Holmes Place

"The motto of Holmes Place, which is internationally attached to all clubs on advertising spaces or glass fronts, is: "Enjoy the Journey". In addition to pricing, the company also wants to distinguish itself from its competitors through its self-imposed corporate philosophy, which is broken down into "Find an activity you like, at a place you like, with people you like". The core element of each club is a large range of courses with yoga, conditioning, Pilates, Zumba and spinning etc."

• GoTo (Israeli company)

"GoTo Group is considered one of the pioneering companies in the world in the field of car and electric motorcycle sharing".

• Jesse Lyu

"The strong response affirms Lyu's vision for intuitive AI transforming consumer tech. With the Rabbit r1, he aims to redefine how users interact with technology."

• JFrog (since deleted as a G11)

"JFrog was established in 2008 by Shlomi Ben Haim (the company's CEO), Yoav Landman (CTO), and Fred Simon (Chief Scientist), with the goal of developing products that enable the automation of software updates, tracking, and distribution, supporting a wide range of leading platforms in the market."

Also note that this same article was deleted multiple times, including once as the confirmed product of an Orangemoody op.

• D-ID (company)

"In 2020, the company pivoted to producing generative AI videos of avatars relying on the same core machine learning algorithms. D-ID’s solution was used extensively by clients such as Softbank, NTT, AXA, Deloitte, PWC and genealogy company MyHeritage"

One of these articles, on their own, would be enough to give me significant alarm for an undisclosed paid editor. They are all spammy promotional articles for non-notable, or marginally notable, corporations. But creating six of them in a row, after having an obviously wildly different person use the account to get autoconfirmed status, is basically unimaginable.

While I am typically an advocate for peace and love and tolerant good faith when a new user seems suspicious, something I really cannot abide is a system where we punish people for following the rules (disclosed paid editors are made to jump through endless hoops) while we simultaneously reward people for breaking the rules (undisclosed paid editors are allowed to bypass all of that and plop their articles straight into mainspace, and then removing them is an endless uphill battle). My recommendation is that this user be blocked as a sockpuppet and their articles deleted as WP:G5. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist the link spam. In my experience, that puts the hurt on COI editors more than blocks. When blocked, they just come back with a new account. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm not seeing the connection.

1. When you say "lots of link spam", usually what you link should be instances of WP:LINKSPAM (like the "spammy external links" mentioned in the LTA) rather than four diffs of a user reasonably de-orphaning a new article they've created, as we tell them to do.
2. As to the variable grammar of this seemingly non-fluent Israeli user writing mostly on things related to generative AI, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that their prose was mostly created with the use of... generative AI. Does that not explain why the grammar would be correct in some edits and not in others? I have seen several immaculately written paid articles, and they did not look like the revisions that you describe here as "perfectly formatted articles".
3. They may very well be a sock of this LTA-er, but I don't see how you've shown that, aside from one common article. Did previously deleted versions of JFrog look similar to what this user added?

SilverLocust 💬 06:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't shown that, which is why I said "I'm not confident that they are them". As for why I suspect that this is not their first rodeo: these two edits on January 4th add bare URLs to random blog posts at the end of a paragraph. These edits on January 7 are a fully written article with a lead, an infobox, MoS-compliant section headings, and properly formatted multi-param citations. Like I said, I don't normally go around trying to bust people for "knowing too much", but in a situation where all of somebody's edits after autoconfirmation are to write corpspam, it stretches the suspension of disbelief a bit. I guess we will have to see what the CUs turn up. jp×g🗯️ 06:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those two edits where they tried adding two citations for the first paragraph of that uncited article. They were poor attempts at adding in-line references, but that's what they were: links to sources that talk about the meaning of "material flow".

As to your other link (of the article 6 edits later), that was actually my backup "Exhibit B" of emphatically not a "perfectly formatted article" and not "in a single diff". SilverLocust 💬 07:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

For reference, those two "random blog posts" are #3 and #5 in my Google results for the search material flow definition. SilverLocust 💬 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is private evidence, I am not convinced at all that this is a spammer. In my view, most or all of these topics are notable, but the author doesn't know how to establish notability and made the mistake of using an overly promotional tone. To me, it looks like an editor who is primarily interested in tech companies and AI (which I am too, but as an experienced editor I know the requirements to establish notability without relying on promotional materials).

In general, publicly traded companies like GoTo and Holmes Place are notable. Jesse Lyu and his "Rabbit" company have recently been featured very prominently in the news as inventing a potential AI-based successor to the smartphone.

I doubt very much that somebody is paid to promote RabbitAI [54] on Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's true that the evidence is lacking, but I have to say that I found some of User:Galamore's contributions to be somewhat suspect. Others clearly have the same concern and that's why s/he is currently blocked. Deb (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don't block newcomers due to mere suspicion. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. This could have easily be handled by a warning. Marokwitz (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Suspicion is often all we have to go on - we can never be certain. Suspicion arises from evidence, such as editing behaviour, we don't need proof positive in order to block. Blocks are imposed at administrators' discretion, based on what the admin taking action considers to be the balance of the evidence, and they are subject to both appeal and review. In my view, this is a good block - it seems probable to me that this editor is editing in exchange for undisclosed payments, and even if the are not, their editing is so promotional in tone as to be seriously problematic. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't find much suspicious about an Israeli editor creating articles about companies that seem somewhat significant in Israel and have long-standing articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia (he:GoTo_(מותג), he:הולמס פלייס, he:ג'ייפרוג) or about AI/tech startups with somewhat impressive products. I don't see how it's suspicious that some edits have cleaner English than other ones (a/k/a "obviously [a] wildly different person"), when the blocking admin said before the block that they thought this user seemed to have used AI. I don't see how it's suspicious that an inexperienced editor would confuse "notability" with "including whatever impressive information there is on a topic". Of course I think there was a need to correct the user's understanding of how to show notability while having a neutral tone, but that isn't helped by a sudden indef block that instructs the user to admit to something that is seriously doubtful. SilverLocust 💬 12:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your mileage may vary. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of blocks, prose such as "The Rabbit r1 debuted at CES 2024 to significant interest, with 10,000 pre-orders placed on the first day. By the next day pre-orders exceeded 20,000 units, representing nearly $2 million in revenue. The strong response affirms Lyu's vision for intuitive AI transforming consumer tech. With the Rabbit r1, he aims to redefine how users interact with technology" is completely unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia and has no place here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That goes without saying. My concern is that a newcomer was blocked without warning. Why can't we explain the policies, give them some WP:ROPE and see if their next articles improve? There was no irreversible damage done here ... Marokwitz (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is the CU's finding at the SPI:

 Unrelated in relation to Bennet43, and  Unlikely for there to be separate sockpuppetry which I also considered possible. Kicking this back to AN/I.

SilverLocust 💬 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Conduct of Chaheel Riens

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

---

I would like to post an incident regarding User:Chaheel Riens. The incident started on 8th January, when he deleted, without prior consultations, large parts of a talk page [55], mostly containing my posts. I complained immediately in the discussion here: [56]

A DRN case about the dispute is here: [57]

- Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that, in general, if something's being addressed at DRN, it's not really germane to open a thread at AN/I about it, although it does seem rather unorthodox to remove such large sections of a talk page (wouldn't it be possible to use the {{cot}} or {{hat}} templates instead?) jp×g🗯️ 10:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Mediator Comment

On the one hand, DRN is normally a place to discuss article content issues, and the issue here is not an article content issue, because it is an article talk page content issue. On the other hand, I will take the closure of this report as guidance to mediate the talk page removal issue at DRN. I will also note, as I have at the Village Pump, that the talk page guidelines are poorly written with regard to removal of talk page material. They essentially say that material should not often be removed from talk pages, but can occasionally be removed, without giving any further information as to when. I will try to mediate the dispute over the talk page removal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! jp×g🗯️ 19:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removal

User:82.132.224.242, who has been blocked as a sock of the Best known for IP, is repeatedly abusing talk page access. Can someone kindly revoke it? JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Ad Orientem:, who gave the original block. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman:  Done SQL^{Query Me!} 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't link to their webpage...

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

---

I don't think the wiki article about Hezbollah should link to it's webpage... 2600:1700:5390:5CCF:9014:E8F7:E2B:D151 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This doesn't require urgent administrator action. Please discuss this on the article's talk page; none of the external links appear to lead to any official site of the group. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It's in the infobox, not the external links. This is urgent. 2600:1700:5390:5CCF:9014:E8F7:E2B:D151 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED — Czello ^(music) 21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Hounding and other behavior violating Wikimedia's Terms of Use re: Mr. Ollie

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

---

This editor has been following me, from the page on recursion, to the tea house (where he admonished me) to an article about nefazodone. He is also throwing up roadblocks by refusing to cooperate(e.g. letting me know which edits he is ok with), time wasting by criticizing versions of the page that I'm no longer trying to edit, claiming that I did not offer reasons for deleting certain information, and the list goes on. He has also engages in other objectionable behavior another department is handling.

This article sums it up:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/wikipedia-code-of-conduct-harassment.html

"The hounding editor keeps deleting and deleting … taken individually, there is at least a colorable argument for each move. After all, two editors can reasonably disagree on what is proper. But by stepping back slightly, it becomes clearer what’s really happening. The hounding editor is tracking the other editor, following all of their moves, and disrupting them, often with the aim of causing frustration and distress. It’s the Wikipedia equivalent of stalking. In the past, Wacha told me that enforcers would consider most of these behavior issues in isolation, focusing on specific edit disputes rather than the entire picture. One positive of the new code, from Wacha’s perspective, is that there is new language relating to patterns of abuse. The new code explicitly states, “In some cases, behavior that would not rise to the level of harassment in a single case can become harassment through repetition.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biolitblue (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An article from Slate carries no authority here. What you need to provide are diffs that demonstrate the problematic behavior that you have described. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. There's also plenty of ABF, SYNTH, and plenty of other shortcuts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue, that is, not MrOllie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I had a whole defense outlined and everything. I'll just note for the archives that this: to the tea house (where he admonished me) never happened, and you can find more examples where plain reading of page histories does not match their talk page comments at Talk:Nefazodone. MrOllie (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably a dumb question and I don't want it to sound like I'm accusing them of anything certain, but could it be that they were there under an IP/other account? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They were almost certainly the IP that made the same complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, matches all the way to the "MERS" typo. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They bounce around in that /40 block. You can find some similar editing on the articles/talk pages of other antidepressants. MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of MrOllie's good work in COI matters, and have always been impressed by the cordial but precise nature of their comments. They are rarely wrong, and I have NEVER seen them angry or irritated or in any way crossing the line of collegiality. I'm saying this here also as a public badge of honor. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Biolitblue's response to the block message includes a legal threat Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibits website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question. I intend to pursue all legal remedies available to redress this. Should talk page access be revoked at this point? RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also allegations of doxxing for some reason (without evidence)? Yeah, I second revoking the talk page. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted Biolitblue's legal threat and revoked their talk page accesss. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that freedom of speech != freedom to force private website operators to carry your beliefs. If I knew more about the US constitution, I'd even go so far as to claim the bill as stated may well be unconstitutional. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Yorowaggins — gaming of 500/30 requirement

In order to edit ARBPIA articles, user Yorowaggins made 500 trivial edits almost entirely consisting of adding and subtracting spaces (and the occasional parenthesis). See Special:Contributions/Yorowaggins. Requesting removal of EC status. Zero^talk 11:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit ban 14.0.128.0/17 request

14.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Very active with LTA, long time continue disruptive report in user talk space and WP space long time ago, cross-wiki abuse and continued after last edit ban, admin blocked 14.0.128.0/18 only seven days is very not enough.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Soft-blocked for six months. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks, screaming by IP

69.159.70.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – This IP has displayed incivil and accusatory conduct in all interactions with other editors on their talk page. Main examples include: Claiming the vast majority of all Wikipedia users know nothing/are stupid, Arguing and screaming at editors when told clearly why they were reverted/what they broke, Accusing a user of "stealing" that username from someone better known, Accusing me of "Not doing my research on the person" when I reverted their unsourced change that contradicted the existing source.

Specific incidences with me are as follows: IP got all bent out of shape when I reverted a syntax breaking error when they delinked Donald A. Stroh on Manton S. Eddy's article. They claim to be an expert at editing with images and their syntax on Wikipedia, but has never heard of WP:EIS, nor edited prior to this week from this IP. They also changed the birth place from London to British Hong Kong on Wendy Barrie, despite London being sourced by The Chicago Times and other sources of her era. They then screamed at me for the revert and claimed they knew her personally, here, which is a WP:COI, and accused me of "Not doing my research on the person" (see previous paragraph)

Now, Full disclosure, The Chicago Tribune source did not load for me, but the original birthplace of London was supported by another newspaper of the time, The Canberra Times, which I added to support to the original article version's London claim. IP provided no proof of their claim for British Hong Kong, and all claims of British Hong Kong that I've been able to find are all of the IMDB caliber, which is not a Reliable Source.

Since our first interaction, I've kept the talk page in my watchlist and have seen them continued their screaming on Jan 15th at @Macaddct1984:'s revert of an unsourced change, and accused them of stealing the username from someone else (this edit since reverted by @Untamed1910:), and has continues to argue on their talk page when reverted, and has continued to pointlessly delink every red link on articles when there's only one or two, nowhere near MOS:OVERLINK criteria for delinking red link. They claimed to have made thousands of edits, and claim never to have been reverted or questioned on any of their past thousands of edits, but their edits still appear to be beginner level, and assuming they've looked at the IP's talk pages of any other IPs they've used, there's no chance in hell they've gone thousands of edits without someone commenting somewhere.

While they have done some other "ok" C/E type edits in the past 24hr, their continued incivility far outweights any average-at-best edits. Other users with interactions on this IP pinged, and welcomed to share their thoughts. IP will be notified in a moment. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

IP notified per stated rules. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP's response on their talk page is unpromising. I agree that the copyediting is fine, but this is a collaborative project their conduct toward other users is unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

195.26.51.42

Vandalisms [58][59]. СлаваУкраїні 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, it's POV pushing (Donetsk is recognised as being in Ukraine but controlled by Russian forces). And one of the edits is 9 months old. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@PoisonHK You have failed to notify 195.26.51.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Please note that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and even though the first diff is not obviously vandalism, it may instead be POV pushing as Ritchie333 suggested. The second diff is from all the way back in May 2023, and is most certainly stale; including it in this report is not likely to help you get disciplinary action against the IP. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 Sorry about that, this is my first time submitting an incident report. I've been noted about the definitions of misbehaviours. Thanks for the assistance. СлаваУкраїні 13:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@PoisonHK: Note, also, the requirements of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:CONTRAST, neither of which your current signature may meet. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fmovies and COPYLINKS

Over at FMovies, QuantumZazzy and I have been having a bit of an edit war over whether the site should be linked. I know, I know, ANI isn't for content disputes. But I think this one is a little different because the link would seem to be a blatant violation of our policy on contributory copyright infringement, WP:COPYLINKS. QuantumZazzy has vowed via edit summary to edit war about this. So I am here to ask: is this a violation of COPYLINKS? If I am off base and QuantumZazzy is acting within policy, I'll back off. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist the site, solves the problem. Then they simply can't add it back in. Seems like the site should be blacklisted anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And they've continued their edit warring after the warnings, as a result I've blocked them for 24 hours. I still think it should be blacklisted and then this problem won't happen again. Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that all but six of their edits are about this site, it merits a COI/UPE discussion. Star Mississippi 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Blacklisted. Please keep an eye, this typically runs into blacklist/block evasion. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beetstra, Canterbury Tail, and MrOllie: I'm a bit concerned by your decisions here; in general the consensus is to include links to piracy sites on their articles. COPYLINKS says as much: In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a case where 'there are possibly copyright violations somewhere on the site', the whole site is copyright violations. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

COPYLINKS says we can include links to websites on our pages about those websites; there's no level of infringement where that suddenly becomes disallowed. The point is to prevent linking to copyright violations of works, not to prevent linking to piracy websites in our articles about those websites (a clearly relevant and acceptable link; we don't censor those). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(will continue engaging with you at Talk:FMovies#The purpose of keeping the link. to avoid splitting the discussion) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think the exception means exactly what it says, which is not nearly so broad as your interpretation. MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's included or not I don't really care, I was just stopping some disruptive continuous edit warring with no consensus to include it at that point. If we shouldn't include it, it should be blacklisted. Canterbury Tail talk 02:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Think the ideal here would be to whitelist a URL on the site to link to in the article (probably https://fmoviesz.to/home) and keep the site overall blacklisted. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, in response to Canterbury Tail, I absolutely understand the suspicion with how FMovies is really my only Wikipedia contribution, but the reality for that is because I don't really know much else to contribute, but I do find those websites interesting so I thought why not provide some knowledge for the first time if I can. That's when I decided to write about current affairs with FMovies as well as include the official URL. I also contributed information about the recent major change to the official URL. Now I for one don't care really that much, I just feel it's appropriate to provide the correct information, or if we can't do that then just take down the article entirely. And I have to correct Elli because linking to "𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗳𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘇.𝘁𝗼/𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲" does show copyrighted imagery & other content. It's just "𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗳𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘇.𝘁𝗼" that is the landing page which shows nothing inappropriate or of any concern. QuantumZazzy (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also sadly it seems even the web archive link to show how the website had changed it's URL was also removed. Which is a shame because it's a blank page showing only an error message. Seeing as if we can't link directly to the fmovies.to website to prove that, the Wayback Machine web archive would have been the next best thing... QuantumZazzy (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with linking to the root is that by whitelisting that, you whitelist the entire site. Whereas by linking to a page like /home, you can only whitelist that page while continuing to block the rest of the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse behaviour User:73.27.57.206

This editor is being a bit abusive at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (5th nomination) Afd, failing WP:AGF scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have reverted the personal attack but it's been replied to. Anyway, we don't block people for calling somebody a dick once. If we did, a whole bunch of editors, including me, would be indeffed. I think it might be a good idea for you (and anyone else with strong opinions on Gonzalo Lira, which appears to be quite a few) to stay away from the AfD and let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I do note, however that Thegreatmuffinman's first edit was at the AfD, to say "I was in the other discussion." I smell sock puppetry somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Blablubbs (or any other checkuser who's around at the moment), I don't suppose you could spare a minute to check some of the "newer" editors on that AfD and see if there are any matches? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

CU has nothing useful to offer, sorry. If I had to guess, I'd say we're probably looking at off-wiki canvassing. I note w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Gonzalo Lira, which contains additional... oddities and is probably the "other discussion" being referred to. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A brief search (link to twitter mirror) suggests that the topic does have at least some traction on twitter/X, and also in some other places that I'm not going to link here. That doesn't mean that there can't also be socking by individual people who have been canvassed of course, but in my experience it's best in cases like these that closers just weight votes accordingly instead of trying to untangle precise connections. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Twixxer? Xitter? jp×g🗯️ 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption at Biblical inspiration

For the past couple of years an IP and account hopping editor (most recent account: MunsterCheese (talk · contribs)) has been warring to add a bunch of absurd OR to this article. They never respond to warnings or requests to explain their edits at the talk page. I don't think semi-protection will stop it, but ECP seems excessive for what has been a fairly low rate of disruption, so I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Any advice is appreciated. Squeakachu (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edits to Biblical inspiration by MunsterCheese. Do you have any diffs of the IP editors? PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a year. Semi-protection should stop these new accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]. I think this is all of them. Squeakachu (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are perfectly well-sourced and accurate. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. Maybe after a year of semi-protection they will give up. PhilKnight (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that will do it. Thank you for the help. Squeakachu (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked MunsterCheese and whole bunch of other named accounts as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

AdityaSty90

AdityaSty90 (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs; they have returned from the block to simply repeat the editing. A longer block is merited? GiantSnowman 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

These insults are the response to their first block, by the way...and they are still adding unsourced info to BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with GiantSnowman. Block them for longer (indefinite would make sense from my POV) as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and maybe revert/revdel their insult on the talk page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In my defense... Oh, wait, sorry. Force of habit. Never mind. EEng 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you like some trout? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They say trout is a dish best served cold. Or is that revenggggge? EEng 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war by User Arind7

User Arind7 is edit warring in multiple articles like Homosexuality in India, LGBT rights in India, Hinduism and LGBT topics, Marriage in Hinduism using some unreliable user-generated websites like TamilCulture.com. Even after multiple warnings 1 2 he continued the edit war. A block might be needed to stop the vandalism. Timovinga (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

3RR ? Timovinga (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This person is removing large amounts of text without valid reasons, even when I provide numerous sources (often five) from a variety of backgrounds including major news outlets and legal scholars (for example the sentence where I used Tamil Culture also has another five sources from a variety of outlets). He has been repeatedly removing text across numerous articles related to LGBTQ and India, and seemingly also in various articles related to casteism in India. I have stated that he can add alternative viewpoints if he wants, but he seems to be more concerned about removing text instead. Many of his removals have no provided substance as well.

The person above is engaged in vandalism and is targeting topics related to homosexuality and India. He needs to be banned from editing topics related to casteism, homosexuality and India.

A good example is his edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1197136466

I removed a duplicate paragraph further down which repeated the same information twice in the same section. He reverted it on the basis on bad source despite me adding no new information whatsoever. It's obvious he is engaging in conflict rather than actually trying to build the article.

Furthermore he is in particular targeting articles related to caste and homosexuality.

I have told him that the appropriate procedure is to mark sentences which he believes are poorly sources with the appropriate citation mark (and in all cases I have provided numerous citations, up to five of various backgrounds, to his claims) and discuss the removal on the talk pages. Considering it is only one person determine to remove said information, I am convinced that he is a vandal with homophobic and casteist intentions. Arind7 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You are still doing the edit war, I replied you here also, but I think you are not able to understand or maybe you are not reading the guidelines properly. Timovinga (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of you should stop reverting each other continually, and instead discuss it on the talk page. You could ideally ask for a Third opinion to resolve it. This is a very classic case of an edit war. It is not vandalism, and name-calling won't bring anything, but it is nonetheless disruptive to the encyclopedia. I'll revert to the last stable version and let both of you discuss it calmly. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Arind7 is using non reliable sources and some random websites as his citations. It is not even a discussion. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources. Despite multiple warning he continued the edit war with those poor sources. I tried my best to guide him, but seems like he is not understanding the guidelines. Timovinga (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss it here or here. It seems like you both start discussions on different talk pages and end up not responding to each other. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 72 hours for edit-warring. I find it interesting that both editors are new, having created accounts within a few days of each other last month, and both edit the same controversial articles but adverse to each other. It's as if they came to Wikipedia to do battle. For a few days at least they'll have a forced break.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a block for extremely disruptive LTA

A while ago I made this post on ANI regarding a disruptive user who has been trolling Wikipedia since 2022-[69] which lead to one of their ranges being blocked for one year.

Unfortunately the same user is back with an 89* IP range now, going on a editing spree over the past few days. I used the IP range calculator that Wikipedia provides to see what range they're specifically on and got this-89.46.12.0/22 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). I was hoping this range could also be blocked for 6 months-1 year as well as something has to be done about this perennial troll. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you give examples of their edits? Secretlondon (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. inflating his religion's and language's numbers while decreasing others same thing as well as making random changes to demographic fugres here he is removing Ahmadis from Pakistan's census figures and inflating Sikhism's numbers [70].

Also check the examples I provided in my previous ANI report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

SOAPBOXing, unsourced contributions

TheRebelliousFew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bandera, Ukraine Nazis, Western media lies and choose-what-you-like russian propaganda Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117183800-Melaneas-20231123232000 , Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117201300-Czello-20231024075600 , Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117183200-49.181.47.40-20231204190400 , User talk:Czello#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117224400-Recent_revised_edit .

Other issues like unsourced contributions - see user talk page and contributions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Having seen this user argue with @Czello: on Czello's talk page, it would appear that this user's understanding of the rules of reliable sourcing and neutral viewpoints are completely out of order. On that talk page he claimed that established RS' like CNN were "biased", "fabricated events" and so on. We definitely have a violator of WP:NPOV here and I am not convinced TheRebeliousFew is here to add to the encyclopedia anything other than speculative propaganda without any reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia doesn't present opinions without sources and yet he wants his opinions published? We have a rule for that and it prohibits it. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The user was notified on 26 December that they were not permitted to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, but they proceeded to make one such edit on 17 January that was quickly reverted. In light of WP:GS/RUSUKR, I have placed the relevant page under WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You guys really love censoring information, don’t you? If you need a CNN article to tell you that CNN is biased, then how the hell can any of y’all say that you guys use “reliable sources”? Do you guys not hear the BS that comes out of y’all’s mouth? You used extremely biased sources, yet have the audacity to censor others who say otherwise? No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This user added the following text to the above article:

Ukraine has seen a far wider impact globally in misinformation and propaganda, especially in Western countries that promote their media or reporting, by either parroting the Ukrainian government, state media, or by creating news articles and stories sympathetic to Ukraine, which has led to a significant bias in reporting.

All unsourced, emphasis my own. After I reverted they then protested on my talk page that their edit was completely neutral.

I have to admire the audacity, really. — Czello ^(music) 09:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to admire YOUR audacity to censor something that is entirely factual and is something you can easily see with your own two eyes. You don’t need a CNN article to tell you this, and if you do, you’re simply blind as hell. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Asking for a source to back up what you're saying is very reasonable, and removing content that doesn't have a source is not "censorship".

Based on this comment and this user's edits and comments elsewhere, I can only conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello ^(music) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, well, I guess you’ll have to deal with me for a while before somebody decides to do something. Not many people trust Wikipedia anymore, and for good reason. And it’s not just about having sources, I’ve seen people add sources that were, unfortunately, revised, and they were either right leaning or centered sources, but because it doesn’t fit your Leftist narrative, they were removed. Y’all have a much, much bigger problem than what you think, and it’s leading to the downfall of this site as a whole. Hell, it’s bad to the point Google says Wikipedia isn’t reliable. But, if y’all wanna stay on this burning ship, okay. I shall wait ‘till some Administrator takes action. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, I didn't want to keep you waiting, indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Um, Bbb, I would also recommend revoking the talk page access since when this user got blocked, they continue to show incivility and lash out at us, by calling mainly everyone a "Leftist" idiot. (I know I'm not an admin, but I'm a little nervous this user will continue poking out at us.) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Access got revoked, they also admitted to this being their third account. So, block evasion/sockpuppetry, on top of all the rest. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering, would that warrant a CU to check if there are more sleeper accounts? Don't necessarily think it's needed but asking just to be sure. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

CU would need a target to check against, they don't go fishing just to see who matches the account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies have been leading to the downfall of this site as a whole for decades now, apparently. Sure is one hell of a slow downfall. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If I had a dollar... --ARoseWolf 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean "If I had a dime", @ARoseWolf:. I think that would be enough! Addicted4517 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Freeholdman12 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

This user changes colors on Florida-related templates without consensus and with disregard to Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. These templates should be semi-protected. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, as it says at the top This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Please explain how this trivial content dispute meets that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

They changed the colors once on these templates. I reverted them. The user did it again, and I reverted them again. This is an accessibility issue, first and foremost. This user should have sought consensus before making changes to the templates. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, are you actually saying that you consider two edits that you disagree with to be an urgent incident and a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? Please explain why, addressing the meaning of the description of the purpose of this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So if I can't do it here, where should I report it? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r, you can simply engage with me. You brought the issue to my attention, and you referred to me to this page: MOS:COLOR. I used one of the links in this section, in fact this one to be precise:https://www.whocanuse.com/?bg=ff9100&fg=333333&fs=16&fw=, and it meets most of the accessibility requirements. Now, if you have any questions or concerns, I would rather you continue to engage with me 1-one-1 on this matter. I'm inclined to agree with @Cullen328 on this. Freeholdman12 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if there are accessibility issues, such reverts still cannot be exempted from the edit warring policy. What a classic example of Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. 94rain ^Talk 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Stanton Williams

I just came across PJaneB (talk · contribs) adding unreferenced content to several articles about Stanton Williams, an established architecture firm. The firm itself looks notable, but the article in question looked a very sorry state, so I've tidied up. Meanwhile, PJaneB kind of admits being a paid editor on this topic. I don't like coming down like a ton of bricks, but I think this needs a block. Anyone agree? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a WP:COI warning to their talk page and an IP editor acknowledged, and said they would declare in future. That was before the more recent string of COI edits. Concur with Ritchie. AntientNestor (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

PJaneB (talk · contribs) has left a note on my talk page requesting advice on how to proceed. I referred them to WP:COI.--AntientNestor (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ShaneSim76 and continuous overlinking

It feels somewhat petty to start an ANI discussion about continuous overlinking in plot sections, but ShaneSim76 (talk · contribs) hasn't shown WP:COMPETENCE: after several messages and warnings, they haven't communicated and continued their overlinking. Most of their edits have been reverted. I have posted some diffs of their most recent overlinking edits, this is what's been happening for over a year.

They have been asked to stop and have received several warnings.

• In May 2022 Adakiko and in July 2022 GoneIn60 left them messages about plot length (worth mentioning because it is also includes unnecessary overlinking (The Departed: spy, FBI, assault, battery (crime); Top Gun: California, United States Navy, Commander)
• In December 2022 Doniago left a message about overlinking
• In January 2023, Eagowl left another message
• I myself encountered them in March 2023, when they edited the article on Choo-Choo Charles, a video game. I left them a message, explaining why it's unnecessary and they responded. That was the last time they communicated
• In August 2023, Doniago left another message about overlinking
• In October 2023, Doniago once more
• I issued a warning in December 2023, with a personal message
• Finally, on 13 January 2024, Facu-el Millo issued a final warning because of their disruptive editing

This has not worked, because since that final warning they added links to:

• Love at First Sight (2023 film), linking to United States, London, engagement, statistics, etc.
• Avengers vs. X-Men, linking to coma, moon, lunar surface, tyrant, etc.
• The Snowman (2017 film), linking to police officer, illegitimate, corruption, plastic surgery, flirting, cottage, etc.
• Injustice (2021 film), linking to pregnancy, submarine, federal government of the United States, world peace, etc.

Perhaps it's a case of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially since they haven't communicated whatsoever since March 2023, but it's hard to continue to assume good faith when they received a final warning on their behaviour and they thought it was necessary to link to those very common words. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Not petty: the overlinking is disruptive enough already, and coupled with the number of comments and warnings, and the lack of communication, there's enough reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:I'm tla and non-admin closures at AfD

• I'm tla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User I'm tla has recently taken an interest in AfD, participating in a rather astonishing 183 AfDs in a five-day period, including making non-admin closures. They have received several messages on their talk page and elsewhere criticizing their overly enthusiastic participation and the quality of their AfD closures and votes:

• January 14th: You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kiszka (2nd nomination) today. Please reverse your closure. You have too little experience to be closing AfDs. You even failed to mark it as a non-admin closure. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 15th: Hi. Typical of many new editors, you have a surplus of enthusiasm. Many people really catch on fire with editing and want to get involved in projects a little earlier than our community expects. We have learned in the past twenty years that over-eager new editors can accidentally cause problems because they haven't developed a long track record of level-headed editing... Chris Troutman (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 15th, response to a declined AfC permission request: Not done, again, because you do not meet the requirements. You did not meet the numerical requirements yesterday, and smashing through 500 article-space gnoming edits (so many of which are wrong or unnecessary I stopped looking) does not demonstrate that you understand the notability guidelines. Nor does voting in 161(!!) AFDs in 24 hours. At this point in time I simply don't trust that you have good intentions. Do not come back for a while. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 17th: Hello! Thank you for your contributions in nominating articles for deletion. I agree that many articles you nominated have only very poor sources and they can not demostrate notability. But I feel you may not have conducted a thorough WP:BEFORE search for additional sources as I saw that you nominated a series of articles in a very short interval... 94rain Talk 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

On January 17th I'm tla responded to another user's concern about their application for NPP permissions, stating that I would argue that, yes, while I did close several AfDs too early and tagging Draft articles, I don't think that's exactly related to the components of New Page Patrol (which seems to look at notability guidelines predominantly). I declined their NPP request today, and while looking at their contributions, I noticed that despite previously acknowledging that they have closed AfDs too early, they are continuing to make numerous premature closures, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alas_Pati:_Hutan_Mati, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malmö school stabbing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Mathilde of Schönburg-Waldenburg closed after 5 days, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Alice_of_Bourbon-Parma_(born_1849) closed after 6 days... at this point, it doesn't look like the advice they have received from numerous other editors and admins is sinking in, and I'm bringing this to ANI to see if there is a consensus to overturn their closures and/or restrict their participation in AfD. Spicy (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Installing WP:REDWARN after less than 30 edits and three days in? Reminds me of someone; that's gonna bug me. ——Serial 18:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems perfectly normal to me. They might have discovered it from page history or others' contribs. Based on their response below, I believe they had good intentions. 94rain ^Talk 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Many people advertise it in userboxes on their profiles. I certainly knew it existed very early. I didn't add early myself it because I had no particular interest in vandal-smashing, but many new editors are interested in that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello I will respond to a few of these.

1. Marking (non-admin closure) – I wasn't quite aware this existed, so I missed using it for the first few closures I made. After being told to use it I began using it.

2. Closing prematurely – I received a message from Liz who mentioned making sure there was strong consensus before closing prematurely. I understand that normally it should be 7 days but I didn't know it was so strongly enforced when there appeared to be good consensus, so I apologize.

3. I nominated a number of film festival-related articles for deletion in a row because a fast Google search brought up nothing that I believe allowed them to meet WP:BASIC. They were all in the same category of Film festivals in London.

Overall, I'm sorry for being enthusiastic my first few days back on Wikipedia. I will not close any more AfDs prematurely from now on. TLA (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla are you not using the XFD closer gadget? Preferences-->Gadgets--->Maintenance. It does this automatically. Also, it makes it very difficult to close AfDs early without realizing it (it will stop you and ask for confirmation, as well as colour-coding the links). -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good advice but I also think the "don't close AfDs unless you're an admin" is even better advice. SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is information, not advice. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If there's consensus that I shouldn't close AfDs at all, I'm OK with that. I don't really mind if I'm not allowed to close AfDs, I just wanted to reduce the clear consensus discussions but it seems I've caused more trouble TLA (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, yeah, several days ago I didn't have XFD closer, but now I have it. Thanks. TLA (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear. I see that you've been going through unreferenced article categories to find articles that need attention, which has led to nominating many articles for deletion. May I suggest trying something like CAT:AAWUS instead, and mostly limiting yourself to adding sources, rather than removing things (unless you come across statements that seem deeply unlikely or are provably false)? Similar work, but less impetus towards AFD. Since these are usually pretty stale you aren't as likely to need to give out talk page warnings, either. Then you're avoiding the kinds of actions that have raised concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't go through unreferenced article categories, I go through articles like film festival categories which have a lot of clearly non-notable subjects. Some of these don't even have sources. I'll check out CAT:AAWUS and see if I can add things. :) Thanks.

Also just submitted my first AfC today! TLA (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the assessments above that I'm tla needs to slow down and more carefully consider their actions. I commend their enthusiasm, but administrative tasks require experience as well to done effectively. Given their apparently sincere apology above, and that I see no evidence at present of bad faith, I don't know if further sanction is needed: but I suggest that every closure that was premature, and every closure in which consensus wasn't clear, be reversed as out-of-process. @I'm tla: As a sign of good faith and of understanding the concerns expressed here, I suggest you reverse these closures yourself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Vanamonde93, thank you for giving me a chance. I will do that accordingly and, in the future, be more aware of the rules regarding AfDs. TLA (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you're enthusiastic about helping out at AfD, @I'm tla, but I think it would be good for you to stop participating at AfD entirely for a while and focus on creating content. A good grasp of core content policies would be very helpful for you at AfD. One thing you might try your hand at is improving a stub article and getting it to DYK. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I second this good advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for responding, I'm tla, and I'll third Voorts' advice. Spicy (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you voorts, Xxanthippe, and Spicy, I will try that out! TLA (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• This editor has raised several flags for me. I think they need not to be allowed to participate in any administrative-esque tasks. They're welcome to participate in AfDs at a much reduced rate but should focus on content rather than mostly incorrect warnings and tagging. CIR fits, even if they are truly new Star Mississippi 17:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, and this recent warning does not inspire confidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Rosguill, Liz was referring to the concerns raised before this noticeboard topic was created, but thank you for your concern for Wikipedia. TLA (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns. I won't be closing any AfDs in the near future (I was confused if it was strictly 7 days), will only participate a little bit. Thanks. TLA (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated edits with no references

User:Aniintrolligent continues to make edits without references despite multiple warnings and answering "ok" to level3 warning.

Also edit war on Reshmi Soman. BlueWren0123 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for continuing the same pattern of disruptive editing since the filing of this report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR

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

---

Seeking clarification re WP:ARBECR. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

Can it be confirmed that the intent of WP:ARBECR is to prevent the participation of non EC editors in internal project discussions and that said comments should not have been restored by editor @Anachronist:.

Talk page discussion.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier As this is not an incident, this question would be better asked in WP:AN or even WP:ARBITRATION but since it is here...

All editors are allowed to make {{Edit extended-protected}} requests that directly changes Mainspace. WikiProject Palestine and other non-Main spaces are not ECP protected, but should be if the goal is to prevent non ECP editors from participating. That said, the wording in WP:ARBECR should be clearer. I imagine in theory, anyone could submit a Draft through AfC, edit Wikipedia space etc.. so changing "Talk pages" to "Non Mainspace" would clarify that. But I am not on Arbitration. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a matter for discussing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, not ANI. Dragging it here seems premature at best, and an attempt to get an opponent in a debate sanctioned at worst. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take it there. And for the record, I am not seeking sanctions, merely clarification. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, non-EC editors cannot participate at AFDs or other project discussions at all, and that's been the case since WP:ARBPIA4 several years ago. This issue was recently clarified at ARCA that was announced in last month's Admin newsletter and resulted in ECR's text being changed to further restrict non-EC editors from participating in project discussions. I don't see a problem with an ANI about an editor (even an admin) restoring a non-EC editor's comments to an AFD, although ARCA, AE, and AN (in the case of an admin) would be fine venues, too. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ARCA filed here if anyone would like to comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Krishna.koundi

This editor has been repeatedly warned about disruptive behavior in general dating back a year ago. One of the issues this editor keeps exhibiting is a penchant for reordering cast lists on movies. This is never done with sources being provided. This behavior dates back at least to July 2023, wherein they attempted to force their preferred version of the cast order [71][72], for which they were warned.

Recently, they were engaging in similar behavior on various movies [73][74][75]. These attempts were reverted (and not just by me), and I cautioned this editor regarding the behavior [76] asking them to provide reliable, secondary sources. The editor responded that I needed to watch the movies to prove his edits were correct [77]. I responded noting that what mattered was what reliable, secondary sources said and noted that such movies in that area of the world often have cast lists reordered depending on what region they are being released for [78].

This editor chose to ignore this entreaty and continued the disruptive behavior without engaging in further discussion [79]. So, I placed two more warnings on their talk page [80][81]. The latter warning was placed after I reviewed their earlier warnings and edits and realized this problem had been going on for some time. The latter warning also clearly stated it was a final warning. 4 hours later, and the editor continues the same behavior [82], having not engaged in any further discussion nor have they provided any reliable, secondary sources to support their claims.

Thus, I am here. I am an administrator, but given that I have been trying to prevent this sort of damage to the project for many years, there's an outside chance someone might consider me involved. So, I am asking for another administrator's help here. I recommend at least a several day long block, and perhaps an indefinite block is warranted given the long term refusal to correct this behavior and their obvious willingness to continue the behavior despite ample warnings. If it is an indefinite block, then in my opinion it shouldn't be lifted until the editor agrees to stop this behavior. The editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. They edit regularly enough that it should impact their editing and lead to discussion and hopefully some understanding. No issue if subsequent discussion leads to an adjustment as I'm about to log off for the evening. Star Mississippi 03:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal disruptive editing

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

---

I'm reporting BilledMammal for disruptive editing at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, specifically for edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING. Note that this is an especially contentious topic.

As for the edit warring, CarmenEsparzaAmoux added content (with references/sources) and BilledMammal reverted it. I later on restored the content and BilledMammal reverted that. kashmīri then restored the content and BilledMammal reverted them as well.

This user seems to habitually engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. See for example the other discussion on the same page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Iran_'child_recruits'_and_whole_"Use_of_children"_section (similarly a highly contentious topic)

Quotations about BilledMammal's editing/debating there are as follows:

"You are effectively admitting that the section isn't adequately sourced and is simply an attempt to impose your own notion of 'fairness' or 'balance' to the war crime coverage." Pincrete 06:52, 4 January

"I have already made my objections clear and it is increasingly difficult to assume good-faith." Pincrete 15:20, 6 January

Additionally, an extremely recent example of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, where some quotes from other editors about BilledMammal's conduct include:

"I closed the previous RM, and not much has substantially changed from the past RM" Sceptre 21:26, 5 January 2024

"I have to agree with Turnagra on the idea that the RM process is being used – whether intentionally or not – as a front for culture war politics" idem

"And you have completely missed my point yet again, which I can only assume is intentional at this point." Turnagra 09:22, 31 December 2023

"I don't elaborate because I can't be bothered with you WP:BADGERING every point, per your actions here and in every other move request." Turnagra 05:03, 31 December 2023

BilledMammal also seems to apply double standards. In the "Use of children" discussion (regarding allegations against Hamas) BilledMammal admits "while it is disputed whether children have been used [...]" and says "My point is that we don't require allegations to be proven or universally accepted to be included", but regarding allegations against Israel in the "Organ harvesting" discussion, BilledMammal says "I've ed your recent restoration; the source you provided is insufficient to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you can't find high quality reliable source that give the story any credibility, please don't restore it without formal consensus."

I hope an admin can review these cases and ideally someone could review more of BilledMammal's recent edits, which are of an extraordinary volume, as this disruptive battleground editing seems to be habitual with this user.

I resent that I have to spend this much time "investigating" and reporting this user when I would rather be engaging in more productive editing. I also apologise for the lack of diffs and overall unprofessionalism of this report, but I don't think it is fair that I should have the burden to do so much work just to report a user. Note that it is very difficult to "prove"/demonstrate this type of disruptive editing which is usually never egregious in any particular instance, which I suspect is why this user hasn't been reported more often or more recently.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have time for a full reply, so I’ll just make a brief one now and expand on it later if necessary.

IOHANNVSVERVS alleges that I’ve been stonewalling, which requires that I am pushing a position which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree. The discussion in question has had participation from five editors; three for inclusion, two against - there isn’t even a rough consensus here, let alone a clear one.

As a relevant side note, IOHANNVSVERVS has jumped straight into this topic area; even now, despite the ECP requirement, they have less than 500 edits outside of it.

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. I keep half an eye on this page out of curiosity and would have seen this anyway, but regardless I appreciate being given a heads up when I've been mentioned. It also seems telling that you are concerned at there being such a wide range of people potentially taking issue with your conduct. Turnagra (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve long been concerned about BilledMammal's conduct (BATTLEGROUND is an apt description) and no, I didn’t get a notification. Schwede66 07:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have long had an issue with BilledMammal's approach to engaging with Wikipedia, and have considered opening something here about them myself. I haven't yet, simply because that sort of thing isn't what I'm on Wikipedia for, and that I'm perfectly happy to leave it be when my niche of interest (New Zealand-related topics) isn't in their crosshairs. But in nearly every discussion I have had with them, I have found the exact sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and frequent WP:BADGERING which IOHANNVSVERVS describes, as well as a frustrating tendency towards WP:SEALIONING and a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I'd also note that this is not the first time that BilledMammal has been brought to ANI for this behaviour - at the time, they stated that "it is clear that in general how [they] engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action [they] will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust [their] behaviour to address it". I think it is also clear that this attempt has failed, as the sort of things brought up in that first ANI discussion (disruptive editing, harassment, stonewalling and so on) are being raised again and are clearly still issues. Incidentally, one of them (accusing other editors with opposing positions of being canvassed) has already happened in their first message in response to the ANI.

I won't expand too much more for now - this and the previous ANI cover a lot of my concerns nicely, and as mentioned this sort of thing isn't my cup of tea or why I'm on Wikipedia - but I will say that I believe there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing across every topic area which BilledMammal wades into, and I hope that some action will finally be taken as a result of this. Turnagra (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me. I agree with the OP view and also find BilledMammal's editing pattern quite disruptive. Wars tend to be an emotive matter, and it's no surprise that editors sometimes find it hard to maintain NPOV in the face of immense human suffering or because of their national/religious/political affiliations. However, BilledMammal's editing goes quite far with one-sided editing and attempts to defend it, and I'd call such edits as mentioned a blatant violation of NPOV and collegial spirit.

At the same time, I'm not sure that BilledMammal's editing or attitude warrants an outright block (I haven't checked their earlier editing history, though). However, a TBAN might help other editors to maintain article quality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in any of the relevant disputes and I do think that BilledMammal's conduct War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, including WP:STONEWALLING regarding the organ harvesting paragraph. I don't read their arguments there as particularly policy-based and I also read the consensus of the discussion as basically against them, even before their most recent revert.

I'm less convinced regarding Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, which seems to be a pretty ordinary content dispute. (I'm also not uninvolved with that, though, since I !voted over there before commenting here.)

Since the main dispute here is on an Israel/Palestine page, you may want to go to WP:AE first. WP:ANI, at least in my opinion, is often less useful for conduct issues around controversial topics than WP:AE by their nature as controversial and WP:ANI's nature as a very public board. Loki (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is @IOHANNVSVERVS: attempt to sidestep their inability to gain WP:CONSENSUS eg: [83], [84] and use ANI [85] to bludgeon their views into articles.

This type of statement in a CTopics area is disruptive: [86].

ATM, I've really only been watching the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but think a boomerang on WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area might be worth considering for IOHANNVSVERVS.  // Timothy :: talk  09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing diffs provided to support the claim here. I'm not involved in the topic, though I've dealt with some issues with BilledMammal in the past unrelated to this (and also seen them be really insightful in battleground situations too). I feel like I'd even-handedly pick up repeats of tendentious editing from them pretty easily if I saw it again.

Instead, when I go to look through Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, I'm not seeing anything stand out. If anything, at least on it's face, BilledMammal would be correct in removing text, asking for better sourcing, etc. in terms of WP:ONUS policy. It's up to those wanting to include the content to get consensus for it, and BM's comments at least seem even-handed from what I can gather. If there's any topic to WP:RAISE source quality right now and be cautious, this seems like one. If there really are WP:POV issues from BilledMammal, then that should be clearly articulated, though I imagine WP:AE is the better venue for that. ANI just isn't suited for contentious topics or having to sort through content disputes at that level. To be clear though, I think that would backfire on IOHANNVSVERVS right now if they went to AE.

Instead, I'm seeing editors like IOHANNVSVERVS lashing out at BilledMammal on the talk page in violation of WP:FOC with accusations of stonewalling, etc. despite BM trying to give some guidance on that there. This is a common problem in contentious topics where someone doesn't get traction for an edit and accuses another of stonewall, etc. as an attempt to win a content dispute. Coming here instead strikes me as battleground behavior when they simply could have started an RfC to strike at the core question of what would be WP:DUE inclusion of the reporting. Even if BM's behavior is an underlying issue here (not seeing it, but could be convinced with evidence too), IOHANNVSVERVS, seems to be showing more obvious problems right now. I wouldn't cast a full on support WP:!VOTE right now, but I agree with TimothyBlue above that a boomerang does seem like a reasonable discussion point for preventing disruption in the topic. KoA (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like a content dispute. If there's edit war issue take to the noticeboard. Frankly IOHANNVSVERVS's behavior here is more troubling. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this should be closed, and the matter taken to WP:AE. That is, if we want a constructive end to this dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved in the discussion at Talk:Pākehā_settlers not the other articles, that I have not seen. I am quite surprised to see BilledMammal reported for disruptive editing. He has an opinion on issues and makes his point quite clear. I have never seen what I would call disruption. What I have seen however is a few editors unable to counter his arguments and getting frustrated. In the Pakeha discussion a consensus is beginning to appear to change the word from Pakeha back to European, as BilledMammal suggests with a few editors not liking that. What is wrong with that? I note that similar discussions with the same editors have occurred on other NZ related articles about similar issues (in brief - promotion of the Maori language). I think this complaint is without merit regarding the Pakeha article, and probably the other articles too. Accusing someone of being disruptive because you don't agree with them is bad form. Incidentally, I was recently been accused of badgering Turnagra in the Pakeha discussion for giving an opinion which he did not like (and in IMO was unable to counter) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's got nothing to do with the content, which I'm not going to get into here. It's got to do with the manner in which BilledMammal conducts themselves in these discussions. I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth. Turnagra (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Who was wanting it to say Pakeha?

  and who wanted it to say European?

  I'm having trouble following the story.

  22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For some reason, my computer decided to change "reverted" to "ed", this is the second time its happened, I will try and figure out why and look for it in the future. I've had some other issues, might be time to reinstall everything. Sorry for the issue.  // Timothy :: talk  05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• In disagreements between BilledMammal and Turnagra I have watched both parties disagree at length. They (and I) have disagreed for maybe three years now(?), mostly on whether New Zealand place names should use an official dual-language name, or only the English portion of it. I think both users have valid points, though I typically side with BM. If there is problematic behaviour, it certainly involves both of them. In fact, as an ideological battleground, I would be inclined to say Turnagra is more at fault.
  With that background, it seems poor judgement for either of them to close the other’s RMs (T closing BM, April 2022; BM closing T), March 2023. And in recent months, BilledMammal has opened RMs on several NZ places, and Turnagra has responded with some less-than-professional opposition (Oppose this ridiculous crusade against dual names has gone on long enough Hinemoatū / Howard River; Oppose this is ridiculous Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora). Both editors left notes to tell the other off (User talk:BilledMammal#Your recent move requests and User talk:Turnagra#November 2023), and I almost went to say something to both of them, but felt I would have come off too involved for it to be helpful.
  In all though, I wouldn’t say that either editor is a “problem” in the larger context I’ve observed… but I also haven’t observed the Israel–Hamas stuff. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• In places where I've seen BilledMammal recently, I have to admit that they appear to be somewhat stubborn, sometimes to the point where they're brushing against WP:BATTLEGROUND. That said, I don't think their behaviour has progressed to the point where it can't be turned around. I think a friendly warning and a kind request for a cooler head when editing is basically all we can, and should, give out here. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban might be appropriate. Today they have (so far) removed about 20% of the page List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war without obtaining consensus. The only discussion on the talk page for the past two weeks has been me, disagreeing with them as politely as I can manage (but by I admit not always succeeding at remaining polite), and an anonymous IP agreeing with BilledMammal about one change that BilledMammal made before today. Irtapil (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much all I've removed is empty and near-empty columns; the amount of information in the article is virtually unchanged, but its readability is vastly improved. This isn't the place to discuss content, but on the talk page I've asked you to elaborate on what specific objections you have; I would welcome a response and I can try to understand and address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You should have considered helping fill the missing data instead of removing things.

  I am finding it extremely frustrating that you continually remove content without contributing.

  • I have been working on creating columns that best fit the data for a complicated and messy war.
  • Today you ignored the {{in use}} and deleted things while I was in the process of working on them.
  • You also deleted at least one column that was filled, with only two gaps.
  • Nobody agreed with you that any of the columns needed to be deleted. I disagreed with you; nobody else was consulted.

  Irtapil (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are very prolifically editing a topic that you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about.

  • you were wanting to remove "belligerents" columns from a table of military engagements.
  • you claimed "the Arabic Wiki has some issues with neutrality" despite, as far as i can tell, no knowledge of Arabic?

  Irtapil (talk) Irtapil (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The IP who agreed with the one prior change looks like a real person, not a sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.150.162.83 But BilledMammal obtained no consensus before any of the major overhaul today. They seem to have made a lot of changes to that page that, particularly deleting content, that zero people (or only one other user) agreed with. But again I'm reluctant to accuse too harshly because I've not looked at in systematically, and my perception could be biased by their hostility. Irtapil (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• BilledMammal ia also currently accusing me of a series of alleged violations of the WP:1RR on my talk page, for edits which are mostly not actually reverts, and which they seem to have no substantive objection to in most cases. I am unsure what their intention is, but it feels like harassment. Irtapil (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest this be closed as it's not going to go anywhere. I've argued against a few of BilledMammal's requested moves and don't see that anything they've done is worthy of censure. The closest to disruptive I've seen is (albeit polite) badgering of move closers when things haven't gone their way; [87] [88] and I notice that the more recent closes haven't attracted this attention therefore anything problematic has already stopped. I haven't followed the Gaza situation on WP and consequently have no comment to make on that other than to suggest the entire topic and all its related pages should be locked indefinitely with administrators only having edit access. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus - I think the issue warrants further investigation. BilledMammal is very active in the Israel Hamas war topic (an active real world conflict). This one editor seems to be having a disproportionate impact on the overall coverage of this topic on Wikipedia, despite being possibly not very knowledgeable and / or possibly quite personally biased, and visibly hostile to several other editors. Again, I've not looked systematically, but I am quite worried by the general impression I've got so far. Irtapil (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I avoid formulating a general opinion because it would require further investigation on my part, and I expect tons of partisanship and battleground behaviour on both sides in Israel–Hamas war-related articles and talk pages. I have just looked at BilledMammal's claims of 1RR violations against Irtapil mentioned above, and they seem very "weak" to say the least. Claiming that this edit is a revert of this 2-weeks-older edit looks rather spurious, same with the other claimed violations. Cavarrone 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  === Hostages and prisoners timeline === (Irtapil) → === Hostages timeline === (BilledMammal) → === prisoner exchanges timeline === (Irtapil)

  That one actually seems like one of the clearer examples of a revert to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that stretches the definition of a revert, and that's still only one, so doesn't break the 1RR.

  • But I have changed it back as you requested, I changed it back as soon as I understood what you wanted me to self revert.
  • I also re-added the word "hostages" to the cells in the column labelled "hostages", as you requested.
  • I also reintegrated your entire revised table under "Hostages timeline" into the current version, the version where I'm salvaging the deleted content, pending genuine consensus on what should be removed. I am still working on this, do not delete anything further while I am working on this, that would be a violation of 1RR.
  • Most editors would not have spent the time re-adding your additions you made during your deletion spree? they would have just done a roll back?

  If you want to make such major revisions (changing every section of a page, removing multiple columns of multiple tables, etc.), please do that in your user space, you can create a proposed alternative version and link it on the talk page to discuss. Or your can discuss the changes before you make them.

  Irtapil (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  and then after getting angry at me for changing "=== Hostages timeline ===" you said a section called "=== Hostages timeline ===" wasn't relevant to the page that you insisted it be included in. I don't know what you're goal is here? what are you trying to achieve? Irtapil (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also raised that particular edit on the talk page the day after it was made, and got no response. Admittedly I was a bit abrupt in my phrasing, but it was a strange edit that seemed to need some explanation. After 2 weeks of no response, I had only re-added one matching word. Irtapil (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the chorus that I've had many unpleasant interactions with Billed Mammal. Some are healthy debates you'd expect from dedicated people who have different visions of how to solve a problem. However, I do think BM has crossed the line on a few occasions, and their conduct does merit sanction. Probably the most egregious I witnessed was at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources a year ago. I submitted proposal 1 of that RFC, which proposed to modify the language of WP:NOR. BM, who was one of the loudest voices of opposition to that question, authored a watered down version, which became proposal 1a. That's fine. Prop 1 passed, prop 1a did not. However, as visible by examining the page history for WP:NOR, BM unilaterally imposed the language of failed prop 1a, by removing the very words that differed between the two proposals. If someone can unilaterally undo the outcome of an RFC and impose their proposal, what is even the point of having an RFC? That fact that BM did not face sanctions over that amazes me, as it goes to the heart of Wikipedia’s supposed community spirit and the policy of governing by consensus. Lastly, I’ll point out that despite BM’s dire predictions, the sky has not fallen in the months that have passed since prop1 modified the language at WP:NOR. Dave (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The change to NOR (which was not the same as Prop 1a) was done after extensive discussions on the talk page and with the endorsement of the closer, who said that it was in line with the community consensus. It certainly wasn't unilateral. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moabdave: You should strike this comment. You know exactly why I think you should do so, so I will not elaborate. However, you are very much welcome to explain to the rest of the community why I do not believe you have any moral standing to discuss BilledMammal or that RFC publicly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. Looked at the links and couldn't see any egregious behavioural problems. Obviously this is a fraught area and content disputes can shade into processology where there's a temptation to try and remove 'opponents' out the back door. I suggest this is closed and any future complaint about BilledMammal is raised at AE, with any clear-cut evidence concisely presented. Filers there should of course expect to have their own conduct under the spotlight too. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Kitten. Hi everyone. Shalom Aleichem. Salam Aleikum. I have a rule. I see walls of text anywhere and I flee. I’m breaking that rule a bit here. Not to support anyone - we seem to be discussing people’s reactions to hypothetical fairy tales about child soldiers and organ harvesting, when there are other real stories to be told, but to each his own. I’ll flee in a minute but since you’re all here I just wondered if anyone could use this article anywhere [89] it’s about a kitten, although perhaps not in the way you think. I think a good fair use argument for the wide angle picture of the kitten with Banksy’s caption could be made for an appropriate article. I don’t always agree with Banksy’s philosophies but he is without a doubt one of the most powerful artists in the world today, despite (because of?) his conciseness and the sometimes fleeting nature of his artwork. Now that I think of it, maybe there is something we, and especially I, could learn from that. Happy editing <he says fleeing...> Ayenaee (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Drmies' redirection of Michael J. Fox Foundation

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

---

Can I ask someone more experienced than me to look into the circumstances of this edit [90]. I don't doubt Drmies has the right to make such an edit (and I have exercised my right to reverse it).

I am just struck by what an extreme over-reaction it seemed to be, in light of what are in Wikipedia terms, very common and long standing problems. It's incredibly easy to find articles here which rely heavily on primary sources and have a promotional tone. This one is clearly not even all that bad, compared to the average. It is easily fixed.

If all such articles were to be summarily redirected pending a do-over, that would surely be seen as extremely harmful to Wikipedia's integrity as a stable information source. Doing it one by one, is no less harmful.

This article has been edited 222 times by 132 editors. I think they all deserve to be treated with a bit more respect than this. Contrary to what was claimed, it does have "real" sources, including useful independent primary sources (Delaware State Department & Alzheimer's & Dementia), and secondary sources (Associated Press and Variety).

I see no reason why this article in its current state was deemed to be so problematic it needed to be removed from view. If there are valid reasons for such a thing, I will definitely not be donating to Wikipedia any longer. Doctor Maripol (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia aspires to stability, where stability means keeping bad content. Bon courage (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it aspires to the gradual improvement of content that is only moderately poor (compared to the mean) as opposed to drastic resets to the starting condition (no content), no? If this is not the case here, then please explain what was so bad about this article that it justified such extreme measures. Assuming you accept the sources are in fact, real (as in, the article is not a hoax). Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a content question; this noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". But there is, in general, no problem with a good faith WP:BLAR. There might, however, be something ANI worthy about an editor who first edit is this[91] and whose second is a report to ANI. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The content matter is resolved, assuming Drmies has no objection to the way I resolved the matter (return to the status quo ante). I came here precisely because I am concerned this act didn't show much good faith. It showed a potentially chronic disregard for other editor's work and the general principle of gradual improvement. I might have been persuaded differently had you been able to explain what was so wrong with this specific article that it warranted blowing up and starting again. But you haven't. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doctor Maripol, what you should have done is open up a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm sure Drmies would engage. You need to discuss it with them not raise it here. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure you are correct. I believe I am allowed to make one reversal of this edit, am I not? Whether it needs to then be discussed then depends on whether Drmies wants to discuss it, does it not? His extreme act does rather suggest his position is settled and unlikely to move. Unless or until he decides to move on that stated position, I have said about as much as I think he would need to know about my position in my explanation of the edit. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You can not buy articles with donations or threats of withholding donations; that's the whole point of running Wikipedia on donations. You won't believe me, but the article is really bad, and it was not unreasonable to ask it be restarted from scratch. You just created a new account to make the revert and then this report. But you were involved with that article before. You need to disclose your previous accounts. You also need to disclose your connection with the subject, per WP:COI. Then we can talk about what should happen next with the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no prior involvement or a conflict of interest. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean you just happened to notice that an article had been WP:BLAR'd 24 hours after the act (quite difficult to find, that), and made an account to revert? Bon courage (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't happen to notice it, no. I was alerted to it by someone flagging it on social media as an extreme act. I was sufficiently moved by it to register an account and reverse the edit, and note my concern here for wider input. I have that right, do I not? Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You do not. I think you've misunderstood "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to mean "the encyclopedia anyone has the right to edit." Levivich (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You also neglected to notify @Drmies of this discussion, which you are required to do per the giant red notification at the top of this page. You also came straight here instead of attempting to discuss the matter with Drmies at the article's talk page or his own talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Apologies. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll just wait until a CU has had a look at this brand-new account, with its cute name. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Constantly deleted content without discussion

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

---

Greater Palestine article is being attacked by some contributors to the encyclopedia whose political orientation is known. They do not attempt to develop the article at all and claim that its content is original research and that there is no such thing as Jordan being part of Palestine. They also do not resort to the discussion page about their concerns. I provided them with references and opinion articles, but they immediately opposed it on the grounds that it was conservative or pro-Israel. Examples [92], [93], [94]]--Sakiv (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Sakiv has not notified any of the involved editors and I found this by watchlist. Unfortunately, Sakiv has a serious case of WP:OWN with respect to Greater Palestine and doesn't understand how to edit properly or collaboratively. In the first two cases, sources which did not support the text Sakiv attached them to were removed with an explanation that Sakiv did not attempt to refute. The third case is 5 months old. All the while he makes personal attacks: "You are clearly anti-Israel" is just the latest. Suggest article-wise block. Zero^talk 12:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning of this, you are making personal attacks on me. I just don't like it applies here. You are personalizing the issue and making it seem like a personal dispute between us. I did not notify you because it is not a dispute between us, but rather a dispute over content that is removed under the pretext that it does not fall within your ideology and thought. Israeli sources are fine to use in the Palestinian context. They also removed a source from Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the UK conservative party about this subject. Plus [95], [96]. Sakiv (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In any dispute at ANI, you are still required to notify the editors you are talking about. And, if it was only a "content dispute" as you claim, it shouldn't have been at ANI to begin with. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion and the nom initially agreed to rename it. Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether you should notify editors involved or not. (Answer: you always should). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, what do you want now? Sakiv (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For you to notify (on their talk pages) the editors you mentioned in your ANI report, as you're supposed to do. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you care about your business instead? Sakiv (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv, are you going to notify the other editors you mentioned, now that you know that it is required by the prominent notice at the top of this page? Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the statements of the PLO top leaders like Ahmed Al-Shugairi, Salah Khalaf, and even the king in Jordan, and political parties such as the British Conservative Party, and research centers such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, but despite all that, they describe this concept or this term as a “Zionist” innovation. I can add more refs but it will take very much space. In August, it was agreed that the topic of the article was legitimate, but the problem lay in the naming.--Sakiv (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv, you are describing a content dispute and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. What, precisely, are you asking administrators to do here? Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the only thing for admins to do here is to consider whether Sakiv is the sort of editor who should be editing an area with as many problems as the Israeli-Arab conflict. Since it seems to me a topic ban is well in order under contentious topic restrictions. I have no idea what their behaviour in general is like, but their behaviour here at ANI in persistently refusing to give the required notification even after being asked to do so by two different editors, is atrocious. Indeed it wasn't even just ignoring requests to do so, they even told off an editor who asked them to do so as can seen above [97]. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone who can contribute productively to such a sensitive area.

In any case, notifications are probably moot now. While it sounds to me like Sakiv is referring to other editors, unless I've missed something they've only explicitly mentioned stuff done by Zero0000 and Onceinawhile. Zero0000 became aware independently so notification isn't necessary and I notified Onceinawhile myself. [98] (This is the main reason I'm commenting despite being on wikibreak, I'm avoiding ANI but when I happened to see this, I couldn't stand the persistent refusal to notify.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I see that a AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Palestine was recently closed as merge. I don't know what August discussion Sakiv refers to since there doesn't seem to be a previous AfD but it's likely the results of the most recent AfD override any previous consensus. If there's disagreement on that, the results of the AfD should be challenged properly and ANI isn't the venue for that. The question of what content belongs in the merge target should be discussed in the target talk page as the template says. So in so much as there is consensus it seems to be that topic is not worth of a stand alone article. This doesn't mean the concept is illegitimate/an invention/whatever, but it does suggest consensus is sort of against Sakiv. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv still hasn't notified the editor who made the third diff he/she brought. Zero^talk 10:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile did not remove any content recently! What do you want exactly? Sakiv (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a fit of pique along with the gratuitous "Did you read history?". Editor should cool off for a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples of your good faith. "Nonsense", that is rubbish, I think you are just wasting editorial time with nonsense. Sakiv (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban per ARBIA. Cannot editor collaboratively in this area. Star Mississippi 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was not sure that this was the appropriate place, so I did not alert the users. If I alerted the users, this would be a content dispute, but it is not the case because the article was being attacked and content removed under false pretexts. Sakiv (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. My main concern with the editor opening this thread is that they have shown a lack of understanding the quality of sourcing required to build articles in sensitive topic areas, as shown frequently in the discussions at the article talk page.

As an aside, I do not understand what the editor means when they said in their opening comment "They also do not resort to the discussion page about their concerns" as the discussion throughout on the same talk page is very clear. Some examples of the comments from the editor at the same talk page - note that these comments are variously directed at four different editors:

• Who do you think you are? You are not in a position that allows you to evaluate the sources because you are part of the conflict.--Sakiv (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2019
• You have only one goal here which is to whitewash the Jordanian government and create a Jordanian identity. I know exactly why I am here and what is my duties. Again you cannot evaluate the sources I brought because you are part of the conflict. There must be an administrator to decide if they are acceptable! It was you who began attacking.--Sakiv (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2019
• Everything is becoming clear. You are trying to whitewash the Jordanian regime while criticizing Israel Sakiv (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024
• You are clearly anti-Israel, and every person who says that Jordan is part of Palestine is considered part of the Likud Party in your view. Sakiv (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2024

Apart from the consistent unwillingness to assume good faith, the sentence "I know exactly why I am here and what is my duties." would benefit from an explanation. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

These sources are not acceptable in your opinion?

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/jordan-breaks-off-tie-with-tunisia-bourguiba-blamed.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1946/08/10/archives/letters-to-the-times-dividing-greater-palestine-separation-of.html

https://www.palestine-studies.org/ar/node/35431

https://www.haaretz.com/2003-06-03/ty-article/people-and-politics-illegal-today-legal-tomorrow/0000017f-df1b-df9c-a17f-ff1b18e50000

https://books.google.no/books?id=TU6sCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=palestinian irredentism "jordan"&source=bl&ots=YBF1OCBbj1&sig=ACfU3U1oQKm-1-4qGKsYt4qXyZd7mE7SLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisspXP8ueDAxVOPhAIHXa5CCE4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=palestinian irredentism "jordan"&f=false

In addition you falsely accused me of insulting Bedouins in Jordan which is assuming bad faith at best, [99]. While my comment did not utter a single negative word about them. In August/September, there was a general agreement to change the title, and you were among those who agreed. And now recently the article has been nominated for deletion. Sakiv (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv's responses here are indicative of what working with Sakiv has been like. For example, Sakiv attached the second source just listed to the lead sentence about "Palestinian irredentism" but actually it is a 1946 letter from an American Zionist complaining about the imminent independence of Jordan (thereby removing it from the benefits of Jewish development) and says nothing at all about Palestinian opinion let alone irredentism. But Sakiv seems to not understand that sources have to support the text they are attached to, not just to contain some desired buzzwords. The fourth source is completely irrelevant to the page topic. All of this has been explained on the talk page, but Sakiv seems impervious to argument. A clear case of CIR in my opinion. Zero^talk 03:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have topic banned Sakiv from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is utterly laughable. I am the one who files the complaint and then I am the one who is punished.... Clearly something going on behind the scenes. Sakiv (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what's going on (and then going back) is called a boomerang. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 07:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Shambuka

The lead sentence of Shambuka is disputed. One set of users is in favour of defining him "an interpolated character, which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda"" (option 1); another set is suggesting the removal of "interpolated character" considering various alternatives (option 2 was "a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda Book of the Hindu epic Ramayana"). We have discussed multiple times on the talk, tried RFC (no consensus, "rewrite the lead sentence" with a non-binding suggestion - which was implemented, but reverted to option 1), DRN (as discussed with RFC closer). There seems to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (as also recorded by the DRN closer). Attempts to rewrite the lead have been reverted to option 1 (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling) (which has been the bone of contention for 4 years, Carleas (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) comment in Talk:Shambuka#Scholarly_take_on_"interpolation"). Disputes have arrived at ANI too: 1, 2, 3RR, sock-puppetry. The latest thread Talk:Shambuka#First_Sentence_Compromise is going no way in my opinion, requires third-party intervention. I agree that this is a Content dispute and cannot be completely addressed here, however request the following limited relief:

1. Request Admin intervention to temporarily revert to non-binding suggestion from RFC closer (which I believe is a neutral third-party suggestion) and fully protect the article appropriately till a consensus is reached (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing)
2. Advise on appropriate venues to resolve the content dispute since many steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have already been tried.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Suitable action on involved editors for edit-warring (as appropriate).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tag. To add further for clarity, the above said character 'Shambuka' is part of all versions of Uttara Kanda part, the part which is considered by some to be later addition to Ramayana book. That makes 'Uttara Kanda' part an interpolation if anything, and certainly not 'Shambuka' an interpolated character. Phule lulu (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Admins can do nothing to resolve your content dispute. RfC cannot be overturned only because it went against your wishes. Your concern is better addressed on WP:STICK which clearly states: "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." Ratnahastin (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC clearly states in the lead that no consensus for "interpolated character" (status quo) either; both RFC editor notes that "rewrite the lead sentence" and the DRN states "The way forward that is most likely to be productive is to take the advice of the closer, and to rework the lede sentence in a way that reflects the complexity of the sources and the perspectives." However, all attempts to rewrite the lead sentence are been reverted for the disputed lead sentence ("interpolated character"), which been contested/ reverted for 4 years. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  When a RfC leads to no consensus then it is generally the case that the WP:QUO remains. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  The current version is not WP:QUO. This is the beginning of the edit war the original bold edit, as best I can tell. Carleas (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You can always take your case for temporary full protection to WP:RFPP. On anything else given that the result of the RfC was no consensus and that the article is not a BLP it's my understanding that it's WP policy that the WP:QUO should remain until such time as consensus for something emerges. I don't think it's really fair to throw around accusations of stonewalling when the RfC itself demonstrated that there was no consensus for change. On that basis I don't think you should be requesting an admin to impose a solution for which there is no consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"WP:QUO" is not a policy, so it would be interesting where "it's WP policy" comes from. I have now partially blocked Phule lulu to prevent further edit warring; Carleas and ArvindPalaskar had already been partially blocked when Phule lulu and Wareon (now warned) continued. To reduce the amount of disruption that went through semi-protection, I have now also extended-confirmed protected the article.

Fully protecting the article "till a consensus is reached" is clearly not an option as there had been an RfC and we're still at "no clear consensus", so full protection would have to be applied for an excessively long duration or even indefinitely. That won't happen.

Instead of fighting for a "status quo" and about which status is the "status quo", actual policy advice is to stop edit warring even if you believe you're right for whichever reason. The current partial blocks automatically expire after two weeks; if the same user(s) continue edit warring after expiration, there may be a need for longer or site-wide blocks, or topic bans if this is a behavioral pattern in the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Several editors are WP:STONEWALLING, repeatedly reverting to their favored version with some version of a demand for consensus, but with no engagement in the conversation to generate consensus. See [100][101][102][103][104] just from the past few weeks, and Ratnahastin's comment above is typical of the discussion in talk. Other changes throughout the article are similarly rejected with no reason other than that they weren't pre-approved, again with no ensuing discussion.[105] The inline dispute tag has been removed repeatedly by the same editors, along with other uncontroversial edits.[106][107][108] These are recent, but the pattern continues since the beginning of the edit war (initial bold edit here).

This is about flagrant WP:BRNOD, lasting years, to preserve a favored version of the opening sentence. Though I recognize this isn't the venue for it and I don't think it's necessary for the current complaint, the pattern looks like WP:TAGTEAM, and at least one previously involved editor has been banned for WP:SOCK and had been accused with several accounts still involved in this edit war.[109]

Also, I don't know if this counts as a content point, but the current version seems laughably against WP:STYLE. I came to this dispute as a result of the referenced RfC, not knowing anything about Shambuka or the controversies around him, so I have the first-hand experience of trying to learn about the topic by reading the page and being bewildered by the first sentence. Even accepting the factual claim the editors are making, the current first sentence is not an effective way to present the information. If nothing else, it supports the allegation of stonewalling, because there's no other explanation for keeping an opening sentence like this in place.

Carleas (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to bludgeon political soapboxing into the Chauvinism article

Johncdraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chauvinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Back in early December last year, User:Johncdraper added Nigel Farage, a British politician, into the Chauvinism, article, as an 'example' of "...a modern-day British nationalist extreme enough to be considered a chauvinist, as evidenced, for instance, in a 40-page background check by his own bank...".[110] To justify this material Johncdraper has cited a few sources describing Farage as a Chavinist, and later an indirectly sourced and possibly misleading quotation (including ellipsis before the word in question, depriving it of context: "I fought fiercely for anarchy, CND doves and warmongering hawks, Christianity, atheists... chauvinism) used to support a claim that Farage describes himself thus. The Farage 'example' was removed by User:Hemiauchenia on the 11th January, on the grounds that The wording here is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX..., an opinion subsequently supported by multiple contributors in discussions both at Talk:Chauvinism and on WP:BLPN.[111] During the entire discussions, absolutely nobody but Johncdraper has argued for the inclusion of this 'example', and numerous experienced contributors have offered clear policy based arguments against inclusion (e.g NPOV, UNDUE, COATRACK, SOAPBOX, SYNTHESIS), but despite this, Johncdraper has persisted, arguing that this 'example' is justified by the sources cited, and failing to adequately address the policy concerns raised.

Having failed to win any support whatsoever in the initial thread on Talk:Chauvinism, or at WP:BLPN, Johncdraper has today adopted a new tactic, starting a second thread ostensibly asking for a further 'Example of a Person Espousing Chauvinism' [112]. My response to the initual suggestion, stating that I see no reason whatsoever why this article needs to include such 'examples'. You have already amply demonstrated why this is problematic then led to a frankly absurd attempt to justify the inclusion of Farage in the Chauvinism article on the basis that the Wikipedia article on Fascism includes Hitler. In the same post, Johncdraper goes on to assert that "I also note you still have not explained, with reference to anything, why you would like the Farrage example removed, except for the faint hint that you dislike him - not a reason to remove anyone from Wikipedia." Given this utter refusal to accept unanimous policy-based reasons, from multiple experienced contributors, why the 'example' should not be included, it seems to me that nothing productive can come out of this discussion - the material in question is quite obviously not going to be included - and that we should instead be considering whether this relentless attempt to WP:BLUDGEON blatant political soapboxing into an article on a general topic would justify some sort of sanction against Johncdraper, who is self-evidently attempting to shoehorn his own personal opinions into Wikipedia article content, in the face of multiple explanations as to why this is inappropriate.

At minimum, I would propose that a topic ban for Johncdraper on the subjects of Chavinism and/or Nigel Farage would be appropriate, though given the lack of awareness of and/or refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies demonstrated, there may be grounds for suggesting that the scope should be wider. I've not really looked into Johncdraper's editing history to see whether there is anything of a pattern and it would probably be best for those uninvolved with the initial dispute to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's not my fault that Nigel Farrage has himself stated that he has espoused chauvinism or that multiple independent and academic sources support him. As a peer-reviewed published author on nationalism, I would also add that the use of examples in academic sources such as encyclopedias is common. Also note that I am respecting basic etiquette by not edit-warring, nor am I engaging in a grumpy personal grudge. The proposer, on the other hand, seems to wish to shut down talk on a Talk page. Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It should perhaps be again be noted, just in case anyone missed it, that the (indirectly cited and truncated) quote that Johncdraper cites for evidence that Farage 'espoused chauvinism' also has Farage espousing "anarchy, CND doves and warmongering hawks, Christianity, atheists". The use of the source concerned in this manner is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The elided portion of the quote is ...Christianity, atheists, the pro- and anti-abortion (NOT pro-choice and pro-life) factions, feminism, chauvinism.... I think this kind of source misrepresentation is pretty harmful. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, having the full quote finally helped me find the original online. That puts the quote in an entirely different light. And yes, much worse, since Farage seems to be contrasting chauvinism with feminism, implying that he's referring to 'male chauvinism' rather than nationalism, and from the surrounding context (e.g "champion[ing] any damsel in distress amongst ideas against the dragons of prejudice"), this isn't Farage espousing chauvinism at all. It is Farage saying he 'championed' ideas he didn't necessarily agree with, as a counter to what he characterises as "doctrinaire liberalism"). The use of the source in the manner it had been was grossly improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper's only edits since the first half of December have been to this article, before which they suddenly become much more sporadic. The way he's make such a point against Farage specifically leads me to believe he has an WP:AXE to grind against the politician. The text itself isn't worded in a neutral manner, either. I'm also concerned about the comment On that basis, I wouuld be removing the Hitler example from the Fascism page[113] which sounds like a threat to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually in favour of his methods and therefore something of a fan. So, no axe to grind there. What I want in that article is an example of the way the European Far Right is using chauvinism as the sharp edge of an exe, the weight of which is actually right-wing nationalism. Ax such, I am not edit-warring the remobval of Nigel Farrage - which I have accepted - but seeing a better example, from the English-language speaking world. Next, I am clearly not going to start disrupting nationalism-related pages. I think that's misreading the counter-ractual semantic weight of my comment - which is instead the following: "If I were AndytheGrump, I would not want the Hitler example, as it is unnecessary." However, I am not AndtheGrump, so I will not act like him. That is how the semantics of that statement work. Have a nice day. Johncdraper (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

an example of the way the European Far Right is using chauvinism as the sharp edge of an exe(sic)--this is not at all clear from your addition, which doesn't mention the European Far Right, nor is it clear that this would be in scope of the Chauvinism article, which also doesn't ever mention the European Far Right. This actually sounds exactly like soapboxing, so perhaps you might want to reconsider your stance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I think you need to follow the law of holes and stop digging. The above explanation did you exactly zero favors. Drop the entire topic and move on to some other area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper is still at it. [114] (And no, my response wasn't particularly polite. I do however consider it consistent with Wikipedia policy, and with the sentiments expressed in this thread). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, since they're clearly not listening, I'd support the topic ban proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Intentional harrassment by Hemiauchenia

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

---

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am bringing this here at the offending editor's specific suggestion. Said editor has been posting a series of personal attacks with the tone of trying to harass a fellow editor off of the site.

• you're the kind of low quality editor that Wikipedia needs to weed out. I suggest you stop whining and stop wasting the time of contributors who are far more valuable to the encyclopedia than yourself.
• It's not discrimination, it's called taking out the trash.
• You have nothing valuable to contribute to this website, and I suggest you find something better to do with your life.

Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This was an editor that was arguing that a medical textbook was not a reliable source. Their few other edits include additions that completely fail WP:MEDRS e.g. their additions to Banisteriopsis caapi back in 2018 What is one to say to an editor that can't respect basic WP:RS policy? Such editors are not useful encyclopedic contributors. You've redacted the comments and I don't plan to restore them, and I consider that the end of the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If one cannot respond without violating WP:NPA and engaging in harassment, there is the option of not saying anything at all. That you feel that such conduct is not actionable and that you deem it appropriate to continue such attacks on this noticeboard only makes it more vital to make it clear otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In one of your comments you asked What's the point of respectfully discussing with people like you who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"? Does this same logic apply to people who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I accept that I could have been less hostile (and it probably would have been better to do so) and I do not object to NG's redactions, but my view that this user was a disruptive editor who didn't respect basic Wikipedia policies remains. I've struckthrough all comments I made in the discussion if this helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote out this long rant but deleted it. TLDR: Hemi was right, you took the wrong editor to ANI. Levivich (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. It is a simple, demonstrable fact that Wikipedia routinely 'weeds out' contributors who demonstrate the abject failure and/or refusal to understand how Wikipedia works that was being exemplified in the WP:BLPN discussion. And given that it is necessary to do, so, one cannot reasonably describe a suggestion that it be done in such an obvious case as 'harassment'. Being told this is no doubt unpleasant to those on the receiving end, but we aren't here to hand out free hugs and candy floss... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely possible to tell an editor they're not editing constructively without referring to it as taking out the trash and other language like this. Civility is still a policy, and it doesn't mean hand[ing] out free hugs and candy floss. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 08:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the civility policy could be rebranded as reinforcement learning for civil POV pushing. I think that might be where it has had its greatest success. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, unmanageable behavioral problems". Is the OP suggesting something here rises to that level, or is this an isolated incident? Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Hemiauchenia has 48,409 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. NatGertler has 40,667 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. Maybe Hemiauchenia didn't use the best language but their message was accurate. I really do not get why experienced users feel the need to report each other or infight when the real issue are accounts with no productive edits on this website causing trouble. This account here is the real issue [115] they have been disrupting the John McDougall article when their edits were reverted they filed a false complaint on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎claiming a book doesn't include the word fad diet even though that very term is in the title. After they lost that discussion, Now they are back on the talk-page of the article writing nonsense. It's obvious this account won't give up on their crusade. In a few days or a week's time we may be back here at this noticeboard talking about them. As above the wrong editor was taken to ANI here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because not just of the culture of harassment, but because of the culture here at ANI which has judged harassment to be just fine if it comes from an experienced user (I have slipped back into the habit lately, but will likely be pulling that back._ If the WP:NPA is only meant to be no-personal-attacks-except-against-those-we-think-aren't-very-good-editors, then it should be rebranded as such, but until such is done, WP:BRIE still applies. Does the other editor need to get attention as well? Possibly, and you are free to do something about it, but there is nothing that says that both editors can't be in the wrong. Hemiauchenia originally blew off concern about his actions and said that I should bring him here, which is when I did so; that he has since pedaled back, admitted that some of his speech was improper (even if at times half-heartedly) is to be recognized and if he makes some statement that he would watch it in the future, would probably now be sufficient... but none of that should be taken as backing the idea that personal attacks intended to drive someone off of the site are not a "real issue". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can second this. Hemiauchenia acknowledged that it could have been handled differently, and I'm satisfied by that if it actually is handled differently in the future. But Wikipedia's toxic culture is one of the main reasons I've been less active over the last few months. I can only imagine how many would-be productive editors we've lost just so the old boy's club at ANI can engage in victim blaming and act like incivility is perfectly fine if it's "justified" or a "net positive". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree with this, there is absolutely a culture of defending incivility, up to the point of harassment, in the name of being correct/being a "net positive" contributor. And, needless to say, this absolutely goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. You shouldn't get a free pass every 10 thousand edits you make. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because when people lie about what sources say, instead of doing anything about it, the community will punish other people for calling it out. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Psychologist Guy this amounts to bullying when enabling insults and pushing half-truths just because you don't like what I say.

  Yes, I'm at fault for questioning weak sources, even textbooks, but I don't deserve harrassment for asking fundamental questions. Teleoid (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• I propose that this be closed with no action against Hemiauchenia. Anyone is free to remind them of the need for civility in dealing with people who do not meet our requirements, but it seems that there is no need to as the editor has already acknowledged that. Yes, Hemiauchenia could and probably should have worded things a bit differently, but I see nothing remotely blockworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This report fails to recognise the aggressive tone that was being used by the person Hemiauchenia was addressing - neither party was blameless here. I do not believe that any action is necessary, but I would advise Hemiauchenia that even if the other party is being aggressive, belligerent, or just sealioning, resorting to snide remarks does nothing to enhance your argument, and often ends up with threads like this one getting started. Don't try to score points - you can avoid handing people a stick to beat you with if you are able to keep your interactions dispassionate. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you thinking about [116]? If so, it should be considered that [117] effectively implies that Teleoid, who presumably takes the subject seriously, may be 'religious' and 'evangelical' about whole-food plant-based diets. I'm not saying that Teleoid's reaction was justified, but there was no need for the original insinuation either. It's in fact a huge and persistent problem within the fringe subject area that editors tend to address other editors with the same contempt they personally have for the subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's one comment out of many personalised and hostile posts that Teleoid has directed towards other editors. Here, they accuse other editors of being motivated by spite. Here the accuse others of gaslighting them. Here they are again attacking other editors' motivations. While I don't think that Heniauchenia's comments were necessary or helpful, it's Teleoid's mixture of belligerence, cluelessness and their willingness to personalise disagreements over content that is at the root of this issue. If we need to apply a sanction to prevent disruption, I think a TBan on Teleoid from that particular subject area would probably put an end to all this disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your last two diffs came out as links to the talk history. I agree though that the disruption is caused by a combination of Teleoid's incompetence and belligerence. I was assuaged by this, but I didn't realize that this and this was posted later. At least they seem to be having trouble dropping the stick. If the behavior doesn't stop soon I agree a TBan would probably help. As for the rest, I tend to agree with Johnuniq's comment below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm - odd. You'd think I'd know how diffs work by now. Oh well, here goes, for the record: accusation of gaslighting; attack on people's motivations. These latter two pre-date any of the diffs by Hemiauchenia in the original report - they weren't a response to them, they were a response to other editors who were trying to discuss the content rationally and in a civil manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to apologise for my defensiveness and if offended any of the editors, I reacted to perceived hostility in kind.

  I truly barely understand the rules here while the learning curve is very steep.

  This is despite being a member since 2018, as you can verify I have very few edits, and very little experience. Teleoid (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing that in my view would improve Wikipedia more than a stricter enforcement of civility requirements would be a much, much stricter take on WP:HERE and WP:COMPETENCE: in my opinion, these should be policy and they should say that all editors are required (a) to gain a basic knowledge of what an encyclopedia is and how it is written, and (b) to demonstrate within a reasonable timeframe that they are actually capable of improving the encyclopedia in some way. Those who neither have the required knowledge nor show any sign of wanting to acquire it should immediately be blocked indefinitely, as do those who after a certain amount of time and edits cannot come up with evidence of having actually improved the encyclopedia. In effect, in my view we should do what Hemiauchenia suggested and 'weed out' 'low quality editors' quickly, systematically, and without fuss.
  However, we should never use such language when addressing editors. To speak of specific individual human beings in terms of 'weeding out' and 'taking out the trash' is never acceptable. Personal and condescending comments like 'find something better to do with your life' are also beyond the pale. Not only could Hemiauchenia have worded things differently, they absolutely should have. I think it's deeply problematic to take 'being right' as a sufficient cause to render WP:CIV null and void. For one, people think they're right all the time when they aren't, which would make such a principle extremely destructive also in cases where it's not actually warranted. But even when someone is right, insulting, dehumanizing or bullying those who are wrong is likely to have all kinds of negative consequences. And who's never been wrong? WP:BRIE indeed.
  Perhaps the unspoken idea behind some of the views given above is that for editors who are so wrong that WP would be better off without them, being uncivil towards them is an effective way to actually chase them away and make WP better, and so editors should be given some leeway to do just that. While I understand that rationale, I think it causes an unacceptable and largely unfathomed amount of collateral damage. Much more effective would be to have stricter policy, and proactive but civil enforcement of that policy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(see below) As usual, everyone siding with the more experienced editor with no thought, what did I expect. WP:BRIE everyone. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you consider this comment civil? I have difficulty seeing how it is consistent with the admonition that [editors] should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I sided with the more experienced editor not because the editor is experienced, but with plenty of thought. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Both aspects of your assertion are false and seem to have no thought behind them. How ironic. The unappointed civility policy police contribute very little apart from a heavy-handed dose of self-righteousness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is proof Shakespeare isn't dead and is editing Wikipedia. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while these comments went too far, the civility policy is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant to type 'police' instead of 'policy'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually relies on volunteers to be involved and address problems, including making ensuring that policies are adhered to. If you don't think there should be policies regarding civility, then there are various ways you can seek to have those policies changed or eliminated. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how Wikipedia works. I corrected my typo above, so there is no good reason for you to surmise that I don't think there should be policies regarding civility. My personal opinion is that civility is important to maintain, yet it is often true that the editors who make the most noise about civility fail to understand that it is only one pillar and that the overarching purpose is to create an encyclopedia, not to establish a community where everyone is always as nice as possible. In attempting to achieve an unrealistic civility panacea, these editors often waste community time and resources through overzealous prosecution of editors who frankly are doing more than they are to actually build and maintain the encyclopedia. I realize you probably don't agree with my position, and that's okay, but hopefully you will at least refrain from making further insinuations that I don't think we should have civility policies at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As you continue to be derisive towards folks for seeking to have the policies enforced, I can't say I'm swayed much by your claims. As a productive editor who cut his activity way back because of the hostile space that has been created here, I would say that the civility rules and the reasonable enforcement thereof are key to the health of the encyclopedia-building effort. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Striking this out. Sorry, I always get a bit emotional with this kinda stuff for some reason — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Adding that editors can and absolutely do learn and improve, and being uncivil to editors for not being right on the first try might chase away people who would've made great editors a few weeks or months later. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Given that you chastised me a few months ago for rewriting a Wikipedia article you had a major part in writing in to fix serious, glaring issues with neutrality (See Talk:Francevillian_biota), and never acknowledged the clear problems, I think it's a bit pot calling the kettle black to make statements about editor competence like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this discussion is about Hemiauchenia, but the issue stems from the behaviour of a user with hardly any edits on this website Teleoid. This user has been canvassing off-site (Redacted). What is the correct way with dealing with this? From experience from what I have seen in the past, when new users create threads on internet forums asking for help this doesn't usually work. I have not seen any new users edit the article or talk-page so this is probably a non-issue in regard to disruption but the behaviour is clearly problematic here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The pious language above about being nice to everyone is fine but the real reason to be nice to POV pushers is that it makes less of an enemy of them. That makes it easier for them to slip away when faced with reality. Many examples show that goaded people will fight forever while people who are merely stonewalled by policy often give up. That's a trout for Hemiauchenia. Posting neutral messages on noticeboards asking for opinions should get enough editors involved so that each can revert without approaching 3RR. Use bland edit summaries that repeat mentions of NPOV and FRINGE, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that in hemi's contribs in the last day there is also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1195168702 -- @Hemiauchenia: I am open to an explanation as to how adding the summary "loony rambling" to an edit removing a talk page comment improves the project in a way that simply removing the comment without remark doesn't. The impression I get is that viscerally insulting people in a way that implies you're speaking on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole gves ammunition to haters and damages the credibility of the project in exchange for absolutely nothing. jp×g🗯️ 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This was removing an antivax comment saying that Wikipedia's purpose is to be "echo chamber for Big Pharma". I very much expect and hope that it is the position of Wikipedia that this is indeed "loony rambling". There are ways to remove such wibble without being so forthright about it, mind. Anybody who thinks this removal damages Wikipedia's credibility is probably already beyond redemption anyway, Bon courage (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not only possible, but also quite simple, to remove inappropriate comments without making gratuitously demeaning comments towards the people who left them. jp×g🗯️ 06:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And in response to that being pointed out, Hemiauchenia continues to make it clear that civility issues are not something he should be bothered with. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that an editor is WP:HERE and competent when such brazen intransigence towards behavioral standards are present. It's not that hard to be civil; I'd argue it's much more difficult to be competent. SmolBrane (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have previously been blocked for this kind of remark. That's actually impressive in a way given that CIR/NOTHERE jabs are typically free insults that can be lobbed without backlash. Look, there are a variety of positions that can be reasonably defended when arguing about civility enforcement, but what you wrote is a cheap shot at someone who is clearly both competent and here to build an encyclopedia. Using those insults in this context is an absolutely classless move. Or to put it in terms with which you are familiar, it is uncivil to use HERE and CIR to insult competent editors. You should be blocked again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason civility scolds have such a hard time is that they choose such incredibly poor examples to make a fuss about; that warning from jpxg was absurd and pointless, the edit and edit summary it was in response to were completely appropriate. This is the internet, there are people who write loony conspiracy theorizing here, and there’s nothing wrong with accurately describing such. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Like seriously look at the thread — there’s a very good reason every single competent editor in the discussion is saying the same thing in the same way as Hemiauchenia! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not. In that same section, Muboshgu says:

The notion of thiomersal causing autism has been sufficiently disproven by scientific consensus, in spite of what that one cherry-picked study says. We have a whole page on it at Thiomersal and vaccines.

[...]

You complained of "censorship". Wikipedia "protocols" are quite alright with removing disruptive WP:FRINGE posts like yours. Our agenda is the verifiable truth, not conspiracy theories. Leave the science to the scientists. You have the personal right to not trust them, but not to spread that nonsense here.

You can tell he is kind of annoyed, probably because the person he's arguing with is saying stuff that doesn't make sense; but at no point does he attack the commentator or insult their mental stability. jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's okay to call the nonsense of other editors nonsense? Got it. Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, it is acceptable to say that someone is "incorrect" or "wrong". It is, contrariwise, unacceptable to say that someone is a "nutcase", a "son of a bitch", a "lardass", a (Redacted), or things of that nature. jp×g🗯️ 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe you're getting it. A view can be 'nonsense', 'loony rambling', 'conpiracism' etc & it is fine to be forthright describing the view, but do not attack the person. This is the distinction you have failed to make. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No; it would also be inappropriate to say that a comment was "nutcase bullshit", "son-of-a-bitch yammering", "lardass whining" or "(Redacted) drivel". To give a trivial example: saying "I note that the things you say are the exact same things that a big fat stupid dipshit would say" is obviously an actionable personal attack. jp×g🗯️ 22:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference, in terms of severity, between 'loony rambling' and 'saying stuff that doesn't make sense'? Perhaps it would be simpler if we stopped trying to police civility with such a fine-toothed comb. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If someone needs to be told the difference, then they might not be a good fit for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's so easy to answer the question, why didn't you do so instead of taking a personal dig at me instead? That hardly seems like the civil thing to do. Why is it that the civility police have such a hard time being civil themselves? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Substance-blind tone-policing is completely unworkable, and the people who want to do it shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of any fringe area. Is it ok to call a post someone made "nonsense"? Well the answer is that if what they're doing is arguing that vaccines cause autism on Wikipedia talk-pages, yes, absolutely, that's fine. (And the same is true of "loony conspiracism".) Of course it would be better if nonsense-pushers were restrained before anyone got to that point -- but imposing that constraint is a content-sensitive act, and you can't get to the right conclusion just by looking at who uses the fewest naughty words or the most strenuous tone. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRIE: Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute. So no, there's no "content-sensitive" exception for conducting oneself inappropriately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've participated in plenty of discussions on contentious issues. So I've had the opportunity to witness what happens when somebody shows up to say everyone they don't agree with is insane, evil, retarded, etc; the outcome is not "the discussion improves and a bunch of really smart stuff happens". The outcome is that the discussion turns into worthless sewage. jp×g🗯️ 23:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying that a post is "nonsense" is absolutely acceptable (there's even a guideline using this term, although it's about a different kind of nonsense). However, "loony conspiracism" is closer to crossing the line as it involves words describing the person ("loony") rather than the points they are bringing.
The notion of getting to the right conclusion and the notion of whose conduct is fit for a collaborative project are two different things. Someone can be a civil POV pusher, while someone on the other side could be objectively correct but be a real piece of work about it. That doesn't prevent us from acknowledging that one was right on a basis independent from behavior, but again, being right isn't enough, and in that hypothetical example neither had an acceptable behavior, and both were at fault for different reasons. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be grounded in WP:It's Okay To Be Uncivil If The Other Person Is Wrong, which is not as of yet a policy or even an essay. If you would like to see that be policy, this would not seem to be the venue to cause that change to happen. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY means treating fellow editors with civility; the policy does not give automatic respectability to the views they express (and the 'personal attack' being complained of in this thread is an attack on views, not on a person). In fact, Wikipedia has little tolerance for certain views: WP:NONAZIS, but also pro-pedophilia, holocaust denial, transphobia, quackery, and various other forms of fashionable antiknowledge. Perhaps WP:CIVIL needs to updated to get with the community reality? Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has said that we should give "respectability to the views", or that these views are correct, or that people should be allowed to put them in articles. jp×g🗯️ 20:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRIE upholds civility as a reflection of the current community reality. I don't know what you are specifically suggesting with the last sentence, but it might run the risk of being headed in the other direction. SmolBrane (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• For interest, "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia", PNAS Nexus, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2023. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Lest anyone ever accuse me of lacking integrity, this paper which supports my argument draws some questionable conclusions from incomplete analysis. jp×g🗯️ 05:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, they are trying to do something that seems rather difficult to get right. It's nice to see people try though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Can we say that Hemiauchenia comments are unkind and designed to hurt another editor? The comments do nothing to help the project. I see others trying to defend or explain the hostility of Hemiauchenia. He has a lot of edits, he improves articles etc. I first encountered this editor when they accused me of pure axe grinding with an edit summary of

don't care about your opinion Lightburst, take it to ANi if you care enough and watch the sparks fly.

when I posted on the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021. I deleted the PA but they reinstated it. And then they started a COIN investigation against me. I questioned them on their talk page.

So I have experienced the editor's biting comments myself and it has a negative effect on editing. I removed their personal attack against me in April and they kept reinstating it.

You're basically the Wikipedia equivalent of a sovereign citizen. Nobody should listen or treat your drivel with any respect whatsoever.

Hemiauchenia only stopped by the AfD about the notability of an embassy to snarl, not to actually participate in the ivote. As many know, the common refrain at AfD is that Ambassadors and embassies are not inherently notable. And I came to their talk page but they deleted my note I have no intent to engage further with you on this matter.. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this still going? There's no proposal for anything by anyone. Everyone needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think a lot of people, actually, have made a very specific proposal, which is that Hemiauchenia stop making rude posts. If you want, I can format it nicely, like an RfC, and then we can have bolded support and oppose votes. jp×g🗯️ 15:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And in fact, unless I missed something, every participant who identifies themselves as an admin on their user page (you, Girth Summit, JohnnyUniq) has made that request in some form. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of them said no action, one said a trout, and the third had their comments partly redacted by a fourth. Meanwhile, the low quality editor was weeded out days ago. I agree it's time to drop this stick. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, in the same Wikipedia day as you say this we had another editor pop up with new examples showing that this is not just an off incident for this editor but part of a running pattern of harassment, so this situation seems to merit further attention. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not new examples, old examples. The longer this stays open, the more likely it is that more editors who had conflicts with Hemi in the past will show up here to share. But Wikipedia doesn't do RFC/U anymore. I'm disappointed that you still think, after all that's transpired, after reading all the above, that this situation still merits further attention. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And I'm disappointed that you think that information showing that an editors personal attacks and harassment are not something we should be taking notice of. Not suprised, mind you, given the blind eye you chose to turn toward even the initial concerns, but disappointed nonetheless. I guess Wikipedia is a land of disappointment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  As some German guy once said: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Just a random midweek thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  That Kant be true. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  He also said we should treat our fellow man as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end. I think that includes being civil to each other. Ergo, Kant supported the fourth pillar. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have no doubt he would! My point is simply that "civility" is not a binary quality either as to an individual's perception thereof nor even one's moment-to-moment behavior. In this sublunary world, incivility can creep up on even the most pious among us. Put another way, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Wikipedia. Civility includes not only etiquette and solicitude, but also forgiveness for venial sins. I have a hard time seeing anything impactful here, but as ever, I am happy to trust in the wisdom (or facsimile thereof) of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  That we are all imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be decent, nor should it be an excuse to avoid accountability. As you say, civility isn't a binary quality, but it isn't unary either — not every act of incivility, of unkindness, is equally harmful. Piety and sin aren't necessarily a good way to describe what is a very human social contract, rather than an absolute ideal. Rather than an abstract sin against a greater glory, incivility is what is done against our fellow editors, and, while it is indeed the more noble thing to do, no one is obligated to forgive someone else's behavior.
  Put in another way, Wikipedia isn't a judge of our sins of incivility, it is what we build together, and incivility is what hurts that "together" part. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 04:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club. The recent outbursts of handwringing, many of them heavily perpetuated by editors who have made only minimal contributions to the actual encyclopedia that we are supposed to be building, tend heavily toward the social club misperception. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I share User:TarnishedPath's amazement that this is still open. The original complaint has no merit. I'm sure I have myself disagreed with User:Hemiauchenia in the past (I really can't be arsed to check where), and have certainly disagreed with at least one of that editor's supporters here, but that doesn't merit a witchhunt. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You can avoid consequences when the in-crowd is in your corner. We can see that Hemiauchenia's behavior is hostile and uncivil and we can also see that it is a pattern, but the in-crowd recommends closure of the thread. Levivich made sure a report here against me stayed open for two weeks but he thinks this seven day old report needs closure. Seems legit. This forum of backslappers and WO offline buddies is cancer to the project. Thanks for fairness (sarcasm intended). I am just glad that Nat Gertler did not catch a block for the report. Thanks for that. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRIE was established less than six months ago as an administrative principle, passed 11:0. It has been cited three times by three different editors here. Given that experienced editors are more likely to be right, it could be argued that the purpose of BRIE is to ensure behavioral standards in more experienced editors. Less experienced editors typically get sanctioned by more conventional PAGs. SmolBrane (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to speculate for a moment. I'd say that many of the "more experienced editors" and the "in-crowd" with civility issues are seeing developments like WP:BRIE and these ANI discussions, and they're realizing that the community is running out of patience with their antics and drama. The smart move would be to mature a little bit and treat others with respect. But they're not going to do that, either because they think that being right entitles you to be uncivil or because they can't see past themselves and they think that it's "no big deal". What we're seeing is that instead of improving, they're getting more aggressive and defending each other more passionately, as they feel like they're being backed into a corner. After all, if one of them is indeffed for constant incivility, the others are at risk as well. The irony is that when all of them consistently show up at the same time whenever one of them is called out, it just makes them look guiltier and erodes the community's goodwill more quickly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your speculation seems plausible but I can't say more than that; I'm too inexperienced. But I would say that BRIE and discussions like this need to be integrated. Low profile editors get blocked for misbehaving, not for being wrong, so why would we exempt behavioral expectations if someone is usually right/constructive? As Loki said a logged warning seems useful here, at least—prolific editors are going to get less sympathy if they have a history of being warned, and their prolific-ness will offer insights into their behavioral standards, more so than an IP editor for instance, where it is harder to establish accountability. I don't really like the fondness on this board to avoid warnings and skip to blocks (and to utilize boomerangs). More to the point, I would never revert an admin's polite advice to me on my own talk page, with a dismissive edit summary. I would expect a sanction if I did this. (Also, I miscounted the references to BRIE, there were four, now there are five.) SmolBrane (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:TINC, and Happy Friday everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally astonishing that anyone would ever accuse you of axe-grinding. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm in with the in crowd. At least it certainly doesn't feel that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just checked with the committee secretary - you're not. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm kinda astounded that so many people think nothing untoward has happened here. ArbCom has passed "being right isn't enough" as a principle unanimously and recently. This is several bright-line violations of WP:NPA in the same thread, and the fact that they were towards an editor who was straightforwardly in the wrong in the underlying content dispute is totally irrelevant. I can't imagine any reasonable out here that doesn't involve at least a logged warning. Loki (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

LDas12345 - POV editing and refusal to talk

LDas12345 has made, by my count, 159 edits since arriving at the start of December. 107 of these have been reverted by a slew of editors. User talk:LDas12345 shows an array of templates, and I placed a paragraph there asking them to please talk to us. I also have included that request in revert edsums, e.g. [118], [119]. So far they have never edited any talk page, nor their own talk page but today they again started making edits that have been continually reverted on multiple pages: [120], [121]. Although this is no doubt a new editor, whose edits are not obviously intended to be disruptive, the behaviour is, nevertheless disruptive. On this collaborative project, some kind of admin action would appear to be necessary to bring them to an appropriate discussion page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Their contributions are all tagged mobile edit, mobile web edit. This may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. NebY (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good point - although these are logged in edits, so according to that table, they should still be getting a notification, shouldn't they? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but mobiles throw up so many alerts of that sort that new editors may arrive already conditioned to ignore them. NebY (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

They editor has resumed disrupting honor killings and hasn't communicated. I'm going to block the user to force communication and stop the disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Once again, their insertion wasn't supported by the references already provided for that sentence, a particularly pernicious problem for Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Let's hope we can get a discussion going with them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by related accounts at Ethereal (musician)

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

---

• McBrotherman (talk · contribs)
• Climaxlord (talk · contribs)

Edit warring, adding poorly sourced content, apparent sockpuppeting. May require page protection/ user sanctions. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• We really should stop meeting like this. BTW nice name, Climaxlord--I'm all tingly. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • All the good names apparently taken. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Multiple people have tried to talk to Climaxlord about the issues of conflict of interest and promotional editing (including me) on their talkpage, and they seem to be just not getting it. EasyAsPai (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

RufaMoritz and Aspersions

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

---

User:RufaMoritz is casting aspersions against me after I cleaned up some of his unsourced edits at List of equipment of the Mongolian Armed Forces, such as these: [122] [123] [124]

Personal attack on my talk page

Claiming that I'm a vandal and spreading fake news

I've tried to explain that my edits weren't vandalism, but RufaMoritz refused to drop the stick, and doubled down on his claims that I'm a vandal, which it's funny given that after he attacked me in my talk page he made this edit to the List of equipment of the Mongolian Armed Forces.

Mr. Komori (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Next block will likely be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandal IP

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

---

210.48.222.13 has racked up quite a few warnings on their talk page but has not resisted from the usual vandalism that has been engaged in since last year, removing things he 'does not like' and the similar from multiple articles. Also the edits at Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman are pretty egregious. A block at this point is a necessity. Gotitbro (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent block evasion at Cliff Cash

Reported this on January 14th to no avail. Requesting reversion of edits and a user block again. Also indefinite page protection here, at Wiley Cash, and possibly List of comedians and List of people from North Carolina. Current protection at the central bio is clearly insufficient. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Another new sock: MaterialUserFan125 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And another: LeeMary12 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: would reversion and page protection be appropriate at User talk:Mehendri Solon? All the user's socks are gathering there with phony supportive dialogue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:89.164.247.98

Legal threat at User talk:89.164.247.98 after repeatedly removing an entire section from Pluricentric language - the diff in question. I've advised that they retract the legal threat. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've doubled down, but have been blocked by User:ScottishFinnishRadish - unsure how to archive this, but it likely should be. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've tripled down after the block. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing in general. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And TPA revoked after the rant in response to your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Invective in edit summary

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

---

On my watchlist, I noticed that User:Bon courage referred to another editor as a fuckdoodle in the edit summary. Even if it's their own talk page, I don't think that type of conduct ought to be tolerated. Maybe the ES could be rev-deleted? Nutez (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

On my watchlist, too, and when I saw it, I thought briefly about reporting here to ANI the IP whom BC was reverting. Saying that an editor is talking out of the wrong orifice seems worse to me than the edit summary reverting it. I don't think this complaint has much merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, two wrongs don't make a right, and I didn't read the reverted comment before now. I haven't read the full convo, I just don't like seeing that kind of verbiage on my watchlist. Nutez (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia has a solution to that. Take Bon Courage's talk page off your watchlist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We are adults and humans. Sometimes buttons get pushed so much by frustrating and disruptive editors that the truth gets told plainly. Wikipedia is not censored. Sheesh! Just shut this down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nutez, might I perhaps suggest that the intended purpose of a watchlist doesn't generally extend to looking for evidence to perpetuate an ongoing dispute with another contributor? [125] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute? That case was settled quite a while ago. How do you know I was looking for evidence and not simply checking my watchlist? Nutez (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact you kept that user's Talk page on your watchlist. Smacks of waiting for something you can report, in order to get someone sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a shitty comment that made me shake my head, then I saw what they were reverting and shook my head again. Fucknoodle is not eligible for revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fuckdoodle is also not eligible for revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, indeed, "fucknoodle" would be eligible for a "coolest edit summary" award, if anything. Bishonen | tålk 22:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC).

Indeed it would have been preferable to use the edit summary "rv trolling" or "rv troll", but this is not a game of "gotcha" and we do take context into account when applying our civililty rules. If you think the word "fuckdoodle" should be revdelled, why did you use it on a widely read noticeboard? —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether "fuckdoodle" is a description of the person or the content. Either way, while I understand the exasperation, it is best not to show it too openly as that is merely feeding the trolls what they want most, attention and drama. (Yes, I speak as one who has made the same mistake myself.) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen an account with 500 edits over 4 years [126] that has made this many civility reports to ANI: 1, 2, 3 (also against Bon Courage), 4, 5. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

While the comment was inappropriate, the nature of the edit makes my only reaction to this be: Don't feed the troll. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Levivich's five diffs above, summarised:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#SandyGeorgia's_inappropriate_edit_summaries - closed as inappropriate venue and with suggestions of a boomerang back at Nutez.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Personal_attack_at_Talk:Aaron_Maté - warning issued to the person complained about, no block issued
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#Personal_attack_against_article_subject_on_talk_page - "Nutez and Bon courage:, there's a rough consensus you both in particular should dial it down a little, grow a slightly thicker skin, and not try to get the other banned from the project". Reading the whole thread back, that's very generous on Nutez, who could have very easily been hit by a boomerang for both filing the report and their conduct therein.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Personal_attacks_at_Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party - editor blocked two weeks
• And now this one.

Things that concern me: the frequency of reporting to ANI relative to their total edit count, a strike rate below 40% for appropriate filings, and the fact that Nutez was explicitly warned to "not try to get [Bon courage] banned from the project" as a result of discussion #3. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nutez, this is a really petty complaint. It's also a Streisand effect case. You don't like something, and your first concern is to get someone in trouble? Really??? Your action here just advertises the supposed offense and undercuts your supposed concern. Danes would say you are "walking in very small shoes." Next time, just move on and drop the "Hurrah! An excuse to get another editor in trouble." attitude. That's not a good look and certainly does not improve the atmosphere here. When you see something like that again, and we all do every day, if you think it will create more light than heat, then write a private email to the offending editor and civilly let them know you have heightened sensibilities for such language. Politely ask them to reconsider their language. Keep it a private matter. Don't advertise it. Your goal in life should be to stay far away from drama boards. Try to keep your name far away from the history of these pages. This crap just creates more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel and Valjean: Ok, I agree this was dumb. Your points are quite persuasive. I retract the complaint and shall henceforth contribute more constructively to the project. Do you accept my amends? Nutez (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. We're all human. I goof up too. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Driveby nannying of another user's talk page is about the least productive use of one's Wikipedia time that I can imagine. Esp. when the filer has done nothing the entire month of Jan 2024 but this, and has 50 edits in 2 years. No action on BC, warn OP about frivolity, move on. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's time for someone to close this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And with that, I wish a merry fuckdoodle to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent incorrect SYNTH

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

User continues to add WP:OR and incorrect or POV WP:SYNTH to articles with a focus primarily on Nigerian rap artists. User was briefly blocked several days ago for the same issue. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted them earlier for adding uncited material. It seems they've done it again at M.I Abaga after three (!!) final warnings, but were reverted by an IP editor. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed them on my watchlist. I've gone and indefblocked them as an unresponsive user. Maybe there's a reason they're trying to make so many edits, but if so it's probably not a good one ... Graham87 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial reverter, not communicating

• OllieE2b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sprout editing history

Encountered this yesterday when fixing infobox parameters. They're hellbent on restoring this article, despite apparent past discussions to merge the defunct channel into the current Universal Kids. This user does not communicate, no talk page contribs, no response to numerous warnings. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, this user has a very similar editing history to 168.220.175.223, a blocked IP. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am going to indefinitely block as WP:DE and WP:CIR EvergreenFir (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Their commons behavior concurs with these observations. DMacks (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie

Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs) was recently blocked from edit warring [[127]] one of thier first acts was to go back and do it again [[128]] when told that 3RR is not an upper limit, that they are still edit warring their response was this [[129]], I then told then I was not going to report them as [[130]] they replied with a clear threat they might edit war [[131]]. In addition, they are edit warring elsewhere as well [[132]] [[133]] adding a (what looks to me at any rate) to be a non sequitur rebutal.

This seems to be a case of (in this topic area) to be wp:Not behavior. No attempt to get consensus and a clear statement they do not care if they do not, they will revert anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: am I missing something, or what was your reason for removing the edit I made on 2019 Balakot airstrike article which you undid? As far as I remember, it had inline citations including Reuters, but you still removed it with an edit summary which I couldn't understand (I'm not a native speaker). I wish to know the reason before being banned from this platform. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. Once someone reverts your edit, you are invited to discuss the reasons for keeping it on the talk page, instead of reverting it back — even if you believe you are obviously in the right! If your edit is well-cited (Reuters is indeed a reliable source) and there still isn't consensus on the talk page, you are invited to ask on Wikipedia:Third opinion to have someone else uninvolved in the edit war take a look at it. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have started it with this, you are arguing with Reuters I think. Secretlondon (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I was saying that Pakistan can't block satellite imagery, thus this does not dispute the claim that " Open source satellite imagery has revealed that no targets of consequence were hit", So it seemed to address a claim, we did not make (we do not mention Reuters). Nor does this excuse or explain the threat to edit war if they think they are right. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it still seems unreasonable to me. What I was trying to add was right. They prevented Reuters and other journals and closed the site for 47 days. But it was removed with an edit summary (which I understand now reading his other comment here) that Pakistan can't block satellite. Let's assume they can't. But what does it have to do here @Slatersteven:? They blocked journalists, right? They closed the site for 1 and half months, right? @Slatersteven: With that edit you made removing the content, I felt I was being targeted. If I was knowingly vandalising that article as some Indians and Pakistanis occasionally do, I wouldn't have felt bad. But this! Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why you should have taken it to talk and not reverted if you did not understand my reason. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're confusing here. The consensus needed content is in 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, where I didn't make any edit after being blocked. Because I know its futile, on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army and you with wiki policy just like Thor with his hammer and on the other side me, with my broken English, little knowledge about wiki policies and a bunch of sources. What I can do? Nothing! It's much like the wind trying to move a paper with a paperweight!

But you removed my cited content on Balakot airstrike article saying that Pakistan can not block satellite, so I shouldn't add that they blocked Reuters?? Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army

Right, that's a personal attack. Given the history, I'd say a TBAN from Pakistan/India is the least we should do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I wish to extend that proposed ban to a lifetime ban.

PS: Don't take this as a personal attack or mocking. I'm simple done! That's it. Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, your English is certainly good enough for you to understand me when I say that, when an edit is disputed, you should discuss it on the talk page rather than reinstate it. This applies whether the edit is correct or incorrect. No "Pakistani admin" controls everything that goes into this encyclopedia. Of course, if you really want to be banned for life, you can simply stop editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are seriously asking for a lifetime ban, because you might get banned from editing this topic area? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

[[134]] , this was after your block expired (and was the first edit you made after it expired [[135]], it was then reverted by me [[136]]. The other issue is separate. We are discussing two incidents. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As to the PA, I am neither an admin nor Pakistani. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior by Melroross/Melrorross on Flamenco page

User:Melroross has continuously and chronically shown disruptive editing behavior on the Flamenco page. He constantly edit wars the article to remove any reference of Romani people, going against the consensus that was established on the talk page through extensive discussion, including with administrators[137] (see ‘Consensus paragraph in lede’). Melroross refuses to use the talk page to seek a new consensus and just continues to edit war the article by deleting well-sourced information that they don’t personally agree with[138][139] (btw using a second account User:Melrorross to avoid edit warring consequences), adding disruptive citation needed tags on sourced content[140], replacing well sourced content from actual historiography with fringe undergraduate theses[141] and even going so far as to erase part of a quote in a citation from a well respected scholarly source because he did not agree with it[142]. I tried starting a talk page conversation myself and was only met with aspersions cast on me and unwillingness to discuss sources and reach consensus.

• I won't entertain this kind of narrative whereby Flamenco is attributed to the Roma people- which it isn't. It is Southern Spanish and I shall, with more time and passing this sort of watchdog censorship.. This was the first response I got when I started the discussion in the talk page. This demonstrates a clear unwillingness for discussion and analysis is sourced and instead just plain pov-pushing and detailing his plan of slowly edit warring the article for the past year without discussion, which he has done.

• sound very desperate to try and impose YOUR tunnel-vision viewpoints. Research and researchers can manipulate the truth if looking for or trying to discard specific data… Again more aspersions cast on me and clear soapbox mentality which preferences his own POV over academic sources which are “manipulated.”

This has been going on for over a year now, with this user switching between his two accounts and edit warring the page, despite me constantly asking and pleading with him to use the talk page in the discussion I already started. He instead accuses me of vandalism for my edits [143] and despite my numerous requests to him to use the talk page and discuss the sources, continues to do as he pleases. This is clear disruptive editing, Melroross changes sources to fit his own POV, erases sourced consensus content multiple times to replace it with fringe content without discussion, and admits himself that he will continue to do so until mentions of Romani people in the art forms origination are gone because to him that is ‘hearsay’ and my ‘deluded fantasy’[144], this POV-pushing and aspersions casted on me most stop, he is not here to improve the Flamenco page. TagaworShah (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too well-versed to comment on the edit war part but the sockpuppetry alone is a pretty bad offense. No, you don't get to use two accounts to pull this stuff. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have the time to delve into the long and complex history of this issue, but can't help wondering why the origin can't be both Roma and Southern Spanish. Are Roma people living in Spain not Spanish? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It can be and that’s the way it’s reflected in most reliable sources, there’s been long discussions on this topic on the talk page but i’m not going to go into it now because this is more about an editor’s behavior and not a content dispute. TagaworShah (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by UnTixic (and possibly abusing multiple accounts)

UnTixic (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing as shown on talk page. Most notably (but not limited to) nominating articles for WP:PROD without a valid reason. Most commonly is stating article has no source when it clearly does. Here is an example just done today.

In addition I believe this user is abusing multiple accounts such as Wyndhan Han (talk · contribs) and PakisOne (talk · contribs). I previously reported it here but WP:CheckUser is inconclusive due to proxy usage. Makes it more suspicious. To summarise

• All 3 accounts were created only in 2023 with not many edits. Front page is also following the one line of text format
• All 3 have posting activities where they would made many edits on one day and nothing for a significant period
• Editing style is similar where they would make a set of supposedly legitimate edits (some certainly are not) and then abuse WP:PROD nomination

Given lack of response in talk pages, I don't see a reason user is going to change behavior for the better.

@The Banner: I am tagging you since you seem to have dealt with this user a bit. Looking for your input on this.

Examples

12 34 5 6 7 8 9

Edit: One more thing to consider is @Liz: has commented on Wyndhan Han's talk page that user has participated in WP:AFD despite only editing for 5 days. So what we are possibly looking at is some user engaging in WP:Sockpuppet for not just these 3 accounts but others that we have not identified yet. But again use of proxy makes this hard to confirm for sure.

- Imcdc Contact 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the idea that (s)he does not check the links it adds. Resulting in nonsense links. See for example here (a music style confused with a village), here (rescue mission confused with a program against sex offenders) and here (British peer confused with peer-to-peer) and here (a suburb of Milan, Italy, confused with an India tribe). I have severe doubt about the competence from this account. And this looks like plain vandalism. The Banner talk 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The bizarre Milan-related link to Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians is especially weird when the correct link, Barona (district of Milan), is so easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This tickled a memory of a few accounts I saw in 2022, like <this one>. They would mass edit for stretches of time, all visual edits, and just add content to multiple pages - we eventually figured it was machine translated edits (or just sources) taken from other language versions of pages.

These* edits* by UnTixic: <diffs>* are translating content from the German version of that page, some lines are exact matches to Google Translate output.

These edits by PakisOne: <diffs> are translating content from the Swedish version of the page, the citation is also taken from there.

This edit by Wyndhan Han: <diff> is a translated edit from the Swedish version of the page, translation is an 100% match to Google Translate output. The citations however are not from the Swedish version.

I'm not claiming it's the same person, and I haven't looked deeply into most edits, a lot of the behaviour mentioned so far was not something I noticed in those 2022 accounts, but it just reminded me, so I'm mentioning it. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:B8CB:B95D:1E39:A7B1 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC) (*edited 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC))

The other posters evidence makes me believe the user is not capable of demonstrating WP:CIR. I believe at least a temp block is required and if such behavior still persists, it should be permanent. All of these accounts should be subject to it btw. Will tag them in talk page for ANI so users will know they are part of this. - Imcdc Contact 16:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PakisOne, and indefinitely blocked the accounts, for a combination of unambiguous sockpuppetry and disruptive and incompetent editing. JBW (talk)

Addition of unsourced content by IP

The IP 82.18.231.228 has been adding unsourced content about Islamic people to articles about European countries, often overinflating numbers about Islamic people or changing country names despite being warned. See [145], [146], [147], [148]. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 16:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked at AIV. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ip range 2601:3C2:8281:5C90:0:0:0:0/64

Can an admin add 2024 Arizona Wildcats football team to the block list for this IP range please due to the same behavior that to the other blocks which is IP address hopping and long-term edit warring. This person keeps adding a section for "coaching staff additions" when this is already covered in "coaching staff changes" section and each time it's under a new IP address in that range.--Rockchalk717 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Awesome. Thank you so much, I appreciate it!--Rockchalk717 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

Hi, I visited the Sylvia Lefkovitz page last night to cross reference a date on a photo for an ongoing archival project I am working on and noticed that all the photos had been removed by a bot last November, and the self-portrait I took of the artist’s painting was removed in January of this year. All the photos that were on that page had permission to be there. What photos I didn’t take myself, I got permission from galleries and the Lefkovitz family. I’m not at all sure why they were removed as they were all properly attributed. Why did this happen, and how can they be restored? Thanks, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleMacNeill (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Sylvia Lefkovitz

"Had permission to be there" is the reason. Commons does not accept fair-use images, and the lot of them were deleted off Commons for that reason. We emphatically do not seek or accept permission for images; they need to be either public domain (on Commons), under a valid copyleft licence (on Commons) or have a valid fair-use claim (on Wikipedia) for us to use them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that filedelinkerbot is functioning perfectly: the files were deleted from Commons, and so the bot removed the broken links from the article. If the files were deleted in error that would be a Commons issue, but the deletion seems to be correct to me. If the Lefkowitz estate really intend to freely-license images of Lefkowitz's work, I believe they will need to go through the process at Commons:COM:VRT. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The estate could also make a website, publish images there, and clearly mark them there with a Commons-acceptable license. Some people do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I uploaded a non-free WP:LEADIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Tite and IP editor claiming to be allowed to remove AfD tag

Andrew Tite is undergoing AfD. An IP editor, 99.192.32.253, keeps removing the AfD notice and the most recent time used the edit summary to claim "Spoke with Senior Wikipedia Administrator (Brenda) and was advised to remove notice and make specific updates via email. She has approved this update. Additional updates in future to further ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards"

This seems very unlikely to me but I thought I would bring it here in case my restoration of the AfD tag was incorrect. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the IP posted the email: "Brendan Conway" appears to represent a paid-editing group. " In case if you need assistance, let me know, I can link you with an internal certified Wikipedia editor from the Wikipedia community. he can provide you a professional assistance, also, he has been working in the Wikipedia community for the past 15 years, he can assist you in improve your page while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please note that each Wikipedia editor and moderator charges differently for their service, and as you know that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, so any earnings done by providing services to the relevant clients automatically go to the Wikipedia organization donations." Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The email apparently also said "It's clear that your intention is not to create an advertisement but to share a genuine and modest biography for the benefit of future generations." and that seems very unofficial to me. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The email also screams ChatGPT to me. Also since when did we have an “Wikipedia AFD Reviewer's team”? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

(nota bene for anyone who is seeing the name and wondering -- this is not the misog social media tweetfluencer guy, this is some other dude with a similar name.) jp×g🗯️ 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be someone pretending to be Brendanconway (and not the first time this has happened)... Number 57 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat at a loss for how this could be made more clear. It's obvious that this person got rolled by an impersonator, but...

Brendan's userpage has not one, not two, but three gigantic red notices with huge warning icons in them saying in paragraphs of bold text e.g. "I don't do paid editing or offer assistance when articles are up for deletion at AFD". Like what the hell additional measures could we possibly take? jp×g🗯️ 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If they still haven't worked out that his name is Brendan and not Brenda, then... I like the idea of being a "Senior Administrator" though. How does one attain that rank? Number 57 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to undergo a boss battle against Bishzilla. And win.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to become a "senior adminstrator", you need to pass an RfA and you need to live long enough to become a senior citizen. Age 65 should do it. I did both. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article to allow the AfD to run to closure. There was no issue with your restoration of the tag @ThaddeusSholto Star Mississippi 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

IP is still going [149]. Daniel (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest if they trot out that email again, to whack them for a little while. At this point it's verging on harassment of Brendanconway, and it needs to stop one way or another. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replied to them on ThaddeusSholto's and their own talk pages. It was very difficult to stay on the right side of WP:NPA. If I have strayed too far then I apologise, and please delete my comments. As Jéské Couriano says this needs to stop one way or another, and if any disruption continues then the only way I can see is with a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly given the context I don’t think you’ve crossed the line, given the repeated refusal/inability of the IP to get the point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to someone taking action against the IP. I went with the semi route to allow the AfD to function figuring a p-block would just lead to IP hopping. Feel free to adjust however anyone sees fit. Star Mississippi 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there actually any evidence that this IP is in any way connected with Tite? It looks more like trolling to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard evidence? No. But in this edit the IP talks about the article "preserving my legacy for future generations" so he implicitly claims to be Tite. We would have to take the IPs word for it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the IP geolocates to the same city that Tite's Facebook says he now lives in (found through the YouTube account that some old revisions linked videos from). Said page also contains a link to the Wikipedia page itself, so Tite's aware it exists at least. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:A532:9DD:B729:1A30 (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If the IP is not Tite then it is all the more important that this stop. Potential employers are likely to assume that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Pepper-0

Pepper-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has edited sporadically for many years. Recently they posted a comment on the merits of white supremacy ([150]). Last year, they scare-quoted the word "child" when referring to Emmett Till ([151]). Much earlier, they drafted some Chris Chan–related nonsense in now deleted sandbox draft (User:Pepper-0/sandbox). I think their way of occasionally popping in to say something hateful is disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So two arguably racist edits over the course of years? Check roger, Boss I'll do better in the future. Pepper-0 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is really no room for "arguably" here. This comment is as straightforwardly white-supremacist as it is possible to be. Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:HID. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I endorse the block and would like to add a couple of notes. First, the use of the word "arguably", besides being incorrect, is legalistic and hardly an apology. Second, "the course of years" is misleading as, however, many years it's been since the user first started editing, they've only made 40 edits during those years. Finally, the "check roger, Boss" stuff is flip, again indicating they take no responsibility for their remarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Ratnahastin | Talk Page spam

Repeat spamming of 'Talk' pages, of editors with differing point of view. This may have threatening effect, on editors who are relatively new with no familiarity with regards to what is indeed 'a real concern' versus 'a harmless notice'.

Two long notices left on my Talk page on 6th of Jan 2024, with no specific reference to an Edit I made.

On 10th Jan, I responded to both the notices, asking for context and why they are leaving the notice only on my Talk page among many editors of overlapping topic(s). Also left a notice on their Talk page requesting not to repeat this and to be specific/meaningful in the notes they leave on others' Talk pages.

Not only did they remove/archive the notice I left on their Talk page within a day, with no response whatsoever, they also left a new notice with long verbiage on my Talk page on 11th Jan, while still not fully responding to questions I asked about their previous notices.

Note that the editor didn't follow through with similar due diligence for editors who share their POV and involved in editing of the same topic (Shambuka) in same time-frame. One example is ArvindPalaskar who made many edits and got banned for 2 weeks on 12th of Jan 2024. Interestingly, the same ArvindPalaskar, supported the case of Ratnahastin to remove the topic-ban on Ratnahastin on 'caste related articles' in Dec 2023.

I'm afraid the edits made by Ratnahastin 1 to the Shambuka story, and their stalling attempts 1 2 in RfC on the topic's Talk page or Admin noticeboard initiated by Redtigerxyz and Carleas, may go against the very confession they made in their topic ban appeal ("I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus."). Phule lulu (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I realize that these long messages might look threatening for new or unfamiliar editors. To be clear, they are not warnings and do not imply any concern about your editing, and the messages even say on the first line It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. (emphasis not mine). These notices are usual for people starting to edit contentious topics, as these topic carry more restrictions on editing due to their nature.

I see that both you and ArvindPalaskar had already got such messages in 2020, maybe Ratnahastin saw the previous notice on Arvind's page but not on yours?

(Also please warn other editors when you open a discussion on ANI. Not against you specifically but please there's a big red warning telling to do it.) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry there has been a delay in posting the warning on Talk page, as I was trying to understand how the template works and putting the links together. Phule lulu (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thank a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"maybe Ratnahastin saw the previous notice on Arvind's page but not on yours?" - That line of thinking doesn't sit well with me when they are specifically targeting an editor with differing point of view while conveniently overlooking the editor with same point of view (and with a history of support-vote in the past, to lift a topic ban). Is there a good faith when there is no personalised context in the notice? Neither was it provided when I specifically asked for it. Phule lulu (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They responded twice to your questions on your talk page, when you specifically asked for context, a fact that you left out. And that's despite you calling it copy-paste of random verbiage in your question. You were the one who didn't assume good faith to begin with. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the other point I highlighted in the ANI, that Ratnahastin made repeat edits/reverts on a caste-related topic, Shambuka, after making a confession "If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring" just a month ago, amounts to violation of their confession. Wouldn't it merit a discussion on revisit of topic ban, and enforcing it again? Thank you for your inputs thus far. Phule lulu (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Obi2canibe - Refusal to communicate and continuing insertion of problematic claims with references that fail to support them

Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (Diff of notification: Special:Diff/1197947592)

Obi2canibe has, since at least March 2023, been adding claims both unsupported by references and at least WP:FRINGE-adjacent (I'll refrain from litigating the content issue here, but the reliable scholarship I've overviewed either fails to support or directly contradicts the claims) into Finnish Civil War-related bios. Example diffs of removals, as additions are in page creations: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. These claims are consistently cited to references that fail to verify them, with some of these references are also unreliable as master's theses (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP).

Ignoring these content issues, I find their complete failure to communicate troubling: I've brought these issues to their attention on their talk page both in July 2023 and December 2023 and most recently two days ago. Despite the numerous talk page messages, they haven't acknowledged the issues in any way and continue insert the unsupported claims into the articles they create to this day, invluding just hours after I last messaged them on their talk page (insertions at diff and diff).

I'm largely at a loss in terms of what to do here: taking the issue to somewhere like WP:FTN seems pointless given the complete lack of communication, but neither does it seem reasonable to just have the same pattern continue. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Obi2canibe is very senior editor and has a good record of communication and has been editing since 2008.The issue in Finish articles is a content issue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

They might have a good record of communication in general, but in this matter I haven't been able to get them to communicate at all. Please let me know if I've overlooked some communication/discussion method I should have attempted before taking the issue here. Ljleppan (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Suhaib-Mahdi1

Suhaib-Mahdi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user vandalized a lot of pages.[152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160] Hajoon0102 💬 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, SuperMarioMan and I warned Suhaib-Mahdi1.[161][162][163] But, the user removed warning discussions. Hajoon0102 💬 16:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, returning vandal editing on a soft-blocked range. --Versageek 18:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Materie34 disruptive edits on psychiatric medications

Hello, upon editing the article for Psychiatric medications i noticed this inappropriate excerpt added by this user,

One aspect of psychiatric science is in much but not all cases to work exclusively with just the psyche, somehow then when it comes to the psychiatrist he then works mostly on a pharmacological basis. In public view these psychiatrists face many stereotypes, for example the cliche of a doctor randomly giving different medications a bit like "Russian roulette" combined with the stereotype of overshoot the patient making him nearly retarded. For many people psychiatric science is difficult to conceive without relying on arguments they see. Second, it is at first generally difficult to get familiar with very much information centered around substances. First, where arguments like retarding are, at least, in schizophrenics are simply wrong, as they improve cognitive functioning significantly, also with the substance case, even with maybe thinking that the classical main ideas are simple it must considered to provide a professional setting to the substance, from which the patient profits, there has to be much well thought context.

they had been blocked/left notices on their talk page previously multiple times and received a one week ban, but have resumed making disruptive edits to pages about psychiatric medications and subjects this month, and continued to disruptively edit an article they had previously been left a message about. Thank you

Sydpresscott (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the hyphens do not appear to be part of the original edit (not that it makes it any more comprehensible). There's definitely a WP:CIR issue here, and their persistent attempts at including blatant OR, personal anecdotes and borderline incomprehensible ramblings lead me to believe that they've ran out of their WP:ROPE. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Apologies for that, when i copied and pasted it automatically added those for some reason, seems like they have been indefinitely blocked. Sydpresscott (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:51.253.41.12 - almost entirely disruptive edits

Nearly every edit from 51.253.41.12 (talk · contribs) has been an unnecessary or disruptive change. Basically every change they've made has been reverted--Special:Contributions/51.253.41.12--and they've not responded on User_talk:51.253.41.12. They've even tried to blank the warnings on their talk page. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked in to the other edits, but I would point out that removing edits from one's own talk page is perfectly legitimate. Maybe it would be a good idea if someone talked to this editor as a human being, rather than continually sending templates? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now looked at the other edits, and tend to agree with the OP that this editor is disruptive. There doesn't seem to be any redeeming feature that would lead us to talk to them as a human being as I suggested earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I see two possibly related rangeblocks in the logs: 51.253.0.0/17 for three months in 2020 and 51.253.0.0/18 for six months in 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Alkherly1993

User:Alkherly1993 has created a series of BLPs with promotional tone, and after much discussion with them at their user talk, declared a COI for one of the bios: [164], and ceased editing that article (Sule Abdulaziz). But COI declaration so far has only been for that one, and the unsourced, promotional additions have continued at other bios, notably at Hussaini Ishaq Magaji. Repeated reverts, cleanups of promotional text at that article, and the many warnings at their talk page have been mostly ignored: [165]. Now the've undone the latest reversion of an unsourced section there an hour ago, following a level 4 warning: [166]. Wikishovel (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• There's a lot of promotional bios there [167]. I've just AFD'd one, but I suspect an indef for undeclared paid editing wouldn't be controversial here. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't even seem like UPE, their user page outright says that they're a paid editor. I deleted a few as attack pages. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed as NOTHERE. The history at Hussaini Ishaq Magaji was enough for me - slow edit warring to repeatedly insert the same unsourced, promotional guff into a BLP, after numerous requests that they desist. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

IP Address issue

I'm OK on English Wikipedia (so far). And I only use my account name. But I just got messages on Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata: "Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis." What's going on? Hope I can log in to English Wikipedia tomorrow. This is strange. I left a message on Village Pump about this. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been handled at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Mario98632

Mario98632 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user (coming from Wikipedia in Spanish) comes to vandalize, trying to cover it up by "acting" as a reverter. I don't know where to file the corresponding complaint, that's why I'm doing it here. The user said in one of his summary that he was coming here so he could continue with his thing. Fact: The user wanted to delete the complaints that I made previously.--FosforitoFernandez2001 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@FosforitoFernandez2001 blocked at es/wiki, last edit hear reverted a blocked editor but changed what should have been a plural to singular. Reverted here but reinstated. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

you did not alert the user, so I did. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated additions of unsourced content to WP:BLP articles

Editor User:PJTikalsky seems to like adding unsourced content to WP:BLP article(s). Can somebody have a look. This is the third time I would have warned him. I'm sick to death of it. No communication. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem to have discovered their own talk page. I've p-blocked from Paul J. Tikalsky; if that doesn't work, ping me. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies. Prompt action. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We aim to please. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats & persistent vandalism by User:2601:1C2:881:3070:90D6:F9FA:C0B9:8D2C

See edit description here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hayes&diff=prev&oldid=1198373752

"Persistent" comes from other vandalizing edits from same IP range: see: User:2601:1C2:881:3070:E089:BBBE:669E:F4B9

Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NLT is very strict, if the statement is not withdrawn (after notification) the IP would need to be blocked. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: blocked by @Robertsky (thank you!) for legal threats. See [168] Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also to note that the same /64 range was behind the earlier vandalism. If the user hops to another IP, a page protection might be required instead. – robertsky (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in country/state/geographical area

SkibidiToilet303 has been quietly introducing deliberately incorrect geographical area data and occasionally accompanying those edits with false references. See my reverts [169], [170], [171], [172], along with reverts by Gadfium [173] [174]. I've just warned the user for the first time, but unless I'm missing something, I'm thinking it's worth an indef block for WP:NOTHERE point #6.

I'd have brought this to AIV, but it seems more useful to have a more accessible record of the issue in case anyone has seen similar vandalism. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I think this user may simply be making mistakes. And he's not always wrong. Wizmut (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's how this kind of vandalism can be so insidious, Wizmut. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. A wonder what people get up to. Wizmut (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

CU-confirmed with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010; I'm doing the paperwork. Thanks Ed--hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was going to ask on a CU for this user and Just A Random Geography Fan, but you got there before I could. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Canterbury Tail we like to be quick and of service. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Oof. These are a pain to clean up once there's intervening edits, and I've already found many edits from that account that weren't reverted. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fascinating. Thanks Drmies! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The sad thing is that in Special:Diff/1195257229 this was not "vandalism" at all. The sockpuppetteer replaced BBC News that rounded the area to 3 significant figures (83,900) with a source that gave 5 significant figures (83,879). And the source's figure is just 8 off from the 2009 CIA world factbook figure for Austria (83,871).

And in Special:Diff/1198275908 The ed17 has broken the markup, and there's a legitimate case to be made that the area of Suriname indeed cannot be given to that level of accuracy given the border disputes per another of the sockpuppeteer's edit summaries at Special:Diff/1189317361, albeit that xe then went on to piss about with two further accounts just repeatedly blanking the figure rather than actually making the point.

A 21st century Gale encyclopaedia says 163,270, the 2004 Collins World Atlas says 163,820, the 2003 CIA World Factbook says 163,270, the 1990 Britannica Book of the Year says 163,820. The 2008 Britannica Book of the Year sticks to its guns with the 163,820 figure and has a footnote explaining that the dispute is the reason for the figure and what the difference is.

Whereas Wikipedia is so focussed on sockpuppeteering and supposed "vandalism" that it is missing the actual problem with the content.

Let this stark fact be an incentive to focus: Wikipedia is doing worse than Britannica does as of The ed17's latest revision. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Thanks for the feedback, but I fear you've missed the forest for the trees. I've spent multiple hours of my day today fixing these edits, many of which (but yes, not all) deliberately falsified the area totals of various countries, cities, and regions.

  On the first edit you cite: A PDF "migration profile" about Austria, published by www.migrants-refugees.va, is not as reliable as the BBC or the CIA World Factbook. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Moreover, both of those provide a more specific area total. I don't see what's wrong in that edit.

  To the second edit: thank you for letting me know that I accidentally left a rogue "ref" in my edit. It's fixed now. If you'd like to argue the content point, I'd point you to Talk:Suriname. There are similar issues with Morocco. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  • No, it's you that is missing the forest for the trees. I just made this point, but I'll repeat it. You are so focussed on reverting that you've missed that (a) one figure went from BBC News's 3 significant figures to 5 significant figures in this purported "vandalism", and went much closer to the World Factbook's figure than the BBC gives, and (b) the sockpuppetteer in an edit summary actually pointed out a valid problem with the area of Suriname. Stop holding the CIA World Factbook above all others, too. Ironically, it does worse than Britannica, as well. And not recognizing the Vatican's Migrants and Refugees section when you see it or checking out the references at the bottom of the PDF is problematic, too.

    Gadfium is being just as bad as you. Look at Special:Diff/1196341773 where BBC News is restored as a source. You are mischaracterizing these as "deliberately falsified" which you two are "fixing". They aren't, and you two aren't. The sockpuppetteer has improved upon BBC News in both cases.

    The sockpuppetteer's 268,838 figure is actually the better one, confirmable ironically with the the very CIA World Factbook that you like and a number of other sources, and the BBC News figure of 268,021 is contradicted by those. There's also a problem where some sources are not including Stewart Island and some (e.g. A. E. McQueen, who totals to 270,534) are. You two are so focussed upon reverting a sockpuppetter that you are missing all this.

    No, you are not in fact "fixing" "deliberately falsified" stuff. Yes, geography is complex, and no the CIA World Factbook is not the be-all-end-all, let alone BBC News. And you've become so lost in fighting a sockpuppeteer that you are missing that the sockpuppetter is actually giving decent data, and simply pissing around when people foolishly revert to BBC News, probably not holding the attention of Wikipedia editors to actual accuracy over "Oh no, sockpupetteer! Revert!" in high regard.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

    • @Uncle G: I get that this is an insidious style of vandalism which mixes a few useful edits in with poor ones. It's designed to get this sort of reaction from someone like you. Unfortunately, those poor edits had been in articles since at least 2 December, no subject matter experts had vetted them, and I'm only one person with only so much time that can be dedicated to Wikipedia. So I maintain that on balance, spending hours manually reverting these edits and checking each country figure against the CIA Factbook or BBC before taking action, is a net positive. If there were any errors along the way, I apologize.
    • If you'd like to spend your own time going through these edits and doing that level of research for each one, Special:Contributions/Just a random geography fan and Special:Contributions/SkibidiToilet303 are available alongside all the other accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010/Archive. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Well caught. I was wondering how the Philippine area dispute erupted again. CMD (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blatant Sockpuppetry by User:Klavensky kly

They are a quite blatant sock of User:Wheenkly pierre see [175] for more context. Draft:Wheenkly klay (soccer) was created by them promoting the same exact person Wheenkly Pierre was blocked for promoting. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Constant SOAPBOXing, POV additions, adding own blog content by SquirrelHill1971

• SquirrelHill1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually every contribution by them is WP:SOAPBOX and ends up being reverted, including their talk page contributions which are largely linking to unreliable sources and then suggesting they need reflected in the article. Their recent contributions to Diversity, equity, and inclusion were deleted as copyright breaches, but according to their talk page comment it was actually them copying text from their own partisan blog without attributing it. They seem clearly WP:NOTHERE. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the long list of things Wikipedia needs less of, fans of the Oath Keepers who read The Blaze ([176]) is pretty high on my personal list. Do we offer remedial courses in sourcing? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  User:Meters gave them an NPOV warning last month, and User:Sangdeboeuf gave them some CT alerts this month. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not a "fan" of the Oath Keepers. I do read the Blaze. I also read Huffington Post, the Nation, and the Atlantic. I like to read a diversity of viewpoints from all across the political spectrum. I self identify as a libertarian, but I am quite happy to read all points of view. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no copyright breach. I wrote the content for my blog, and then I later added it to wikipedia. Please note that "Squirrel Hill" appears on the blog and in my wikipedia user name. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go along with whatever the talk page consensus for those articles says. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I added that content based on Wikipedia:Be bold. I am happy to read the feedback from those of you who disagree with my additions. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as an obvious sock of User:Grundle2600. Prolog (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's an SPI I have not seen before.. I'll recognize the behaviour next time. Meters (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

LingoSouthAsia

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

I'll make it short and concise;

User has been long term edit warring and pov pushing (more info on WP:AN/3 [177] and [178]) at Saraiki language, trying their best to hide the word "Lahnda" (literally the name of an article) and replace it with the name they prefer ("Western Punjabi Language variety" or something similar) while still keeping the link.

They are basically trying every trick in their sleeve to have their way, even previously lying that they received "consensus" (as seen in the WP:AN/3 report) from two users who literally opposed them. Now their one-week block has expired, and they're still trying to have their way [179], resorting to personal attacks [180], WP:CANVASSING [181] (where they are randomly claiming I am anti-Pakistani.. wut), and WP:HA [182] (I've already told them twice to leave my talk page alone twice before that, where they had also attacked me [183] [184]). They were even initially suspected of being a sock due to sharing the same disruptive edits as this one [185]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked them from Saraiki language for a year. I suspect that if there is future disruption, we will simply move to WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Unfortunately, this hasn't stopped them. Now they're back at my talk page [186]. The fact that they still think they're in the right and still writing (ranting) in my talk page is concerning, WP:NOTHERE seems to fit right, I don't think they're able to edit in line with the policies of this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have already conveyed HistoryofIran that I am no longer intrested in the page we had diffrences. I dont know why he is getting personal and pushing me against WP:NOTHERE. Is not he over reacting first posting in SPI then getting me blocked for 7 days for edit warring then getting me partially blocked even when I was not edit warring and was using talk page to elobrate my view in one or 2 edits only in eight days. . I mean he is getting extremest to all proposions. Do he need any written contract as confirmation ? I told him that whatever he is forcefully keeping as LEADE on Saraiki language, I dont care anymore. If he had content dispute on Saraiki Language he should have gone to Dispute resolution and invited me there also. But he is making a full throtle effort to get me blocked. Isnt he over reacting ? @Black Kite: please reconsider my partial block based on above reply. @HistoryofIran:we are here working with out fee in collbrative manner so please reconsider your attitude towards me in a good spirit of new year 2024. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Posting the following under the heading "Annoying user" on another editor's talk page is both a personal attack and canvassing, neither of which is allowed: "Your suuport is needed. HistoryofIran is an antiPK type user. Talk:Saraiki language - Wikipedia see variety discussion." [sic]. I interpret "antiPK' to be an abbrevaition of "anti-Pakistan".DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are repeating the fact which was considered in decision number one by Black Kite. By Anti PK I meant anti Published Kontent in Pakistani english lingo and I wanted a local user with local knowledge to also contribute to the discussion on the the fact that Lahnda has no local currency. No one knows what is Lahnda. Hardly any single person. Grierson in his Published Kontent used Western Punjabi in each footnote for Lahnda. Hope this suffice misunderstandings. How Saraiki Language Talk page disscusion can be presumed anti pakistan ? Any logic ? Clear misunderstanding. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Huh? What are you claiming "anti Published Kontent" (a term unknown to Google) means? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please dont divert the discussion. It is your presumption that antipk is anti pakistan, my intention was anti published content. I did not used PC bcoz just like BC it is abusive short form of Pen chod or Behan chod in local language. I did not wanted to call BC or PC to HistoryOfIran that is I used PK for published content. Anyways, I have already conveyed HistoryofIran that I am no longer intrested in the page we had diffrences. I dont know why he is getting personal and pushing me against WP:NOTHERE. Is not he over reacting first posting in SPI then getting me blocked for 7 days for edit warring then getting me partially blocked even when I was not edit warring and was using talk page to elobrate my view in one or 2 edits only in eight days. . I mean he is getting extremest to all proposions. Do he need any written contract as confirmation ? I told him that whatever he is forcefully keeping as LEADE on Saraiki language, I dont care anymore. If he had content dispute on Saraiki Language he should have gone to Dispute resolution and invited me there also. But he is making a full throtle effort to get me blocked. Isnt he over reacting ? @Black Kite: please reconsider my partial block based on above reply. @HistoryofIran:we are here working with out fee in collbrative manner so please reconsider your attitude towards me in a good spirit of new year 2024. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's no way that you meant anything other than "anti-Pakistan" when you wrote "antiPK". Trying to pull that crap... you're WP:NOTHERE and should be site banned. DeCausa (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are trying to put words in my mouth. I think you both used anti pakistan word repeatedly. By applying your logic you should be Site banned ? I mean serious ? Dont be so harsh and let us not forget what English wikepedia is. It is a great knowledge center. We are volunteers. I have no grudge/ complaints against anyone. I want to collabrate positively. I have right to defend myself that is why I am arguing here. Otherwise I am a productive user and hope to be such in future. Kindly reconsider Partial ban. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• After being repeatedly requested to stay off HistoryofIran's page (see the page history), LingoSouthAsia posted this attack. I have blocked them for two weeks for harassment. Unfortunately that will kill your partial block, Black Kite; I'll try to remember to reinstate it after the site block expires. Bishonen | tålk 13:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC).

someone is removing unblock requests and changing them.

User:Sjsjsjsisisisisk keeps changing the unblock request on their talk page so it shows that they are unblocked but he isn't. Been trying to revert edits but they keep reverting it back. Please revoke TPA. Toketaa^talk 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done That's enough of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am getting harassed on my talk page

Can anyone just block this kid who is harassing me? Toketaa^talk 15:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Any objection to me revision deleting the thread on your talk page? PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

delete the hebrew text one, the other one is ok to keep. Toketaa^talk 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by various IPs on Precure anime series pages

Repeated disruptive edits by 75.167.148.117 (talk · contribs), though seeminly not just from this IP address. They've continued applying the same edits[187][188] after a final warning, possibly previously editing (CheckUser, perhaps?) under 60.102.57.4 (talk · contribs), 75.167.140.65 (talk · contribs) and 60.69.75.128 (talk · contribs)[189][190][191]. This user keeps replacing sourced/referenced information on various pages of the Pretty Cure anime series with their own fan theory/opinions. No communication. Should this instead be filed under AIV? Rctgamer3 (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The checkuser tool won't be of much help in this case. They seem to be an IP hopping disruptive editor. Yes, reporting at AIV would get a quicker response. I have blocked 75.167.148.117 (talk · contribs) for 3 months. They will probably respond by using another IP address, so report them to AIV when that happens. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

TheNeutron and Andy Vidan unblock condition

TheNeutron was blocked in 2020 for Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business. They were unblocked a couple weeks later under the agreement that they would not edit content related to Andy Vidan or Composable (see [192]). They have made only a handful of edits since, but have lately become active again, starting and editing Draft:Andy Vidan (this is an attempt to restart an article deleted at AFD). Is this OK, given their unblock condition? - MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick glance, no that's a direct violation of the terms of their unblock. Unless I am missing where that was no longer a factor of course, but that appears to be directly in violation of their unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reinstated the indef for the clear violation of their unblock conditions. I have also G5'd the draft. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They have requested an unblock, just saying that they won't do it again, which sorry to violate AGF but I feel like that is untrue. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That is what they said last time, after they recreated the article after the AFD closed. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly as I thought. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Pierrevang3 naming of an area dispute on various articles. Talk page going nowhere.

Please read the talk page of Trà Vinh province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the talk page[193]

User Pierrevang3 decides to add in a random name that is unfounded and using an arbitrary number of the population to enforce said name onto articles.

User Pierrevang3 is adding in unfounded names onto Vietnamese articles such as Trà Vinh province Special:Diff/1192555158 Special:Diff/1192684551, Trà Vinh Special:Diff/1192554934 Special:Diff/1197478991, Sóc Trăng province Special:Diff/1192553623 Special:Diff/1192685228, Sóc Trăng Special:Diff/1192553247 Special:Diff/1197479458

Please advise on what to do and further elaborate wikipedia's policy on this, since talk page couldn't come to a resolution. Thanks. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This concerns Pierrevang3 (talk · contribs) and a disagreement regarding whether Khmer names should be added to Vietnamese articles. Has there been some kind of central discussion (perhaps an WP:RFC) on this? That is what WP:DR leads to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the examples above is diff. That added {{lang-km}} and {{lang}} templates after the Vietnamese title for Trà Vinh province. I suspect that such additions are against guidelines but the only firm statement I can find is "Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names" at MOS:LEADLANG. I seem to recall a big discussion about this in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guide. I just opened an RFC.[194] 1.43.160.10 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be more generic than just for that one article. I was hoping that someone here would say more about my above MOS:LEADLANG comment. @Kwamikagami: Do you know whether the diff I mentioned above is permitted or disallowed by a guideline/discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Trà Vinh is 30% Cambodian. IMO it's reasonable to include the Khmea name, just as New Mexico has the name in Spanish and Hawaii has the name in Hawaiian. (But then, I know Cambodians who live in that area.) A language or two shouldn't overly clutter the lead. If it gets to be too much, it can be moved to a footnote, as we often do for Chinese place names where the transcriptions start getting long and involved.

LEADLANG does say 'one' language, but that's a guideline. When an area is bilingual/binational, I think it's only fair to include both.

I don't know about a big discussion a few months ago, but there was one for India a few years back. There the situation got so ridiculous that we banned using Indian languages alltogether. But that's an exception; I can't imagine Vietnam getting to be like that. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That depends if the name is legit. The khmer name is not even established enough to even be listed. New Mexico and Hawaii have a history documenting their names in the past. The khmer name does not. It seems like a random word that popped out of nowhere, and is actually based on Trà Vinh province and not the other way around. Trà Vinh is already an established name recorded in historical Vietnamese records and in French documents, which does not seem to be the case for the khmer name.[195]. You also need to list out what number is the threshold enough to warrant such an inclusion. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not about including a foreign name for the region but rather mentioning a local name (the Khmers are a local population), all the more so when it refers and is used by a 30% of the population that is indigenous. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic country and the Khmer are part of the 54 ethnic groups recognized by Vietnam, obscuring their presence is pointless, they are an integral part of Vietnam. Putting the local name in the local language won't give the territory back to Cambodia, it is just highly relevant considering the huge Khmer population in the city (whether who between the Vietnamese or Khmer name came first is not the point, there wasn’t an etymology section added, the Khmer name gives 57,000 results on google so its use is pretty attested). Tra Vinh and Soc Trang have both a huge Khmer population and a 1000-year old Khmer heritage, which make it legitimate to mention the Khmer name. In opposition, it is pointless to mention the Khmer name of Ho Chi Minh City for example (despite the fact that the city was part of Cambodia for centuries) as there aren't a significant Khmer population there. The same thing goes for all of southern Vietnam, which was centuries ago part of Cambodia, putting a Khmer name for the region would just be sheer irredentism. Putting the Khmer name is only relevant in Soc Trang and Tra Vinh and I can't see why the topic should be sensitive as both articles already mention the significant Khmer population and multiple images in the articles show Khmer pagodas. Here is a non exhaustive list of places with alternative local names:

St Ives, Cornwall in England - Cornish heritage.

Biarritz in France - Basque and Occitan heritage.

Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji in China - Korean heritage.

Hohhot in China - Mongolian heritage.

Stung Treng City in Cambodia - Laotian heritage.

Nantes in France - Breton heritage.

Juneau, Alaska in the United States - Tlingit heritage.

Marrakesh in Maroc - Berber heritage.

Brno in Czechia - German heritage.

Pierrevang3 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To sum up the advancement of the issue:

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the Khmer name have been cleared (cf [196] or [197])

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the percentage of the Khmer population in the region have been cleared (cf )

- There has been precedents on wikipedia of including the local name without the need of an explicit "threshold" concerning the percentage of local speakers; good faith and common sense are more than enough to see the relevance of representing 30% of the population. (cf St Ives, Cornwall, Biarritz,Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji, Hohhot, Stung Treng City, Nantes, Juneau, Alaska, Marrakesh, Brno)

- The mention of the name does not clutter the lead sentence, all the more so with the Vietnamese name not being in parentheses as it uses the latin alphabet.

Therefore why would one want to hide the Khmer name of the region that is being used by 30% of the population? Doesn't it improve the clarity about the context and bring more informations about the article which is the very aim of wikipedia? Pierrevang3 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's been cleared off. You still don't understand and this is the 4th time I had to repeat. Why is 30% the threshold for inclusion of ethnic minority names, that's fhe arbitrary number you randomly threw out and followed through with it yourself. A majority of the ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway since the common language is Vietnamese. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's ask the question the other way around, why are you opposing the inclusion of 30% of the population when it doesn't seem to bother you with Hawai and New Mexico? What threshold was used in Hawai and New Mexico that made you complacent?

Things have been cleared out, you need to acknowledge what was provided by other contributors, if you don't want to believe the reliable sources @Phil Bridger provided then it's on you, but don't bring your agenda onto wikipedia.

On what sources do you base your claim "ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway"? This is an "arbitrary" opinion and you can't bring that on wikipedia. Wikipedia need sources and reliable references not personal opinions and nationalistic agenda. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Khmer name of the province can easily be sourced (take your pick of reliable sources from [198] or [199]), so the only question is whether it should be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why it shouldn't be included. I mean why opposing the adding of an information that sheds light on the topic. The more informations the better, all the more so when the additional information does not make anything overcrowded. That's literally improving the article, why wanting to hide the Khmer name when it's used by 30% of the population of the province? That's counter-intuitive. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Even for Saigon, assuming the name is well-established in Khmer, the Khmer name is of historical importance. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed but I think putting it in the lead would be a bit misleading considering the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese speakers in the city. Mentioning it in the history or etymology section though would be relevant indeed and I think it's already the case. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's been a discussion on that many, many years ago. Some Vietnamese articles in the past like Phú Quốc and Ho Chi Minh city were vandalised with khmer names in the lead and in its table, with a khmer centric view. There's a reason why it's not there anymore. Just going in their talk page archives gives an insight to the madness those past edit conflicts were to the point an editor had to make Names of Ho Chi Minh City. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The matter concerns Soc Trang and Tra Vinh, stay focused, don't go down on whataboutism. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we call cities - villages of what they were called 1000 years ago? Explain the historical importance. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

So 3 pages worth of books and its only used as a reference. It's strange how most results are only from the 2000s, considering khmers believe it has 1000 years of khmer heritage. Googling its actual khmer name gives no academic resources. So can we just call any state in the world its ethnic minority language? An example would be when when Melbourne's Chinese population gains dominance in academic spaces and a shift in the language and local dynamics change to the Chinese one. The Chinese name of Melbourne will become legitimate and must be used in all types of mediums and outlets. USA and Europe has a bunch of ethnic minorities and is set to increase. Should we call their states in their ethnic minorities' local language? 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you only list preah trapeang the results are less than 10. OP included Vietnamese lexicon Trà Vinh. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's unrelated, Khmer people have been in the region before Vietnamese people, that's not recent immigration. If you don't believe that then it's on you, but you can't bring your beliefs on wikipedia, there's plenty of sources proving this point, again read Nam tiến, Mekong Delta, History of Vietnam. We are not here to provide you your education and if you refuse to face the truth, then refuse it on your own but don't block the building process of wikipedia.

Again what don't you understand in the fact that no etymology section was added? The point is that this name is used by Khmer people, nobody wrote an etymology section.

@Johnuniq@Kwamikagami@Phil Bridger Can you please advise on the matter, his claims were cleared but he is just refusing the truth and the process. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Mon people appear to be the earliest arrivals to mainland south east Asia. A kingdom called Funan seems to predate the Khmers. It's said that Funan is not a Khmer kingdom but a mix of different ethnicities of Austronesian, such as of Javanese and Malay roots and of Mon stock. We should name the Khmer regions in modern day Cambodia in the Mon language and Austronesian languages including its Javanese language and Malay language. We should also name all Khmer areas previously controlled by the Nguyen Dynasty and by the various Siam Thai kingdoms of Ayutthaya Kingdom, Thonburi Kingdom, Rattanakosin Kingdom in its Vietnamese and Thai language. These names have actually been recorded in history by the way. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

(Maybe read the article on Funan as it clearly indicates that it is highly likely that the kingdom was predominantly Khmer. Both Mon and Khmer people are said to be the the earliest arrivals to mainland Southeast Asia. That being said both statements are not related to the matter, if you could please stay focused and not go on your "let's minimize the Khmer influence" spree, that would be much appreciated.)

Back to the real matter, your point is not even valid as none of the Mon, Javanese, Malay... have a significant and longstanding population in Cambodia. As already stated (I also have to repeat myself it seems?), your point would be the same as supporting the mention of the Khmer name for all South Vietnam (including Saigon) as it was once controlled by Cambodia. However this is not the point of the dispute as we are talking solely about Tra Vinh and Soc Trang, which are two provinces that have maintained a significant Khmer population and heritage contrary to other provinces hence the relevance. The rhetoric relies on Khmer people being a significant and long-rooted ethnolinguistic minority in the province, it does not relies on the fact that the province used to be controlled once by a certain State.

You nitpicking on who came first in Southeast Asia shows how much good faith you're willing to put into achieving WP:CON. Of course one could go back and refer to Lucy (Australopithecus) to relativize and to oppose every people that are indigenous to a region arguing that they ultimately come from Africa? That is not the point, me stating that the Khmer inhabited Tra Vinh and Soc Trang provinces before the Vietnamese people did was meant to show how absurd your analogy to Melbourne was, as you are referring to recent waves of migration.

Your double standard are astonishing and I wonder if I am the only one who can see the clear bias in your statements: "A majority of the ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway", "You're implying there is a 1000 year khmer heritage in this area yet you can't even name this area of what it was called in khmer.", "your theory that khmers are indigenous and had been there for over 1 thousand years." "Khmer stock originally are from southern China", ""30% means I can put local fake name language"", "Maybe you should take a look at where Trà Vinh is at and you'll see why" Pierrevang3 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off a bit. For one, this is not the place to argue content.

Second, accusing each other of bias without good evidence is a personal attack which can lead to blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Block evader IP making personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

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

This IP is an obvious WP:BLOCKEVADE sock of this sockmaster (whose edits they are restoring a couple of days after the last sock was blocked). I'm reporting them here in light of these summaries: [200], [201]. If it's worth reporting to SPI as well, let me know. R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

While I was writing this, Favonian has hidden the edit summary in the first diff I linked above. Thank you. A block is still warranted I think. I'm assuming admins can see the hidden edit summary? R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It didn't take long for them to repeat the attacks yet again. Thanks for the block, Favonian. R Prazeres (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Mrsecurity39 392; continued disruption, attacks, and now WP:HOUNDING

Mrsecurity39 392 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous report auto archived [202], and I was silly enough to think they would stop.

Another classical case of a user making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits in Azerbaijan/Iran/Central Asia/Turkic related articles.

If this user was more active (they have 107 edits since 17 January 2022, a lot of which have gotten reverted [203]), they would have been taken to WP:ANI long ago;

1. WP:SYNTH at Hunnic language [204]
2. Long term edit warring and pov pushing at Luandi throughout several months in 2022, removing sourced info about a possible Iranian connection [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210]
3. Pov pushing at Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, trying to minimize the Azerbaijani role in the event, which was reverted by another user [211] [212]
4. Pov pushing at Jie people [213], changing "other authors have proposed a Turkic language" to "most authors have proposed a Turkic language", despite only one citation being cited and other cited citations saying otherwise..
5. WP:SYNTH at Safavid Iran [214] [215] [216] [217] and Turco-Persian tradition [218] (none of the cited sources mention anything "Turko-Persian"), not to mention altering sourced info (removing "Turkified" in the Safavid Iran article)

Random personal attacks;

1. Go ahead, lying and being dishonest is not w good trait to have, but I, can't say I'm shocked.
2. This is the second time Ermwin don't fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.
3. .....that you're using to fabricate information that ISN'T there, just for your own COI and or political goals.

That above was my previous report, but now they've continued edit warring/disruption [219], including more attacks [220] [221] and now even WP:HOUNDING in an article they have no connection to [222], restoring information that was unsourced and cited by non-WP:RS (but why would they care, they got to revert me).

Would appreciate if something would be done, I fail to see how they're a networth to this site (I'm not gonna respond to Mrsecurity39 392 here unless an admin wants me to, as it was clearly a waste last time (WP:BATTLEGROUND from them)). --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

More attacks; You must have quite a sad life to maliciously edit a bunch of Turkic related wiki articles furthermore going as far and trying to undo not just my but other users sourced backed edits by searching up their edit history all because your previous reports were dismissed, you edit these pages because they don't fit your narrative, I don't answer to threats make whichever report you'd like the truth is edits should be made from a NPOV something you're clearly not doing. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

have you not deliberately edited out sourced material on numerous wiki sites because they don't support your narrative, when edits should only be made from NPOV? Have you not deliberately gone though mu and other Turkic editors edit history to make malicious edits oh no but it doesn't stop there. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing source backed NPOV material and getting upset that not just I but other users undo those malicious edits makes it all the more obvious (aswell as the edits of mine you undid from weeks ago) makes it all the more obvious just how dishonest you are. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The above statement is also a personal attack, all of this shows a refusal to attempt to find consensus, or to WP:AGF. As the personal attacks continue your position does not improve. Geardona (talk to me?) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

it's quite hard when the user slandered be on the previous archived post (I urge you to take a look at that) and now undid edits of mine from weeks ago and accuses me of which he is guilty of. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

From editing my and other users contributions to going out of his way to edit contributions I made weeks ago even just now this user went out of his way to also remove my wiki common uploads (something I put my response in and just came back from) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Zengids-_territory1174.png Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Mrsecurity39 392 has now made 4 reverts (you could argue 5) at Turco-Persian tradition since 15 January 2024 [223]‎ (the date gap is due to their inactivity, so arguably a violation of WP:3RR), they've just reverted another user [224]. Now that I think of it, a lot of their 120 edits is just edit warring (especially the afromentioned Luandi, [225]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Never received a WP:3RR or other violations, most of my edits are not "edit warring" yet again a false statement.

  Since you copy pasted your previous dismissed report I'll just paraphrase my response that I gave at the time (which is just as relevant to this complaint of yours).

  the sources are there and can be checked by anyone (same goes for my edit history which you falsely claim is mostly "edit warring") you trying to bring up unrelated events and taking them out of context is disingenuous.

  The wiki article you claim I made reverts in were reverts of you that were not source backed that I removed (as you had no valid reasons to remove said sources nor did you provide any sources in your editing, these sources/info that has been largely on that wiki page for years while another was more recent by me) which you happened to have "randomly" carried out after your last report. While undoing your edit I told you you could state your case on the talkpage of that wiki article.

  Similarly today you just happened to have "reported" my wiki Commons upload, tried to remove some of my edits from weeks ago. You seem to mainly revert edits (in general not just of me but also other users) on Turkic related pages. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated earlier you seem to have some type of bias which Is why I stated edits should be made from a NPOV.

  But it's quite ironic that you accuse me of Hounding.. Then what do we call all these actions of yours? Reporting my wiki Commons uploads today, going through my edit list and undoing my edits after your previous report got archived. I'll refrain from making further comments and speak to admins from here on out. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Mrsecurity39 392#Indefinite block. El_C 06:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkish coordinated POV-pushing

In December last year I had to spend some weeks dealing with a very annoying user who despite having no understanding of Wikipedia's policies or even about the distinction on primary and secondary sources was sure as hell stubborn and kept dragging me into a stupid edit war that finished in them getting topic banned after another user reported them to ANI ([226]) and after I also had to start a WP:DRN request. The bulk of this dispute was at Night attack at Târgoviște, however this user's edits also extended to other articles like Siege of Krujë (1450), Siege of Svetigrad and Battle of Valea Albă. You can check this by checking the user's contributions (Keremmaarda (talk · contribs)) or the pages' edit histories. May I note these are all battles that involved the Ottoman Empire. The ANI thread ended on 6 January, Keremmaarda's topic ban from Ottoman history entered into force and their last edit was on 4 January [227], expressing fear they were about to get blocked.

Guess what. Out of nowhere Nabukednezar03 (talk · contribs) has appeared, again reigniting the very tiring and annoying crusades to remove any "exaggerated" military losses suffered by the Ottomans and to show how their enemies got destroyed. Nabukednezar03 is editing exactly on the same pages that Keremmaarda did, Night attack at Târgoviște (comparison with Keremmaarda's edits: [228]), Siege of Svetigrad (please notice the vertical citing style, same as the example from Keremmaarda from earlier; comparison with Keremmaarda: [229]), Battle of Valea Albă (comparison: [230]). And there are also more different accounts involved in this, see Semihas1234 (talk · contribs) and Son of nationalism 1488 (talk · contribs). All of their edits are being reverted and they are draining the energy of a lot of users.

I call to admins to be WP:BOLD and put an end to this situation and save everyone's valuable time. Indefinite blocks for Keremmaarda, Nabukednezar03 and any other involved accounts. I don't know if these are WP:SOCKPUPPETS of Keremmaarda or friends he has given notice to about the disputes he was involved in (WP:MEATPUPPET); per WP:DUCK there is reason to be suspicious, there is defintively some coordination here. I also literally beg to admins to permanently protect Night attack at Târgoviște. Look at its edit history [231], it's literally filled with disputes, reverts, edits by accounts without user pages. I also think other mentioned pages should be protected there.

Pinging editors that have in some way or another been involved in disputes with these users: OrionNimrod, AlexBachmann, Vbbanaz05, Rosguill, Kansas Bear, Jingiby, Daniel Case. I'm sure they can bring other valuable evidence. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Update: Nabukednezar03 has been blocked for 48 hours for breaking the 3RR rule. Still I don't think this editor should be allowed to return to Wikipedia. Notice WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS [232] [233], personal attacks [234] [235], and them talking about Keremmaarda [236] (obvious connection, again they should be banned too). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  If we find that this user is a sock, go ahead and indef. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with OrionNimrod below. I think it's rather a case of WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:TAGTEAM. Which should still be sanctioned. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is the same user. Observing his contributions, I've noticed that he still continues to insult users and accuse them of nationalism on this website. Compare [1] to [2]. Super Dromaeosaurus has said everything that needs to be said: indefinite ban - we have got to do other things than dealing with nationalistic socks. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Sometimes I see the similar boring pattern: "Ottoman army was small, they lost just a small men and they always win" some new users are rewriting many battle articles in this way. I talked a lot with Keremmaarda for a longer period, I think the communication style and behavior is different than Nabukednezar03 who pushing agressive way his things in a very short time. This was also a similar pattern but somehow different by another user: [237] Btw I am not wonder that many different users are doing the same, as for example in Turkish wiki in the battle of Mohacs the Hungarian army is 200,000 which is super nonsense and unrealistic (based by medieval God-Sultan propaganda source), but modern Hungarian historians says 25,000. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia umm Hello, it's been about a month since I left Wikipedia. If you want, you can permanently ban my account. I have nothing to do with other accounts and I will not force myself to convince you of this. As Murat Bardakçı said; "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is considered an insult to history books that even children can edit." I am interested in my academic success and I try to learn for my own sake. Not to waste time arguing with people who devoted their whole lives here. From here I send my greetings and respect to Orion Nimrod, he is the only one among you who is really trying to do something right. In short, as I said, ban my account permanently if you want. I do not care anymore. I do not have any contact with other accounts. Have a nice day. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I was considering requesting a sockpuppet investigation for the very reasons outlined above by Super Dromaesaurus, but they beat me to it. I too am convinced that these users are either sock puppets of Keremmarda, or at the very least RL friends or “collaborators” for lack of a better term.

Not only do they edit the exact same articles with the same edits, but they use the same “sources” too. Furthermore, they speak in the same broken English which would appear to be translated from Turkish via a translation program such as Google Translate. Keremmarda was here for the wrong reasons, casting WP:ASPERSIONS, pushing WP:OR interpretations with an ahistorical POV, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH and just about every other Wikipedia guideline. There should be no place for that sort of editor on Wikipedia, and I encourage the admins to take action before this continues any further. Botushali (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Continual adding of WP:BLP breaking content

The IP user 24.255.50.59 is currently repeatedly adding controversal content without reliable sourcing to Jeff DeWit; see Diff. My attempts to explain our policies on biographies of living persons and referencing have fallen on deaf ears, and I am not wanting to become involved in an edit war (note, I have reverted more than three times, as I believe this is an acceptable exception from WP:3RR, but have decided to stop reverting and instead bring the issue here. Apologies if I've made a mistake with this report, I've never used ANI before. CoconutOctopus talk 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears the problems with the page have been sorted by various editors adding in proper formatting and sources, so thank you to those editors. CoconutOctopus talk 20:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP user is continuing to edit the article to make the section regarding the recording more heavily biased, removing other editors contributions to include words like "scandal" in the header, and add unsources references to threats to make the topic highly one-sided. CoconutOctopus talk 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP user for 72 hours for edit warring, and done a bit of copyediting. Using "bribery" in connection with a dispute first reported by the tabloid Daily Mail, and where there have been no criminal charges let alone a conviction, is definitely a BLP violation. Cullen328 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Not convinced they'll come back to edit nicely, but I guess we'll see. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus, if any disruptive editing resumes on that article, let me know, and I will take additional protective steps as needed. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

After another disruptive edit by a different IP I posted to WP:RPP, and the article is now semi-protected for a year. Let's hope this is the end of it. CoconutOctopus talk 22:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I attended to that RfPP request by semiprotecting it for one year as AP2, independently (unaware) of this thread. I've also WP:REVDEL'd some stuff (BLP vio). El_C 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A user from an IP address is accusing my account of belonging to a sockpuppet farm

Hi, a user from IP address is targeting my account. I don't know who this person is or who the blocked sockpuppet farm operator is. You can see the ip address' contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.151.38.106

You are welcome to run a check on my ip address or account and see for yourself that it's not connected to any farm whatsoever.NamanNomad 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What does “targeting my account mean”? Also, you are required to leave a notice on their talk page, per the note at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think "targeting my account" refers to all five of the IP editor's edits accusing NamanNomad of being part of a sock farm. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith and ignore IP's "sock farm" accusations, but when I look at NamanNomad's contributions - excluding their interest in Jeffrey Epstein - they frankly look like the typical contributions of an undisclosed paid editor. Cavarrone 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone the user NamanNomad has been recently blocked for sockpuppeting per SPI case. You were right - they were doing undisclosed paid edits. 91.230.98.228 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

146.199.218.132, unsourced additions, personal attacks and inappropriate talk page messages

This IP user, 146.199.218.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unsourced content to three pages - GWR Toad, Class 508 and Merseyrail. This in and of itself is of course not exactly egregious, but after being reverted and notes being left on their talk pages, they have left aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries (diff: [238]), and inappropriate talk page messages (diff: [239] - now reverted, as I have no intention of replying to such a message), despite being warned on their talk page not to direct personal attacks to editors (diff: [240]. Quite frankly, I don't want to interact with the editor after the message left on my talk page, so I would rather someone with more experience look at this. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, since writing this report, they left a second message on my talk page, which I am again about to revert - "rub salt in the wound", really? [241] Danners430 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And another... [242] Danners430 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Before this ends up getting archived, is someone able to look at this? Danners430 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah that definitely fits under WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the userlinks template from the header because that causes issues with jumping to that header. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Zoeleephine43935

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

---

User:Zoeleephine43935 has directed 2 personal attacks to me (because I reverted their addition of unsourced promo and deleted their copyvios at Commons). I was going to just ignore it and I reverted my talk page, but there is another one on their user page. I feel an official warning (or other disciplinary action) and removal of the content on their user page is required. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the comment from their userpage and left an "only warning" about personal attacks on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Meredithw2024

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

---

• Meredithw2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's been almost a full a year since I last warned Meredithw2024 about adding uncited genres to music articles, but they are still going strong. Take a look at their contributions. You can see a lot of questionable edits. They often mark their edits as minor when they in fact make major edits by adding unsourced content ([243]). They almost never disambiguate when they link ([244][245][246]). For some reason, they feel the need to link random subsections when all they do is edit the infobox or lead, like they're trying to mislead us or something ([247][248][249]). If you look at their talk page, you can only see two types of messages: those from DLP bot telling them they added dab links, and warnings from me, the only user who has done so. I'm astounded nobody else has taken issue with their edits. Meredithw2024 has completely ignored all messages and warnings and continues to make problematic edits. I believe it's time for an intervention. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Meredithw2024 from article space. The editor is free to make well referenced edit requests on the talk page of any article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

*sigh* There he goes again

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

---

Suspected sockpuppets of StealthForce

• 2601:84:8D00:1E9D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:84:8D80:22:0:0:0:0/64 (talk  · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

There he goes again. It's that guy once again, StealthForce, and please, DON'T LISTEN to what that guy says. He's just going to rant and make out that I'm the enemy here, and do his "screaming" method of talking; both IP ranges trace to New Jersey, once again. I'm sorry, but this is just frustrating. Please, PLEASE do what you can. He just never learns his lesson. Thank you.

Enclosed is another blocked IP range to prove that this is consistent with his past actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 174.61.189.42 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are or why you didn't take this to WP:SPI, but I've blocked the range that has edited recently for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor Augmented Seventh – request for rollback of reverts

Godfather, I have a stone in my shoe which only you can remove. My issue concerns the article Cave wolf and the actions of the User:Augmented Seventh.

• On 24JAN24 I updated the Cave wolf article with information contained in Diedrich 2022 that was published in English only this month, and from Marciszak 2023 that was published 11 months ago. The material was properly WP:ATT through WP:CITEs to WP:RELIABLE sources.
• On my final edit at 5:01, this one being diff: [250], it contained the word “Relationshits” – it should have read “its”, however the word “Relationsh” crept in as an error from part of a prior deletion I had made. This was my fault.
• While I was proof-reading the entire article, at 5:03 user Augmented Seventh reverted 11 of my edits, and left a message on my talk page stating “i went ahead and reverted your recent edits, because vulgarity.” Please be aware that the message that was originally left on my talk page has since been amended. Talk page discussions between us did not resolve the issue.
• The word “Relationshits” does not exist in the English language, however the word “mishit” does – nobody regards that word as a vulgarity. Augmented Seventh could have reverted just that one final edit, or perhaps corrected the minor error before I found it during the proof-read.

Request

I would be grateful if a responsible editor could:
(1) roll back Augmented Seventh’s 11 reverts on the article Cave wolf
(2) in that article, amend the word “Relationshits” to read “its”.
14.2.205.177 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Augmented Seventh: and 14.2.205.177 4.2.205.177, I note that the Talk:Cave wolf, which created in 2017, has no recent activity. Perhaps it might be best to start a discussion there first? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I restored the removed material. It is obvious that Augmented Seventh saw that one accidentally slightly vulgar-looking typo, and directly flew off the handle by reverting a dozen perfectly fine content edits. Not justifiable, does not need to be dicussed on the talk page, and probably deserves a trout to the neck. Oh, and I fixed the typo as well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  thank you for taking the time to look at these edits.

  have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

A1FanGirl

The user keeps reverting my redirect and the redirect was approved by an AFD Toketaa^talk 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked already. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Skyerise

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

---

I would like to bring attention to a recent incident on Tollens (talk · contribs)'s talk page, where Skyerise (talk · contribs) grossly overstepped the boundaries of civility to outright personal attacks -- which she was recently blocked a couple months back for. This includes calling Tollens an idiot and suggesting he doesn't belong on Wikipedia as well as accusing him of not having a college education several times. This is in addition to casting WP:ASPERSIONS and refusing to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Small typo, the links to Skyerise's uncivil comments should be Special:Diff/1197651043 and Special:Diff/1197663279, the ones you gave display the versions before the respective comments. Full agree that these definitely cross WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The OP doesn't include a diff, just a link, but your diffs don't show the comments referred to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I made the exact same mistake and linked the diffs from before the edits. That's definitely a Self-trout for me! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been addressed and they apologized already User_talk:Skyerise#Yikes..While not excusing the comments, without any indication the behavior continued, I see no reason to block now. Star Mississippi 14:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

She did address it but did not apologize to the editor in question, and even if she did -- this seems to be a recurring problem with her. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi, there's no reason to block for this incident, and we are not going to use it as a launchpad for allegations of a pattern; it's unfair.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I am biased here as I was the one who was insulted during her last block. I will defer to admin opinion on this. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did apologize directly to the user in question the next day, pinging them. This was before the conversation on my own talk page. However, I would like to question why @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo is hounding me. I served my time for insulting them, is it proper to continue to hold it against me to the extent that they now seem to be inappropriately following my edits? Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The policy you link to notes that fixing [...] violations of Wikipedia policy is a [c]orrect use of an editor's history and that wikihounding has no overridingly constructive reason. Reporting another user's personal attacks -- especially one who has a history of making personal attacks -- is not a frivolous or meritless complaint. Furthermore, I have not been following your edits -- much the opposite.Tryin to make a change :-/ 15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Says the editor who just reverted me twice at Western tulku. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is very disingenuous when the edits you made were contentious and already being discussed on the talk page. You also didn't edit the page until after this report was made -- did you think that this would bolster your claim of WP:HOUNDING because you knew I would rightfully revert your edits? You seemed content to wait for other editors until I made this report. Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious why we're giving someone with multiple blocks for personal attacks a complete pass here. Those are really shitty things to say to someone, and the "apology" was just for the "tone". If there weren't two admins above saying they think everything is fine, I'd have blocked for 3 months. or even indef, as an "enough is enough" block to solidify in their mind that this. has. to. stop. now. Even if we ignore everything else, considering people without college degrees inherently inferior to you is a significant character flaw. And I'm unimpressed by the complaint of hounding. If you don't want to be brought to ANI, perhaps keep your smug elitist bullshit to yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @User:Floquenbeam Shouldn't you be blocked for that last phrase, then? Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    You're kind of missing the point here. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    @User:Floquenbeam So are you. I apologized twice. Once the same day, then again the next day. Both before this report. I haven't heard an apology from you, and you haven't even struck your own personal attack. Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User Floquenbeam, please do not use WP:UNCIVIL language like smug elitist bull****. Be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG. It's entirely possible to disagree with other commenters on an ANI thread without personal attacks or rudeness (just as I will say to Skyerise that it's entirely possible to clarify WP:GENREF without calling another editor an idiot), including against the reportee's alleged character rather than their behavior. Since I'm not aware of a long term pattern of chronic and intractable misbehavior, I'd hope a WP:TROUT is sufficient in this case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Making comments about an edit (as opposed to about an editor) cannot be uncivil, regardless of whether you disagree with the language used; Floquenbeam's opinion was fairly accurate. Skyerise has got a long history of doing this stuff and really needs to stop doing it. Having said that, evemn a half-arsed apology is better than no apology. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad apologies have been offered & personal attacks withdrawn. It's not nice to equate lack of a college degree with WP:CIR, on this project. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I second GoodDay's statements. @Skyerise, since incivility has been a pattern, do you have any thoughts on how you'd avoid it the next time you have a bad day?

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, I would like to hear how you came to be aware of that interaction on somebody else's talk page. What it looks like is that you were keeping tabs on someone with whom you had a dispute in the past, which is not a good look.

I agree that, provided Skyerise gives some assurance that there won't be such egregious incivility the next time they have a bad day, this could be closed. MCRIRE may be reminded that this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; Skyerise had apologized and that particular episode ceased, so it was clearly not urgent. It may be chronic, but the apology suggests it may not be intractable, especially with some action plan in the event of a bad day. If Skyerise has no way to prevent a recurrence, or if such incivility does reemerge, THEN would be a time to propose sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have just fixed it without making any comment. It's what I would have done if I'd not already been having a bad day. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; if, the next time you encounter an abrasive situation and are having a bad day, you correct without comment (or comment only after you're feeling better) that is enough for me to believe it's not worth any action now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As for how I became aware of that interaction, I was going to make a separate report at WP:AN3 about Skyerise re-opening an edit war at Western tulku and I saw the scolding from Butwhatdoiknow (talk · contribs). Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great explanation - except that at the time you filed this report, I hadn't edited Western tulku since January 17 and there was no call whatsoever for a WP:3RRN report. That actually supports my contention that your intent is to hound me! Skyerise (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You can keep making this accusation, but hounding doesn't apply even if I was (or am) keeping tabs on you -- which, despite being a bad look, isn't against policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It may not be technically against policy, but it is a bad idea to treat Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo apparent ownership issues with that article, as evidenced by their edit summaries when reverting and the talk page discussion? I am just trying to apply sumarary style: I get that Emo doesn't like my particular summary, but rather than improving my summary, they just repeatedly wholesale revert me. Is this because they created the article and think that gives them special privileges with respect to it? Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is actually a horrible place to discuss that page. If you genuinely think I have acted against policy because I disagree with your unilateral merge -- and don't want to wait for consensus or other editors to weigh in -- then you can file a report wherever you like. Which you have threatened several times and have yet to follow through on. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I opened an RfC this morning, which is the only thing I have said, not "threatened", that I would do. Perhaps you haven't noticed yet? Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You threatened making a report at ANI here and said you've already opened a report at ANI here. As you saw with the original Western tulku page, you are free to do as you please within policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you think that mild post from mid-December is a "threat"? Perhaps you should read our no personal attacks policy yourself? It's not even about the article in question! Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just to avoid misinterpreting, the second comment appears to say she brought up the topic on this ANI report, rather than making a separate new report. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Could be the case; I assumed that she was making a separate report and carrying out the necessary requisites. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I clearly emphasized WP:BOOMARANG, which in case you are not familiar with it, implies that posting a complaint on ANI might end up exposing the complaintant's own bad behavior. You've also just supported my argument by showing that I complained about WP:HOUNDING directly to you over a month ago, and yet you are still doing it. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be explicitly ownership, more like run-of-the-mill edit warring from both sides. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the comment mentioned in OP about not wanting a user on Wikipedia is about concern that a user being a vandal and disrupting bibliographic formatting contrary to WP:GENREF. This of course doesn't excuse calling someone an "idiot" which is still an aspersion, and it's also not appropriate to assume that unfamiliarity with alphabetizing bibliographies is a symptom of one's level of education (in any case, I've encountered college graduates who also don't know how to format bibliographies). I only mean to be precise, and I think user Skyerise's apology matters a lot in this case. Another user mentioned that the apology was just for the "tone"—but isn't that precisely what's being reported? Skyerise is not wrong that per WP:GENREF, bibliographies on Wikipedia are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor, so it is understandable if Skyerise wants to clarify that they are not apologizing for alphabetizing a bibliography, but are apologizing for being WP:UNCIVIL while discussing that on the talk page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• BTW - This report shouldn't have been made by a third editor. Only @Tollens: should've done so, if they wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of this policy. Do you have a link for future reference? Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not a requirement, but it's good practice. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that this discussion has come to an end and I'll drop out now -- I'll refrain from making third-party complaints in the future. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I think we should continue to discuss your hounding, which you have above pointed out that I complained about directly to you on December 15, yet here we are. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will not reply to you further: the complaint you made to me were about edits that have since been held up by consensus. It is ironic that you complain about page ownership but consider a move that was clearly warranted to be hounding despite having very little, if anything, to do with you. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm quite happy to drop it, once you agree to stop hounding me in the future. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Skyerise Given that you are convinced of hounding and want it addressed, may I suggest starting a subsection and populating it with diffs for administrative review? It would be useful to establish the pattern of behavior for easy viewing, and would allow this section (regarding the incident on Tollens' talk) to be closed if the rest of the community agrees that your apology was sufficient. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @User:EducatedRedneck, I agree this section can be closed. I'll file a report against Emo if and when it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer you make a report now instead of 'waiting' and threatening me with it. If I'm hounding you, report it. (Yes, I broke my own promise.) Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. If that's what you want, I'd rather wait. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, you aren't making these accusations in good faith. Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I have complete good faith, that's why I am giving you the benefit of the doubt until it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. There's a big difference between a "threat" and a warning. I have never "threatened" you, only given you fair warning. This, and the above, are simple warnings, not threats. Skyerise (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion on user's peculiar editing

Hello. I'm unsure of how to approach the situation, so I've come looking for discussion or guidance. A user, 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C0ED:88F7:9190:2695 (talk · contribs), 2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk · contribs), and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:506:C9E4:CDA7:1CB (talk · contribs), has been making waves of suspicious edits. The user is performing selective content removal under the pretense of removing 'uncited' information. However, the content they remove appears to be based on whim, because they will leave other unreferenced claims untouched. Other times, they leave new uncited information in its place, including replacing entire paragraphs with single sentences of (still unsourced) information. Additionally, they've been adding {{notability}} to the tops of some pages. Based on simple Google searches, it seems less notability issues and more citation issues. No matter, the content removal and {{notability}} changes, though I haven't thoroughly checked, seem to be applied to articles regarding only Iran, making me suspect ulterior motive. I'm looking for further opinions or insight. Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply exercising judgment when I delete uncited OR. That explains my not deleting all uncited material, but only select uncited material. Which is actually the preferred approach when dealing with uncited OR. But if you wish to delete any uncited OR that I have not touched, feel free. I'm not adding any uncited material myself. As to those pages which I have tagged for notability, I think if you have looked at them you can see that they appear to be manifestly non-notable. Some are completely uncited, and none of them appear to meet GNG. I'm improving articles, as I do from time to time, with cleanup. Sometimes I see an area which is largely uncited .. perhaps due to some once upon a time editor, such as "parks in Iran," and I look through similar articles which no surprise have a similar problem. Frankly, a lot of these uncited articles seem to suffer from plagiarism, often not even from non-RS publications (which still are used in many of those articles), but evident from their puffery until they are addressed. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the same user who was inappropriately reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#WP:BURDEN and removal of uncited content dispute, as all the IP addresses are in the 2603:7000:2101:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 range.
I would suggest talking with other editors, including IP editors, before reporting them to ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

For this situation and in the future, where's the best place to go for further discussion before reporting? Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I recognize those edit summaries, that range was blocked for long term abuse right around the time they left a message on my talk page, when I was a clueless newbie and no idea ANI even existed. They were using the exact same edit summaries then too. They have been blocked by User:Ymblanter for this behavior before. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Ymblamter will explain, the IP has been using talk pages extensively including in the run-up to that block. Primium the users talk page is usually the correct venue, the IP has been pretty consistent in answering questions, or if you revert them invite them to discuss the edit on the articles talk page in you edit summary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Won't comment on the current edits, but I wanted to give more context:

First, it looks like the message for that block was left here (and unsigned): User Talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:CDC7:580A:9073:FD34. I'll note that they had gone through 4 or 5 other IPs before that block happened: /64 contribs.

Second, they've also been brought to ANI in 2022 in these 2 concurrent discussions <main discussion>, <other discussion>, which I took part in and which now that I looked at it again, @Ymblanter also took part in. As far as I remember those discussions didn't lead to any administrative actions, but it did cause the IP to stop removing content like that for a while, not that they ever claimed they would stop though (as far as I know). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Those discussion like the last one don't show anything that required admin action. If this is an LTA it's one that has stuck to the same /64 IP address for a year and a half while making 14k edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussions I linked are not of IPs from the same /64 (they are from the same /41?), but it's clearly the same user who was blocked with (at least superficially) similar edits as those in the discussion and, if we assume the /64 is one person, nearly identical "WP:BURDEN" response, which is why I mentioned it. So yes, an editor with even more edits. I was a bit mistaken though, the talk page block message that I found was for a block on a singular IP, not for the entire /64, that one came later. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And in none of these discussions has anyone said why an editor removing what they believe to be incorrect content is against policy. If there is a believe the editor is making poor judgements on what is and isn't OR, that would be a competence issue, but the selective removal of content is normal editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember once we had an IP who was having fun removing large piece of text from the (seemingly random) articles claiming they were original research and uncited. The pieces did not look to me like obvious original research, I tried to engage with them explaining that text must first be marked as such and only after a long time removed, but they disagreed and continued this behavior, and I had to block them. I do not remember any further details, and I do not know whether this is the situation we are discussing now. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@ IP editor:

Could you please direct me to where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? I can't seem to find it. Nonetheless, according to WP:USI: "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." I don't see what's so doubtful about many of your removals:

"... Kashan dates back to the Elamite period of Iran."

"Another feature of this garden is the design of its roof structure. For the first time in Iran, membrane coatings (ETFE) have been used to cover the roof of this building."

"Sarchashmeh Copper mine is the second biggest copper mine in the world after Chuquicamata in Chile."

All of these seem to me like they could have sources or could be plausible. I was even able to find sources for the first two claims. It took three minutes: [251] [252]. Ideally, I'd ask that you make the effort to prove or disprove, instead of remove, the claims you doubt, providing adequate edit summaries. If not that, then at least tag claims with {{citation needed}}, as others have suggested. – Primium (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You ask where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? and then add and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. If we assume good faith and that the IP editor is checking for sources then the removals are not against policy. They should absolutely be making thorough checks, for instance it's very easy to verify with a quick Google search that Sarchaseh isn't the second largest copper mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the point in your first sentence. It looks like you're implying I answered my own question, but I didn't. What I quoted has nothing to do with selective removal. Additionally, it says "... and it is doubtful any sources...", not "or", meaning both conditions it presents must be met for bold removal. – Primium (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You asked where is policy it is allowed that content can be removed, and supplied your own answer. It can be removed if it is unsourced and it is doubtful that any sources exist.
What was missed was my last sentence, a very quick check of one of the facts you beleived was plausible showed it was wrong. The assumption of good faith is required, that extends to the idea that the IP has checked and is doubtful that any sources exists. If you wish to show that they have done anything wrong you need to show they are wrong, not just that you mistakenly believe they are wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

... except they were wrong, as demonstrated by Primium finding sources for the first two claims. So the IP isn't doing their due diligence to find sources before removal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That Primium chose those three examples out of many, and was completely wrong in one of those he chose, does not make a compeling case. Nor is this lack of assuming good faith a one off by Primium. Just a couple of instances from the last few days.
On the 21st an IP editor added a random name to O'Riordan[253], another IP editor correctly removed it,[254] Primium then edit wars to retain the random name[255][256] and templates the IP editors twice.[257] Only then to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[258]
On the 22nd a new editir made this edit[259] to Global Terrorism Index which could have been vandalism or just a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Not an issue as a couple of IP editors working on the page sort it out and add additional content.[260] Primium mass reverts all the edits[261], templates the new editor and the IP editors for vandalism[262][263][264], only for a few minutes later to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[265]
Now mistakes happen, not every edit is always going to be correct 100% of the time (that would a very unrealistic expectation), but if you are going to incorrectly templated editors for vandalism you might want to go back and explain or undo your mistake. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you propose we should find out which of the hundreds of edits that this IP user has made with very similar edit summaries are ones where they checked and which are ones where they didn't besides manually reviewing the removals? What makes you think that Primium assumed bad faith at all, in checking over the edits? What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith?

As to the one that Primium was "completely wrong" in thinking it was wrong, a search for "Sarchashmeh Copper mine second largest" (no quotes) on Google brought this doctoral thesis as the second result for me: [266], which the description claims it "was the world's second largest open pit copper deposit in the 1970s" and which, from the link to the full thesis on the right side, claims that Iran held a critical meeting in 1971 to discuss what they "identified as the second largest copper ore body in the world at the time" in that mine. At any rate, WP:PRESERVE would imply that, with reliable sources available, the information should instead be rephrased to more accurately represent the sources, not removed. If the rephrased version doesn't have place in the article then that should be the reason for removing as well, instead of because it's unsourced.

In the content of the reports I linked, which I don't think are relevant to the current one unless the same behaviour is being repeated, the problem I had with their edit was that they were doing mass removals per day, often in a couple minutes they would remove content from just as many pages, all with the same summaries - and upon seeing all those removals in the recent edits and checking some of them, there were problems - problems that, with their haste to remove it all and in their haste to use WP:BURDEN as a first response, could only really be solved by spending the same (considerably longer) amount of time per article that they removed content from finding the proper sources and reinstating the content with a reference.

Now, is that relevant to the current editing? I don't know, I'm just mentioning it because I might as well address your statement to me if I'm going to post here again.
Actually, no. The original reports did not result in any action and I have no wish to revive something from a year and a half ago, bad move on my part.

– 2804:F14:80CE:5201:F9FC:AF87:284F:DAFC (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith? I never said anything like this, I said that assuming they are breaking policy without prove and only as a matter of believe was itself against policy.
You right PRESERVE is policy and directly underneath it is WP:DON'T PRESERVE which is also policy.
This report like many others starts with the assumption of guilt and only when pushed tried to find evidence. The actual checking of edits happened after the report was made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't mistakenly believe they were wrong, rather, I was entirely neutral about the information and held no belief on whether it was correct or not. I was making the point that WP:USI says information can only be removed if "it's doubtful any sources are available for the information". However, as per the IP's edit summaries, this was not their reason for removal. My initial comment was looking for insight, wondering if anything needed be done. I haven't asked anyone to block or ban the user.

I also did not miss your last sentence, and I agree, it was easy to find that information, because I'd also found it, along with the other sources I'd provided above. But the removal was due to lack of citation, not because they were unable to find sources.

WP:GOODFAITH pertains to intention, not due diligence. "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I would go as far to say we should never assume users are performing due diligence. If we were to assume it, there would never be any reason to verify claims and sources, because, well, we could have faith in the original editor. There would also never any reasons for this IP to remove information, either, because they, too, could have faith in the original editor. Verifying claims and sources remains crucial even if we trust the original editor. At this point, I'm not assuming they're deliberately hurting Wikipedia, but I believe there's room for improvement in the level of care exercised.

Additionally, like I believed that third fact was plausible, the IP believed all three were not, then removed them. Though unlike the IP, you and I looked them up. Out of only three random examples, you and I together have shown the user has an accuracy of 33.33%. This is hardly acceptable for encyclopedic standards and demonstrates a lack of care in their editing. Really, my request is that this user, whatever their IP be now, simply takes greater care in how they operate. – Primium (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the IP editor should be taking care when removing content, and if it can be shown that they are not and this is a systematic issue of competence in the task they should be stopped.
I think we are reading their summaries differently, if they are removing OR it is because it's doubtful any sources are available for the information. To me their summary is explicitly making that claim.
As I said previously if they are not competent to the task they should be stopped, but two errors out of (as has been noted by another editor) hundreds of edits doesn't show that. It's only two out of the three you chose, and I don't think that's enough to prove your point.
This seems to have been a disagreement over how the original report, and the last one were stated. Editors can, whoever they are, remove content as part of the normal editorial process. To argue otherwise is wrong. That they must do so with care and competence, and that this editor isn't (and prove of such) was what was missing from these reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of editor power and fake/misleading articles

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

---

Going to be long read but very important. Our user here is Imperial^[AFCND] .

I will narrate the whole issue below.

• Gajapati invasion of bidar - he created | 1 on 26 november 2023.

To start with the whole article is problematic/based on fake interpretation on cited sources . Our user has cited " R Subrahmanyam , NK Shahu , R.D Banerjee , Satish Chandra in the citation for the context of the article.

However a quick read of these sources gives a complete different story, to what is actually written in the article.

All these scholars has completely rejected this notation of the so called surrender of gajapatis , one of them even question if such invasion ever happened.

For instance ,the actual assessment R subharmanyam gave towards the battle after narrating the primary source .

" On the very face of them the account of Muslim historians show that that they were not giving a correct picture of the events , ferishta account bears the stamp of untruth to it " - - - - continued

Source - the suryavamshi gajapati of odisha . Pg -56 (link not available atm)

What our user did he deliberately added the part where the author was narrating the primary source and then ignored the actual assessment of author. Remarkable

N.K Shahu , Banerjee and manhabat whose work are cited has given the same remark His statement : | shahu remark. Banerjee

The whole article is based on such mess . It's remarkable no editor verified what exactly was given in citations.

This exact situation is true for the article " bahmani invasion of odisha" , but wont discuss here right now

This user has been POV pushing for a very long period of time and has been active in pretty much all the hindu related battles pushing it Muslim POV . Often times changing the results of a Hindu victory to a stalemate and a draw or removing the result Maratha Mysore war ,[Maratha invasion Bengal] , battle of singoli , battle of mandalgarh , battle of talikota and hundreds of more , not only that vandalizing pages of kings as well lalitaditya , hammira deva. And then he uses his privilege of being a high edit user to revert back any edit he didn't likes , makes accusations of vandalism as well [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lalitaditya_Muktapida 7] All of this needs to be noted

Keeps on making hundreds of edit of battle where Hindus were defeated but on the other hand tries his best not a single one is done opposite way . All this could be seen in his edit history.

Would like the administrators attention here to take some action on the user or look into his edit history, he has been on spree of such articles/edits. Philknight , Utcursch , Trangabellam , kautilya3Summerkillsme (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of collaborative editing, allowing users to create and edit articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources. If there are concerns about my involvement in editing articles, kindly specify the exact reasons. The issue related to the "Gajapati invasion of Bidar" has been addressed. Regarding "Lalitaditya Muktapida," I've been awaiting a response from an editor for weeks (refer to its talk page). Given the contentious nature of the subject, users might perceive bias. I consistently seek input from experienced editors in disputed areas rather than unilaterally resolving conflicts. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

While I am on a break, I welcome any concerns regarding the edits I've made. Please review the talk page and edit summaries of the articles I've edited. If you still have concerns, bring them to the talk page with the expectation of input from someone more experienced in these areas. If I fail to provide satisfactory answers, feel free to proceed with your accusations, and I am willing to address them. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

things that I have referred here is quite different than what apparently you had called being already addressed in talk section. These two are different.

Anyways top administrators will look into it . We shall see. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, two of the users you mentioned (TrangaBellam and Kautilya3) are not administrators, just for your information. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Bad faith user.

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

---

User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hob_Gadling

Relevant Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

He consistently is bad faith; strawmanning, condescending, bullying, etc....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_1;

"If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_2;

"Are you making WP:LEGAL threats?" -- Be sure to read Lindosland's comment Hob responded to.

"If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem."

"In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area."

"We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here."

"The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden?"

"Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum."

"This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story."

"You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away."

"Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3;

I think things like the next three quotes are noteworthy because even if they don't necessarily qualify as 'bad faith', nobody is going to read that and think, "yes, this is a conversation where I'm going to learn something." Nor, "this is about to be a fruitful conversation."

"Next."

"Instead of such empty rhetorics, bring sources."

"Not depicting antivaxers as the pseudoscientists and quacks they are would be WP:FALSEBALANCE."

"Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself."

"Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.)" - Hob knows to keep things related to improving the article (archive 2, "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article.") yet he is taking shots at RFK Jr and Trump here.

"His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis." - evidence?

"Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?"

"Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning"

"What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL" -- I think the use of crystalball here is excellent, but everything Hob said leading up to this is bullying, condescension, and borderline harassment of anyone on the page who disagrees with him.

"Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning."

Finally I've reached my first interaction with him. Throughout the interaction he is straw manning;

"I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP." - this quote is of me.

"'I didn't say' Yes you did."

and being extremely rude;

"That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect."

"You do not understand how Wikipedia works, and it seems are not even trying to understand it."

"Maybe you should gather more Wikipedia experience before jumping into contentious topics. A few more points: The lead of an article does not even need any sources - see WP:LEDECITE. The same things are sourced further down in the body of the article. It is consensus in science that Kennedy's ideas about vaccination are false. The rules say that we can only use sources that actually mention Kennedy. Those will not go into depth because it is common knowledge among science-literate people that his antivaxer crap is crap. The sources in articles like Andrew Wakefield, Thimerosal, MMR vaccine and autism go into detail about that."

"Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult."

That's only Archive 1, 2, and 3 of one Wikipedia article so I could continue, but I think that is sufficient evidence that Hob Gadling is bad faith and shouldn't be taking part in Talk tabs because so many of his discussions are disruptive to the progressive flow of the article. I would also like to add that I believe he should have his editing privileges removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsmith93 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Is McStrats here to build an encyclopedia?

Hello, there is a user named @McStrats who has edited the page on chess strategy, adding a small piece of text saying, "Use the McStrategy." There is obviously no such thing as the McStrategy. I reverted the edit as vandalism, as I didn't know what to pick for a user adding something telling users to use a strategy. That would probably fall under the category of guides. I put the ANI notice on their page. Here's the diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=1199230412 - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not here, blocked. Someone just having their version of fun which has been stopped, no reason to spend more time on this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Think that Skibidnoilet is related to Jared Boon.

@Skibidnoilet edited at the exact same time as Jared Boon's socks and has a username similarity to one of those socks. Toketaa^talk 15:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, pretty obvious. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Also to add there appear top be some sleepers, blocking those as we speak. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 63.115.31.130 making attacks on me

Hello, administrators. This IP continuously keeps telling me to "cry about it" after I reverted their edit yesterday. Today, when I was just browsing through some pages, the IP once again told me to cry about it and stop "acting like a wuss." I left a warning about personal attacks on their talk page and the response I got? They blanked the talk page by telling me to "cope harder." You can view this in the talk page history. I recommend putting a temporary block on this IP and also possibly revoke their talk page access for a while. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. The IP has gotten their 72-hour block. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper This IP has been blocked 5 times in the past, twice without talk page access. The last block lasted for a year - it expired at the end of December and now disruption has started again. Given the long term disruption from this IP, the history of blocks and the content of the recent edits a longer block than 72 hours might be called for? Perhaps another 1 or 2 years? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, IP, though I don't necessarily want to keep talk page access turned off for the whole year. I will leave the block as is for now with TPA disabled, and will then reblock with TPA enabled for probably about a year. (Any admin is free to extend the block now, of course, if they feel that's a better solution.) Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Biryani

As these two reports involve the same users and article page, I have condensed them into a single section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push

User TheCherryPanda is engaging in constant pov pushes in article Biryani. He is pushing his 'muslim origin of biriyani' saying it has reached from the talk , but realit is opposite. From the talk discussions editors has rejected the claim that 'biriyani originated from muslims'. Please see the archieved talk here : [267]

All those accounts who put forward of 'muslim origin of biriyani' has been blocked of sock puppetry

Suspect that this account is also a retuning blocked sock account. Afv12e (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e: Don't accuse another editor of being a sock without evidence, and if you have evidence, then take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e, I don't see where this has even been discussed? Please instead of making your arguments in the edit summaries, go to the talk page, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been discussed from 2016.

please see this discussions also :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biryani/Archive_1#Biryani_and_Muslims.

Afv12e (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Biryani_and_Muslims - talk

Afv12e, consensus can change, and the fact something was discussed six years ago doesn't mean you aren't required to discuss instead of simply reverting. Go to the article talk, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

He is telling that 'this has been debated for a long time and from the talk page the consensus has reached' which is a lie and the thing was opposite.

No one in the past agrees to it.

If he has any argument let him come in talk page and discuss instead of editing without references and pushing his pov and original research

Again he made these vandal edits[268] now, which i removed. Afv12e (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Those edits are obviously not vandalism, and simply calling them that does not mean you can then continue to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And Afv12e is in violation of the 3RR. A boomerang might be in order here. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a removal of sourced content, so restored.

Apologies if i made a mistake, as I never did like this beofore Afv12e (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Not ware of 3RR, just now realised, apologies and promise that i won't repeat this mistake again of 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've fully protected for two days. Afv12e, you are in the wrong here. If you continue to edit war after this protection lifts, I will p-block you from editing that article. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I promise not to repeat 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I seriously recommend, @Afv12e, that you develop a habit of making only a single revert before taking it to the talk page. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Poor editor etiquette and seeming unwillingness to improve.

I am requesting that action be taken against the user @Afv12e. Following a minor edit dispute, they refused to start a dialogue on the talk page and instead reported me to administration. Any future edits I made until the “Biryani” article was locked were referred to by the user as invalid due to my supposedly being under “admin review.” At the same time, that same admin review backfired and the admin Valereee said “Afv12e, you are in the wrong here.” After the article was placed on a permanent block and the user was repeatedly told to take their dispute to the talk page, the user and I talked under an edit request I made. They were further chastised there by the admin MrOllie for making empty threats against me. Despite my attempts to clarify my viewpoint and the reasoning behind the edits I am trying to make, I was repeatedly accused by the user of having an agenda or of making claims that I was not. Furthermore, instead of putting their efforts toward elaborating their opinion more strongly beyond rehashing the same accusations repeatedly, they launched what I can, from my perspective, only describe as a one-main smear campaign against me, going through the history of my talk page to find any evidence of problematic behavior of my own, only able to pull up a single article concern from nearly 5 years ago. This behavior has gone well beyond obstinacy and I am now increasingly uncomfortable engaging with this user who has repeatedly called my values and motivations into question in unsubstantiated ways, even though their behavior has been criticized numerous times by administrators and they have told my administrators that they are at risk of being banned from the article. I am requesting that this user be banned or that some kind of action be taken against them. The relevant links of evidence are the “User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push” discussion at the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the “Protected edit request on 23 January 202 discussion at the page Talk:Biryani. Thank you. TheCherryPanda (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I should not that although the user has only had an account for 6 months, this is already the second or third time that this has become an issue. Regarding a previous issue, another administrator left a notice on their talk page with the following: “Now this here is a warning because multiple editors do seem to take issue with your editing. Stop WP:SEALIONING. Learn the content guidelines. Read the cites. Continued complaints about content that is cited and in keeping with our guidelines is disruptive and may lead to a block if it continues.” TheCherryPanda (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I reported the issue because there was a disagreement over the content in the "Biryani" article. Specifically, I noticed that sourced content was being removed, and a claim about the "Muslim origin of biryani" was being added without proper consensus or discussion on the article's talk page. This led me to raise the issue with administrators.

My intention was to ensure that content in the article remained properly sourced and that significant claims, such as the "Muslim origin of biryani," were discussed and agreed upon collaboratively by the Wikipedia community.

Subsequently, I created a section on the article's talk page dedicated to discussing the topic of the "Muslim relation to biryani," providing a space for a constructive dialogue among editors. However, despite this invitation to discuss the matter, you chose to report the issue on the administrative noticeboard.

I want to emphasize that my primary objective has always been to maintain the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia articles by adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. I believe in the importance of discussing and achieving consensus on significant content changes, especially when they pertain to the cultural and historical aspects of an article.

I am open to engaging in constructive discussions to reach a resolution on this matter, but I strongly urge all parties involved to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies while doing so. Let us work together to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensure that content is accurate, well-sourced, and agreed upon through consensus.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Afv12e (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am amazed by the change in writing style between this posting and what you have been posting on the talk page, for example this. Did you use ChatGPT to write this? MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker , corrected my grammar and usage using an ai tool so that users from all over the world can understand, when someone is blatantly accusing without any proper reason and bombarding with his long paragraphs.

Ai for good! Afv12e (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not good to use AI to post your responses here. Especially since you have no idea if what it's saying is accurate. If your English proficiency is low enough you have to rely on AI to explain yourself, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm proficient in English, but used to correct few grammar mistakes, like how people use auto correct functionality.

I'm fully aware of what I'm speaking here. Afv12e (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

AI is never a good idea on Wikipedia. Don't use it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing patterns by Danielg532

User in question: User:Danielg532 (talk • contribs)

• The user's talk page contains four warnings against removing AFD deletion discussion headers (1, 2, 3, 4), which did not prevent a fifth removal earlier today at 01:05, 25 January 2024.
• WP:RS and WP:V concerns. Specifically, the user has a penchant for making unsupported claims asserting Russian military control over settlements in specific areas in Ukraine. For example, see Kocheriv and Verkhnia Rudnia.
  • The pattern of adding unverifiable claims to articles has been observed by editors in other areas. (Most recently here. Much of the talk page deals with unverifiable claims in live articles or drafts submitted for creation without any sources)
  • Sometimes, in "support" of the claims, the user adds deceptive references that make it appear that the information is sourced, but do not actually contain any information relevant to the claim. See the "sources" for Staseva, Syrnystia, Selezivka, Zaporizke, and much of Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast.
  • When I added citation needed / failed verification tags to this editor's excessive unverifiable claims on Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast, they were later reverted without explanation. See: 04:28, 19 January 2024.
  • The user also referenced a self-published source that appears to be self-published in a very literal sense, as it is a user-generated map by somebody with a similar screen name. See: 03:58, 7 May 2023

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Interestingly, I've just observed, entirely independently, that the first source cited in Mayfield West, Ontario (AfD discussion), created by this account, is false sourcing. Sourcing Alton, Ontario and Caledon East to tourist board advertisements is not good, either. Bearcat, did you know about this? Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I caught that the source wasn't good — obviously, since I nominated it for AFD — but I hadn't noticed that it was outright false, and I hadn't noticed their edits to the other pages. I first came across Mayfield West because it was filed in wrong categories, i.e. directly in Category:Canada, which would be entirely unnecessary since it has much more specific subcategories for things like Mayfield West, and had the obviously improper title "Mayfield West, Canada", which I moved to its proper title. But I didn't otherwise peruse their other edit history apart from that. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Piermark

This globally banned user created a username on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, by copying part of my username in revenge. Most likely he has edited that Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia admins don't have any authority on other websites. What would you like to happen here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I updated the page, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Piermark. Catfurball (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Muhtasib Page

Hello,

The oage keeps getting edited by a troll who is wrongfully removing the historic Muhtaseb family name from the article. What are my options here? The person gives no reason for removal. 173.70.68.245 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The editors involved, one of whom is probably the IP above, were at 8RR and 9RR on the article; both are now blocked. Please read WP:LOUTSOCK before you do anything else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question generally: if a user removes information that you added and you don't agree with their reasoning (or they didn't give any), you should try to discuss it with them. If they revert you again without responding, you should stop and ask for assistance. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page, you can try dispute resolution, request a third opinion, report the user for edit warring, or post here if all else fails. What you will get blocked for is trading reverts with them and saying things like "I can go all day" while you do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass category creations and additions by Ernsanchez00 without discussion

This user has been mass adding categories like Category:American male sitcom actors and Category:American sitcom actresses to various actor articles, almost all of which are violations of WP:OVERCAT or WP:PERFCAT or both. They recently created categories like Category:American male comedy actors, which were deleted due to the aforementioned WP:OVERCAT and WP:PERFCAT, and they tried to go around it by creating the aforementioned categories, which are the same violations. The categories mentioned here are just some examples, as there are quite a bit more. Almost all of these are unnecessary and overcategorization. And this is borderline WP:DE. Amaury • 20:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amaury, sorry about that, I did not realize that the category of American sitcom actors are related to the category of American comedy actors. I just did it by huge mistake. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, you might nominate your own created categories for deletion. I've just found several more, including Category:English male sitcom actors, which were not captured in the current CfD. You were advised of the prior CfD and acknowledged the notification, so it's hard for me to understand how you could not be aware that the new categories you created might be problematic. It's concerning to me that you would embark on this kind of effort without consulting with anyone, and my inclination would be to ask that you be banned from category creation either until you've gained more experience editing or stipulate that you'll discuss the creation of any new categories prior to creating them. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Donlago. I will nominate the categories that I've created for deletion including the category of English, Scottish, and Welsh sitcom actors. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, Amaury, did you try discussing this situation before deciding to bring it to ANI? It seems like an issue that could have been addressed on a User talk page instead of coming to a busy noticeboard. I'm familiar with Ernsanchez00's categories because they often tag them for CSD C1 speedy deletion when they realize they created one by mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my concerns and acting to address them. I do appreciate it. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago It seems as if similar instances are still occurring even after this discussion. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You should probably provide diffs. DonIago (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Amongusgamer123

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

---

Most likely using chatGPT to respond to me in their talk page. Edits are bad faith. Toketaa^talk 19:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I could get to a destination multiple ways; vandalism, disruptive editing, NOTHERE... the destination is the same. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

2 minutes in and they already made an unblock request. sigh Toketaa^talk 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Bharatpediahk

User:Bharatpediahk This user is copying userbox from other pages and pasting the same in his own userpage without changing anything. He also copied mine. This editor was also in a sockpuppet investigation today but he was not a sock. Moreover, this user is displaying Master Editor (Platinum Editor Star) Award on his user page but he is actually not entitle to display the same. So, kindly look into this! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, no one cares if you display userboxes that you may not be entitled to. There is no process for managing userboxes like that, they're fluff with zero meaning or value. The only thing I'd be concerned about is if they're impersonating other editors or claiming to be an admin when they aren't. There could be an argument that they're copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while the user awards are fluff that doesn't have any actual weight, the fact that they're linking to another user's actual YouTube and Twitter accounts and claiming them as their own could count as impersonation, so that's a little more concerning. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that would be impersonation, which is a no no. I never actually looked at the page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any indication they're here to be a useful editor? Star Mississippi 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I don't care about the awards but I am concerned about why that editor has copied userbox without changing info? It is kinda impersonation.. TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Prolific socking on Jannik Sinner

• Jannik Sinner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sinnertruthtold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thisisallthereis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Succeedalways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Let'sdoitnowforsure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isthisreallymeoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NoDjoksonlyNoledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several new accounts have popped up adding the same weird, borderline unencyclopedic content to Jannik Sinner. These seem like obvious socks. I figure that blocks and a page protection might be in order. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The accounts have obligingly made their WP:NOTHERE disruptive behavior very obvious by repeatedly deleting this ANI thread about them. This has likely been noticed already, but for the record's sake, and since I have the tabs open, here are the diffs: by Thisisallthereis, by Succeedalways, by Let'sdoitnowforsure, by Thisisallthereis, by Isthisreallymeoh, by Succeedalways, by NoDjoksonlyNoledge, by Isthisreallymeoh, by Thisisallthereis, by Succeedalways. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Materialscientist has blocked and tagged all these accounts (and some others) as socks.

Although, @Materialscientist, is the sock master account you tagged on these supposed to not be blocked? It currently isn't. – 2804:F14:80CE:5201:55BF:F510:80A3:EA00 (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I tagged the sockpuppeteer, and he hasn’t blocked them yet. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 12:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I left a message at Materialscientist's talk page (note that he has disabled notifications for pings). He forgot to block the sock master, and the account has now been blocked. No further action is needed. MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wjmadisonlee

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

---

Call me unnecessarily paranoid, but this user quickly made ten trivial edits then stopped. That sounds like somebody gaming autoconfirmed. Could I get a checkuser needed , please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think doing a check would be too big an escalation (for the moment at least). I have seen a few editors who appear to be gaming autoconfirmed by making ten trivial edits just not show up again after they do so. To give the all-important benefit of the doubt and without indisputable evidence of intended misuse, I would just keep an eye on this account's contributions so that you can take decisive action if it does turn out to be disruptive. Wait and see if they start gaming autoconfirmed. Though this is just how I see things, and a CU can do what they wish if they believe this is enough grounds for a check. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As a checkuser, I don't think that's sufficient grounds for a check. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

RudolfoMD

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

---

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

RudolfoMD is a relatively inexperienced user (<1000 edits since their first here in April 2023) who appears to be on something of a crusade. Since an early trip to ANI in August last, he has complained at BLPN that we reflect the consensus view of the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([269]), tried to delete {{User rouge admin}}, accused Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of deceptive editing, and me of copyright violation, vandalism introducing deliberate factual errors and personal attacks, but, rather more to the point, changed "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results" to "These studies often report remissions", based on a source that says "No randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. (emphasis added) ([270]), which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV on an article subject to intermittent astroturfing for decades.

Taken as a piece with edits like "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2 was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days"], and his failure to understand what deleted contributions are, rather silly revert warring over fixing an unsigned comment, plus possible stalking of another user to other articles ([271]), I wonder if this user might be better keeping away from fringe theories, at least, until they have more experience editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• For me the most worrying edit is this[272] where they declared with a "LOL" that they were going to add some Burzynski "advertorial" to our Brainstem glioma article, and then duly followed through, linking to a totally unsuitable source with the completely made up claim that there has only been one case of long-term survival for children with the this cancer.[273] Not quite sure what's going on with this account, but it's not good. There is also a strong whiff of sock. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  And see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User rouge admin and User talk:JzG#January 2024. The editor probably won't respond until around 17;00 London time, so maybe I should wait until they responds for what looks like an inevitable NOTHERE block. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I too have encountered some difficulties, and rather nasty ones at that, with this editor. I reverted a deceptive edit here and cautioned them about it here, which they refuse to admit or correct. Instead they have repeatedly defended that edit. I also tried to give them some advice to tone down their personal attacks and stop their templating of us old timers. Their templatings are often retaliatory.
  I'd just like to see more light than heat from this editor. We do not need seemingly pro-fringe editors trying to defend people like Burzynski by doctoring quotes from eminently reliable mainstream sources so they appear to defend blatant and dangerous quackery. This may not exactly be the problem, but it's close: Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Cherry picking is probably more accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• support a final warning but I was close to blocking last night when I closed that ridiculous MfD. Pro-fringe time sink and IMNSHO, not new either.

Star Mississippi 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Granted I don't know my antineoplastons from my elbow, but this looks like straightforward WP:NOTHERE. I'm willing to give it some time for the user to respond, however. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Antineoplastons are made from piss. Yes, Burzynski figured out how to make money from pee. Not sure if this is related to urolagnia or not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• I thought the writing was on the wall enough already to justify an alt-med or pseudoscience topic ban, but the MfD puts it over the top with WP:NOTHERE battleground behavior. When I see someone going out of their way to pursue editors like that, it's time for something WP:PREVENTATIVE beyond a warning when it's clear they haven't been taking warnings about their behavior seriously so far. I'd say an indef is likely, but at least cut the disruption with a topic ban through CT if nothing else. KoA (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's been two days now, I think we should try and resolve this one way or another just in case they're not posting to avoid scrutiny in a hope that this will archive (not saying it's what happening, but I have seen that tactic before with editors.) Either way we should be able to make a determination right now, it seems many above have fully come to a conclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail Blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail: Happened to be in the neighborhood after opening an ANI report. Disclosing that I was the user who previously reported RudolfoMD in August 2023 after recognizing their disruptive behavior. It appears that this has now gone on unremedied for months, so I support a block per WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Wikidrifterr ECP gaming

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

---

A quick look at the contributions of Wikidrifterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows that after a string of ~150 grammar edits in the span of two hours (which caught my eye), they reached their 500th edit and immediately edited the ECP-protected page K. Annamalai. This is clear WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I wanted to edit the page and improve it, true. Since I felt that page needed major improvement.

I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time now.

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct.

if you think I am at wrong I will revert those changes and not further edit the page in concern.

Sincerly trying to learn here and improve Wikipedia, which was also my motive to edit the page in concern Wikidrifterr (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct. Um, not really. Some were unneeded: [274], [275], [276], [277] etc. Some were just plain wrong: [278], [279], [280], etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits do seem very rushed. This one added "and killed" as "context" (edit summary) to a sentence which already mentioned that there was killing. Some engvar and per/cent among them too. CMD (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Many of your "grammar" edits were improvements, but not all of them were. I just reverted half a dozen of them that were wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

K. Annamalai has been frequently hijacked over the past year; see the page history and Talk:K. Annamalai#Page protection. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That possibly explains why the information about legislative elections was removed in the "Added college and current work details" edit. CMD (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it does. Right at the start of the series of edits is this, which created a redlink to the salted K Annamalai. CMD (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That article has a tortured history, best (and most recently) covered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing first would be Wikidrifterr responding to the conflict of interest disclosure I posted on their talk page (link). I also left them an introductory alert to contentious topics (WP:ARBIND). El_C 06:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I;'ve removed ECP, obvious gaming and their statement above seems to admit that. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• At the DRV linked above, it was clearly stated "The AfD (deletion) is endorsed, and recreation (under any title) is disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV.". So shouldn't this version be deleted (and possibly salted) as well? Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  The K. Annamalai article is apparently for a different K Annamalai, however the salting might be interpretable as a cause to revdel the hijacking. CMD (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support indef blocking on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR grounds. A few days ago they baselessly accused me of vandalism in an edit summary [281], and refused to retract this allegation. They have been repeatedly warned about copyright, which has seemingly not been heeded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have looked through a number of the rushed edits manually and reverted most of those that I looked at. They are neutral at best, many introduce errors as noted by AirshipJungleman29 above. If there are no objections I will rollback the remaining 145ish. CMD (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that "gaming ecp" has been included in the block log. This is helpful. It would be useful to be able to reliably select all users where gaming ECP was one of the reasons for the block without having to deal with lots of variations of the terminology. Standard-ish descriptions (like the standard "checkuserblock-account" log entry) would be even better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Gustovonin's legal threat against Wikipidea and the administrators involved with the page Ram Mandir

I was scrolling through the talk page of Ram Mandir and saw the user Gustovonin , claiming that Wikipidea and many admins were Hinduphobicand that he will file a legal complaint against Wikipidea in courts of India (see this) , this clearly violates WP:SUE, so action must be taken against him. Harvici (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Lemabeta

• Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adjarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this needs to be evaluated by the community. Editor, with 298 edits working in ECP area, removing content and posting personal attacks on other editors claiming they are "inciting hatred".[282] see edit summaries in diffs below

• [283],[284] removing sourced content with PA in edit summary.
• [285], content was restored and removed again with PA in edit summary.
• [286] more removing sourced content
• Warned on talk page about personal attacks, responded by repeating them. User talk:Lemabeta#January 2024
• Three editors (including myself) have objected to this editors changes, the EW could be ignored, but the personal attacks claiming editors are "inciting hatred" cannot be allowed.
• See other warnings at User talk:Lemabeta.

 // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
After a quick look through their contributions, I definitely think that they do have a tendency towards personal attacks. I think that the user should be careful in their edit summaries especially, and think about if their conduct could be construed as a PA. I would like to see their response here as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona It wasn't a personal attack. The page mentioned that Georgians view Adjarians(sub-ethnic group of Georgians) as a second class turkicized citizens, which isn't true even if some author wrote it. Is it not inciting hatred? It was my Adjarian friend who told me he viewed it as an insult to their ethnographic group by the editors who included it. Therefore i deleted it. Writing that they are viewed as a second class turkicized citizens isn't a personal attack on the whole ethnographic group but me saying it's inciting hatred between us is? Lemabeta (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona So why am i getting scolded meanwhile the offensive text that incites hatred between Georgians that Adjarians are second class turkicized citizens is still up? It's not a personal insult nor did i have any desire to insult anyone. But i don't see any respect in that text towards the Adjarians themselves. Should i go in the streets and ask Adjarians what they think about this text? And if they feel like they are treated any different than other Georgians? Even if the text is cited, that doesn't change the fact that it contains hateful content. and it has no place in the front of the page. Lemabeta (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, hate has no place on wikipedia, but it should be removed with a edit summary like " removed POV". I am not saying don't remove it, just moderate, like EI C says. Don't sink to their level. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona Can you delete it? On the Adjarians page, it says it.. I don't have patience to put up with the 3 guys that are one by one changing it back, so they can accuse me of edit war and many stuff. Thank you Lemabeta (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute, take it to the talk page. Don't ask others to edit for you, that can still constitute edit warring. Get consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: tbaned in plain text, really (diff)? But, yeah, likely to end that way if Lemabeta doesn't moderate their language and avoid edit warring. El_C 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This kids edit warring over at Ilia Topuria now, despite the conversation in the talk page not being closed. I get he's proud of being Caucasian, but his edits likely violate MOS:ETHNICITY/WP:NATIONALITY. Nswix (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nswix Calling me a kid is a personal insult, therefore a personal attack. Which violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. Lemabeta (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, to be called a kid! A shop assistant called me "young man" recently and I was cock-a-hoop for weeks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats and block evasion by 2603:8000:9F0:8370::0/64

2603:8000:9F0:8370::0/64 is evading a block of Kaaren Ragland and is continuing with similar legal threats. The account also admits to COI and block evasion. The edit summaries include additional legal threats. If you look at the edits, it's clearly a WP:DUCK. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's another IP from there, probably the same person again, still badgering about Kaaren: Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:C407:21B3:A48:B8E9 JM (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I saw you blocked one of the addresses, but they already moved to a different address on the same /64 and have been using other addresses on the same range. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan, I did indeed block one of the addresses this morning, but then blocked the /64 a minute or so later (I'd somehow failed to check the 'block the /64 instead' box the first time). What other addresses are you seeing, and where? (asking because I'm not immediately seeing any further activity since the block). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the subsequent range block (my eyes were deceived by the block strikethrough gadget, which doesn't show range blocks and I very well know that, but maybe I need some caffeine). Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Scorpoin125 - account with less than 10 edits closing AfD

User:Scorpoin125 appears to be an account with less than 10 edits and which was apparently started today - there is some confusion about this because there are messages on the talkpage which go back many years. Anyway, they are clearly not in a position to close AfD discussions on a day-old account.JMWt (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

anyone can close afd. Instead of worrying about who closing worry about if they closed against consensus. --Scorpoin125 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How can you possibly even know what those terms mean on a day-old account? JMWt (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but if you know how to close AfDs, that implies you've previously edited using a different account. That requires disclosure of the previous account(s) on your user page. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Those older comments were because the user started the talkpage by cloning Talk:data. I nuked them. As others observe, this is certainly not a new editor. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Checkuserblocked as an LTA (see AGreene1117, MagicSoiuret etc.). If you see any more of these pop up, just block them with talk page and email disabled.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: He's back as Scoripon126 with basically the exact same name reverting my reply for some reason while also closing a just-relisted AfD using another user's signature as a disguise [287] JM (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting tactic I haven't seen before, gives the impression for anyone casually glancing at his page that he's not brand new. Not to dwell on it for WP:BEANS reasons, but I wonder if it might be a good idea to set an Edit Filter to monitor for something like that. It should be possible, and I can't think of any good reason a new editor would need to subst anything into their userspace. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

They're here again as User:FlightMasterr and RE, who To BeFree and I've blocked but a few others floating. If someone has time to come play whack a sock and fix the AfDs, it would be very much appreciated. @Ponyo if you happen to be around for some CU pixie dust, that would also be appreciated. Star Mississippi 18:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I stumbled upon this while doing routine vandal patrol... at first I just saw improper/incomplete relists and bad NACs and thought this was an overeager misguided newbie... then I noticed the signature forgery and realized this is far more serious. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your name always makes me chuckle, but it's particularly appropriate with vandal fighting especially this lot. Star Mississippi 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopping disruption

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

---

36.235.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP range has been active for months. IPs change within this range regularly, and always after a warning is given. I gave a final warning two weeks ago for this hoaxing (adding a nonexistent vehicle to the list). Whoever is behind this IP has never provided a source for their changes nor used an edit summary to explain them. Lists of an automaker's vehicles are a favorite target but it is rarely clear what they're trying to accomplish with their edits. Sometimes unexplained blanking, sometimes unsourced tampering with dates and list order.

On other articles, it's sometimes clear misinformation vandalism ([288], [289]), sometimes unexplained removal of content ([290], [291]).

Some of this user's edits appear that they may be productive, but some are clearly disruptive and the user refuses to explain themselves or otherwise communicate, so a rangeblock seems to be the only way to stop the disruption and get the user's attention. --Sable232 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Potential editwarring at Israel-related topic

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

---

This is nominally a dispute over flag icons and MOS:NONSOVEREIGN but involves a highly contentious topic under sanctions and is right on the threshold of editwarring.

• [292] flag icon removed 20 Jan
• [293] reinserted 23 Jan
• [294] removed 25 Jan
• [295] reinserted 25 Jan
• [296] removed 26 Jan
• [297] reinserted 26 Jan
• [298] removed 26 Jan (mine)

The concern is that only two editors are using the discussion on the article's talkpage, which was begun in good faith on 26 Jan by one of the editors in the diffs above, to try to resolve this peacefully. Disclosure: one of the diffs is mine, made before I realized how significant this situation has become. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for a few days to give a chance for discussion to take place. If edit warring resumes, please file a request at WP:AE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

ChatGPT AfD participation

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

---

KarKuZoNga has been making obvious AI-generated comments on AfDs: [299], [300]. When challenged about it, they lie: [301]. Here's an example of their genuine writing, if there was any doubt: [302]. -- asilvering (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If true, why is it an issue? Is there something they are meant to do that they haven't done, like make a note about the AI they used? Obviously it's not easy to verify that anyone's statements accurately reflect their true beliefs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s an issue because their comments are effectively pointless. They seem to just be feeding the discussion to an ai, and saying “generate another comment in the discussion”. The AI just agrees with other users, and badly summarises what other people have said. It doesn’t make a contribution that’s actually based on guidelines for retention of articles, it doesn’t actually go and check sources to see if they’re WP:SIGCOV.

In several comments, their comments state that several sources are significant coverage, are secondary etc, but the AI is just summarising what other people have stated- Karkuzonga hasn’t actually gone and checked whether they are or not, so the contribution is misleading and unhelpful for the discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the problem - like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Cobb Baseball which is effectively just copying another editor's comment with slightly different wording. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilson (producer), "their" comments even repeats comments made by a SPA editor who clearly has a COI. In the end, since none of these comments contain anything that has originated from KarKuZoNga themselves but effectively plagiarize previous content, none of them add any value to the debates whatsoever. IMO, they should all be struck and the editor cautioned to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what the others have said, and could add other reasons for why AI-generated comments are unacceptable, but I think the most relevant point is that using AI and lying about it is not acting in good faith. We could have a conversation about the use of AI here, but I don't think we need to, since what we already have is an editor who is deliberately trying to mislead other editors at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What if the writing style of the AI matched the writing style of the user? What then? What would be the basis for striking the statements given that things like pointlessness, agreeing with other users or restating their argument in a different way, not adding any value, deliberately trying to mislead/manipulate other editors to get a preferred outcome and not ensuring consistency with policies and guidelines are not unusual? I'm not disagreeing with any proposed courses of action, and I think provably dishonest editors should just be blocked, it's just that this is obviously a can of worms and is likely to become quite common (and undetectable). And it's not great that we will be being better at identifying cases like this involving people whose native language is not English than native speakers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that you are purporting to release your contribution under CC-BY-SA, implying you own the copyright and can choose to do that. In the US, where WMF is based and where the majority of the wikipedia servers are, that's an open question on several levels, from whether AI output is eligible for copyright at all to whether it constitutes copyright infringement of the data used for training. It's really something we want to avoid being on the forefront of and wait for law to be settled. There's more of the thinking behind that available at the essay Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, this specific argument continues to confound me—just because behavior isn't always identifiable doesn't mean it's acceptable or a fait accompli. It seems totally unacceptable to put forward the impression that I'm talking to a person expressing their actual opinions regarding operation of the site—at least in large part—when I'm not. I don't find simple machine translation or other aids for ESL editors to be comparable to this qualitatively. Are we just meant to discard the pretense that we might expect to be talking to other human beings online? — Remsense诉 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Remsense: I find the whole issue confounding. To clarify, I'm not saying that deception is okay. It's not okay. Editors who use deception shouldn't be here. Whether it's about misuse of LLM output or pretending to be a legitimate editor rather than a banned editor for example, seems immaterial. As for LLM misuse specifically, my point was really that it is going to be become very difficult to know whereabouts on the axis from real-Wikipedian to deliberately-deceptive-Wikipedian-operated-LLM-avatar to AI-agent someone/something is located just by looking at the statements. And there is obviously a lot of legitimate use middle ground on that axis, especially for non-native speakers. I wasn't suggesting we throw our hands up and accept it as a fait accompli. More that responses to these situations should maybe be mindful of our detection limitations and bias, inability to reliably decide whether something is a legitimate use case or not (due to incomplete information) and that we should be even handed - AI-generated/assisted AfD comments that appear low value are not worse than human generated AfD comments that appear low value. How about some counterfactuals. What if Karkuzonga's denial was not something they expected anyone to take seriously? What if they had said "Yes, I used an LLM to clean up my language and the output accurately reflects my view, more or less"? What then? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a totally different situation, and I'm not sure why you've been trying to argue a hypothetical here. This isn't a Village Pump discussion about AI in general. This is an ANI thread about a particular contributor who was obviously acting in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, GraziePrego would have had a chance at a useful conversation with the user, which could have had any number of different results. They were not, so we're here instead, and the user has been indeffed by CU. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Sean.hoyland: there is nothing, really, in Wikipedia policy or guideline forbidding this, and I quite agree that we don't just automatically strike low-value comments at AfD (or anywhere else) solely on the basis that they're low-value. I would expect a closing nom to take as little notice of AI-generated blather at AfD as with human being-generated blather. Obviously there ought to be a broader conversation about AI usage on Wikipedia, and guidelines to go along with it. ANI's not the venue for that discussion. Ravenswing 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks, at a glance, like they have a very poor grasp of English. Normally this would raise WP:COMPETENCE issues... but based on their edit history, the editor is aware of this and has confined themselves to stylistic edits and finding sources, all of which (aside from their recent AFD comments) seems appropriate at a glance. I think perhaps someone should just explain to them that it's fine to write "keep / delete per X, Y, and Z" to support another user's comment without having to write much more - it seems like that's the actual intent of what they're doing here, they've just chosen the worst possible way to do it. (Though the denial that they're using AI when they clearly are is concerning.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If @KarKuZoNga does not immediately start making their own useful contributions to AfD instead of just summarising what others have said so quickly that it looks like they used AI, they should be topic banned from AfD. These non-contributions to the discussion are worse than nothing. The likely use of AI isn't even the main point here. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed, as a CU action. They've posted a fully-formed promotional article about a basketball player turned entrepreneur in between those small, innocuous edits; the English there is substantially better than in their self-written comment, all of which would seem quite consistent with posting other people's promotional text on their behalf. Bulk, basically content-free AfD participation and huge numbers of tiny edits to build edit counts are also consistent with COI sockfarms. Finally, they're blatantly spoofing all sorts of things in an obvious attempt to evade CU. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Mass reinstatement of made up/incorrect information on French election articles

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

---

As some of you may have seen, there has been a bit of a social media storm about my removals of unsourced, inconsistent and made-up information from French election articles. A few had to be protected as a result of disruption after the initial storm on Twitter. Unfortunately today there has been a mass reinstatement of this stuff by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk · contribs)

A few highlights from these reverts:

• In this one they reinstate an infobox which has different figures to the results table, a results table which is completely different to the source used (the party names are different, the seat figures are different and there are no vote figures in the source), and one with a parliamentary diagram with a different number of seats to the results table. They also removed the addition of a full set of vote figures (including invalid votes and registered voters) from a reliable source.
• In this one unsourced vote figures are re-added to the article which appear to be back-calculated from the number of seats (and so are just made up). The parliamentary diagram reinstated to the article does not match the seat totals in the results table (although it has the same total, if you click through to the image page, the number of seats for parties are different to those in the table).
• Here and here they blindly reinstate a results table and infobox data with figures that do not match the figures in the prose (and in the first case, claim they are reverting vandalism).
• This revert reinstated a results table that is different to the source and in which the vote percentages are clearly back-calculated from the (unsourced) seat totals, and in turn, the vote figures have been back-calculated from the rounded percentages.
• This one restores an unreferenced version, removes the addition of invalid votes and registered voters, reinstates seat figures which are different to the sources used in the referenced version, and removes various fixes such as category sorting. This one is the same.

I asked the editor in question stop with the reverts shortly after they started this series of edits, and then to undo their edits, but while they have undone a couple of their errors on the 1893 article, they now seem to have got bored and moved onto other things, leaving it in a state where the infobox is inconsistent with the results table, and (more importantly) the results don't match the source. They seem to be expecting me to gain consensus for the corrections to each individual article, which is impractical given the scale of the problem here.

Some more eyes on this article series, which was an absolute mess and has been plagued by misinformation on both en.wiki and fr.wiki (where some of the stuff is being copied from), would be helpful. Number 57 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page with more details - arbitrary stripping of tens of articles to suit own style preferences. Another point - unsourced content repeatedly removed en masse without any discussion, request for sources, or tags. Was in engagement with user via my talk page, so interesting that it was raised as an incident. Article series really needs oversight for the heavy handed approach taken across several pages. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a style preference issue. In nearly all of these of these cases, the problem is that the information does not match the source, is patently made up or is internally inconsistent, and in several cases you removed references that had been added to articles to verify the information. The fact that you are fully aware that you have reinserted such nonsense into numerous articles and removed references and don't seem to care is not good. Number 57 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've stated numerous times I'm supportive of introducing sources as opposed to your undiscussed stripping of numerous pages across this site, to the scale of your disruption is such that there are instances as you have described mistakenly, but you are now mischaracterising the issue and your mission to mould every page to suit your style, and removing reams of information, as you realize there is zero consensus. More input is desperately needed due to your actions in many article series. I have engaged with you in good faith repeatedly so bizarre you're taking it like this, when you know your edits are not universally accepted here. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted sources (and more detailed results) being added to at least nine articles in the course of your spree of blind reverts (such as here). And you clearly have not engaged in good faith given your first set of edit summaries were "rv vandalism"[303][304][305] Number 57 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet again you deflect from the main issue : yourself and mass stripping of articles by yourself to suit your tastes and levelling articles of information with zero /consensus, and harassing other users trying to add sources. The sheer scale of this did result in references accidentally being removed as I said. The deflection of this is causing these replies to circle back. Much more oversight is needed over for your heavy handedness across many article series. You are well aware your actions have no consensus among editors. I have replied every time and attempted correct your deflections AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore the onus is on you to introduce the sources supporting the results. Having a stripped back article with correct information is preferable to having one that perpetuates errors. ITBF (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Take that point, though the scale of this is huge by @Number 57 with no consensus, tags or even attempts to discuss on talk pages. The main issue behind this is the users mass moulding of pages to suit his taste, which can be seen in replies to other users and the differences in revision. All this with zero consensus. Will try to engage in sourcing soon too if possible in the instance the user has highlighted. Oversight is desperately needed to his arbitrary changes as too many people have picked up on, yet others are tarred as socks or vandals by the user. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are discussions on many of the talk pages in that series, starting with Talk:1791 French legislative election, Talk:1792 French National Convention election. Number 57 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

and zero where you have an established consensus. Personal conviction is not consensus btw, your multiple arbitrary stripping of pages needs way more oversight. You refuse to engage simply reverting other user edits and resort to name calling people like socks. Although you are trying to deflect with isolated references, Im fully convinced you realize your actions have no consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see how doing verification work, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, requires consensus regardless of whether the pages are related, and it ending up with stripping the pages of unverified/unverifiable content. However, it might be courteous to have more descriptive edit summaries (rather than just "Format") or a link in the edit summaries to point to an explanation on a talk page for centralised discussion to occur, given that the work were done for a series of related pages.

On edit warring, the 1898 French legislative election article is the lightning conductor being the subject of two viral pieces of social media content, a Tweet and a YouTube video. I don't see N57 edit warring there; other editors were reverting to have his revision in to a point that it became a disruptive pattern. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

May I also suggest that, now it is either contentious or potentially disruptive to introduce changes to these articles, if the numbers you produce, after verifying against the sources, are different and/or displayed differently, discuss first on the talk page(s) per WP:BRD (noting that the ship has largely sailed passed Bold and Revert parts of the cycle). – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my edit summary wasn't great, but I never expected removing misinformation would be so controversial. And we are talking about 50 articles here – individual talk page discussions aren't practical (or are just ignored – I put a detailed explanation of the reason for removing the results table at Talk:1791 French legislative election and it didn't help). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at sources for the 1988 elections, I left a talk page message there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oversight? — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The balance of evidence here suggests that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has not demonstrated due diligence in reverting. "Number57 was making too many edits" is not an adequate defense for their edits unless they can demonstrate that Number57's edits were equally or more reckless or edit warring, which is not self-evident. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  They have edit warred, reverting other users changes multiple times, instead calling them socks or blind - a cursory glance at edit summaries shows this. The user has wilfully invited and engaged in edit warring, as well as reckless, arbitrary stripping of multiple articles relating to French legislative elections. Did not say the number of edits was too high at any point but rather the amount of info removed without discussion, tags or warning. Has chosen to force through these very drastic strippings, shared with many other users AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've asserted that there's been edit warring by Number57, but on the pages linked in this discussion thus far I'm not really seeing it. The only exception is 1893 French legislative election, where it's pretty clear that the other editors participating were canvassed from Twitter judging by the accounts' editing histories (and where the edit war appears to have been ultimately resolved by another editor of the page backing Number57's perspective). Number57's edits by and large appear to be a valid application of building consensus through editing; do you have any diffs that provide evidence to the contrary? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a behavioral issue, or is it a content dispute? The talk pages on for the articles Number 57 has linked to don't have any discussion on them. If there is a need for a third opinion to resolve disagreements between two editors (Number 57 and AlbusWulfricDumbledore), consider posting to WP:3O. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Content was the reason for my reinstatements, the huge amount of content removed with zero discussion, which many users have taken issue with. Both in terms of wholescale removal (with no tags/discussion etc) and his infobox personal preferences. Not just in this article series but many others. Was discussing this with him on my talk page, when the user decided to bizarrely post this as a behavioural issue (have tried to correct references which he is trying to deflect with) (Considered his removals to be wilfully reckless at first glance at the very start). We both agree that more oversight is needed - in my opinion, to bring in much needed reviewing of his changes, which the user is aware there is no consensus on AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would class it as a behavioural issue on the basis that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has reinserted information they know to be incorrect (as well as removing sources from numerous articles). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but just looking at the first link that Number57 provides shows that AlbusWulfricDumbledore is inserting information that is (a) clearly wrong, because the totals don't add up correctly (2,220,181 126,231 = 1,975,144?), and (b) doesn't match the source (look at the number of seats). This is clearly disruptive and AWD needs to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are issues with totals which I'm trying to fix/some which other have already, but the issue behind my edits were to revert at first I saw to be reckless (at the very start), wholescale stripping of articles of information with zero discussion/tags (or even notice on many pages). Many others have brought this up on other pages too (in addition to his crusade to force through infobox format changes on many pages). Have stopped similar edits since he brought this up on my talk page, as I would prefer that like he has mentioned, more eyes on this article series and for WP:3O or something similar AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's the point - you don't change articles to insert incorrect information, you ensure the information is correct and matches the source and then you make the edit. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Although Black Kite's clearly correct in what he says, I want to add that the fact that Number 57 is right doesn't excuse edit-warring, and being a sysop doesn't excuse edit-warring. Being right doesn't bypass the need to build consensus for large-scale changes, and being a sysop doesn't bypass consensus either. What's needed here is a consensus in a central place where people interested in France gather, and I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm all for discussion, and there have been productive ones on a few talk pages. The issue is, how exactly does one go about gaining consensus for removing misinformation from dozens of pages (we are talking around 50 here) and reinstating the sourced figures? Listing them on a page-by-page basis with the proposed change?
  • My concern is also now that any discussion is at risk of being derailed by drive-by comments, given the traffic driven to these articles by the social media stuff and the fact that some editors (such as the one being reported here) simply don't care about veracity. There was a section on the 1898 talk page in which a few drive-by editors simply proposed reverting the edits despite it being pretty clear to everyone else engaging in the proper discussion that the previous info was wrong... Also, in the meantime, we have several dozen articles that are clearly wrong – is this a tolerable situation? Obviously I am biased, but I would want to see the correct versions (even if they are deemed "stripped out") restored while there was a discussion. It's worth noting that the edits to sort these out were made between February and May last year, and have only just been reverted. Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • How does one go about gaining consensus to change dozens of pages? Exactly as I said: through consensus in some central place that lots of people see. I suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Some people prefer RfC, or village pump. I certainly agree that we need to get this stuff right, and I think we should come to understand where these errors come from as well. But when you're proposing large-scale, sweeping changes to longstanding articles, best not to edit war.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
      • It just seems like a potentially time-intensive and potentially frustrating process to go through to do what should be a basic thing – correct the articles; I'm not sure a coherent discussion about differing edits on a set of over 50 articles is even possible – and I suspect it would just turn into a complete mess. The real issue here is that a load of knee jerk/blind reverts have come about as a result of a social media storm, and what happens if the process is affected by more drive-by comments? We end up being left with a load of clearly inaccurate information in articles. TBH it's a bit disappointing how relaxed editors seem to be about patently false information being added into articles; I would have thought the most urgent thing would be to remove it and then discuss what to do... As for how this came about, a lot of the issues seem to stem from a series of IP edits around 2016; for example on the 1877 article, the 2015 version matches the source; after the IP edits they don't. Number 57 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

        Consensus isn't necessarilyy convenient or easy, but it's a core pillar for Wikipedia's process. A discussion might pose that there's been disagreements on sources and what sources say for [the affected election pages] and ask what source is best to cite. That would at least centralize discussion around using particular sources.

        The desire for accurate information is not a bad one, but Wikipedia is about more than sheer accuracy. I think the essay WP:NORUSH is instructive in this case; while we shouldn't be complacent, we can still recognize that in the long run, building consensus is healthy for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just a further update on this, AWD is now adding sources to some of the results tables. The issue is that the sources they are adding do not support the numbers. For example, here they add a source to a results table that states that Clicy Club won 105 seats, Marisards 44 and Thermidorians 28. However, the source linked states is that Reactionaries won 182 seats, Republicans won 34 and candidates with "unclear opinions" won 44. This is one of the articles that I listed in the bullet points above where the information in the reinserted table did not match the prose (which does match the source). Here they add a source stating it "seems" to be where the numbers are from, but which appears to be inaccessible (I have tried opening it on a couple of devices and the data never loads). Number 57 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, was trying to help with the cases you highlighted, would be helped to be tagged so I can respond to your queries, the second source you mention is accessible via the Web Archive which is why I linked it to there with the archive date. Added the first source as it seems to be helpful as its one of the few that give numbers - but the table needs to be updated

  (PS - this whole process is one I was expecting editors to engage in vs stripping/levelling articles without consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you admit you are adding sources to articles that don't support the information in question? Number 57 13:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You found one example and are hanging onto it for dear life, ignoring the multiple other sources I've added. These discussions belong on talk pages, you recognize and can see sources can be found - so undiscussed mass deletions are not helpful or encouraged by almost anyone. These issues should be discussed via the normal channels rather than via an "incident" AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have flagged your one example too, as needing citations, as the numbers in the source aren't too clear either - but again, use the talk pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So far you have added sources to five articles. In three of them [306][307][308] the source doesn't load so can't be verified; in one of them[309] you added a source that gives different figures to the ones you are citing; in this one the revised figures you are adding leave the results table not adding up correctly. Number 57 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The archived links are attached which you can access - I am sure we can work together to find sources and flag uncited content, instead of wholescale deletions as you have continuously engaged in. Your two examples point back the one isolated example you’re clinging to (which I have flagged). The other figures correspond to citations in body of text - which you can access/find the books I have used - have included quotes where possible to help you. But again - use the talk pages! (Instead of deleting stuff en masse without tagging/consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point on both these issues: The web archive links work, but the section of the archived page that has the data does not load (so the data is inaccessible). In the 1815 article, you have a results table with a total of 629 seats, but seat figures of 500, 80 and 30-40, which add up to 610–620, not 629. Number 57 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It does for me, the flash section does not work, but it still provides seat counts. Am just going with the sources directly for the second part, the 500 is approximate which I will address. Why is it so hard to bring this up in the 1815 talk page? I'm confused. I'll welcome the challenge of sourcing this together with you AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are over 50 articles which you have blindly rolled back corrections to; having to have a talk page discussion on each one is a massive time sink after having already spent weeks checking sources and researching to try and correct the articles. For example, here you have just found a source to support the figures in the table. If you had bothered to read the edit summary of my edit to the article, you would have seen that the problem is that there are multiple sources with different seat figures, and 400 is not the most common of these.

What needs to happen is for you to undo the mess you have caused by self-reverting, and then go through the articles you have concerns about a lack of data in, rather than leaving 50 articles in the state they are now. Number 57 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point in hand = the solution is not nuclear, even as an admin to blindly eliminate every piece of info and infobox you personally don't like/need sources for - not how this site works. You should always aim to tag/find sources and invite discussion before deleting. You have blindly stripped numerous sites in your crusade, without inviting any engagement of any sort, your edit on that page case in point. You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping - this is widely accepted. Not going to waste time with circular arguments here, I'll see you on talk pages, where this can be worked out. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally spent weeks researching and looking for sources when trying to clean up these articles. The problem for many of the earlier ones is that sources are highly inconsistent and there is no rationale for picking one over another. The source provided on the 1791 talk page states clearly that any attempting to assign seat totals to parties or groupings for that election is nonsensical. Even the article itself says this, but now stupidly contradicts itself by doing so because you have added an unsourced results table (with made up vote figures) back in. Number 57 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlbusWulfricDumbledore: With these pages' content contended, now is not the time to be persisting in editing them. I encourage you to slow down, let go of trying to make the pages be a certain way on a certain time table, and refrain from personalizing language like saying that user Number 57 is acting blindly or is on a crusade (certainly when you say that without providing diffs or evidence). That kind of personalizing language gets into the territory of uncivil aspersions, which 1) don't help; and 2) make this matter rise to being a behavioral incident.

Yes, this is something that apparently needs to be worked out on talk pages—crucially, before edits are made to the main space articles, including by yourself, AlbusWulfricDumbledore. There are options for this: start a thread on WikiProject France, or ask for a WP:3O, or use the Village Pump, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, tried to help address the specific points he highlighted, but will refrain from this series particularly until something is worked out. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But must add other users edits were reverted by the user without engagement - resulting in numerous sites being stripped, though will lay off this - as I am not the only one highlighting the issues brought about by this admin as advised AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification for reverting to a version that everyone agrees has incorrect and/or unsourced information? Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the articles were levelled completely of a lot of info, including the user’s formatting choices, without any real attempt to find sources, invite others to do so, to invite discussion or consensus, but as advised will not be adding to the situation, as I am not the only user highlighting these issues.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. While results tables and infobox details were removed from a few articles (where I was unable to find sources (or consistent sources) after doing research and consulting with other editors), in other cases you reverted changes to the results tables/infoboxes that brought them in line with sources, and in others you removed additional details or referencing that had been added. The issue is that you blindly reverted the changes across the entire election series rather than doing any diligence on what you were doing. Number 57 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite block of AlbusWulfricDumbledore would be appropriate since the user continues to knowingly introduce false and misleading content rapidly, including claims that do not match the given sources. There is no onus on any individual to replace false information with correct and referenced information when they come across it. On the other hand, there is an onus for information in an article to be verifiable. No information is better than misinformation.

When a person has the capacity to provide accurate summaries of these elections (which may not take the form of statistical tables if this would be anachronistic or misleading), they can see the full article history to see if it contains any useful sources, information or starting points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and it is clear from a number of the comments above that the editor does not understand the concept of WP:V or indeed reliable sourcing. So AlbusWulfricDumbledore, if you make a single further edit that introduces unsourced or incorrect data into mainspace, I will block you. You need to work on any articles you wish to improve in a sandbox or similar, and ensure that the information is correct, before publishing those edits. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, can their mass reinsertion of incorrect information be rolled back and this process started from the position of correct information (even if it is more basic)? Number 57 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • I think you can do that; I would not know which ones are correct and which ones are wrong without a lot of effort, and you appear to be clear on this; I am sure that an admin would not consider removing false information edit-warring in this case - I certainly wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially considering AWD's apparent insistence that "removal of content" is somehow worse than repeatedly introducing incorrect content. This smacks of the old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense we've moved away from. AWD appears to feel You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping overrides the fact that they're adding false information to the article, simply for the sake of... adding information. N57 has been providing good sourcing, and removing content that was poorly/incorrectly sourced, not just blindly stripping content as accused by AWD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding verifiably incorrect information and calling it's removal vandalism shows very poor judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's... really not good. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support block, less than indef if they've not been blocked before, more than a slap on the wrist. Yes it's behavioral, because it's about repeated flouting of our core policy of WP:Verifiability. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Kaaren Ragland

Kaaren Ragland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basically a user with the same name as the page is constantly edit warring and using IP addresses to continue the disruption. I have tried to make them quit disrupting, but they seem to continue, and they have been warned about legal threats about reporting me to my residence state’s department and still refers to me as an "unidentified person". She is basically getting upset over me cleaning up her own article and she is continuing to make unsourced statements, which is NOT permitted in the BLP policy. She also is accusing me of defaming her (which isn’t the only reason why I came here, only to report), and ruining her "own" biography. On the most recent comment on her talk page, I tried to explain to her that she cannot be doing all this, but she continues to get away with it. Otherwise, I want a comment on this, or something else. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

They were also warned about WP:COI. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat? There have been multiple attempts to edit , libel and defame me by unidentified parties which has been brought to the attention of the legal department of Wikipedia accordingly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean that one, but this edit summary does an example of threat towards me and also another user[310] TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She was actually accusing me of defaming her, which is not true, but she could be likely to threaten suing me to my state residence's department, as stated above in my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(not an admin) Diffs would be helpful so that people don't need to go searching, but from your description, it seems to be at least WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:WAR, and WP:NOTHERE. JM (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Here Special:MobileDiff/1199064790, Special:MobileDiff/1198122958, Special:MobileDiff/1198090998 (using an IP address in this one), Special:MobileDiff/1198061885,

Special:MobileDiff/1198035129 TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In these edits, she was adding unreferenced/poorly sourced content that was removed. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for the really obvious legal threats, and I'd also suggest an unblock might involve identity verification through OTRS; it wouldn't be the first time someone impersonated an article subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And having gone and read the edit summaries, I can confirm the accuracy of the policies I referenced above. Additionally, it's also a failure to WP:AGF on her part. Multiple possible legal threats - depends on whether she means to pursue action though internal Wikipedia mechanisms or through external legal mechanisms. If it's the latter, it's a legal threats in violation of WP:NLT. She also apparently wants Wikipedia to give her the real-life identities of the users editing her article, which probably violates something. Just as an example of one of her edit summaries [311], she says I have given you the best information the actual Ct docs., not hearsay dubious articles. Also my first hand information. Obviously she would be using a primary source with the court documents, but also note that unreferenced "first hand information" from the article's subject (who hasn't even proven that identity as far as I know) is obviously not compliant with WP:BLP. Finally, calling an editor This bizarre entity is a violation of WP:NPA. Multiple standalone reasons for an indef. JM (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She also had done the same to Marybrewster (talk · contribs), and 2600:1009:A021:CC1B:A130:CBA5:AC4A:6446 (talk · contribs) who were adding information. Thanks. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She was also already blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and upon the block expiring immediately returned to disruptive editing. So there's another reason for an indef even without the legal theats. Just saying this because even if she somehow successfully appeals the WP:NLT block, she should still be blocked for all the other reasons I listed. JM (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I reported it to WP:RFPP/I TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I laid that out on her talkpage. Anyone looking there should be able to see the legal threats were just the most egregious of several major issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

correct, because the page has 83 views for people to see that. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Block evasion seems likely with B2TheShack. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: she's back as an IP claiming she's a different person, claiming I have a personal issue with her (I have no idea who she is or what the Supremes even are), demanding I unblock her Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:1082:AD22:F848:99FD JM (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It could be WP:MEAT since they are claiming to be someone else with the same COI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the close similarities in the writing style and hyping-up I doubt it's a different person, but the user is assuming bad faith and block evading regardless. JM (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I've now noticed they both use the unique phrase "full stop" at the ends of some sentences. I have very little doubt that this person is this Kaaren woman evading a block. JM (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"Full stop" is hardly a unique phrase, it's what the non-North American portion of the English-speaking world calls the punctuation mark North America calls a period. Stating "full stop" at the end of a sentence is equivalent to saying "period". (No opinion on whether it's WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, haven't actually looked into things that deeply) AddWittyNameHere 13:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said "unique" considering it means "one and only"; I should have said "uncommon". Regardless, I don't think I've ever seen what are ostensibly two editors write so similarly to the point that both use the phrase "full stop" (or "period") within a few hours of each other, especially when by my experience it's an uncommon phrase on Wikipedia talk pages, so I think it was significant enough to have been brought up; it was the most illustrative example of the identical writing. (Also, I believe "full stop" is also sometimes used here in Canada.) It doesn't matter now, the evasive IPs have been blocked and have not returned. JM (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Noticerwhonotices on Europa: The Last Battle

Noticerwhonotices (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has crossed into WP:NONAZIS territory, as they're claiming that Europa: The Last Battle is an actual documentary (it isn't, it's blatant neo-Nazi propaganda). Their prior edits are also a pretty big red flag. Isi96 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

im unbannable

no point in removing my account when i can make as many accounts as i want Noticerwhonotices (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding that "noticing patterns" has been used as an antisemitic dogwhistle. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by AmandaNP, TPA revoked by Blablubbs. Not closing in case of sockpuppets, given above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Competence in the English language.

Effects of pornography on young people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Other Karma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in November last year, I attempted to discuss issues concerning extensive editing to the article Effects of pornography on young people with user:The Other Karma, the contributor responsible. There were several problems apparent, but perhaps the most serious one was that material was being added which was only marginally comprehensible, or worse. During the initial discussion, [312] another contributor, User:tgeorgescu also raised concerns about the wording, while also noting issues with sourcing, questioning whether the edits were properly supported by the sources cited. Having seen he Other Karma using the phrase I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time in response to these concerns, I then offered the opinion that The Other Karma lacked the necessary skills in the English language to be able to usefully edit the article, and that it was unrealistic to expect other contributors to have to go through the sort of convoluted dialog we were faced with on the talk page when trying to discuss problems. Given that this seemed to be getting nowhere, I decided to leave the matter for others to deal with, since I was in no mood to engage in endless rounds of miscommunication.

As should be readily apparent from the article talk page, the issues with he Other Karma's poor grasp of English have continued, and meanwhile, further edits have led to the article including such gems as Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century..., while attempts to discuss whether the material included is appropriate (e.g. a huge section on 'History of the public debate in Austria'), and whether it has been properly sourced and/or translated have again become bogged down through inadequate communication. Despite these concerns and similar being raised by multiple contributors (myself, User:tgeorgescu, User:Arjayay, User:Mathglot), The Other Karma chose today to nominate the article for Good Article status. [313] As should be obvious to anyone reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this proposal would appear to be doomed from the start. If The Other Karma has read the criteria concerned, they surely haven't understood them.

I see no obvious reason to doubt The Other Karma's sincerity, but in my opinion some form of action needs to be taken. The article subject matter is of some significance, and readers deserve better than they are currently being presented with. At minimum, they should expect comprehensibility, and that is not going to be achieved while any attempt to discuss problems with the contributor concerned prove futile, and the questionably-sourced word salad continues to pile up. Likewise, other contributors deserve better than they are being faced with: my latest attempts to explain the issues with both sourcing and language after seeing the GAR nomination led to the following response: Please explain your claims in discussions: Foster constructive and effective dialogue by elucidating your perspectives in a comprehensible way during discussions, and provide examples how something can be improved. If that isn't output from ChatGPT, or from some form of translation software of questionable merit, it is surely satire. And whatever it is, it isn't remotely an appropriate response when having one's language skills questioned. Given recent concerns being raised on this noticeboard concerning civility, I held back on making the response there that initially seemed most apt, and instead started this thread here. I'm not quite sure how the community can best deal with this problem, in that editing restrictions and/or topic bans might well merely move the problem elsewhere on the English language Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it might be best to politely suggest that The Other Karma restrict their future contributions to a version of Wikipedia in their native language, and that if The Other Karma declines to do so (or at least, if they continue with the same behaviour here) we should consider an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. Sincerity is not enough. Communication is required - both with other contributors, and one-directionally, with our readers, who should not be confronted with baffling phraseology concerning fornicating erotica and similar oddities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the Grump: WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm not opposed to either editor. Just saying that since I'm not a native speaker, I'm not in the best position to judge the quality of their English. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Too soon for indef, but I agree with Andy's comment that the "article needs to be edited by someone with greater competence in the English language", and something needs to be done, perhaps a voluntary restriction to editing only Talk pages (no mainspace, or GAR/FAR). I agree that TOK's English is pretty shaky, but I am able to follow what TOK is saying in discussion at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, where they are arguing their point, but when they translate from Austrian legal wording (legal text in any language can be abstruse, and German is no exception), it's basically incomprehensible. Since this is what they are intent on adding to the article, that cannot stand. As far as whether admin action is required, we might be close to that, but I want to hear from TOK first.

The Other Karma, do you understand that people here are discussing whether to WP:BLOCK you from editing? I think you could contribute to English Wikipedia in some ways, but a certain level of self-awareness about your English is required in order to continue. I think you could definitely contribute at article Talk pages by adding your thoughts there in your own words, but perhaps your English is not sufficient for adding text directly to articles involving translation about specialized German topics using arcane language in the original German such as Austrian legalese. Poor grammar and poor word choice is okay on a Talk page, as long as your basic meaning is clear; but it's less okay in an article. There is something called an WP:Edit request, which is a semi-formal way of asking other editors to make a change for you to an article that you cannot or should not make yourself; how would you feel about limiting yourself to using only the talk pages, where you could discuss as much as you like (within reason), and when it got to the point of updating the article, instead of doing it yourself you would issue an edit request and let someone else do it? Would that be acceptable to you?

I just want to state my bias: as someone who (attempts to) speak foreign languages, it's not an easy thing, and I greatly respect anyone who does or tries to, and so I tend to give maximum latitude to those writing in English as a second language. As far as writing at Wikipedia, there is a minimum bar of comprehensibility, and it's not the same threshold for a Talk page and an article. If TOK agrees to limit themself to talk page contributions, then I think that could work, and if it doesn't, we can take it up again. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is important to me that I take the time necessary for my colleagues at Wikipedia to respond to the criticism in a solution-oriented manner. However, since a lot has happened on the article and discussion page, and since I can't do everything at once, I may not be able to respond to the issues raised here until tomorrow or the day after, maybe even later.

I apologize for the inconvenience. The Other Karma (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How does that address the problem? Do you intend to continue editing the article, given the concerns raised over your competence in written English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the above dismissive non-response, I would like to make it entirely clear that should this thread be archived without further input from The Other Karma, and should The Other Karma continue to edit articles in the problematic manner discussed above, I shall raise the matter here again, with the further proposal that The Other Karma be blocked from article-space editing entirely, until such time as we receive a response which actually addresses the issues discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will answer you, we have enough time on Wikipedia.
I have asked at VPT, if it is possible that the Lowercase sigmabot III, doesn't archive a section.

You and Mathglot have mentioned a lot, but I need time to look at everything and find solutions that involve not having these problems again. Due to the length of your and Mathglot's critique, I will probably need until the weekend to address all aspects.
You have to keep in mind that I'm tired after work and don't have much energy for Wikipedia. I'm i have also other more important things i have to take care of. I don't plan to edit the article namespace of the article until I have answered here. The Other Karma (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma, just so you know, ANI is a rather fast-moving board (this discussion is getting ever nearer the top, and is already #11 of 31 threads) and while RL and taking the time needed for a response are certainly legit, Andy was referring to the fact that by the time you are ready, you may not find this thread here anymore. We may already be at the point where moving this to your Talk page would be wise, where you could take all the time you need, however with the understanding that should there not be an amicable solution, you'd probably find yourself the subject of an additional discussion here, something which it would be better to avoid, if at all possible. A voluntary solution agreeable to all would be the best result, if that is achievable.

If you do make it back here in time, here is the proposal I'd like to hear your thoughts about: I propose that you avoid editing mainspace directly, and post the edits you want to make to an article to its Talk page instead, asking for feedback. If other editors say your content looks good, or if they are willing to fix up the wording until it is acceptable, then you can post it in the article; otherwise not. Would you be willing to accept this as a voluntary restriction? With experience over time, it may become clear that your proposed wording for articles on legal topics or marine naval warfare are unacceptable, but your wording for articles on seaside resort towns and Thai cuisine are just fine, and the restriction can be removed by consensus for the latter, meaning you can edit them directly again. Do you understand this proposal, and do you accept? Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond you tomorrow, i have today, no time left, but I'm nearly done with the response. And on Friday i'll respond Andy. The Other Karma (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot In my opinion, this is overkill, as most of the text in the article is based on English-language sources, which are correctly formulated. I can send you a review of the demographics and predictors part, where I can also show that everything is adequately substantiated. (In comparison to the previous text, my problems are peanuts, I can send you a review, i have to note the that the problems would have stayed for many more years without me.)

I have also looked again at the legal part where there were problems, most of the text from the source are not complex legal texts, so there should only be 6 cases where I have not translated optimally (and not a massive occurrence at every claim). Including the word “fornicating”, where I especially tried with best practices to translate it correctly e.g. using dictionaries (in German it means "Unzucht/Unzüchtig", meaning offensive sexual behavior), [1 [2 I even often linked the word to show the correct meaning. (It seems here to be more the fault of the available resources (dictionaries) than me). (I am aware that the dictionaries suggest sex offence as a translation, but I probably came to the conclusion while translating that it means Sexualdelikt (sexual crime)).

I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism. Translating a complex legal text into English is not something I usually do, this was an exception, and I'm not planing to do translate complex legal text in the near future. Is this a solution for you?

Regarding the 6 non-optimal translations, I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting, such a meeting is in my experience the most efficient and fastest solution method, with the least effort. I can also prove you my English language skills and prove to you that I can use both languages (English and German) without any translator. But you don't have to help me if you don't want to! Otherwise, I would look for someone else willing, but that will take longer (months to years). And they probably wouldn't be the descriptions you would like best. The Other Karma (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all: this is the Administrator's board noticeboard for discussing user behavior, not the board for discussing how to improve translations or how to improve any content in an article, so I'm not going to respond to your comments about how to translate this or that word or expression; if you wish to expound on that, you can continue that discussion at the article or at your talk page.

Unfortunately, your last comment hasn't helped your case, because it underlines your *lack of self-awareness* of the level of your ability in English and in translation, which became evident to me especially at this discussion (and other discussions on that page), and which is more serious imho than the actual weak English command itself because you are unable to see where your weakness lies. Much worse even than that, is that when this is pointed out to you by native speakers, you argue with them, compounding the appearance of lack of self-awareness, and without that awareness you are severely handicapped in your writing as you are unable to tell when your output is good enough, and when you need assistance because it is incomprehensible, and I think you won't disagree that we can't have gobbledygook in our articles at English Wikipedia.

While I am always happy to help ESL speakers and to fix up their minor errors without comment, I am not going to get drawn into a tarpit with you arguing here about what is or is not correct in English or why, and I urge others to resist the temptation as well. That is not the point of this board, and that is why I decline to respond to your specific comments above about translation. If you want to help your case here, please stop discussing individual words or translations, and focus on the fact that you are at risk of possible sanctions and either address that, or perhaps in your case not saying anything might be a better strategy, as this discussion may very well just blow over without action—the likeliest course at this point imho, if you don't hurt your own case further. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting

No, that's not going to happen. For transparency reasons, discussions need to take place here on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Uh, you're confusing me, I showed you my self-awareness about not being able to properly translate legal text, exactly here?:
I'm, sorry i didn't want to enrage you!

I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism.

The text implicitly says exactly what is important to you? That I'm totally aware that I can't translate legal texts well enough, that I don't want to make more work for others, as well that I'm teribbly sorry that this happened, and that I'm not interested in such problems happening again. And as a solution, I would never again translate such texts in enWp without an external check. The Other Karma (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century" is not legal text. It is however nonsensical. It should never have been placed in article space. It wasn't written by anyone fluent in English. And frankly, I doubt that it is a product of human translation at all. The Other Karma, have you been using machine translation (a) in article space, and/or (b) on talk pages? And if so, what have you been using it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin)@The Other Karma: I am sympathetic to ANI vs real life, but I think you fail to understand that you could be blocked here and Mathglot is offering you an alternative. I actually think the cited text is readable, and I have definitely seen worse, but what it is not is standard English. So my friendly advice is to quit arguing with native English speakers about whether they can read your English output, accept that at best the results you are getting from whatever you are using are jarringly quaint, and work out something along the lines of what Mathglot proposes. Ideally you would team up with someone who translates from German to English. That isn't me in this case, as my German is disused and limited, and I have no interest in the topic, but odds are better than 50/50 that you could find such a person at de.wiki. I strongly suggest that you let Mathglot help you. Elinruby (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your friendly advice! But now I'm confused even more. .-.
Isnt that what i have been doing is this discussion from the beginning on?
I can also explain my underlying thoughts if this is needed, if it is, tell me. The Other Karma (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

until now it sounded like you were trying to explain why there wasn't an issue and the English was fine. If you now accept that it isn't, the question is how to deal with it. AfC already has a lot on their plate. You could make edit requests on a talk page maybe? @Mathglot: may have a better idea. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Partial block.. I have some sympathy for The Other Karma's lack of Wikipedia time, but the fact remains that their evasiveness has eaten up a lot of the time and patience of constructive editors even just in this ANI thread. The last straw for me is that they now, after undertaking to reply to Andy "on Friday" (=today), have replied, sort of, but still have not engaged with any of Andy's or Mathglot's suggestions (e.g. that they be blocked from article space, and/or that they edit the Wikipedia in their native language instead, and other helpful ideas) or questions. Instead they insist that they have already acknowledged that they're not good at translating legal texts — which is only a miniscule part of the problem — so what else do we want? This is a waste of Wikipedia's prime resource, which is the time and patience of skilled editors. I have partial-blocked The Other Karma indefinitely from article space. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen I think you might have put the wrong settings on that block? You seem to have blocked account creation from their IP address instead of partially blocking from article space? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have made quite a few page-blocks without running into problems, but never a namespace block before. Trying again... OK, it looks like it worked the second time. Thank you very much, IP. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC).

• Good Partial Block Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma is now demanding that content they added to the article not be removed

The following was just posted at TalkEffects of pornography on young people, in response to a suggestion that some of the content be culled: "I would like to note that deleting the content would upset me, as it would be disrespectful of my effort. (see my user page)". [314] The relevant comment on their user page is presumably from a list of "Don'ts""Deleting my additions, from reliable sources: Avoid removing my contributions from articles, which are based on reliable sources." At this point, given what amounts to a refusal to work within normal Wikipedia practice (where getting ones contributions deleted is a common occurrence, to be expected in any collaborative environment) I'd have to suggest that regardless of whether this is a consequence of poor language skills or an unwillingness to accept standard Wikipedia practice (I'd go with both), we are well into WP:CIR and/or WP:NOTHERE territory here, and that it would be better for the English-language Wikipedia if The Other Karma was blocked from the project entirely. We are clearly dealing with someone who, intentionally or otherwise, is becoming a humongous time-sink, and who appears to be incapable of taking in the advice offered by multiple contributors as to how best to participate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you really have to destroy the rest of my weekend that I wanted to enjoy in peace!? Is it so hard to AGF? According to the rules, should the article title be are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Which is not Effects of pornography on young people.
Here's the (unfinished) evidence:

The current title, Effects of pornography on young people is in English academic literature only used 61 times and in other languages like German, never. In the sources the article uses, this name is also never used. The term “young people” is usually not used in reliable sources about the topic, the term “adolescent(s)” is usually used.

According to the naming conventions, I therefore propose a name:

Adolescents and pornography
This term and variations is used by literature the article uses at least twice, and its 478 times used in English academic literature and 17 times in German. This term is also in line with the topics that exist in reliable literature, while the title Effects of pornography on young people only refers to one aspect.

The evidence shows that it is totally explicable that the article name will be changed, and that therefore my text can stay.

With the sentance "I would like to note that deleting the content would upset me, as it would be disrespectful of my effort. (see my user page)", my goal with this sentence was to create a comfortable editing environment for Mathglot so that he can pay attention to what is important to me. I put the information on my user page for a reason, my goal is to create a friendly and respectful editing environment so that Wikipedia can move forward. Duh Why do you deliberately want to upset me?

And now please leave me alone, I don't want to experience the stress of an ANI anymore! The Other Karma (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that is safe to say that the above complete and utter failure to address the point I was making about The Other Karma's apparent refusal to accept the norms of a collaborative editing project can only be seen as further evidence to support my proposal for a project-wide block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do I have to beg and worship you like an inferior being so that you finally leave me alone? Is that what you want?
Im just trying to be nice and helpful and productive, as i have so far always tried!!! Could now please stop, insulting me? The Other Karma (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

More of the same... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma is now at the Teahouse asking for help snd complaining. Doug Weller talk 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the Heldesk, not Teahouse. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The Other Karma, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and nobody owns any article. If you feel differently (which is a valid feeling) then I would suggest that Wikipedia is not for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is getting a bit out of hand. May I suggest that further substantive comment be taken up (if necessary) either at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, or at TOK's UTP? Unless someone is pushing for a full indef, but I don't see that happening until we see how TOK does under the current restriction, and that will take some time to assess. While there are valid views and criticisms being expressed here, at this point TOK has just received a partial block, not something anyone wants to experience, and needs some breathing space. We can and should give him some time to process (grieve?) this, and hopefully bounce back and become a productive editor. That's one of the goals of a partial, right? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. The Other Karma, I'm very sorry for your frustration, which is plain to see in your posts in this subsection, but I'm afraid what you say here serves to show that Andy is right about your refusal/inability to work within normal Wikipedia practice. As I have already said, the time and patience of skilled editors is Wikipedia's prime resource, and we shouldn't keep squandering it in this way. You have been blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC).

Editor constantly adding original research to article after countless warnings

The user MyrhaanWarrior has been adding original research and removing sourced information to several pages about various historical empires on the Horn of Africa. Most recently they added original research to the page Adal Sultanate. They have received countless warnings on their talk page, and yet still keep up the original research.

Most of the edits go along the lines of removing the actual, sourced information and adding their OR, such as changing images or countries. interstatefive  00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is false, I have consistently backed upmy edits with actual sources and not propaganda which they have been using, consisting deleting my backed up edits with even screen shots from books to further prove this.The map I provided is historically accurate as Adal forces were said to have reached as far as the country of Nubia, or the country of the Funj which spanned as far as south eastern Egypt,the clans of Beja also have heritage from the horn to further prove this

Your map is nonsensical as you claim it was 1540, when Danakil, Bale, Dewaro and Wej were all captured, to as far as Suakin and the land of the Nubians, the map shows the lands pre conquest MyrhaanWarrior (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked User:MyrhaanWarrior from editing Adal Sultanate for 24 hours for continuing to edit war while this discussion was ongoing. They are welcome to edit elsewhere and in this discussion about their behavior. BusterD (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)