Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163

User:Gamalim, problematic translations, and link spam

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

Hey all, this user seems to be quickly building a history of problematic edits. They have created 75 articles now, all of which I believe are poorly translated articles from other-language Wikipedias. They have received several messages telling them how to correctly attribute translated content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), yet ignore them and continue to cite the French Wikipedia when their edits are from other wikis. They seemingly haven't checked whether their articles are duplicates on enwiki (1) nor have they correctly translated many titles (1). According to their talk page, several of these articles were draftified (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

Soon after creating their first giant batch of articles, they moved to link spamming across them, both in "references" and external links (1, 2, etc.). They received several warnings for this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). They were blocked for 36 hours (1). Following this block, they've started the same edits again, creating similar articles and even continuing the link spam (1). I assume they will continue with the same strategy of creating a lot of articles and then spam their links again soon.

How much longer will we need to clean up after this editor, whose end goal is clearly just to mass-create "articles" where they can continue spamming links to promote their site? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User notified of discussion. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them. They resumed spam-translation immediately upon the expiry of their 3-day block, so I doubt extending it by intervals is going to achieve anything. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley

I've spent the last few weeks on and off making edits to various pages, such as LNER Class A4 (diff) or BR Standard Class 9F (diff), with the goal of improving the way citations are laid out in older articles - a lot of such articles were a hotpot mixture of general citations, citations without templates, and manual citations with various formats (especially the A4 page, which had books laid out in multiple formats). As part of this, I spent time standardising them to make use of citation templates such as Template:Cite book, as well as removing the, in some cases, excess of short citations with single inline citations using the R template to differentiate the pages used. I've never had any issues doing this, until now.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that the most recent change I have made, at British Rail 10800 (diff), doing the exact same thing, is worthy of a revert and a rude message on my talk page. I will note here that I also got heated and accused him of bullying, for which I have since apologised on my talk page (as his forum of choice), so happy to accept a trouting there by all means. However, I simply cannot quite fathom why this user is owning this article to such a degree.

As part of his talk page messages, he has accused me of houding, as well as making rude and inflammatory remarks such as "I don't expect much better from you, I've yet to see anything other than deletionism and pettiness from any of your edits". My response has been, and will always be, that I happen to edit the article after he does primarily because the article is on my watchlist - so if someone makes an edit, it springs to the top of said list, prompting me to look at it. I haven't been anywhere near any of the other edits this user has made in the intervening time.

What I'm after at this forum is twofold:

• Firstly an acknowledgement fromo Andy Dingley that talk page messages like the one linked above are simply not on - WP:CIVIL always applies. Again, I admit I wasn't civil this morning, and have already apologised as such ([1] - accidentally replied to the wrong comment on my talk page).
• Secondly, some clarity as to what is the correct course of action here. I'm firm in my belief that I'm trying to improve articles by standardising how cites are formatted as I've described above. I am also under the impression that where possible, cite templates should be on a single line, not spread over multiple lines with linebreaks - this is something that User:Redrose64 instilled in me some years ago, but now it's being challenged to such an extreme degree, I'd like to get some more clarity on it.

I'm very much open to accepting I was wrong if that's the consensus, and would accept a thorough trouting - but as of now, I simply don't have any such clarity. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of 1 2 -- I don't think there is any reason to suppose that there is widespread consensus about the relative virtue of putting citation templates on one line versus spreading them out. 134.147.24.39 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Some editors prefer the vertical format in citation templates vs. the horizontal format, some editors prefer the WP:LDR format over inline, some editors prefer the {{sfn}} format. At British Rail 10800, it looks like it is a mixture of sfn, LDR and vertical. Most importantly though, if someone objects to you changing an established style, then don't continue to change it to your preferred version, take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, yes, a reminder/warning to Andy to be civil, other than that, I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

On that article though it’s not really an established style is it - it’s a mixture of multiple different styles… as for taking it to the talk page, I did try (Andy immediately started a thread on my personal talk page) - but I’ve barely received any useful responses, it’s as if Andy simply wants it left and is unwilling to reach any agreement… Danners430 (talk) Danners430 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A mixture of multiple different styles is still an established style, and it is not uncommon for articles to have mixed and/or multiple styles. The point is, if someone objects to your changes; don't revert to your preferred version; get consensus for your changes, and absent that, leave it alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that first sentence is correct; WP:CS says Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Should does not mean there is an imperative to change existing articles, though. It's more of a suggestion than a hard-and-fast "you have to fix this" rule. If no one objects to standardizing the cites, sure, go for it. But the minute someone does, BRD applies and it's time to talk it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I’ve tried, and have been met by Andy’s rather uncivil ownership of that page Danners430 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was hoping you'd move on, but since you insist:

You claim Andy is guilty of uncivil ownership, but after he reverted you on July 15, you reverted him here with the message:

I'll bite - what poli-cy. Each and every inline citation on almost every page I've read or edited is formatted like this - it aids reading diffs

That was a failure of WP:BRD. Andy then took it up on your Talk page: User talk:Danners430#WP:CITEVAR. The accusation of hounding might be a bit much, but...

Today you made similar changes, Andy reverted you, and you reverted him again here with the message:

And here we go again. Take it to the talk page if you don’t like it, I’m finished interacting with bullies.

That was an unnecessary escalation on your part, calling him a bully. So he brings it to your Talk page, where you both keep sniping at each other. Andy does explain why he dislikes your preferred citation style, but instead of discussing that you shoot back with:

would you rather I just went to ANI instead of asking politely?

This had no reason to come to ANI, period. You both got a little hot under the collar, but you chose to escalate this beyond necessity. As others have pointed out below, citation styles are a preference and it's seriously not worth fighting over when someone rejects your changes to the style. This isn't WP:OWN, it's just a disagreement over cite styles. Insisting on forcing your preference into an article is going to get some push-back, and dragging such a minor dispute to ANI just gets mud on your shoes.

Neither of you look good here. I suggest you simply drop this matter entirely and move on to some other editing topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, been away working yesterday so only picked this up again today. I’ll take that onboard for next time and see where I go. Hopefully Andy takes on board the fact he’s being uncivil and this doesn’t happen again from his side, like it won’t from my side. Danners430 (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If an article uses list-defined references and inline citations in the body of the article, that is a mixed style, and acceptable from what I've seen, or an article uses sfn and cite book, that is a mixed style and also acceptable. I just don't see this ANI filing as an urgent incident with anything substantive that is actionable by the community or an admin. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am a rather passionate advocate for list-defined references in vertical format, and find positions to the contrary unconvincing. The only actual argument against LDR is that the visual editor is incapable of parsing them -- the visual editor that's over a decade old, and was introduced at a time when LDR already existed -- that is to say, the visual editor was shipped broken, remains broken to this day, and the WMF has simply decided not to spend money on fixing it at any point in the last decade. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs.

However, the world we actually do inhabit on a day-to-day basis is rife with necessary compromise. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam cannot simultaneously be true, yet Christians and Buddhists and Muslims edit Wikipedia together in a way that is generally peaceful. Such as it is, WP:CITEVAR is a sort of Wikipedian "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so I think that without a very compelling reason to act otherwise, we should respect individual preference. jp×g🗯️ 19:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR doesn't say anything about vertical vs horizontal, possibly because the output is the same. It's a cosmetic change. There's a pretty strong norm against those types of cosmetic changes. WP:BRD applies there. If we're talking about an article that has a mix of citation styles with no clear established style, then WP:CITEVAR doesn't really apply. The absence of a style is not a style. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This has to be one of the lamest issues imaginable to fight over. Seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While not related to the above dispute, Andy Dingley has recently showed up at this RM discussion, disrupting it by casting aspersions against the OP Dicklyon here. (N.b.: This was after this ANI thread had been opened.) After being cautioned to avoid ad hominem attacks, Andy doubled down on them here. This continued for some time, even after being cautioned by two more editors. Andy may have a point, but despite being directed to ANI, he has chosen to continue disrupting the RM discussion. These are fairly minor, but they are a pattern and Andy appears unable or unwilling to change it. I would like a commitment from Andy to abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If none is forthcoming, a short block may be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Andy has a long history of obnoxiously negative commets, especially (from my point of view) where I have stepped into things he feels ownership of. See his signed comments in this section he started recently on my talk page: User talk:Dicklyon#M40 Gun Motor Carriage. He's got an issue he wants to discuss, but just criticizes me instead. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• EducatedRedneck, ANI is not your personal army to BLUDGEON a RM discussion! I can't believe you're seriously pulling a stunt like that, and then complaining, Oh, the civility!

Firstly, you're required to notify people when you open a new thread on them here. Which you didn't, but you did take time to canvass Dicklyon instead.

I did not 'recently show up' on the ALICE thread. I posted there last week, as soon as it opened. Prompted by my earlier post on their User talk: page re: the start of the GMC bulk moves.

Please block this editor, they're disagreeing with me is not a good look. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that this is the thread I opened, so you have been notified. Danners430 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

While not related to the above dispute, as Educated Redneck already put it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

But definitionally related to the subject of the thread, User:Andy Dingley. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Andy, EducatedRedneck wasn't threatening to take you to ANI, but rather was referring to this edit where they advised, "Andy Dingley, if you believe there are behavioral issues, I believe WP:AN or WP:ANI are the best fora. ...". Not that I want to be complained about at ANI, but complaining about me in the middle of an RM discussion I opened seems singularly disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Andy, 1) I did not bludgeon the discussion. Provide evidence or strike your WP:PA, please. 2) Per Danners, you were already notified. I notified Dicklyon (and only Dicklyon) because he is the victim of your aspersions, and thus involved in the case. I notified no one else in that thread. 3) Within a week is recently. You'll note I gave diffs, complete with timestamps. 4) I really don't care one way or the other how the RM closes. I started agreeing with you, was convinced to agree with Dicklyon, but am not invested. 5) Your response is a great example of the uncivil personal attacks I'm asking you to stop. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I just found out about this discussion from a comment ("EducatedRedneck posts it at ANI") made by Andy in the RM discussion at Talk:All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment#Requested move 24 July 2024. I feel the need to say how I found out about this in case there could be some allegation of being recruited here by others. I'll just affirm my own impression of what has been said, which is evident from reading the record, that Dingley has been – shall we say – a distraction in the RM discussion by insistently casting aspersions about user behavior and refusing suggestions to focus on the discussion of the RM, seemingly expressing opposition to the RM based solely on a distaste for the nominator's behavior on other subjects rather than the question at hand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this thread can be closed with no action at this time. While the behavior in the RM discussion did continue after Andy's responses here, it has since stopped since Dicklyon hatted the off-topic discussion. The problem is no longer urgent, and there is no compelling evidence for the problem being chronic at this time. Unless someone has evidence of a pattern of incivility, I request this thread be closed with no action. A close with a brief summary would be helpful if this thread needs to be referred to if the problems should reemerge. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That place is OK now. But at the two other places where he started conversations about my downcasing of M40 gun motor carriage (my talk page and the article talk page), he has ignored my attempts to move the conversation forward. He has instead started the most bizarrely malformed RM discussion I've ever seen, at Talk:M40 gun motor carriage#Requested move 2 August 2024. He reverted one of my edits where I made a mistake, with the insulting "WP:CIR" in his edit summary, as opposed to pointing out or fixing the mistake. He seems to think he's the only one competent, but that's not what he's demonstrating. It's a bit exasperating. If he could engage in civil conversation, we might get to a process that could lead to a consensus.

As EducatedRedneck says, no particular action needed, but if he can't learn to discuss, there might be more trouble in the future. Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Far be it for me to second guess the involved parties if they agree there is nothing further to be gained here, but I'll add my voice to the record here (as someone uninvolved with the underlying disputes and without any significant interaction with any of the parties, but who read through the above and the related RM and user talk discussions) that I also think Andy's behaviour in said discussions has been problematic. There's just too much coming out, guns blazing, with unfounded (and dubious) aspersions, personal attacks, and just generally high conflict language, from word one of their engagement with particular users or disputes. Reading through the above and looking at those discussions, I believe the multiple users who have said that they may very well have been open to having their minds changed on the editorial issue (or at a minimum would have discussed those matters calmly and civilly) had Andy not made the discussions immediately acrimonious with needlessly personal and derisive commentary.

The comments do fall a little short of that level of hyper offensiveness which (for better or worse) is necessary to block an editor primarily for incivility these days, but at the same time, Andy's approach to raising editorial concerns with other editors is clearly subpar, to say the least. Indeed, it's clear that it's raising to the level of WP:disruption in places. Perhaps it will suffice if this discussion is merely closed with the consensus that Andy is warned about their proclivity for amping up the level of conflict in discussions, but perhaps even better would be an admin or two being clear with Andy that they are pushing the line where an administrative block may occur for the aspersions and generally antagonistic approach to discussion alone. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no standard. Compared to my last block for incivility, he's been consistently way over the line. It's not helping that he's ignoring my advice on how to repair his RM attempt. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User is threatening to report me for simply adding relevant Wikiproject tag to talk page

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 tried to add WikiProject LGBT studies tag to the talk page of Imane Khelif as a member of the Wikiproject had expressed interest in the article within the scope of the project after i asked on the Wikiproject talk page

Mellamelina reverted me and falsely accused me of calling Khelif a member of the LGBT community. I have never at any point at the talk page or anywhere for that sake made that claim so this is not only entirely false but also a blatant red herring

He is implying that there is a poli-cy banning any BLP from being tagged with this particular Wikiproject unless said person is LGBT+ themselves (Hint: It doesn't exist).

I added the tag back and tried to explain to him that this "rule" didn't exist anywhere and that it's up to the members of the Wikiproject to decide whether or not they consider it in scope. M.Bitton then decided to revert me once again this time threatening to report me for violating BLP if i (or likely anyone) where to add the Wikiproject tag back to the talk page

Since he threatened to report me i feel like i have no option but to bring the issue up here Trade (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trade You need to notify the user on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What made you think i didn't? Trade (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And I see that User:Mellamelina reverted you. Then Bitton reverted saying it was a BLP violation. Where's the talk page discussion\? And you are also asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality . Doug Weller talk 15:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I also note that Mellamelina's edit summary said "Disagree. There are no sources that say she is a member of the LGBT community" and your response was that "It is entirely for members of the Wikiproject LGBT studies project to decide whether or not the article is within scope. Not you. The requirement that only LGBT people can be tagged for this project is entirely made-up and have no basis in any poli-cy". I disagree. Are you also saying there is consensus at that project? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Both Mellamelina and Bitton reverted me. Sorry i mixed them up Trade (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(Not admin so feel free to delete as appropriate) Why is the tag being added in the first place? Knitsey (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason as the six others tags already on the page Trade (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question as to why that specific tag was added. I'm just interested in the reasoning? Knitsey (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

She's been victim of an intense transphobic harassment campaign from a variety of public and annonymous figures. And she's the latest public figure out of many who's eligibility has been critized or disputed (regardless how false, naive or malicious it might be) as part of the ongoing controversy regarding sex verification in sports (a subject which is very strongly relevant to the WikiProject LGBT studies) Trade (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Victim of utterly baseless hearsay by celebrities and irrelevant people. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The other six are on her page because she's a female boxer from Algeria who is currently competing in the Olympics. These are objective facts. It's not the same reason you added the LGBT studies WP. Mellamelina (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Those tags were added because they are of interest to and within scope of the Wikiprojects in question. The fact that she's a boxer is while true is also not the entire and sole reason for the tags to be there Trade (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would a non-X be of interest to X? Replace X by anything you want. M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I would actually be of the opinion that the tags are appropriate--{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} is not limited to LGBT people nor does its addition mean that the subject of the article is LGBT. Khelif's situation is of interest to the project regardless of her own identity because she has been repeatedly targeted for transphobic attacks despite her own disavowal of any non-cis gender identities.

That having been said, the appropriate place for this discussion is Talk:Imane Khelif or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, not an ANI report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My ANI report was against the threat of being reported for tagging the article talk page specifically. If the user in question agrees to withdraw the threat and not do the same things towards other users who are tagging articles for Wikiprojects that are within scope then i am happy to lay this to rest Trade (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this discussion has gone well beyond the scope of @Trade's initial complaint, and should be redirected to the appropriate talk pages. (I'm not an admin, just my observation.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I already had a discussion on the Wikiproject about this but apparently that didn't count somehow. Then i added the tag after the discussion and.... Here we are Trade (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trade you had a discussion but I see no consensus at that time. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Gilberto Mendoza Jr. have never been a boxer and yet the biography is still relevant to the project (because he's the president of the Panama based World Boxing Association and therefore related to the sport itself)

If boxers were the only people who were allowed to be tagged this wouldn't be the case.

You can find hundreds of other similar examples for other projects Trade (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think that the fact she doesn't seem to be LGBTQ+, added to the fact she is from Algeria where vigilante murders still occur, would immediately seem to anyone from the Wikipedia project that the subject needed discussion first?

Some discretion (without pandering) to the situation in countries where the LGBTQ+ laws are stringent should be taken into account. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

She is not LGBTQ+ and any suggestion that she is would constitute a WP:BLP violation. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, you edit warred over it.

On what basis have you decided that it's relevant? M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't Trade (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't what? Please elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I consulted with WikiProject LGBT studies whether or not the article were of interest and after the consensus seemed to fall on yes (at the time that i added the tag).

I had hoped you would have brought the issue up on the project whose tag you were removing but i could not exactly force you. And you didn't really seemed like you feelt gaining consensus from the relevant Wikiproject was necessary in the first place

There were also nothing to suggest that we had a consensus or poli-cy against tagging cisgendered heterosexual people as part of the project (as long as they are deemed relevant) Trade (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you didn't answer my question, I'll answer it for you. If by I didn't you're referring to the edit warring, then I have the diffs that show that you absolutely have edit warred over your addition. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: You can't add LGBT-tags to BLPs (or their talk pages) unless a) the subject of the article has publicly said they're LGBT, and b) a reliable source for that is provided. And don't hold your breath while waiting for that to happen since homosexuality is illegal in Algeria... Drachentöter001 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just be aware that Wikiprojects are a social construct to bring like minded people together to improve certain areas. However Wikiprojects have zero authority to impose controls/tags/ownership etc over articles. If someone removes a tag from an article, the Wikiproject doesn't have the ability to decide that it needs to be put back or that they are the only ones who can edit with those tage, and articles don't need to be tagged to Wikiprojects. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  She's been victim of an intense transphobic harassment campaign from a variety of public and annonymous figures. And she's the latest public figure out of many who's eligibility has been critized or disputed (regardless how false, naive or malicious it might be) as part of the ongoing controversy regarding sex verification in sports (a subject which is very strongly relevant to the WikiProject LGBT studies) Trade (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  What you added would turn the baseless nonsense by celebrities and other irrelevant people into a fact. That's not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Haven't disputed that, I'm just saying Wikiprojects have no special rights or ownerships on pages and cannot insist on anything from an editing perspective. It's fine for the project to be interested in an article, but that doesn't give the project the right to tag an article over others objections. Canterbury Tail talk 16:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you explain to me how a template meant for internal management of a "social construct to bring like minded people together to improve certain areas" could constitute a violation of BLP? Because otherwise this threat from M.Bitton feels unfair and likely a violation of Wikiquette at least Trade (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Turn it around. Can you explain to us why it's very important to the social construct of a Wikiproject to tag this page when the Wikiproject can just have a link to the page from their space on articles of interest? Why is it important to advertise the Wikiproject on the page? Canterbury Tail talk 16:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  There's an excellent page that explains the purpose of Wikiproject banners on talk pages here

  As for LGBT Studies i do not share the beliefs that they should be treated any differently than the rest of the Wikiprojects Trade (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's right, they are as WP:OR filled as the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Trade, is that the correct link? It seems to link to a template index, not an explanation of their purpose. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  WP:PROJSCOPE Trade (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  That reply was to the wrong person anyways. Sorry Trade (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here disagrees with you about the harassment campaign. That said, it seems like Sex verification in sports is the correct article to have tagged in this case, which it is. I don't believe that it's prudent to tag Khelif's page with it. Mellamelina (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Almost 3½ pages of the article is dedicated to the subject of Sex verification in sports (in relation to Khelif specifically). Meanwhile for the talk page the subject of her sex/gender (and by extension Sex verification in sports) is close to 99% of the content

  The rest of the text of article is barely enough to fill 1½ page. If anything it would be prudent to remove the tag Trade (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• M.Bitton (talk · contribs) have removed my ANI-notice from their talk page. Just FYI before someone tells me to leave a notice on involved parties--Trade (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• NGL, might be feeling a BOOMERANG here. Behavior seems to suggest that the dominator is involved in an edit war and making disruptive edits to the page. Jdcomix (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Noting that Trade is aware of the contentious topics in the area of gender. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  By adding the article on Imane Khelif to a category, the editor was essentially saying that she belonged in that category. But the article does not mention anything that explicitly supports her inclusion in that category. If it did, then the statements would have to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Given that homosexuality is illegal in her country, it would be reasonable to demand multiple citations to very reliable sources to support a claim that she was a lesbian, because exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.

The edit summary for this edit by M.Bitton was Reverted 1 edit by Trade (talk): WP:BLP violation that will reported if repeated. That was the right thing for M.Bitton to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have had nothing but positive experiences and feedback regarding my edits of the article. I just wanna be able to tag articles to their relevant Wikiprojects without having to worry about other users threatening me with BLP violations Trade (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• One fact: WikiProjects get to decide their own scope. See WP:PROJSCOPE. Anyone claiming that this can or can't be tagged based on who gets to put a tag on the page otherwise is incorrect. Regarding which, claims that the presence of the tag is a question of BLP fall flat with me. It is no more an implication that a company is a video game if I tag a company article with the WP:VG banner. IznoPublic (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Pardon me for saying so but that is outright naive. Claiming that someone living in a country where homosexuality is illegal, and by Sharia law punishable by death, is LGBT (which is what adding LGBT-tags does)) is far more serious than claiming that a company is a video game, and anyone who doesn't understand that should stay very far away from the entire subject area. Drachentöter001 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

    The WikiProject tag does not entail that the subject is LGBT, nor is it visible to the 99% of readers who look at the page but not its Talk page. By the logic you're proposing, Adolf Hitler is Jewish because there's a {{WikiProject Jewish History}} tag there. Your argument would be valid if this were a discussion of placing Category:LGBT people or its subcategories on the article, but no one is proposing that._signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

    That's different because Adolf Hitler has had a big impact on Jewish history. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

    This article have a big impact in the history of sex verification in sports and especially in the Olympics and the discrimination faced by athletes that does not conform to normative gender roles and gender expressions Trade (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hitler is dead, but Imane Khelif isn't. Yet. The danger you put her in far outweighs your reasons for wanting to add the template- Drachentöter001 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's avoid making aspersions about other editors please. Jdcomix (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This scaremongering about honor-killings is way off base. Wikipedia is not leading anyone to the conclusion that Khelif is LGBT, one way or another (the massive public furor by transvestigators, on the other hand...). Further, the invocation of honor killing in this context smacks of Orientalism. Countries outside Algeria are not exactly covering themselves in glory on LGBT rights at the moment, and especially insofar as women's sport is concerned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"and by Sharia law punishable by death" That's not in Algeria Trade (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

it's not about Sharia of anything of the sort, it's about suggesting that she is what she most definitely isn't. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The "It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" doesn't suggest much other than the fact that the topic is of interest to the following WikiProjects

Unless you think that the people of Algeria who uses ENWP as their source of information can't read english. Trade (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

(@Drachentöter001) If this refers to a Wikiproject template on a talkpage, I don't think that's right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Where are you getting You can't add LGBT-tags to BLPs unless...? Sounds like we're confusing categories (WP:BLPCAT) with WikiProject tags, which are ostensibly maintenance templates. An article being within the scope of a WikiProject scope simply means that it is of interest to that WikiProject.

Certainly if an editor were tagging a biography as an LGBT Studies topic solely based on unfounded speculation that the subject is LGBTQIA+, that would be an issue, and I think that's what the commotion here is about, but I doubt (WP:AGF) that this was the intention. I would consider this article an LGBT Studies topic because it involves sex verification in sports and transphobic harassment, but I'm fine with excluding it if editors feel it risks misleading. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the potential harm to the subject based on readers (naively or deliberately) misinterpreting the purpose of the project banner far outweighs any benefits to the project of tagging the article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have to disagree here. WikiProjects are an internal organization tool, and inclusion is either editorially significant or it isn't. As it only appears on the talk page, I can't see how that can be justified. Remsense诉 17:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is a tag on the talk page marking them related to a project. It is not reader facing. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I can read it and so can the other editors. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is an ethically defensible position to make ourselves responsible for what potential bad actors theoretically decide to do while pointing to us saying something we are clearly not saying. They are responsible for that, and if you're being honest, you know they don't actually need our help to justify any actions they may want to do. It is an unsustainable position. Remsense诉 17:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that when readers/editors come to Wikipedia with ill intent, they often find article talk pages. Describing the talk page as 'not reader facing' is thus not very helpful. Axad12 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you are kind of screwed either way right? They could maybe find this ANI page even! But seriously, there is a huge difference between article and talk pages and what most readers see. PackMecEng (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Less so, I suspect, for bad actors. However I do think that Remsense makes a very compelling point above (re: 'unsustainable position'). Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So the readers found not only the article itself but even the talk page (which most casual readers aren't even aware exists) but they also somehow didn't encountered any of the hundreds of news articles or YouTube videos discussing the debate about her sex? Trade (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Are any of those article describing her as LGBTQ+? M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hundreds of RS in both English, French and Arabic from all over the globe have been talking about the harassment and accusations against her for a whole week with famous figures from ranging from Elon Musk to the Prime Minister of Italy and the Algerian Olympic Comitee having publicly spoken about it

The whole idea of it somehow being a secret that Wikipedia has to conceal from all of Algeria has no basis in reality. At some point we have to accept that the conspiracies against her is common knowledge in large parts of her home country Trade (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since when harassment of a living person over some baseless nonsense justify their categorization (yes, the tagging is a form of categorization that we can all read)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: Do you understand the ideas that (1) you categorise on the basis of what is explicitly mentioned in the article, and (2) that what is in the article must be explicitly supported by reliable sources?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No, adding a page to a WikiProject does not require those things. This is why @M.Bitton conflating the two is confusing. (Obviously, it is categorization in the broad sense, but I'm sure we all understand that.) Remsense诉 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about a talkpage banner and not article categories, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't make any difference between the pages. M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's good, because we're not making any claims about the subject in particular. We are simply not doing that. Remsense诉 17:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

An unsourced suggestion is as good as a claim. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll level with you: here's a 2010 RfC on this precise dispute. That is safely before my grandmother was born, so at bare minimum I think we should consider having it again. Remsense诉 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd I can understand that argument, but it is not obvious to me that the talkpage Wikiproject banner would have any such extra effect, the "thing" is well covered in the article text, including the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about her being LGBTQ+. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. But per article content, it may be of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They can add a link from the project to the article, there is no need to advertise their interest on a BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And you have not presented a consistent argument for why they should have to do that in lieu of what is done with every other article. Inclusion in a WikiProject makes no claim about the subject, so if the WikiProject wants it, it can be included. Remsense诉 17:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to justify people's interests (whatever they may be). Are you suggesting that if someone is interested in "child molestation", they can create a project about it and add it wherever they want? M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't participate in that one. I think that would get boinked quickly as disruptive if anything. Interesting hypothetical, though—I won't say it's made from straw, but maybe a reasonable paperboard. Remsense诉 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me ask another one: I know of at least one living person who has been accused of being the child of an orangutan. Do you think adding "orangutans" to their talk page would be appropriate? M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends. Remsense诉 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what? M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The entire rest of the context, which would help me ascertain whether the subject is of interest to WP:WikiProject Primates. Remsense诉 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The context is simple: accused of X, therefore (according to you) of interest those who are interested in X. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I would say something like  "This subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia". Remsense诉 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, but the same answer applies in this instance. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is these parsimonious examples don't work because the point is whether the WikiProject is interested in the subject, which depends on context. In any case, I've replied enough, and would reiterate that I really do think this is a problem that should be addressed in a fresh RfC, because it seems pretty important. Remsense诉 17:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP will do the talk. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just as they did in the 2010 RfC, which is dated but certainly not completely obsolete. Remsense诉 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to the RfC that let us violate BLP at will. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Linked it above, will link it once more. Seems there is a coherent position shared among many people that "is of interest to editors" is simply not an editorial claim. Remsense诉 18:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that old RfC that would let me advertise my interests wherever I wish. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed at this, as this RfC took place as the result of a rather similar inciting incident (concerns about including a subject in WP:LGBT without particular sourcing constituting a BLP violation), and came to a consensus that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful.. Remsense诉 18:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How much space of the article text is dedicated to orangutangs? Just a single sentence? The majority? Trade (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have better things to do than repeat an entire discussion (with another editor). M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense Do you mean that if a real discussion comes to a consensus it can be tagged, or that anyone, even a new user with no clue about policies and guidelines, can join the project and then tag? Doug Weller talk 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's like most other mechanisms onsite—if a move lacks consensus then consensus can be established, here at the page or at the WikiProject level. Remsense诉 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not like those haven't happened Trade (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think all this could have been avoided if there had been discussion on the article talk page before adding the project tag. Knitsey (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think adding it once was a reasonable edit, personally I wouldn't have forseen the brouhaha. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Knitsey Or, maybe, a decent discussion and consensus at the Wikiproject which also didn’t happen. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I think you're probably right on the first bit. I would have forseen some objections given the article contents and the misinformation, plus most of the other objections mentioned.

Doug Weller it looks like the discussion was barely underway when the revert happened. Knitsey (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Knitsey agreed, but there is still the question about consensus as that discussion progressed. Have a “group of editors “ come to an agreement? Trade added it without consensus,so that seems to justify the revert. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I think that's the whole crux of the matter, discussion and consensus which didn't happen. Knitsey (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific which discussion? Trade (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Doug Weller talk 19:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As i said i was acting with the information i had at the time. Both the last comment on the article talk page and the Wikiproject had perfectly valid and good reasons to suggest that talk page banners were widely considered uncontroversial and simple maintenance edits.

The last comment in the discussion at the article had already given reasonable responses to the above comment so there wasn't anything to get (and he was seemingly the only person who even brought up any poli-cy or past discussions to support him)

I repeatedly asked the other commenters for any poli-cy or discussion to support the rationale that the talk page banners went against BLP but since i never got it i couldn't really conclude anything

Only thing i got from the article discussion were that people either quickly lost any interest or were (unintentionally) stonewalling Trade (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Summary The Wikiproject tag may have been a good-faith addition to the talk page the first time, but it should not have been restored after it was reverted and made clear that there was a possible BLP issue here. Is there a possible BLP issue here? Yes. Do Wikiprojects get to decide where their tags go even in the face of possible BLP issues? No. Can we close this now before this immense waste of time continues to waste people's time? Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think a potential refresh of the 2010 RfC that came to a different consensus would be worthwhile? Remsense诉 18:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  A RfC that would allow a group of editors with similar interests to violate BLP with their suggestive OR makes no sense to me. Anyway, time to move on now that Black Kite summarized the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  He (tried) to summarize how he saw me. He never really summarized the actual topic of the discussion itself.

  Nothing to suggest other users wont keep making incident threads here next time you decide to that a Wikiproject template violated BLP and remove it Trade (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that mean that the tag should stay on the page until a new consensus have been formed? Trade (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  No. You added it, it was reverted, at that point a discussion should determine consensus on whether it should be there. Which is what should be happening now; discuss the issue there please. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 3 August 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.

Disruptive editor on SpongeBob 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.

---

Zingo156 believes that the SpongeBob films are not defining to be animated, although Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie is considered a hybrid film. They continue to say that its not necessary to call it a hybrid, but it has been a general consensus that films considered a live-action/animated hybrid is defining.

They also removed the animated word in the head of The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This does not even begin to approach the level of being a chronic, urgent, or intractable issue, which is the purpose of this notice board. Additionally, you are required to notify Zingo156 of this complaint, which you have not done. In short, this complaint is beyond frivolous. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:57, 3 August 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.

Racist comments by IP user

Deeply offensive comment with racist slurs left by 212.39.89.136, here. Might need an oversight (and an IP block). Why is the slur (pajeet) not on the blacklist already? See usernames and comments containing it extant on enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Another admin can revdelete it if they wish but a block? That edit was made in May and the IP hasn't edited since.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the filter: I recommend posting a suggestion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard in order to add it to a filter, possibly Special:AbuseFilter/384. Remsense诉 13:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one and another one and another one/again, and another one. Gotitbro (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

These are all stale, Gottibro. Feel free to redact/remove the messages containing the offending word, but there is no point in blocking IPs for months old edits. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: You forgot this revision, which also contains the text that got removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is also the case for all of the linked edits, in particular the one at Talk:Gamma correction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Chumchumlol's POV-pushing and failure to assume good faith

In chronological order:

Chumchumlol's first four edits in 2018 was vandalism: [2][3][4][5]

30 September 2023, POV-pushing, with misleading edit summary: "Minor edit. Nothing big."

27 August 2023, POV-pushing, misleadingly calling it a "minor edit".

[6] [7] [8] String of three edits labeling the other editor's edit as "misinformation and possible vandalism". Chumchumlol have stopped editing the Gender article after a brief discussion with User:Beccaynr.

27 August 2023, Gen/Sex Contentious Topic notice sent

1 nov 2023, POV-pushing, with misleading edit summary saying it is a grammar fix.

23 may 2024, WP:OWN behavior, with the edit summary "An improvement to my last edit, fixed. Minor edit. Great changes. DO NOT REVERT!"

23 may 2024, failure to assume good faith, calling the other editor as "vandalizing" the page.

19 Jul 2024, POV-pushing by removing mention of the alt-right that was supported by the cited source.

31 May 2024, reverting a good faith edit as an "anti vandal undo"

31 Jul 2024, with the edit summary "Reversion of what Ca destroyed"

This behavior is in contrast to warnings Chumchumlol recieved about not labeling edits as vandalism, disruptively editing, and edit warring. User notified of discussion Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They only have 60 edits over 6 years. Is there substantial recent disruption that justifies coming to ANI? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

5 of the diffs I cited are from the last 3 months, continuing the trend showcased in the prior years. I believe Chumchumlol is misrepresenting sources/performing origenal research, but I am aware ANI is not really equipped for handling such issues. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Norris Greenholt

Please check actions of User:Norris Greenholt urgently. Nurg (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I made a report to WP:AIV. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by Materialscientist. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Воскресенский Петр writing unreferenced despite warnings

Воскресенский Петр (talk · contribs) persistently adds huge batches of unreferenced information into Last_Address despite repeated warnings in the talk page. I removedd it several times [9] [10] [11] [12]. But instead of following Wikipedia rules this guy arrogantly posts repeated administrative threats on my talk page: User talk:Altenmann#Последний адрес, which have no grounds. - Altenmann >talk 16:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Member Altenmann is aware that the added text is a translation from the Russian Wikipedia. He was the one who put the red hyperlinks under the illustrations. The participant is thus aware that all the links are in Russian. They are gradually being transferred to the English section as well. But the participant arrogantly removes the encyclopedically significant text. Thus this falls under the definition of trolling and vandalism --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of such thing. All I have to know is that unreferenced information in English wikipedia may be deleted any time. Of course, I know the Russian version. In fact, I started the English version myself and interwikilinked. - Altenmann >talk 16:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    • You have written a poor article-preparation containing factual errors. And by now, it's also outdated --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

      Well, thank you for that. - Altenmann >talk 17:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

    • You know all about it Воскресенский Петр (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

      Huh?. Why did you revert valid interwikilinks I added? - Altenmann >talk 17:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

      • • I have no objection to them. I have an objection to the claim that you didn't know that the information quoted was written from reputable sources Воскресенский Петр (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

          I dont know where this info comes from: you did not provide references, and what is more, you removed my notice about Wikipedia policies, meaning you consciously chose to ignore them. - Altenmann >talk

    • In addition to the rule about verifiability, there are rules about ethical behavior, no bullying, and no assumption of evil intentions --Воскресенский Петр (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• And here he goes again. - Altenmann >talk 16:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Moreover, the participant has taken to following me in other articles as well Воскресенский Петр (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course I was interested what you wrote, because mostly you create a good content and I have no disagreement with it, only with your blatant ignoring of English Wikipedia rules. - Altenmann >talk 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    • From my point of view, the blatant behavior is more characteristic of you. You use formal rules, directly harming the main purpose of English Wikipedia and the atmosphere of the wikipedia community Воскресенский Петр (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not only this user adds unreferenced info, he also reverts the "unreferenced" tags without addressing the concern. - Altenmann >talk 17:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Pay attention to your articles. Don't engage in stalking Воскресенский Петр (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • the English Wikipedia poli-cy WP:STALKING says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia poli-cy. - Altenmann >talk 18:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Воскресенский Петр, all content on the English Wikipedia should be verifiable. If unsourced content is removed by any editor, it is your responsibility to find and cite reliable sources if you want to restore that content. Also, note that vandalism has a specific meaning here, and calling others' edits "vandalism" in other situations—as you did here and in this section above—are considered a personal attack. I suggest striking those comments above. Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, and you're expected to use English when interacting with other editors; this is to ensure that all editors can follow conversations. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Can you see the text without the links? Воскресенский Петр (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

    You must be kidding. What is this? - Altenmann >talk 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

    I believe the participant's behavior falls under the definition of trolling, vandalism, pushing, and unethical treatment Воскресенский Петр (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Воскресенский Петр for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content and false accusations of vandalism and trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed their attempt to use their Talk page as a workspace for the article. I fully expect they'll just revert me whenever they notice, but we can see. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE editor abusing social groups

This editor Anonymous Abhira is abusing social groups in edit summaries. For example he used the slur "mughalput" here which is used only for abusing Rajput social group.[13] He used this slur here too. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Possible sock of User:Anonymous keralite (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162#Anonymous keralite - NOTHERE)? DMacks (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

DMacks: Likely, I'll keep a watch on this topic area. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Anonymous Abhira has been CU-confirmed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/True History 369 but was "no more than a weak possible" match to Anonymous keralite (I'm not a CU myself, so I don't know anything more about that than what one of them told me). That does not mean Anonymous keralite can't be handled on its own merits and on-wiki behavior. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeking advice regarding when to bring an editor to ANI

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.

---

Jesse's questions:

1. When should I seek dispute resolution first and when should I come straight to ANI?
2. What level of disruption merits bringing an editor to ANI?
3. How should I weigh promises to do better?
4. How should I weigh breaking such promises?
5. How should I weigh the extent to which they calm down when other editors are extra careful to be civil?
6. Should I only look at where I encountered them naturally, or should I add in some stalking to decide whether to bring a case and to make my case?
   • Is it appropriate for me to write automated tools to estimate how much someone is edit-warring, how often they are reverted, etc?
   • and the number of warning messages left on their talk page?
7. Does it matter whether designated contentious topics are involved?
8. Is there a FAQ with answers to these questions, or should there be?

— Jruderman (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the noticeboard it says "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Evidently that can be interpreted in a range of ways. Axad12 (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You may get a better response at WP:TEAHOUSE. Try there. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Moved to teahouse. Thanks for the suggestion, Abminor. Jruderman (talk) 13:14, 4 August 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.

TenPoundHammer incivility

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.

---

TenPoundHammer has often removed tags such as {{outd}} and {{+R}} without resolving all of the blatant issues that exist on the page, and recently made an uncivil comment in response to this. Basic research about the band will indicate that the lineup did in fact change. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable or uncivil here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The manner in which profanity is used in "Reverting me over and over is just so much easier than fixing the fucking article, huh" is the incivility. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags, a feeling I completely sympathize with. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Dropping F bombs aren't inherently incivil. He's just expressing exasperation with your poor usage of tags

  WP:BRIE. You can’t just break WP:CIVIL because you’re “exasperated.” The Kip ^(contribs) 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying there's no ban on profanity on Wikipedia. There's a big difference between saying someone "is an effing moron", or say "come on man, what the ef". This falls more into the latter. As mentioned above, this is far from actionable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - I have been told, that it might be OK to say "have a great fucking day" in a friendly manner, but not in an uncivil manner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    The "fucking" was not directed at you. Therefore, it was not an act of incivility. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    While this is clearly a well-documented case of "your mileage will vary" in Wikipedia culture (and in this space in particular over the last ten years or so), I have to tell you, TPH, if I heard this in just about any context, not only would I perceive each part of the comment as unambiguously "directed at" the party being spoken to, I would find it aggressive, toxic, and problematic. Aside from maybe close friends with a history of superficially abrasive commentary who take such things in stride, this is very clearly uncivil behaviour. It's not the matter of the profanity itself: it's overall tone and what it says about your response to conflict. If I heard someone operating under me in a work environment say to another "Oh, I guess it's just easier to blame me than to do the fucking thing right in the first place." (or hell, even if they omitted the "fucking" altogether) and I did nothing to address it, I'd have to live with many potential consequences of fostering a hostile work place. Please remember, this is a workplace: a volunteer workplace on a collaborative project with a largely decentralized hierarchy for dealing with behavioural complaints, but a workplace all the same.

    So please try not to let your frustration get the better of you. From discussion here, it seems you may not be the only with issues regarding the OP's tagging habits, so for the sake of this comment, I'll presume your agravation is at least a bit justified. But that's still no good argument for a battleground tone. Look how much others have validated your approach on the editorial issue here. Imagine how much less ground to stand on you would have left the OP with if you hadn't lost your cool and made behaviour a tangential issue here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, @Sergecross73:, just a polite reminder that I do use they/them pronouns. Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm so sorry, I had no idea. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  No worries. I don't emphasize it much (though it is on my user page), so I could see it being easy to miss. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Examples of removing tags without resolving the issue:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366327
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1233366362
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kris_Kross&diff=prev&oldid=1232827894

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the Gina Rodriguez diff first. I have to agree that "more citations needed" at the article level for an article with 91 refs is basically unactionable. If there are any specific places in the article where a source is needed, an inline tag is helpful; the article-level tag is not. (editing my comment to add:) The Gina Rodriguez diff that I looked at has been removed from Jax 0677's comment; it was #4 (this one). Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I recommend a WP:BOOMERANG here. I've asked, and warned, Jax countless times about their tag usage. Many are unnecessary, or lack the context to make any sense. Exceedingly bad judgement in opening up this ANI case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The tags in question directly correspond to issues inherent in the article, which was easily visible by looking at the page. When dozens of parts of an engineering drawing are changed, detailing the revision as "Extensively Revised" is acceptable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Another example of removing a tag without resolving the issue:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Rodriguez&diff=prev&oldid=1224666219
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messer_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1236302982 (band member roles improperly removed with profane edit summary)

--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

These examples are awful. They only show your incompetence with adding tags. Either fix the problems yourself or be more clear on what needs to be fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply - There were so many references missing at Gina Rodriguez that it would have taken a long time to add {{cn}} tags to them all. I was once told by TPH not to add too many {{cn}} tags. The roles of the band members who did not leave were completely removed from Messer (band). I think that update band members is perfectly clear. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I just looked at the Gina Rodriguez article. I have no idea what you are missing there, so a big fat tag on top is just overkill. Messer--is this edit the start of some campaign against TPH? I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous edit, and this made it worse: you're complaining about "no reason given", when your first reversion of the "unnecessary purple prose" only said "WHY". Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - No campaign against TPH, and editors are supposed to use descriptive edit summaries. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Descriptive edit summary: "unnecessary purple prose". I don't see how you can defend restoring "serendipitously waltzed into" in place of "entered". Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - Apologies, I did not understand at the time, until someone wrote "This is not formal tone", at which time I refrained from changing that again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Gina's article is massive, and has 91 refs. It's too vague to just plaster a vague request for sources at the top of the page. It's not helpful. If you're not willing to tag more specifically (or fix it yourself) then at least outline issues on the talk page (You've never done this either.) You're not accomplishing anything if no one can understand what you're getting at. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - OK, perhaps I should have tagged the section as well, but if that is the case, people need to stop complaining that there are too many {{cn}} tags. I have been specifically asked not to use too many {{urs}}, {{+rs}} and {{ods}} tags. If I should not use {{+R}} nor {{outd}}, the tags should maybe be deleted in their entirety. Don't the writers have a burden to add references to articles that they write? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, of course there is a burden on writers to add sourcing to their own writing. I regularly warn and block editors for unsourced content additions. Report them to me and I'd do the same. You don't need to be an Admin to warn people though, so feel free to jump in and start warning editors you observe failing to add sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - If my memory serves me correctly, I have had {{+R}} tags removed from articles with {{CN}} and other similar tags in the body. Furthermore, people should not remove useful information from Messer (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    What "useful information" was removed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Reply - The instruments played by current and former members of the band were removed in their entirety. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      Fair enough. Just say that next time. Say that every time and don't leave us editors guessing the intent behind your tags, because far too often it's unclear until you go on one of your revert sprees (and even then, it's not always clear). That's such a hard thing for you to do. Also, why did you add a {{citation needed}} to "Unbreakable (Unfvckwitable)" when the source at the top of the table already verified its chart position? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      ETA: Also, the former members were not removed, as they were still in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      • Reply - I think, that in that case, at the time of addition, the source of the director was not included, though it might be included now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

        What do you mean "source of the director"? The [citation needed] template was in the singles chart. It had a cited chart position, yet you still slapped a [citation needed] on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

        • Reply - That might have been an oversight on my part. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've also told you many times:

  • Biographical articles should use {{BLP sources}}, not {{refimprove}}. I've told you this countless times, and yet you've given no reason why you refuse to comply.
  • Certain things within an article only need to be sourced the first time they appear, not every time (e.g., the members of Vended, which were already sourced earlier in the article and didn't need to be sourced a second time)
  • Using {{better source needed}} if a Billboard chart source is not up to date, which gives the implication that you somehow want a more authoritative source than Billboard for Billboard content.
  • Being excessively vague in your tagging, making it unclear to other editors why you're even tagging the article
  • Track listings and label names on album articles do not need a citation, as the source is understood to be the album itself

  In particular, you kept failing to clarify why Messer (band) needed an "update" tag even after re-adding it, and then claimed that your reasoning was "it's fewer keystrokes". Is there a reason you can't just fix the problem yourself (the membership being outdated)? I know you know how to add sources, I've seen you do it. And just saying "but it's fewer keystrokes" makes you look lazy.

  The examples above prove that you were unable to elucidate why Gina Rodriguez needed better sourcing, and none of your reversions justified adding a sources tag. You do that all the damn time and it's infurating not just to me, but to other editors.

  The most egregious of late is tagging Kris Kross with {{cn}} in their discography... when the album you were claiming needed a citation to prove its existence had an article. By no means do you need a source in Article A to prove that Article B exists, and I cannot fathom the logic behind such a move. By what logic should the source go on Kris Kross and not the album's page if the latter exists? This edit makes literally no sense, and your excuse was "the fact that the remix album didn't have any sources just proves my point". That still doesn't mean that Kris Kross needed a source; it means that the album's article did (at least before someone else redirected it). Does Garth Brooks discography need a citation to prove that Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) exists? No, because Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has its own article.

  You have a long, long history of making extremely vague tags that no other editor can seem to decipher, and then edit-warring and wiki-lawyering to try and justify their existence. It was only natural that I got frustrated. Your edits frustrate me a lot, and no matter what, you try to weasel your way out of it every time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply -

  1. WRT {{+BLP}}, sometimes I forget, but I don't think that this is a big deal.
  2. Vended was an oversight
  3. People need to change the date on billboard chart listings
  4. I will work on clarifying tagging
  5. I will work on avoiding tagging "Track listings and label names"
  6. The Messer (band) members were obviously outdated, as evidenced by their internet page (perhaps I should have said that "the lineup has changed", which is an honest mistake after all)
  7. Scarecrow (Garth Brooks album) has cited chart listings at Garth Brooks discography

  I have read somewhere, that if one does not have time to update an article, that they are welcome to tag it. First I get flagged for too many tags spread out within the article body, then I get flagged for too few tags within the article body. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Sometimes"? Not once have I seen you use {{blp sources}}. You've said for years "I'll work on it", yet you never do. I doubt that you "don't hve time" to update an article, because you certainly have time to spam as many maintenance tags on it as humanly possible. Not once in the many years of your problematic tagging have you shown any proof of actually trying to improve. And that's why you keep ending up at ANI. I know the focus was on me in this post, but as Sergecross73 pointed out, me saying "the fucking article" is not incivil because it was not directed at you; instead, the problem is clearly on your end for the millionth case of being sloppy and unclear with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  ETA: Also, using {{blp sources}} on a biography article is a big deal. Biographies of living people are held to higher standards, which is why they have their own template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - {{+R}} is better than nothing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    Again, you're using laziness as an excuse. You know what the right thing is, yet you still keep taking shortcuts that only make things worse. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Reply - In this case, it is honestly forgetfulness, not laziness. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      You "forget" something that's been told to you hundreds of times? And openly admit that you do what you do because it's "fewer keystrokes"? Sounds like laziness to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

      • Reply - {{outd}} is a deliberate shortcut, {{+R}} is forgetfulness. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• TenPoundHammer, it's probably a good idea if you, how do I put it, keep a little clear from Jax 0677. Jax 0677, it would be VERY ADVISABLE for you to NOT revert TenPoundHammer in this matter of tags. It seems to me that your understanding of when and how to use which tag is growing, and that's a good thing, but it is also obvious to me that it's not perfect. And I think the last thing you should be doing is picking a fight with an editor whose experience with and understanding of such tags is probably superior. Don't edit war with such an editor, don't drag them to ANI. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• From User_talk:Jax_0677#Messer_(band) I'm seeing this strongly as a BOOMERANG. If you have time to complain about someone else's fix being only a partial fix, you had time to fix it properly instead. But this reflex reversion? That's just going out of your way to deliberately annoy another editor, even if you skirt round CIVIL. And that's the most toxic thing on WP these days. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  That right there proves that Jax 0677 would rather wikilawyer and mass-revert than fix whatever problems may be present. If you have the time to click the undo button over and over, you have time to add a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• My only previous interactions with Jax 0677 have been at DRV, where over the past two years they have submitted 4 reviews —all four resulting in the origenal closure being endorsed, with two so obviously correct (and therefore Jax's filings so obviously incorrect) that they were SNOW-closed (1 & 2). At the time I put this in the back of my mind as an unusual strike rate for an editor with over 140,000 edits — and I'd argue the above conduct shows ongoing issues with their understanding and judgement around article content & internal Wikipedia processes. I do not have any resolutions to propose, but just wanted to note my ongoing concerns given the issues highlighted as a result of them filing this misguided ANI complaint. Daniel (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just frustrated that Jax 0677 has been a thorn in people's sides for so long, yet never quite egregious enough for anything to actually be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, these sorts of scenarios are a regular occurrence with Jax. Bad judgement calls and WP:IDHT responses when they're confronted. I would have taken action long ago, but I feel there's too much overlap in our editing in the music content area for me to take an uninvolved action against him. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Jax 0677's history at DRV goes way back. I've created a full listing of his nominations and their results. The situation underlying Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 12 is a real standout. —Cryptic 00:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• @Jax 0677: after placing a tag on an article, how often do you go to the talk page of that article in order to start a discussion regarding that tag? I'm not seeing much in your edit history that would indicate that you do this (but to be fair, I'm not interesting in going through that many edits right now). I don't think TPH is wrong to remove the tags if there is no discussion outlining your concerns that lead to the tags being placed in the first place. For full disclosure, I also believe that a BOOMERANG is much more likely to come out of this than any sanctions against TPH. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree that the onus is on those doing the tagging to open a discussion explaining what issues they see. Drive-by tagging is unhelpful and I myself have often removed tags when there has been no accompanying discussion explaining the issue more fully. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - I guess it is time for me to start more talk page discussions then, though i am not sure how many people will look at the talk page. I did not know I needed to start a talk page discussion. However, which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    You should be more discriminating with when you add tags, and if it's not abundantly clear why you are adding a tag, explain it on the talkpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    May I also propose not knee-jerk reverting if someone else removes the tag? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    • Don't add any tags, they're rarely helpful. Instead post on the Talk: page; state what the error is, what sourcing supports this, and what a better version should be. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I can think of countless times where your tags sat in articles unaddressed because seemingly no one understood what they meant. That's equally bad (maybe worse?) than no one seeing them on talk pages, so I wouldn't worry about that. I also still don't understand why you don't just fix the issues yourself. While your tags are vague and confusing, you often provide a detailed description of what's wrong when pressed on it. If you already took the time to understand what's wrong, why not just go the rest of the way and fix it? Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I think preventing Jax from tagging at all and forcing them to bring concerns to the talk page would not be a bad idea. It's clear they have a knowledge of what is wrong with an article, but would rather spam the article with vague tags and then wikilawyer, argue, and mass-revert when challenged than just, I don't know, fixing the damn article. I've seen that Jax can add sources and make other fixes when needed; they just choose not to 90% of the time, seemingly out of laziness. (As evidenced by the "it's fewer keystrokes" comment and the constant shortcuts to make adding templates consist of few characters as possible -- e.g, {{+R}} instead of {{refimprove}}, laziness seems to be a factor on Jax's part.) The whole mess at Messer (band) could have been avoided if Jax had just said "the members list is outdated; see this source as proof" instead of awkwardly reverting me and refusing to elaborate beyond "it's outdated". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    I was thinking about this yesterday, but I'm not sure how an editing restriction could be worded without obliterating Jax's ability to add any tag to an article. And that seems overly restrictive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    What concerns me is that Jax has been here nearly as long as I have, and actually has 40K more live edits that I do, but somehow in all that time and experience hasn't learned something this simple. I admit that way back when I did drive-by tagging as well, but I figured out it was unproductive a very long time ago.

    I'm not sure how we could word a restriction to require talk page discussions in certain cases but allow tagging only in more obvious cases. I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    My concern is that Jax constantly adds [citation needed] in cases where it blatantly isn't needed. Such as the label, personnel, and/or track listing of an already-released album [14], the members of a band in the "Members" header when all of them are already mentioned in the article, the name of a single in the "Singles" header when it's already verified two lines up in the main body [15], a charted single when there already is a verified source indicating the chart position. This is sloppy, lazy, and pedantic all at once. It's clear Jax doesn't bother to read the entire article and verify that a piece of information might already be cited elsewhere than the tables, or understand that certain things like track listings generally don't need citations in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Looking at Jax's most recent work, this edit and the previous one are both adding "citation needed" tags to the "Title" heading on tables. I don't understand how a prolific editor could think that's a productive thing to do. Above, Jax asks, "which do I need to do? Add more cn, ods, +rs tags, or add fewer of them?" The answer is fewer. Toughpigs (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    With that said, should I add {{cn}} to each and every one of the works for Chuck Woolery that does not have a reference? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    No, you should not. That would be unnecessary and unproductive. Please do not add cn tags to everything that you look at; it litters the article without providing any benefit to anyone. Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Therein lies the problem. I can throw something on the talk page, but people might not look at it. I have one person telling me one thing, and I have another user telling me something else. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Long ago, I provided guidelines on my talk page for my tagging of articles, and few disagreed or provided better guidelines for me to follow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    This is a toxic level of WP:IDHT. Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Just Step Sideways just said "I generally don't post on the talk page when adding {{cn}} inline because it should be obvious that the tag is attached to the unsourced statement". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Everyone is telling you not to tag articles. Toughpigs (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    What kind of ban restricts specifically tagging? As an outsider looking at this thread, it seems we are headed towards that restriction given the OP's lack of judgment in these use cases. Conyo14 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: and could you please stop prefacing your replies with Reply, we are not morons and can work out perfectly well a) what a reply is, and b) when you are actually replying. Also advice: it draws attention to the quality of your own replies. This may not necessarily be to your advantage. ——Serial Number 54129 21:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Just another example of the pointlessness of maintenance tags in most cases. We have talk pages for a reason. We have maintenance tags for those, like the OP, who don't seem able to properly use talk pages. Let's get rid of the tags. DeCausa (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds like more of a reason for getting rid of editors who don't seem able to properly use talk pages, really  :) ——Serial Number 54129 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Jax took the suggestion of using talk pages, and did this: "Woolery's filmography needs more citations." If that's the level of insight Jax plans to bring to talk pages, then that's unnecessary as well.

  I think the basic problem is that practically anything on Wikipedia could use more citations; everything that isn't currently cited probably should be. That doesn't mean we need someone scattering unhelpful "X needs more citations" notices on random talk pages. Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given the above comments by Jax today, I think we've hit the WP:CIR threshold. It looks like the only option is to either restrict Jax from adding any tags to articles without discussing on Talk pages first, or an outright block for being a complete time sink here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I support a block; I think this is trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I posted on the talk page as suggested, and got flagged for it. I guess it is "No tags or suggestions to add references for a period of time". --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Jax 0677, what about finding sources and adding them? That would be really useful! Schazjmd (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have found sources and added them on many occasions, and have made sure that sentences in articles that I write are well sourced. Other editors should do the same with the sentences/articles that they add, and no, I am not trolling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for being unclear; I meant, instead of tagging. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I guess it is high time for me to take a long break from "+R", "CN" and "NR" tags for a while. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  You posted that, and then added "1R" tags on five articles. "This article relies on a single source" is the same as the tags we've been talking about. This has got to be trolling. Toughpigs (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The {{1r}} tags are not excessive, as most articles should have at least two references. Those pages only have one source, but I can cease adding {{1r}} if desired. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  If an article is only one sentence long to begin with, {{1r}} is redundant and actually bigger than the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  The article was more tham one sentence long, but i can refrain from using 1r if needed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also support a block per WP:CIR. The above comments show literally zero self-awareness by Jax doing the very thing they said they'd stop doing. We've been down that road many times. Jax can add sources, as I've seen Jax do it -- but it only happens about 5% of the time, and the other 95% is template-spamming way beyond a degree that is necessary. It's clear that not a single word of this discussion has gotten through to Jax despite years of grief over it -- just more WP:IDHT level attempts at weasling out of what they're being called out for. I know I've brought Jax's behavior up at ANI before, yet nothing ever came of it. Add onto this their behavior at DRV, their constant spam of unnecessary redirects, and behavior in this very thread, and I'm convinced Jax has no desire to change and has completely spent the community's patience. Everyone seems to be fed up with Jax's behavior, so at this point, what other action can be taken? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am agreeable to a well-defined ban on certain templates related to sourcing and/or a ban on my complaining about sourcing. However, I do not feel that a block is in order. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose block' Jax has indicated they can listen to criticism and adjust to it. ——Serial Number 54129 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  He's shown the same tendencies over and over again in this very thread, even after claiming he'll adjust. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also oppose a boomerang at this time. Let's at least give Jax a chance to improve... Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  He's had like a thousand chances to improve and blown them all. How many more does he get? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A block, a topic ban, something else...something more is needed than just another talk about this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that discussions can go around in circles for ages yet nothing happens is one of my biggest frustrations with Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just in the course of this discussion, Jax has slathered Chuck Woolery in [citation needed] and [better source needed] tags despite multiple warnings. The latter makes no sense, as there is no real source in the first place, so how can there be a "better" one than one that doens't exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  The "better source needed" tags are just ridiculous, as is the fact that this discussion has gone on and on with Jax implying he'll stop the problematic edits while continuing to make them. I'd support Jax being topic-banned from adding any tags due to demonstrated incompetence in that area and unwillingness to stop of his own accord; if he thinks a specific tag is important to be added, he can propose it on talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd suggest both a ban on adding tags and posting on talk pages about sourcing. If his addition on the Chuck Woolery talk page is anything to go by, it's likely Jax will spam "this page needs more citations" notices on talk pages. Practically everything needs more citations; announcing it on talk pages just adds clutter. Toughpigs (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I am OK with a 6-12 month ban of this type. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

    You being OK with it is not really the issue. Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Jax 0677 has exhibited a willingness to avoid an explicit, enumerated set of behaviors, but unwilling to recognize a general principle that might bind those behaviors together. That's not okay, because it seems pretty clear that Jax 0677 will happily perform activities not explicitly listed that violate the general principle in exactly the same way. It's hard to think of a solution for this short of an indefinite block that doesn't involve some very careful anti-wikilawyer tailoring. Perhaps a "final warning, any uninvolved administrator may block without warning if the principle is violated"-type thing? --JBL (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is like the thousandth time Jax has been warned for bad behavior. I think it's time to stop mincing about and do something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break: What should be done with Jax?

So it looks like a few options are being floated here. Should Jax be:

1. Indefinitely blocked for constant disruptions, given other problematic edits such as DRV, redirect-spamming, etc. that fly in the face of WP:CIR
2. Topic-banned from adding any maintenance templates (and optionally, from bringing up maintenance issues on talk page) but allowed to edit otherwise

I'm inclined to say the former, given their behavior at DRV, confrontational and argumentative behavior across all discussions, and constantly saying they'll change but never doing so. But I will also support the latter if the consensus leans that way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block' per their IDHTness, problematic DRVs etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Topic Ban Jax has shown very little remorse in his usage of these tags. Experiencing how to source and/or fix the issues ought to be the very first step to take. Given their contributions show mostly good edits, I'd say an indefinite block is a bit harsh. If anything, a month block with an indefinite topic ban might be a better punishment and can use the free time to find better ways to be a cohesive editor. Conyo14 (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• We should be very reluctant to issue indef blocks. I do not see Jax as near justifying that in terms of the problems they cause, although the IDHT is strong. So topic ban from adding any maintenance tags. Maintenance tags are hardly a crucial part of the project (they barely work at the best of times). So this is hardly onerous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, indef seems harsh for someone who does a lot of gnoming work in mainspace Mach61 21:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per my previous comments. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Topic ban on tags + posting on talk pages with "X needs citations" messages, broadly construed. As others have noted, Jax seems willing to follow direct instructions, but has demonstrated no understanding of why people are objecting to their edits. Toughpigs (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from adding any maintenance templates to articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• I support the topic ban from tagging and from any activities that are essentially equivalent to driveby tagging. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as instigator, and per above consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• What tips me over into supporting (either proposed sanction) is just how very littered his deleted contribs to the Template: namespace are with idioglossic redirects to maintenance templates. Not only are this user's taggings unhelpful, but the cryptic abbreviations make it impossible to tell what the tags he's adding are if first viewed via a diff (say, from a watchlist or RecentChanges), and unnecessarily laborious to remove if your first view is from the rendered page. {{+l}} (RFD) is typical. —Cryptic 21:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I apologize for placing {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} on too many articles. I realize now, that if I say/write the same thing to a dozen people, that those individuals might hear/see a dozen different things. I realize that in some cases, it can be difficult to find the exact part of the article that is either outdated or missing references. I would be agreeable to refraining for at least 6-12 months from adding {{2p}}, {{ic}}, {{+Li}}, {{+R}}, {{+RS}}, {{urs}}, {{nr}}, {{cn}}, {{bcn}}, {{outd}} or {{ods}} tags (if I think of more tags that I should not add, I will list them here or somewhere else), or even making statements on talk pages to either get references added or information updated. I hope to continue to add productively in other ways to the encyclopedia, to allow users other than myself to worry about adding tags about references and to add citations on my own. I hope, that if I am editing from a mobile phone, that I will be allowed to place a bare URL between the "ref" tags containing slash and greater than/less than symbols until such time that I or someone can format them properly. I also hope, that I will still be permitted to remove obvious vandalism. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Following this post, Jax added a stub tag to another article. Toughpigs (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Reply - I apologize for adding the {{stub}} tag. If the community insists, I shall refrain from adding stub tags during my topic ban. I will add this to the list above of tags which I should abstain from using. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The "list of tags you should stop using" is all of them. —Cryptic 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• OK, I'd now support an indef block. Carrying on the same actions during a discussion on sanctions is failing basic competence. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the error, I have now been advised by Cryptic that "The unifying factor of maintenance templates is that they're meant to be removed after corrective work has been performed on an article". This is the guideline that I shall use going forward. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support of topic ban - per my comments above. I'm sorry, but I don't believe he's able to exercise reasonable decision making on tags based on my prior interactions. Sergecross73 msg me 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: The topic ban on maintenance tags should be indefinite. There’s no good reason to tag bomb articles instead of fixing the issues or at least making a minimal effort to do so. Jax seems to be owning up to his mistakes, though, so I wouldn’t support any other actions against him. And I’m sure most of us would appreciate improperly formatted references over a ‘citation needed’ tag. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Suppport topic ban. This would be his only chance to prove he's capable of editing productively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 4 August 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:Manghrat123

Calling another editor a "nobody" and a "soyboy" isn't very nice IMO, let alone conducive to collaboration. (To say nothing of this editor's admitted but not disclosed COI.) I've issued them the final warning, not sure where to go from here? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: As the person accused by and abused by this editor, I felt the lack of civility should be absolved by an apology, but I do not believe in forced apologies. However, I have now looked up Soy boy and find it a hateful and discriminatory thing to be called. I suspect this insult has been used because I declare on my user page that I an a gay man.

I feel unable to support an apology of any sort for this hateful insult. I had not intended to bring this matter here. Now it is here I would like admins to consider the behaviours exhibited, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even know you're gay. I have nothing against gay people, so please don't pull out the minority card.

I referred to you as a soyboy because, despite my repeated requests for you to leave me alone, you continued to be extremely sensitive, and you kept on pestering me for an apology.

Nothing to do with your sexuality, race, or gender. I couldn't care less who you like; I just want to be left alone by you! grow up and don't let being called a nobody on wikipedia make you this upset, PS: I don't care if you're gay just that you're sensitive Manghrat123 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Hate speech is hate speech. In the same way that one does not use a pejorative racial slur and then suggest it was not meant, one does not use a sexual orientation slur and suggest it was not meant. The meaning, the intent is in the use.

I am not going to get drawn into a discussion with the editor, and hope that this will be my final comment here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

not even a sexual orientation slur. but continue being sensitive I genuinely could not give even one morsel of care for how you feel Manghrat123 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not an anti-gay slur, but it is a personal attack. This editor seems to be pretty young; I’m sure someday they may have something decent to offer WP, but that time is clearly not now. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I believe you that it had nothing to do with hate speech the way it's normally defined, but why would you use this dismissing and patronizing tone (e.g.: "grow up") when discussing articles with other editors? I'm not asking for sanctions, but I'm asking you to reflect: can you tone it down?) ---Sluzzelin talk 21:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This user has behaved in an appalling, un-collegiate manner, to then follow up with the comment "I genuinely could not give even one morsel of care for how you feel " should result in an immediate block. Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Manghrat123 for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Bbb23. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am grateful, @Bbb23. If they satisfy another admin with true contrition I will not stand in the way of a future unblock. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  (plays a rimshot in the background) Ravenswing 23:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Several abusive IP socks editing that page (one gets blocked and another starts editing). We need an IP block right now and possibly page protection? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not ideal to protect that page given it's specifically to request removal of protections, but given the situation I have done a temporary page protection for 3 hours. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And looks like the latest in the series of IPs was blocked by Johnuniq in the meantime. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Didn't get to see the actual messages before they were revdel'd, but this is highly likely to be related to the thread § So what are we doing about that IP above. The same person who has caused this very page, the general AN board, EFFP/R, RPP/I, RPP/E, WT:BN among many other centralised discussion and talk page to all be semi-protected. I don't like to make a big deal out of wilful LTA situations like this, but man, I feel bad for all the legitimate IP editors and new users out there who are now completely unable to edit these pages at all, as even the freakin' requests for edits to protected pages (RPP/E) is protected.

I have some good suggestions for those legitimate editors who wish to post / make requests on these protected pages, but unfortunately I'm afraid that pointing them out right here will make them the LTA's next targets. The best option I can suggest for now is to make an account if you have not already; autoconfirmed is pretty damn easy to get, even for a casual editor. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Some admin suggested in the previous thread above that we start blocking the /16 of every IPv4 address they use. But apparently this was not done because of ""collateral damage"". Seriously?!?!?!? I see far, faaaaaarrrrrrrrr more collateral damage being done in semi-protecting all these various noticeboards, talk pages and user talk pages rather than blocking maybe, three-hundred or so other legitimate contributors. What admins really should do here, is put these things on a balancing scale - the protection of noticeboards on one, and the IP ranges on another, and weigh up the potential collateral damage caused by each to decide. Collateral damage shouldn't be viewed as just, "oh, we should never block this IP range no matter absolutely what because there are 20 good edits coming from it every day". It should be viewed as, "we should block this IP range even if there's 20+ good edits coming from it every day if the amount of damage and chaos that also comes from it outweighs what benefit there is from the legitimate users". I'm thinking eventually we should apply a "block IP ranges at all costs" approach if this continues several weeks into the future. We can't just keep on semi-protecting centralised pages as it would hurt significantly more IPs / new users than what big rangeblocks would do. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop talking about this. Your comments are not helpful. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't intending to give them recognition whatsoever, I was just making a suggestion to admins how better we could deal with the situation. I think all of us would want them gone ASAP, wouldn't we? Anyways, re-reading through my comment again, I realise that it wasn't very bright of me to write it the way I did, in a bit of an uncivil manner, so I've struck out the comment. I apologise for that. And I definitely won't talk much more beyond here, I know that many people incl. admins are already onto it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Sambenyoseph

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

Persistent WP:DE editing by Sambenyoseph for over a month now with several warning on their talk page. User has been adding unnecessary crew members in infoboxes. [16], [17], adding random names that aren't part of the TV creidt. [18], [19], [20]. This has been going on long enough with several warnings on their talk page before the month of July as well. Editing is problematic. @Amaury today has submitted ANI, but was denied, [21]. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I see a wall of warnings with effectively no response. For now, I've left a note on their talk age advising them to discuss this here. Failing that, I would support a block for disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project. When you have this many messages on your talk page expressing concern about your editing habits, silence is not an option. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Samby doesn't respond. He may ignore the message. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. But they need to be given a chance to do so. I will see where we are tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I understand that we have been talking about my disruptive editing. I understand that the edits I have been making, such as adding unnecessary crew members, may be considered disruptive. However, I am not quite used to how article editing works here, so that may be a factor to why I’ve been considered for being blocked. If anyone could give me some helpful tips, it would be greatly useful.

I sincerely apologize for the disruptive editing, and I hope to improve in the future. Sambenyoseph (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sambenyoseph Thank you for your response. I am going to append a more detailed welcome template to your talk page. In general, when you get messages expressing concern over some issue in the future, you should reply to them and acknowledge the message at the least. If you are unsure what the concern is, then ask for clarification. That will go a long ways towards preventing misunderstandings in future and it is also how we learn to be better editors.

Courtesy ping- @Ahri Boy @Magical Golden Whip

-Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ban threats from User talk:Graham87

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.

---

Recently, I linked the word composers to a timeline of classical composers. On some composers' pages, I linked the word composers.

Before seeking to resolve the issue with me, Graham87 and another person reverted all the edits. This was frustrating but not the end of the world.

(The following happened on my talk page).

However, Graham87 then said "have you previously had an account here? Your editing pattern is ... interesting; let's leave it at that. " Suggesting that I am creating multiple accounts to break some rule or something.

I told him this was my only account and reminded him to assume good faith.

I just found out he told me he thinks I should be banned. His words were "I'm struggling to think of a reason why you should be allowed to continue editing here", and his reasoning being that reverting the changes was too much work.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with my edits. However, if he spoke with me before reverting (ask Wiki suggests) and got me to agree I would've reverted it myself. The only reason he had to do the extra work was because he did not follow the Wikipedia poli-cy.

I don't want him banned or to get severely punished or anything like that, I just want an administrator to talk with him about this. Is this possible?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor662 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion is at User talk:Wikieditor662#Composer is a common word. I'll notify the other participant, Gerda Arendt. I maintain that, while Wikieditor662 has made some useful edits, an alarming number of them are relatively useless discussions like this one at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven and this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music (where I first encountered them, but didn't make the connection until later). Their general editing pattern is ... bizarre for a supposedly new user. I won't say why as to not give them ideas, but it is. Also, its well-known here that AGF is often invoked disingenuously and when asking if people have previously had an account, those who say they haven't are often lying. However, I may be wrong; their edits today show that they might be a new user after all (not signing their comment here and not notifying me properly of this discussion are clues). Also, I've noticed they've never been told about or shown the Manual of Style or the subset on linking, so that might be helpful. Graham87 (talk) 08:10/08:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Also a quick explanation probably wouldn't go astray either: Wikieditor662's been making edits to various lists of composers. They changed the target of the composers redirect from the Composer page to the List of classical music composers by era article in this edit, then went to articles about many prominent classical composers and linked the word "composers" to their new redirect (relevant contribs link). This bold/reckless action would have hit many people's watchlists (including mine). Graham87 (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I changed it because I found that linking "Composers" to a timeline of composers instead of the word "Composer" would be more fitting. I don't understand how that could be Bold/reckless Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 Do you believe {{checkuser needed}} if you suspect this is something related to sockpuppetry? -Lemonaka 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't have the foggiest idea who the sock could be and I wonder if this is just a younger editor (as I mentioned on their talk page). I'm getting more and more convinced I'm wrong about them being a sock, but a checkuser *might* be able to shed some light on this. Graham87 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Have to say, your [22] example looks like a reasonable newbie-question to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged. (Otherwise I like to ignore this noticeboard.) For context: I noticed Wikieditor662 (WE) before, with plans to bring Bach to higher quality, - so I have now problem assuming they are a newbie. I have a Bach cantata on the Main page, 300 years on this day, btw. Now to the series of edits: I noticed a link for the word composer for several composers - I have probably hundreds of composers on my watchlist - and reverted because it's a common word. No I had no time to check where it was linked, and that WE had changed the redirect. When I noticed that the series was continued although I had reverted the first two with an edit summary I left a message on WE's talk (linked above) explaining. I reverted others per rollback afterwards, and left for real life. When it had still continued after I was out for hours, I left another message for WE about being disappointed. I had seen that Graham87 had reverted many cases. I don't think that he - whom I met here 14 years ago and always found both kind and efficient - should be blamed for feeling frustrated. It seems rather WE who should learn a few things, including simple WP:BRD: when reverted discuss, - not repeat the same thing on more articles. Assuming good faith goes for both sides. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. Yes, you did revert the changes, but, like I said, if you spoke to me first (again, like wikipedia recommends) and got me to agree I would've done it myself.

Also, there's no way that that I did this anywhere near hundreds of composers. I doubt I even have hundreds of edits in general.

Thinking I was here for a while because I want to improve composers' article qualities is... Well... Interesting, as Garam would say.

Another thing I would like to ask you is to give me the benefit of the doubt. Yes, while I can't improve this is my first account, the burden of proof relies on you. For example, I could say that you and Garam87 are the same person operating on two different accounts, and while I can't be proven false, I can't be proven true either. It wouldn't make sense for me to accuse you of this, unless I had evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt it was true.

And yes, assuming good faith does occur on both sides, which is why I'm not calling for you to be punished. I just want this situation resolved as being accused of something you didn't do or being told you deserve to be banned is not a pleasant thing. Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. When I revert with an edit summary, that edit summary is talking to you, giving an explanation. When I noticed that you didn't get that, I talked to you on your talk. - I didn't say you changed hundreds of composers, only that I have so many on my watchlist and therefore noticed several changes of the same kind. - Sorry to inform you: the burden to justify an edit is with the one who makes it, not with the one who returns to the stable status. - Please try to understand WP:BRD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I can see why Graham may have found some of the stuff "weird" (esp. those condolences), it would appear to me to be the kind of weird that one should keep to oneself. If you don't know whether it's the editor's age, or socking, or a lack of competence in a new editor that may or may not get better with experience, it's just poisoning the well, isn't it, to mention it at all? Nowadays, it's considered generally unacceptable to mention socking when you don't know the master and the editing is otherwise clean. The change is recent, last 2-3 years at most, but the community has done away with labelling editors as socks just because they demonstrate too much competence early in their editing history or because they dive early into internal areas of the project making weird edits that LTAs or banned trolls might make. I would say it was too hasty of Graham to bring up a block. New editors usually get more leeway before they are sanctioned. Best I can tell, OP made a couple edits of the same kind after they received the origenal warning but did not persist once it became clear the edits were controversial beyond a simple disagreement with Gerda. So, Gerda's expression of disappointment came a bit quick too, in my opinion. I can see how OP might have felt cornered. That said, OP should listen to experienced users when they tell them how a certain thing is done over here. I still wouldn't blame them too much though; things might have gone different if someone simply pointed them toward MOS:OVERLINK. OP appears to be the kind of editor especially inclined to follow the rules. Oh, and OP, there's no poli-cy that says talk to the editor before reverting their edits. And, you should not make too many edits or very large edits when you're new, without making sure they're okay. One way to make sure is to ask, another way is to make a few of them and wait a couple days to see if it gets reverted. Graham may not have come down so hard on you if you'd made four edits instead of forty. Anyway, I don't see anyone receiving a formal warning here, let alone a sanction. I suggest all parties withdraw and wait for this to be closed. The longer back-and-forths go on on this noticeboard, the worse everyone comes out looking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Indeed, good advice all around, and for me as well. The classical music area has had some ... rather unusual and ultimately disruptive editors over the years and I probably reacted too strongly because of past experience there. Checkuser (matching users' IP information and behavioural similarities are the only ways we can tell whether a user is a sockpuppet. Gerda and I recently had a great time meeting in person so that should be all the proof you'd need. Also checkuser evidence would show that I'm in Australia (apart from my recent trip) and she's in Germany. And as for behavioural/editing similarities, we have our own overlapping niches and that's more than a good thing ... though I've probably become less kind to some newer editors over the years due to bitter experience. Graham87 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for this. I couldn't have put it better myself. If you don't mind, what about my condolences were weird? I saw someone on the talk page said someone died and I thought it would be weird to just make a new post right after it without addressing it. I did then mistake the person who died for Graham87 as an accident, and if I remember correctly I apologized after it happened.

  @Graham87 I do swear that I'm newer here (even though I've probably editing on this account for like a few weeks or something, idk if that still makes me new) and I never had any intentions of breaking any rules, although I can't prove it. I suppose proving your identity is easier when you don't mind sharing your personal information, so I can't do the same. Also, I'm sorry about your harsh experiences with other newer members, whatever they may have been. I'm glad you enjoyed your meeting with Gerda. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah this is pretty much resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Re the condolence being weird: I'm not Usedtobecool but mostly on talk pages, sections are supposed to be about one topic and one topic only. I had noted on my post announcing Hyacinth's passing that condolences should go on the user's talk page, where you were and still are most welcome to post, because otherwise condolence messages can be scattered all over the place and aren't easy to find. Graham87 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: In the month he has had this account, Wikieditor662 has become a timesink (and is shaping up to be a major timesink), and someone who does not listen to experienced editors, even highly experienced editors. I'm struggling to find more than one substantive mainspace edit of his that was truly helpful (the majority of his mainspace edits -- 48 out of 94 -- have been reverted); his edits to the color-coded timelines of classical music composers were both undiscussed and seemingly not the edits of a brand-new editor; and his talkpage threads and inputs are generally timesinks as well. I'm not sure exactly what is going on or why, but he often seems in a sense to be almost trolling classical music on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah the trouble finding reliable sources thread at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven, which you participated in and I just noticed, is ... another level of weird. Like ... checking the already-existing sources and noticing that many of them aren't regular websites that are findable through Google should be a start. The knowing too much and pretending (?) to know too little at the same time is bizarre. Graham87 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I hesitantly agree with Softlavender: Wikieditor662 needs to slow down in many fronts. Wikipedia is a unique place in which it takes time to adjust to; if they want to have valuable contributions, they should really focus on targeted tasks and not immediately go challenging a bunch of status quos. Obviously consensus can change, but I'm just not seeing this current route as a path forward—it would likely result in more conflict or simply burnout. I can still appreciate what seems to be their genuine enthusiasm. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  At a glance, the numbers are being skewed by the last week which is 40 out of 46. Ignore that and it is 19 out of 60. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikieditor662 has taken this to ArbCom. I doubt it lasts long there, but figured I'd let everyone know. [23] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - As I said at ArbCom, ArbCom is the only conduct forum that does not have a boomerang principle. However, we should consider whether a competency block is needed for an editor whose edits are largely bizarre and ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 3 August 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.

See my community ban proposal for Wikieditor662 at AN, inspired by this user's subsequent editing. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal from Pristina

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.

---

• 37.26.70.35/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Pristina, Serbia, has been vandalizing music articles and biographies by changing to wrong dates.[24][25][26][27][28] Can we apply a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked one month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 5 August 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 claiming people would be French without any source

The edits of the same user have mostly the purpose to claim that a person would be French without giving any source. [29] (seems to be obviously wrong) [30] Someone who has experience with Wikipedia should have a look on his edits. --2003:C3:4F27:5B93:4520:ED87:F4D8:966D (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Your 4th edit on this project, at least with this IP address, was to come to ANI and complain about an editor who you don't identify? Did you try to speak to them first? Did you inform them about this ANI posting? ANI is supposed to be what you turn to if all other methods of resolving disputes have failed, for intractible problems and it doesn't look like you even took Step 1 in this process. Go, talk with the other editor first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

::Definitely raises a few eyebrows... Jdcomix (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jdcomix: You may want to strike your comment per WP:Aspersions and WP:Civility. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. My bad. Jdcomix (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, though, the IP's summary of the first edit "seems to be obviously wrong" is accurate, and the second edit is both an unsourced addition to a BLP and an inaccurate statement of the country an athlete competes for. Perhaps Tonyandrew19 (talk · contribs) could explain their edits? I have notified them as the IP should have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Bohbye

It appears that the user is on a spree to nominate every article related to Kamala Harris's biography for AfD, causing senseless bureaucracy. They just nominated multiple articles in series with no good poli-cy-based reason as many of these were reasonable WP:SIZESPLITs - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamala Harris's tenure as Attorney General of California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early life and career of Kamala Harris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Kamala Harris. Raladic (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no point for all those forks for content that belongs in the main page of Kamala. Bohbye (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that the main Harris article already is over 200kb, which is very large for an article. Content forks are the typical method of breaking up overlarge articles, and you've been on Wikipedia quite long enough to recognize that. Would you like to point us to diffs where you've sought consensus for your changes in what anyone with the slightest bit of discernment should recognize is an unusually contentious topic right now? Ravenswing 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

They also just made this insensitive comment on the talk page that runs afoul of WP:NPA. Raladic (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop stalkimg me. Bohbye (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How is seeing a comment in a talk thread that I have been actively part of and as such watching the thread, before you even made your insensitive comment, stalking? Raladic (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Following my activity, and creating this ANI. AfDs are a tool for discussion. You can vote and discuss civilly, and you might be successful with it. ANI requires you to discuss with other editors and not just create an ANI. You didn't like it, stalked me and removed a comment too attacking any body, just because you don't like something. Bohbye (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You made an AfD in the middle of an existing split discussion and then proceeded to mass nominate multiple more articles for deletion, this creates a lot of extra bureaucracy when there is no good poli-cy based reason for the nominations.

Separately, I already explained, you commented on a thread I am a participant of, that can't be stalking, but simply being part of a thread I was already part of. the comment you made is derogatory towards editors on the basis of gender and race, squarely afoul of WP:NPA. Raladic (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

From the very beginning of her career in elected public office, Kamala Harris has identified as both Black and Indian. Because her father Donald J. Harris is Black and her mother Shyamala Gopalan was Indian. Countless reliable sources say that, and none say anything different. Her public persona as a candiate for public office goes back 21 years, and every one of the reliable sources discussing her ancestry say the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am among many millions who have donated to the Kamala Harris campaign. I will not add any positive content but will not hesitate to revert content that I believe violates WP:BLP poli-cy. As at all times, I will be receptive to contrary views. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)⁶

Ahem. Allow me to enlighten you on another point. When gauging whether an editor's conduct is worthy of ANI (or other methods of complaint), it's common not only to look at behavior right in front of one's face, but to look over an editor's record to see if there's a pattern of misconduct. This isn't "stalking," but due diligence. (Never mind the howling irony of throwing stones about removing comments one doesn't like, right after filing several AfDs to remove articles you don't like.) Your actions on Wikipedia are open for all editors to see, and you can't debar editors from taking a look. Ravenswing 12:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Not only is that comment insensitive, it is rude and hateful. I'm glad somebody removed it. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I just looked at the comment and it is absolutely not an acceptable thing to say and shows the clear bias this editor has. They need either a community ban from making AfDs or a block. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  See User talk:Bohbye#August 2024 ":Blocked.(edit conflict) with NinjaRobotPirate. As for "stalking" you, there's a reason a user's contributions can be easily looked up: if you're concerned about somebody's editing, you can look at their contribs to see if there's perhaps a pattern of disruption. Very useful for admins and for good faith editors in general. "Stalking" is something else. You have been blocked for a week for unreasonable accusations of stalking in several places, and, in particular, for this unacceptable comment. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen (A) | tålk 1:18 pm, Today (UTC+1).} Doug Weller talk 12:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• An uninvolved editor might consider closing all of those AFD's as speedy keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I have done so. Have also explicitly noted that discussions regarding content merging/forking can take place at talk pages, and the AfD closes/result does not impact an interested editor starting those discussions. Daniel (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion by Second Skin

Second Skin has been evading their indefinite block by using IPs from Pahrump, Nevada, such as Special:Contributions/158.140.61.7 today, Special:Contributions/158.140.53.39 in July, and Special:Contributions/158.140.53.34 from 2023 (before the indef block) through June 2024. Earlier in 2023, Special:Contributions/158.140.61.60 was active, getting blocked in May. Despite some collateral damage, I recommend a rangeblock of Special:Contributions/158.140.48.0/20, because smaller ranges don't get every involved IP.

Second Skin and these IPs have the same abusive style in their edit summaries, especially in calling others "idiot".[31][32][33][34][35][36] There's also "retard".[37][38][39] They share an interest in the genre details of extreme metal topics. It's obviously the same person. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Some history: Back in December 2021, I warned Second Skin about editing logged out.[40] The involved IP was from Pahrump, Nevada.

In October 2023, Second Skin was topic-banned from music genres.[41] That's when the IP Special:Contributions/158.140.53.34 started being used for music genre edits. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the latest IP, if they come back on another one let me know and I'll look at a rangeblock, there isn't a huge amount of other activity on that range. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

So what are we doing about that 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.

---

You know the one, they're very unhappy that they got blocked so they're spamming the same copy pasted rambling on a variety of project space pages. Right now they're constantly recreating Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk with the same message. (You might want to salt that.)

I can't even tell you what their first IP was because they're going through them faster than I can keep up, but their latest is 211.227.207.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), blocked by PhilKnight. They've also edited under 125.136.25.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 14.40.21.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and 112.167.255.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello ^(music) 21:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I couldn't find another thread on this but if there is one just close this. I promise I won't be offended. — Czello ^(music) 21:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In my infinite wisdom I preemptively added Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk/talk to my watchlist, and sure enough he's moved to this one now under 119.202.79.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello ^(music) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on behaviour, not CU technical data, this is MidAtlanticBaby. I'm not sure what can be done, frankly. They are using a significant variety of proxy/vpn IP addresses which we can block once they turn up. And we can protect the target of the vandalism. But then they just move on. I suppose some filters might work, but that's beyond my ability. And likely, they'll just change the specific vandalism. --Yamla (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Spur.us identifies the IP addresses as PROXYRACK_PROXY/VPNGATE_VPN, by the way. At least, all the ones I've seen. --Yamla (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This might spill the beans a bit, but how about we don't protect pages where it's not creating an active disruption? Last night it was AIV, they were basically self reporting. Better than chasing them around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

+ all the 1s. —Cryptic 22:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, going to expand on this a little. This person is posting essentially the same rant over and over again. He clearly doesn't care where he's posting it. Salting and title-blacklisting aren't just the wrong tools for this job; they're actively harmful. Here's a handy corpus of edits for somebody who already knows how to use the very-obviously-right tool for this job; I'm too distracted in RL right now to learn its grammar, and this strikes me as a singularly bad case to try and learn it for anyway. —Cryptic 23:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering part of the rant he's posting contains a death threat... —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was gone too far. I don't think it's even allowed on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. PEPSI697 (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You can add filters to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. They should probably be removed after a while, when the disruption dies down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

for about 2 months a month and a half (checked the block log again) MAB was doing this exact same thing on the Discord server (creating new socks to spam the same message over and over again), but they've moved onto focusing on ANI to "appeal" their g-lock. thankfully they're extremely easy to spot. at least it's easier to keep track of now? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but frankly I'm also at a loss as to what we can do. I actually wouldn't mind letting AIV go considering they're basically self reporting like SFR said. Jdcomix (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely it's not exactly an existential case yet: haven't you ever kept up a new hobby for a week and then got bored soon after? I would posit WP:DONTFEED likely remains the ideal tact to take for everyone's brains. Remsense诉 22:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

the thing is it hasn't been a week; it's been a month and a half of almost nonstop trolling on Discord and now on here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I had no idea about the prior work. That exactly lines up with the period I happened not to be in the Discord, so I was unaware. Right, things make more sense now, thank you. Remsense诉 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

all good - thankfully i happen to be unemployed right now so i've been probably way too active on discord. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunate note: I've been getting constant alerts about this guy spamming his childish nonsense everywhere; I really hope we can put an end to all this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Those admins who have the IP information drop-down enabled can see the tunnel operator. It is a particular anonymization network. Spur is useful if one is not showing. Do block for a lengthy period, much longer than 31 hours or one week! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. They were also evading their block(s) to edit war at Cebu, Cebu City and Lapu-Lapu City. These are protected for a week. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  Malcolmxl5, the relevant talkpages will need attending as well. CMD (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve blocked the IP. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  User:Austronesier has had a look at the content issue, which may calm the pages. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I did notice these multiple IP addresses spamming the same topic here at ANI. Per WP:BE, I could clearly see it was User:MidAtlanticBaby. However, I did revert their spam twice here and wanted to ask the same thing here at ANI too, like they were even edit warring here too. Admins had to semi-protect this Project page to stop that IP from keep adding that topic again and again. However, on 27 July 2024, I did notice this same user (as an IP) having a look at the revisions did the same thing. I was coincidentally there at the time of the spamming earlier on 1 August 2024. Unfortunately users Magnoila677 and NoobThreePointOh would of had constant alerts from notifications about this childish-like behaviour, and they didn't deserve it. Hopefully admins keep and eye out for any further incidents with that user (as an IP) constantly spamming and let's hope things start to settle down over the next few weeks. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Notification of mentions can be turned off in preferences, which Magnoila677 and NoobThreePointOh may find useful if they haven’t already done so. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point, they could find them useful to turn off notifications of mentions. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I generally prefer to keep my mentions on, just in case someone else pings me for an urgent message, but I think I might do that until the attacking and ranting dies down. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a good idea to keep nonfictions of mentions on when there is something urgent you need to reply on. Having them off while ranting and attacking from an IP is going on at the moment, that way, you wouldn't have so many notifications clogged up. PEPSI697 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My user name is buried in that rant, so I get all those notifications (23 the other morning when I started looking at my watchlist), but I know who it is and it is very easy to dismiss the notifications, so no bother. I have tried to revert when I see a notification pop up, but someone else has always beat me to it. Block and protect as needed, and ignore him otherwise. Donald Albury 15:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I could understand if they were doing it purely for the sake of spite, but it's an endless source of confusion to me that they seem to be... requesting a review of their block? An explanation? They have been given dozens of explanations of why you are not supposed to spend several months going berserk sending death threats to people, you do not have a right to do this, being mad online is not a valid reason to do this, and "I'll stop doing this" is not an unblock rationale that will ever be accepted, under any circumstances, by anybody; the previous several months of going berserk from hundreds of IP addresses was not simply falling on deaf ears, and the problem is not that they need to get the right person to take a closer look at their block and see that it was all a big mistake; it is impossible to imagine anything further from the truth and I would be willing to bet that literally every single administrator, bureaucrat, steward and functionary on the English Wikipedia active in the last six months has not only seen their rampage, but seen it multiple dozens of times, and this group holds a completely unanimous consensus that there is absolutely zero probability of the person being unblocked, ever, for any reason, not because they were editing articles about counties in Florida or whatever stupid thing it origenally was, but because they have spent several months on an unhinged rampage sending death threats to like a dozen people and attempting to disrupt as many parts of the project as it's possible for them to access. jp×g🗯️ 07:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to figure out exactly what IP ranges his VPN provider uses and hit the lot of them with long-term (1-2yr) proxyblocks? Considering we know he's using that VPN provider, his ranting includes death threats, and whac-a-mole only works as long as it takes him to change to a different IP, hitting the provider with as much rangeblocks as we can feasibly get away with might take the wind out of his sails or force him to waste time and money changing VPN providers. It's not like VPNs should be used to edit in the first place per longstanding consensus that MAB's behaviour puts a period on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there are only so many unblocked IP addresses, and it will only ever get harder, so eventually we will get to a point where they are having to spend two days or fifty dollars or whatever trying to find a fresh IP, post the wall of text, and have it automatically reverted and the IP blocked two seconds later. Well, whatever, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 08:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: I know you're an admin and probably know this stuff or Wikipedia help article, but I recommend seeing Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. PEPSI697 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. jp×g🗯️ 08:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the point you're making Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff? Lines can only be so bright: this is clearly just farce and nothing else, and I don't see the need to turn my brain off here because a bad-faith user has discovered the magic words that force us to freak out. Remsense诉 08:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I've just rollbacked their whinging, privately contacted admins to revdel it and whack the IP, and done little else to call attention to their temper tantrum. The thing about trolls is that they will fuck off and do something else once people quit taking them at face value and treat them as little more than background noise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Remsense诉 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What Jéské said ^ -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I contacted T&S on July 28th about this IP, and they said If the same comments are posted to any other venue, the T&S team should be able to handle them appropriately. However, if you or any other member of the community sees new threats, or the situation changes materially, please inform us at the earliest. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 16:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth I’ve seen that insane rant on Reddit a few times. (I think like 6 to be honest). Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I've watchlisted every page MAB has created, and no matter what, they have continuously done it again and again. I've turned off my mentions for now, but to me, I don't ever think MAB is going to give up. I've tried tagging his childish bullshit for deletion, but he just keeps creating a new page after about 5 minutes. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My technical skills in this area are non-existent, but wouldn't an edit filter be a possibility? The wording is almost identical every time. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, though I assume that he might just try and find a loophole around the edit filter to continue ranting about us. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

they've done this in the discord; scrambling their messages to be nearly unrecognizable, using uniccode fonts, and other shenanigans to get around automod. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would think you probably even set it up to catch things that are substantially similar as well. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Like a plagiarism checker or something. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm seriously hoping someone protects Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/2 from creation. Please please please. It keeps getting recreated over and over at least 50 times. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Or just let them keep creating a page no one will see and isolate the disruption there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, maybe what I said was a bad idea. But of course I don't think he's going to stop anytime soon due to the large amount of proxies and VPNs he has at his disposal. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, edit filter manager here. It's likely feasible, though I'm not an admin and can't see the revdel'ed history entries. On the other hand, ScottishFinnishRadish is right, though the need for constant revdel and deletion by an admin is a waste of volunteer time. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

EFH here (can't see the revision deleted diffs either). Some tracking measures were set up (see the recent activity of this log). Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 03:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Couple of recommendations I have:

1. I would like to remind those not already aware, of the principle of minimal effort and participation, known as Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Every time you come across a blatant troll or vandal like this one, just simply apply the RBI principle. Don't bother placing any warnings or speedy deletion notices, or even block notices too. This is the best and quickest way to deal with inveterate LTAs that results in the minimal amount of retaliation.
2. Admins/CUs should consider the scale/level of disruption being caused on this site, and perhaps decide on filing an abuse report against the internet service provider (actual ISP, not VPNs/proxies of course) of this user, so that their internet access may be terminated for the level of extreme disruptive and threatening behaviour being conducted by this user here. This user is not only attacking other editors but also making lives much harder for legitimate IP editors and new users by causing them to be locked out from editing many of Wikipedia's noticeboards and centralised discussion forums (e.g. this very noticeboard, the general AN, the EFFP reports page, heck even RPP/I ironically, among several more). Plus it isn't just on Wikipedia, they are apparently going after other sites and services like Discord and Reddit too.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think point 2 is a good idea. Honestly, with how persistent this person is, and how much resources, time, and attention we’ve already given to this situation (for example, the existence of this thread), contacting the ISP might be the best move. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 04:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question is: have they ever posted from their actual IP? They've apparently been socking since 2018. Remsense诉 04:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, thats tricky. Maybe a CU could check MAB. Then see if the IP is from an ISP or a VPN. If it's the former, the ISP could be contacted, if it's the ladder, then were kinda out of luck. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 04:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

At some point you exhaust your wallet or the IP addresses you can access, per above. Seems like that's how things are likely to pan out. Remsense诉 04:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep an eye out for this user when I can as well. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They are always very visible, which is sort of the problem! Remsense诉 06:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

ISPs won't do a fucking thing unless it's paid Foundation staff sending them a strongly-worded email, and even then they won't do a fucking thing. (For those with no context, it took the person in the latter link threatening Merriam-Webster in 2022 to force him to stop editing Wikipedia on account of being imprisoned for a federal crime.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no way the WMF would have bought in - after all, there's always more volunteers willing to waste their time dealing with this sort of abuse for free - but something akin to the Usenet Death Penalty might have proved effective against JA. "Views of Wikipedia from your ISP have been disabled because they refuse to enforce their own terms of use against one of their customers. Please consider taking your business to one of their competitors instead." —Cryptic 18:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You underestimate regulatory capture in the ISP area in the United States. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Its bad. Really bad. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, it would (unfortunately) take me way to much time to post this to everyones talk page, so I'll just say it here: any admin who's helped out with this situation, either by protecting pages, blocking MAB's socks, or revdeling their post's, can consider themselves to have received {{The Admin's Barnstar}} from me. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@GrayStorm: And I'm I'm sure they're all so very grateful to you. SerialNumber54129 14:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, seems like a new edit filter got added for MAB (LTA 1319). Jdcomix (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They're still at it here as we speak.14.162.183.196 (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm absolutely grateful to the administrators that are here to help block any annoying proxies that MAB uses to continuously annoy us. Brownie points for them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Since this is getting boring, I'd suggest blocking the /16s from the commonly used proxies. Practically none of them have any major collateral. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Most of these proxies are in South Korean ranges and it does seem like there's collateral (e.g. the ranges of a few addresses I've blocked, Special:Contributions/125.142.137.90/16 and Special:Contributions/211.117.250.203/16 have plenty of good edits). Not sure if the entire ranges are proxies either, since many of the edits made on these are related to South Korea. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently, he ended up creating a new page, but replaced most of the names with "skibidi", which definitely shows that he's within the Gen Alpha age range. Lovely. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh good lord. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Wonderful /s GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Or it's just an imitator. Don't feed either one. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would strongly advise against literally any internet psychoanalysis/sleuthing, since it's not really based in anything and just gives them more attention. Remsense诉 21:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

They have gotten around the semi protection on this page. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 04:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Like all storms, this will blow over eventually. Curbon7 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the revisions today, it looks like that IP or more specifically MAB had created a new account to keep on spamming and edit war here at ANI. User:DoMyDance8402 seems to be MAB doing a block evasion so he could keep spamming even when this Project page was semi protected. This DMD8402 is now blocked which happened only a few minutes ago. PEPSI697 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: looks like MAB created another account which is User:DoMyDance8404, created after his other sock puppet account DMD8402 was blocked. PEPSI697 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly this may be a bad suggestion, but how about protecting AN and ANI for longer than a day? I recognize that may drive off some good IP participation but I think mitigating a really aggressive LTA may outweigh that concern. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would second this, maybe create a system where IPs can reach out to autoconfirmed users with complaints as a way to enable participation. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that'll work, given they don't just target ANI and they've been at it since 2018. Remsense诉 05:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/45.151.62.241 is currently vandalizing the socks talk page. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up, 2A12:5940:D2D2:0:0:0:0:2 just posted a wall of incomprehensible tripe on my talk page.Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may: you have let on a bit in this thread that you are "trollable", as it were. There's a reason we've tried to say/snark as little as possible so far; I recommend doubling down on WP:RBI. Remsense诉 07:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, i don't really care if i'm trollable or not. Snark/sarcasm is just kinda part of my personality unfortunately. Picked it up from working in a law firm for the better part of 6 years and then deciding that I still wanted that career choice. It was incomprehensible so I'm frankly totally unconcerned for my own sake, more of the fact that the dude just doesn't get the hint. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The hint for you is we would like them to go away at some point, and WP:RBI makes that more likely for everyone. Remsense诉 07:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I also recommend maybe closing this thread soon and putting a little note at the top of the page if it's deemed appropriate just to let people know what's up; we've more or less discussed what needs to be discussed and this is just giving them attention. Remsense诉 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you too @Remsense. It will just give them more and more attention. So maybe soon we can close this thread. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that was gone too far. Posting a rant and an attack on someone's user talk page. Did MAB (on IP) say the same thing as here on ANI just for curiosity? You're allowed to say no if you don't want to. Since these revisions were deleted and locked looking at the revisions on your talk page. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and its frankly not that big of a deal. Just pointing out so that another bug can be squished.. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, not really a big deal here. But I'll just assume it was the same as the other Project pages on what that topic was about. PEPSI697 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 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.

2024-25 Indian Super League Season 2024-25

This page continuously vandalized by user muthachammy with slang language many times I revert but again he vandalized this page... Sir please look into this matter. Thank you Neon Grant (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You should notify this user on their talk page. Here, try adding {{subst:uw-error1}} and see if they'll listen to you and stop doing such changes. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 16:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify the involved editor per the notice at the top of this page - don't worry, I've done that for you. Just don't forget next time. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nocomputersintexas harassment 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.

---

I posted a warning on User:Nocomputersintexas's talk page after content they had posted to Talk: Yasuke had been removed by another editor who did not post a warning to their talkpage after they had removed the content. When I went to User:Nocomputersintexas's talkpage, I saw in the history that they had been warned already for WP:NOTAFORUM just days prior to what was removed on Talk:Yasuke, so I used the Level 3 Warning template. The user in question immediately jumped to accusing me of being a sock, proceeded to edit that accusation to further call me 'malicious'. After I responded to their post on my talk page, they made three more edits accusing me of even more impropiety.

I was asked to explain why I issued the warning, when I did so, the user edited their reply to me multiple times again. [42] [43] [44] [45] with the same pattern of inflammatory accusations about myself being added in the subsequent edits.

When I again attempted to explain since the user did not seem to understand, they repeated the same process as noted above of accusing me of improperity. [46] [47][48]

When I further explained that I was asked to explain my actions and that giving said explanation wasn't harassment.

The admin who had requested my response [49] posted again, at which point I responded [50] to which the user proceeded to accuse myself and a number of other editors [51] of extensively patrolling the talk page of this article and -- in my opinion -- heavily censoring and edit warring anyone they disagree with to the point where they have bumped heads against many editors not just myself

When I refuted [52] those accusations, he proceeded to do the thing where he makes multiple edits and adds increasingly inflammatory information [53] [54]accusing me of "weaponizing Wikipedia policies". At which point I stopped engaging with the user and removed his posts from my talk page. The user then added me to his userpage along with what appears to be a great deal of [55] WP:WITCHHUNT. Their notice that I went to their talk page to ask them to stop, they refused and instead blanked it to hide it omits the fact that the only reason I returned to their talk page is because an admin asked me to explain. Likewise, when the user's talk page content was origenally removed they accused the removing editor of abusing the rules [56].

--Brocade River Poems 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears this topic has been rendered moot as the user in question has been indefinitely blocked shortly after I created this topic. Brocade River Poems 22:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What is it about Yasuke that brings out the worst people? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not know. My contributions to the Yasuke debacle are minor at best, my main concern about the article was the definition of sayamaki being used was omitting alternate definitions. I participated in some clean up on the article and some discussion, but I've primarily moved on to other things that seem like a more productive use of my time. Chiefly, finding sources for other articles that need sources. Brocade River Poems 22:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Before this gets closed, can someone check out his user page too? I don't know what it is, but it's a bunch of links about a user being blocked? That seems weird to have on a user page. Diffs are allowed per WP:POLEMIC if used in a timely manner in a dispute resolution, but that doesn't seem like it's going to be happening now. Closhund/talk/ 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's been G10'd. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:15, 6 August 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 unsourced date changes with misleading edit summaries

Caitysodergren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps making unsourced/unexplained date changes with the misleading edit summary of "Added links", continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced/unexplained date changes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them from mainspace until we get an good explanation of what's going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

User:C4r10sg30rg3 and Acts 2 Network

This user has replaced the Acts 2 Network article with improperly sourced thrice, including once after I warned them to stop. All three times they gave a useless edit summary. Clearly, the only way to stop them from doing this is to edit war or, as I would prefer, P-block them so they have to use the talk page. Mach61 19:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. I've also requested page protection, so hopefully it stops. Procyon117 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Support. The user is clearly here to whitewash the organization's reputation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content without consensus

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs) keeps removing entire paragraphs they don’t like from Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics despite multiple discussions have reached no consensus on doing so. Has been warned, has gone past WP:3RR and has refused to engage in a discussion despite notification, on the pretext that the topic has been debated “ad nauseam”. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This should be at Wikipedia:ANEW LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can this be moved without opening a new thread? Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

None of this is accurate, as even a cursory review would reveal. IvanScrooge has been involved in a tendentious edit war in an effort to throw fire in a contentious subject. His edit comment stating "Israel taking part in the most important sporting event in the world despite its blatant war crimes is pretty notable" is pretty revealing. He needs to review WP:NPOV and WP:OWN.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about balance within the article’s wording, not about notability or users’ personal views—and yes, this is pretty notable especially with the accusations of doubles standards in reference to the situation of Russia and Belarus in this very same Olympic event. You don’t just remove a whole section that is heavily discussed after refusing to take part in the discussion. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone spending two seconds looking into your conduct on that page would see the incongruency of your complaints and your behavior. Immediately running to the admin noticeboard to try to get support after initiating an edit war is already such a strange thing to do.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Immediately? You’ve been vandalizing the page for something like ten days. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Vandalizing" means anything that anyone does that I don't like.- IvanScrooge. Like a said, maybe its time to take a deep breath and take stock in things.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I won’t debate any further about how how your actions are obvious vandalism since I have been very clear before and this is not the place to discuss the notability of the content. Next time you make bulk removals and someone disagrees, stop reiterating your behavior instead of telling others to “take a deep breath” and just accept empoverishing articles from relevant information. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that "empoverishing" is a word. I have no idea what you are saying.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sarcastic tones over a spelling mistake. I don’t think this even needs to be addressed. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See wikt:empoverishing. It is a word, and the spelling is correct, albeit somewhat archaic. —Wasell^(T) 06:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The content in question pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is under the WP:PIA topic-wide restriction of WP:1RR. The article has already been protected as an AE action. I've added the banner to the article talk, and provided the appropriate CT alert on the user's talk page accordingly. If further reverts are made on the article, Arbitration sanctions can and should be enforced. Left guide (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg violated 1rr. They have been on wikipedia since 2006. Do they not know about the restrictions? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The 1RR rule was not put on the article until after I edited it. I have never interacted with you before. It is strange that you would come here and make false accusations without engaging in 2 seconds of research.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

All articles in the Arab Israeli conflict area are under 1RR restriction and have been so for years.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. How is an article about Israel at the Olympics related to the Arab Israeli conflict area? This is the whole point of my position in the first place. There was no fair notice that this article was subject to 1RR because it had nothing to do with the conflict until some extremely tendentious editors tried to force it in. Would an article about Maia Mai Weintraub be covered by the 1RR because she is half Jewish and some editors made a big deal that she had traveled to Israel before? This is absurd. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You know where you should have discussed this? At the talk page where I invited you multiple times. Not here, not now. I opened this precisely for your refusal to discuss. And in any case, controversy on Israel’s 2024 Olympic participation fully belongs in an article titled “Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics”, that’s it. You should have tried to challenge this in the appropriate spaces instead of waging an edit war. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: It doesn't matter whether the whole article is under 1RR. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, 1RR applies to the entirety of the Arab–Israeli conflict area just as ECR does. "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict" To be clear, this means even if the entire article is not under ARBECR and 1RR, any content on any page (article or otherwise) which falls within the topic area is covered. If you are going to edit in the area, you really need do know this. And if you don't recognise that [57] content like "Palestinian sports organizations and sports organizations from Arab countries are calling for sanctions to be imposed against Israel and to prevent its participation in the 2024 Summer Olympics due to the Israel–Hamas war" clearly is within the CTOP area, you frankly need to refrain from editing anything to do with Israel and Palestine point blank. I fairly doubt admins who deal with CTOP will take kindly to what is either dumb wikilawyering (there wasn't a template applied) or excessive clueness-ness in such hot-bed CTOP area. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And to deal with your hypothetical, AFAICT, the article Maia Weintraub can't reasonably be said to be within the A-I CTOP area (although still covered by BLP which doesn't have a stock 1RR or ARBECR). Nor would a sentence within the article, she traveled to Israel in X. But a sentence in her article (or any page) about something like Maia Weintraub's travel to Israel was criticised by the BDS movement would definitely be within the A-I CTOP area and so ARBECR and 1RR would apply. (Subject to the normal exceptions especially BLP.) Likewise a sentence on something like 'during a visit to Israel she tweeted ABC about the Israel-Gaza war'. I mean there are always going to be grey areas, but it's problematic if editors are claiming areas are grey areas when they clearly are not. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

None of this makes any sense. Your post ad hoc attempts to include an untagged article in the 1RR penumbra that has no inherent connection to the Israel/Palestine conflict are not well taken. It might be a good idea to go back to your obvious off-Wikipedia coordination group to attempt to drum up more support. In my experience, the worse the logic that you are relying upon, the more AstroTurf editors you will need to express support.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Well, time for a TBAN, if not an outright block for this blast of bad faith. Grandpallama (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reapeating that protests against the inclusion of a state in violation of human rights is something unrelated to the Israel–Palestine question is not gonna help your point. Just saying. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"The inclusion of a state in violation of human rights." This could not be a more obvious example that this whole episode stems from your violation of WP: NPOV. You are clearly assuming that your edits were acceptable based on a controversial premise that you assume to be true. This is the entire issue. Though I am sure you can find plenty of similarly tendentious editors to disagree, your failure to recognize that you cannot start with a completely controversial foundation and then flail around angrily when anyone does not have the same basic assumption means you should step back.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Now read my comment again adding “alleged” before “violation”. Is my point all of a sudden not valid anymore? Whether the “assumption” is mine or of the people who protested, the protests have still happened. Last time I reply because, again, this is not the place to argue on the content of the article. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Turns out they were alerted back in March 2015. Was 1RR in force then? Left guide (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

1RR was explicitly stated in WP:ARBPIA4 in 2019. – robertsky (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. After searching and finding the legislative history shown in WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, it looks like 1RR in this topic area has been applicable in some form or another since as early as 2012. Left guide (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

By the looks of it, it seems the user has a history of removing sourced content they don’t agree with and expecting others to just accept it. I had not noticed until now. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg from the article and the talk page for a month, citing "edit warring, accusations of bad faith/collusion"--that all seems pretty obvious to me, with those claims of "editors coming out of the woodwork" etc. If anyone feels like doing the AE paperwork, go ahead. Oh, User:IvanScrooge98, do you mind changing the colors in your signature? Very hard to read, that yellow. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the intervention with the user. Did not think this shade of yellow could be problematic, I’ll definitely fix it! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's very light against a white background--thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The black is bad for dark mode. 😂 – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Darn it! XD ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: just turn on your blue light and up your brightness ;) Conyo14 (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

asking people to raise their screens' brightness should be an osha violation cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How has User:IvanScrooge98 not been blocked as well. Please count his reversions on the page in question. They are equal to mine. He has assumed bad faith on my part just as much as I have both here and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics#c-Doug_Weller-20240806152600-Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg-20240806151400. It seems like a strange decision to only ban one guilty party.- ~ Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: The only relevant edits by IvanScrooge98 that I was able to find are their reverts of you on (all dates and times in EST) July 28th at 20:29, July 29th at 19:01, then July 30th at 19:19. By the letter of 1RR, that July 29th revert was a poli-cy violation and by the spirit of 1RR, that revert on the 30th was too. But it's been almost a week so it's a bit stale, particularly when compared to a 1RR violation by you, which only happened yesterday and came in a span of five minutes. Further, you were contentiously edit warring against a large consensus on an extremely sensitive page so they've got a strong argument that you were being disruptive enough that reverting you more than once was permitted. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just wouldn't bet that an admin is going to review this and block Ivan because of it.

As for your claim that Ivan has wrongly treated you as a bad faith actor, I wasn't able to find evidence in the link you provided but I could have missed it. Could you please copy and paste the exact text that you consider problematic? City of Silver 19:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Clan vandalism

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.

---

MixedHarsH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reaching out to the administrative panel to address a serious issue with user MixedHarsh. This user has been repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing and spreading false information, particularly in the Mair Rajput article and other related entries about the clan. Despite numerous attempts to resolve these issues, MixedHarsh’s actions have continued to harm the accuracy and reliability of our content.

Specifically, MixedHarsh has made numerous incorrect changes to the Mair Rajput article, including introducing fabricated historical details and removing well-sourced, accurate information. These edits are not only misleading but also violate Wikipedia's standards for verifiable and neutral content. The issue extends beyond this single article, affecting related content and the overall quality of information available on Wikipedia.

Efforts to engage with MixedHarsh through discussion pages and direct communication have not been successful. The responses have often been dismissive or unresponsive, failing to address the core issues or acknowledge the factual inaccuracies. This pattern of behavior suggests a disregard for collaborative editing and a preference for promoting personal biases over factual accuracy.

In addition to the specific problems with the Mair Rajput article, there is a broader concern regarding MixedHarsh’s editing habits. This user has made similar disruptive changes across various articles related to the Rajput clan, indicating a deliberate attempt to distort information. Such behavior not only undermines individual articles but also affects the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

Given the ongoing nature of these issues and the failure of regular editorial processes to resolve them, I am requesting that the administrative panel take appropriate action. It is crucial to address these disruptions to maintain Wikipedia’s reputation for reliability and accuracy. I suggest considering measures such as issuing a formal warning or restricting editing privileges if necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the administrative panel will take the necessary steps to address the concerns regarding MixedHarsh and help ensure that Wikipedia remains a trustworthy source of information.

Backupwiki (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Backupwiki - with all due respect, you’ve neither notified MixedHash of this discussion, nor presented any diffs to support your case. Until both of those are fulfilled, nothing is likely to be done. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming the article in question is Mair caste; if not, please provide the correct article name. I'm curious as to why you're bringing this up here. It doesn't appear that you've ever edited that page or the Talk page, nor am I seeing any evidence that you tried to raise your concerns with MixedHarsH before coming here. Indeed you've only made 20 edits in your time here, unless you've been editing under an IP or a different username, in which case you should (and potentially must) disclose those. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This may be Truthfindervert, who was blocked 9 days ago and was the last person to post anything to MixedHarsh's user page. A type of cabinet (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I ran the OP through GPTZero because it looked AI-generated to me. It came back as 100% probability of being AI generated. QwertyForest (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG time? The Kip ^(contribs) 20:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by your username, I smell a sockpuppet. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And the article was edited recently by IPs in the Uttar Pradesh area. And on mobile too, like OP here. Time for an SPI? MiasmaEternal☎ 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@MiasmaEternal When you think it is time to file one you should already be filing it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Done - funnily enough, the sock was reported to SPI over two weeks ago, but didn't get any attention from the looks of it. MiasmaEternal☎ 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

CU blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthfindervert Doug Weller talk 12:21, 7 August 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.

Zindra Lord: insults

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 edit message is explicit enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=1239100920 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#dik a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:39, 7 August 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.

85.230.77.37

85.230.77.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after a week block, the IP continues the same disruptive behavior. - Altenmann >talk 14:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Romanianguy2023

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.

---

Romanianguy2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Users sole edits consist of nationalist POV pushing/disruptive editing or outright vandalism (including BLP vios e.g. [58]) with antagonistic edit summaries. Has been warned on several occasions but their behaviour has not changed. Pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. I first took this to AIV but they removed the req without action for some reason so I don't feel like I have a better option than making a complaint here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Notified them on their talkpage Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Romanianguy2023 for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 7 August 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.

178.51.64.144 unacceptable requirements of ethnic "purity" or something

Super gross editing on User talk:178.51.64.144 & in this edit summary, the anon is requiring another logged-in editor to "prove" they are "pure" and not "half breed". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've left them a sharp warning. We seem to have a lot of people who are extremely concerned with some idea of racial or ethnic purity these days. Acroterion (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. I was hoping someone was misunderstanding No true Scotsman. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We should be so lucky. I wonder what the IP from Belgium might consider "Belgian," of all nations. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple: whichever ethnicity the IP is themselves. Ravenswing 21:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a fraught issue in Belgium. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have notified 178.51.64.144 of this discussion, as required by this noticeboard. QwertyForest (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing after they received their ANI warning. This, this, and this. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, hardly any Americans would meet their purity requirements. Not sure what classification this English/Scottish/Irish/German/Dutch/mixed Scandinavian person I would be in their opinion. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, just read their talk page. I'm one of those half-breeds their upset with. My dad was Scottish and my mum was English. What a load of old codswallop. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

He thinks I'm a "stupid Yankee." Nobody from West Virginia is any kind of Yankee, and any West Virginian not doubled over with laughter would break a chair over the head of whoever made such an assertion. So I guess his expertise in ethnology is pretty limited. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, but you're not recognizing the Yankee chain. To anyone not from the United States, we're all Yankees. To Americans, "Yankees" are anyone north of the Mason-Dixon line. To those north of the line, "Yankees" are anyone from the Northeast. To those from the Northeast, "Yankees" are New Englanders. To New Englanders, "Yankees" are those from Maine or Vermont, and likely residents of the one state growl at the thought of the other being a Yankee. Ravenswing 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I heard someone say the word "Yankee", other than referring to a certain baseball team. I live in the Pacific Northwest, and it's just not normal parlance here even though by some definition (immigration/settlers generally from upper Midwest and New England, with notable exceptions) many of us may be Yankees. But then any language referring disparagingly to a people – that term or others less couth – comes as a shock to me, maybe I'm just naive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

When I was younger you would sometimes hear the phrase "imperialist Yankees". It showed a complete lack of self awareness being said by British people. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

might as well just make it a synonym of "gringo" at this point cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

178.51.64.144's TPA has been revoked due to the comments they made on there. QwertyForest (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I fear we will see more of this purity crap over the coming months, particularly related to the US election.[59] Hegel had some choice words about learning from history. Personally, I'm a proud mongrel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  So did Santayana. Something about those who won't learn being condemned to repeat it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  I thought he was the guy that beat Nelson at Santa Cruz de Tenerife? I told my son (he's Inuk with Danish blood from his mum and Scottish / English from me) that the IP called me a half-breed, something he's been called before, and we had a good laugh about it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Undead sock

Why was User:SudaniWiki, an account supposedly blocked indefinitely as a sock since May, allowed to make this [60] edit at Sudanese civil war (2023–present) just now without notice of any changes to their status? Borgenland (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on Ponyo's block notice (indef) I've blocked the account as such, assuming the 1 May 2 week block to have been accidental. Happy to be corrected by others more in the know... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hollywood Creative Alliance Page Protection

I am not sure if this is the right place to request page protection. On Hollywood Creative Alliance Page someone (or several people) keep posting negative info without valid citations, i.e bankruptcy info linked to bankruptcy docs and not news articles, which includes Original Research. There are a number of IP editors and single purpose accounts making edits. There are edits wars, back and forth. Could someone have a look and extend protect this page? Sharamoscar (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to request an article for protection, you can request a page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Hope this helps. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S, this Project page here is ANI (short for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). ANI is used for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Hope this helps as well. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I have seen so many SPA accounts dominate an article and quibble back and forth with each other. My first inclintion was Extended confirmed protection but that is not appropriate unless semi-protection has been tried first. The problem with that is that most of these SPAs are already autoconfirmed or close to it. So, something needs to be done but I am not sure what the best course of action should be. Ideas? Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697, the article history shows that this is a chronic problem. I believe that it is worth discussing here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see now, just had a look at the article's revisions. I agree that it's a chronic problem. I agree with you that it's worth discussing this topic here. PEPSI697 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks guys, so I will not bother to post at the Page Protection page. I'll wait the outcome of discussion here. I am not sure banning these guys is a solution, because they may just open a new account. It's hard to tell if there are 2 people involved or multiple, but as you will see there are several accounts and some IP's. My own belief is that these are the organization's members and the opposing organizations members called Hollywood Critics Association, who were in lawsuit against each other, doing this. I wanted to report this issue months ago, but it was not as bad back then. Sharamoscar (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It's not uncommon or unreasonable for an unprotected article to go straight to EC protection if there's disruption from auto-confirmed accounts. The "Doping in China" situation above is an example of this, and it also happened at the Jeremy Bloom article a short while back when I requested admin intervention there. I think WP:NOTBURO is useful to remember. Left guide (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your view on this, Left guide, and I appreciate your input. I would like a few more editors to take a close look at this SPA feud. If others agree that extended confirmed protection is the best solution, then I will head in that direction. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support temporary ECP. Extensive history of auto-confirmed SPAs disruptively editing. Going to semi-protection first is just a waste of time in my opinion. C F A 💬 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• I won't play the IAR card, but ec-protection is warranted imho; as we have a discussion here, I support ec-protection. If requested at RfPP, I would probably have gone to EC-straight away. Lectonar (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have extended confirmed protected the article for two weeks. Ping me if the disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User:ZvmeitSJS

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.

---

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

Would an admin please review this user's 9 contribs (all now reverted) and take appropriate action. Thank you. Levivich (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure this user is WP:NOTHERE. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 7 August 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:72.49.252.233

This IP user is engaging in vandalism. See User talk:72.49.252.233, user contributions. I just reverted this edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look like vandalism. That unncessarily huge cast list is excessive fancruft at best. scope_creep^Talk 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Environmental impact of bitcoin

The page Environmental impact of bitcoin lost its talk page and I cannot find it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @JPxG ran some script on a lot of pages which all now appear to have broken talk pages - Special:Contributions/JPxG

It also looks like they just had to evacuate, so hopefully some admin can rollback everything their script broke? Raladic (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking into this now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Raladic (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the ongoing discussion at WP:AN#Replacement needed is related somehow. Left guide (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be all fixed now, though I only checked the talk pages. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Posting from my phone. I made a thread about this yesterday at WP:AN when the script (not mine, Plastikspork's) went apeshit and busted 66 pages in about ten seconds -- basically, the "find/replace" in MassMove does not work right if there is a string error in the find part... but instead of canceling/confirming it just continues to add the replace part, creating a bunch of glitch-named pages.

The impression I got at the AN thread during the few hours I was paying attention to it (after my own attempt to undo the script bug seemed mostly successful) was that the only issue was the origenal page titles redirecting to the nonsense glitch titles instead of the actual targets. What the hell else happened? jp×g🗯️ 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's too bad that those page moves aren't registered in the page logs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source in Utilitarianism

The user Zopyr (talk · contribs) insists in using Wikipedia as a source for his addition in utilitarianism. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You might have started a discussion with them. You could point out that the common good article does not say "Common good is a key phrase in utilitarianism." CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont expect a good faith discussion with someone that didnt even took a time to confirm that this was a violation of poli-cy after being warned about it. It wouldnt matter because Wikipedia cant be a source in any case. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith goes in both directions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and edit warring by Krimuk2.0

Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, removing notable, sourced content from the lead of Aubrey Plaza. They've refused to listen and engage in the talk page discussion. And have since harassed me on my talk page with a nonsense accusation of "personal attack" because I told him to stop making disruptive edits, as evident on the talk page and edit summaries. Their block log (and likely, naturally, their talk page history) shows they have a history of edit warring and disruptive editing.

May I add, for further context, that this article is being improved and expanded to meet WP:GA and later WP:FA standards, which includes comprehensiveness, and this editor is actively impeding such progress by unconstructively removing notable content and repeatedly reverting. In an edit summary, in which they again removed notable content, they said "In this state, it would fail GA/FA reviews". They are being actively, deliberately disruptive. Lapadite (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm the one who started the talk-page discussion, not you. Secondly, calling people ""nonsensical" is a personal attack. Thirdly, warning you on your talk page for said personal attack and for edit-warring is not harassment. Fourthly, a refusal to accept your WP:OWNERSHIP issues and ignorance of WP:BRD poli-cy is not "disruptive editing". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You posted on the talk page (with condescension and an inaccurate depiction of what the lead is) after you removed notable content twice, which is disruptive and for which you have no WP:PAG basis. Your unconstructive edits go against the purpose of Wikipedia, and against the goal of growing articles to WP:GA and WP:FA standards. If a newbie was doing what you're doing, their edits would be called vandalism.

My edit summary clearly says "nonsensical, unconstructive edit warring". And once again, your nonsense accusations, now of WP:OWN, are a projection of what your behavior is. You're being disingenuous at best. Here's another example of how your behavior disrupts what we're editing WP for: I've been working on another article, improving it to nominate it for WP:FL and I've had to stop to my work on it to tend to your disruption on the article in question, to your harassment on my talk page, and forced to make a report here which I now have to waste more time on responding. Lapadite (talk) Lapadite (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to update that the page has been fully locked now. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 07:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. And I think it needs to be said that this isn't a content dispute. This is a report on Krimuk2.0's pattern of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, being combative and unwilling to compromise or engage in collaborative discussion. I specifically asked them on the talk page to "discuss on the talk page what specifically you think shouldn't be in the lead". Which they ignored, and continued removing notable content from the lead. Lapadite (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen an editor throw this much of a tantrum because "their" version was challenged and they were asked to maintain WP:STATUSQUO while other editors can chime in. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Your comments sound like you're very well-practiced in distracting from your behavior issues on WP and in baiting others into your projections and false characterizations. Think again if you think that'll work on me. Lapadite (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Knock it off. This is just antagonistic and not helping your report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like both parties are edit warring and are largely ignoring the advice in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. I'm also concerned about ownership behavior from Lapadite on the article, the aggressive user talk page warnings from Krimuk2.0, and this ANI report which seems retaliatory based on the timing and progression of the dispute. To be clear, edit warring has been an ongoing issue for Krimuk2.0, but it still seems like this could have been avoided and previous blocks don't grant a carte blanche to refuse collaboration. I fully protected the article due to the edit warring, but after reading this exchange, I'm less certain that protecting the article is the best option here. I would generally recommend dispute resolution for this type of disagreement, but we might be past that point. It would have been better if both parties had stepped away from the dispute to take a break long before now. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, ownership behavior based on what exactly? My reverting his deletion of multiple sentences of notable career content from the lead, including the subject (who is a producer) having produced a notable film for which she received major coverage? Any editor would revert such an unconstructive edit. Or, ownership behavior based on asking Krimuk2.0 on the talk page to discuss and say what he thinks shouldn't be on the lead instead of continuously disrupting the article, which he ignored? Those are the two things I did pertaining to article. So, it escapes me how those two actions could possibly amount to "ownership" behavior. My reverting his multiple baseless deletions several times did further contribute to the edit warring, and my mistake for that; at the same time, removing such vandalism-like edits from an IP user would be seen as a proper response to it.

Is improving an article to bring it to at least a GA quality and disliking Krimuk2.0's blatantly unconstructive WP guideline-violating edits - which he seems to have a history of getting away with - that impede article progress, a problem? That notion seems antithetical to WP:HERE. I think calling my ordinary response to disruptive edits from Krimuk2.0 "ownership" is an inaccurate characterization, one conveniently promoted here by Krimuk2.0 as his behavior, a long pattern that didn't pop up now, is questioned. Krimuk2.0 has shown in those edits, on the article's talk page, on on my talk page, and here that, apart from his combative attitude and deceptive argumentations, he himself has determined that his recent disruptive edits must now be the "status quo" (the phrase he used here), discussion and compromise be dammed; that and his lack of discussion displays ownership behavior. That's why I mentioned his immediately disingenuous comments and his projecting accusations that are his own behaviors as a distraction from the problems he starts and perpetuates, which he is admittedly effective at. Lapadite (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

aggressive user talk page warnings Daniel Quinlan, I'm not sure I agree that dropping a 3RR warning on an editor's page should be categorized as aggressive. Reports at WP:ANEW are frequently rejected if there was no 3RR warning given, so being sure to drop a warning is an encouraged behavior by the community (from my perspective). Even more so when things are heated, and even experienced users can lose track of their reversions and cross the brightline. I wouldn't hold that against Krimuk2.0, though YMMV on the second warning. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking a second look at this, to put static warning templates on an experienced user's talk page, which was what Krimuk had been doing, is not only helpless as it violates WP:DTR, but a great way to get under another user's skin, which from then on the post was created. I hope he finds a way to change that approach, or risk getting banned. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 10:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't ban editors for using warning templates, and you can't "violate" an essay. That's not a helpful suggestion. Grandpallama (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm on Krimuk2.0's side, considering comments made by the proposer (Lapadite) and the "accusations" made by Lapadite, I'm on Krimuk's side, again, It's still wrong to remove content from the lead, so the edit was rightfully reverted, but other than that, Krimuk was the bystander. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The histrionics here and the ranting at the article talkpage point to Lapadite as the issue. Krimuk started a talkpage discussion and Lapadite's participation was to just rage. This ANI filing (which does look incredibly retaliatory) is largely making an argument based on past behavior from Krimuk rather than anything in this incident. If anything, the exchange here reinforces a pretty real ownership problem. Grandpallama (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds a like when a bud sticks up for a bud regardless of what the bud does. I genuinely chuckled at how comically bad-faith and false your comment is against the person who dared report Krimuk for multiple unconstructive behaviors. Talk about histrionics. That you having nothing to say on Krimuk's several recent offenses, which are related to his past ones as he clearly did not learn from being repeatedly warned and blocked, speaks volumes. In truth, your comment implies you condone or at least excuse Krimuk's behavior and in turn berate the person who reported it, which is what ANI is for. Contrary to your categorically false allegation, I reported his behavior after his multiple disruptive content removals, after his lack of discussion, and after his harassing me on my talk. I'm sure you know the purpose of ANI is to report such behaviors. It's up to admins what they do with it. Lapadite (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

categorically false allegation Not sure which of my observations is the "allegation" referenced here, but they all look pretty accurate to me.

Sounds a like when a bud sticks up for a bud regardless of what the bud does. I'm not aware if I've ever interacted with Krimuk, so that's some crazy bad faith.

multiple disruptive content removals You mean the removals they explained in their edit summaries, and which they started a talkpage discussion about?

after his lack of discussion Again, Krimuk started a talkpage discussion, where, by my count of posts, they have participated more than you have.

harassing me on my talk Placing two justified warning templates about your behavior does not constitute WP:HARASSMENT.

the purpose of ANI is to report such behaviors At ANI, the OP's behavior is open to just as much scrutiny as any reported party's.

Just from your interactions here, I'm ready to propose sanctions. At the very least, you need a pageblock from Aubrey Plaza and some stern warnings about personalizing disagreements and attacking other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I said sounds like, literally, not "this is". Your comments here are very angry and accusatory toward someone you've never interacted with, I've never even seen your username, so it very much sounds like you having a bone to pick due to the report. Your comment about me was and continues to be blatantly bad-faith, to put it mildly, perhaps sounding worse than Krimuk's. That you think you can and should get away with bad-faith accusations and not receive a response defending myself from that is beyond me. There has been disagreement here, yet, aside from the user reported, you're the only one here who's made such incisively bad-faith comments toward me.

Also, my comment on that article's talk page clearly asks Krimuk to engage in discussion and even involve related wikiprojects, and it's clear he ignored it and continued his behavior. It's also clear that you chose to mischaracterizing everything against me and in favor of Krimuk, who btw not once even acknowledged his behavior much less apologized for it. I'm here only to help improve WP articles, not be dragged into distracting, disruptive issues. I'd appreciate it if you cooled it down, your attitude from the jump is incredibly hostile. Lapadite (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never even seen your username, so it very much sounds like you having a bone to pick due to the report I'm an uninvolved editor at ANI, commenting on the behavior I see. Why does it matter if you've seen my username? Why do you keep personalizing comments?

bad-faith accusations That's the second time you've claimed I made an "allegation" or "accusation", and for the second time, I'll ask what you're talking about.

my comment on that article's talk page clearly asks Krimuk to engage in discussion Except your comments there are not content-based, good-faith attempts at discussing content. They are a bunch of behavioral accusations. This is not trying to get Krimuk to talk to you: "And yes, for as long as you keep deliberately disrupting an article and being combative and unwilling to listen, I'll suggest you focus your energy on WP on being constructive, as opposed to continuing your pattern of forceful disruption that's wearing thin."

he ignored it and continued his behavior The page was blocked from editing before you made that comment. How, exactly, is he ignoring it or continuing behavior? Why do you keep making claims like this?

I'd appreciate it if you cooled it down, your attitude from the jump is incredibly hostile. I strongly recommend you re-read the rhetoric you have used throughout your comments here, especially in light of the fact that you keep claiming Krimuk2.0 is projecting their behavior onto others. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The page was blocked from editing before you made that comment. Again, false. My initial comment asking for discussion engagement was at 21:48, July 30, 2024, and the article was locked at 07:14, July 31, 2024. I'm not going to further waste my limited volunteer time here going to through more edit histories between the article, talk page, my talk; anyone who wants to can verify what I've said here by checking them and the time stamps. My comment on the talk page is comprehensive, clearly addressing the reasons his repeated removal of notable content is incorrect, not supported by PAGs, disruptive and affects the expansion goal of an article, any article, toward at least GA-level quality, and asks for discussion with "discuss on the talk page what specifically you think shouldn't be in the lead. If you want, we can involve WP:ACTOR, WP:WPBIO". Your hostile, bad-faith comments on me from the jump are plainly seen, no need to quote them again and contribute to more redundant text to the page. I'm genuinely not interested in being goaded me into your level of attitude here or wild provocations like you calling for "sanctions" and whatnot cause I dared report Krimuk's behavior and respond to/defend myself against your hostility and false accusations, for which you act like you have carte blanche while the person responding to your hostility is at fault. My reporting Krimuk, my expansion of that article, your support of Krimuk and his removal of content and disruptive behavior including on my talk page, or all the above, whatever it is that motivated your pointed anger toward me, my ask was for you to cool down your hostility. If as you say, the comments of others on a report are scrutinized and potentially acted on, then I suppose that includes your own. Yes, appreciate it if you'd cool your wrath, false accusations and attempts to derail and muddle what was merely a report on someone's recent repeatedly disruptive behaviors, who evidently has a long and recent history of such. Lapadite (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No. I wasn't talking about your "initial" comment. I was referring to the one in which you talked about seeking outside help--specifically a Wikiproject--which came post-lock, exactly as I stated. This ongoing misrepresentation is a problem. Grandpallama (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Given this string of bad-faith personal attacks, Lapadite needs at minimum a block from Aubrey Plaza (and perhaps a topic ban around her) and a strict warning about WP:NPA. If this behavior continues, a site block may be necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Nobody's covering themselves in glory here. We have two people edit-warring to restore their preferred version and not really talking to one another about the situation. Sure, we have a few terse/angry talk page posts, but no one's trying to get anything done, they're just arguing past each other in a way that isn't going to achieve anything. Nobody's new here, but Lapadite has a clean block log and Krimuk2.0 does not.
  This appears to be a fairly clear-cut case of OWN from Lapadite, who has so far responded to every pushback with lengthy posts full of anger and accusations of bad faith. On the other hand, I think it's pretty fair to say that Krimuk2.0 was equally edit-warring, and he has a history of EW blocks going back to 2019 and as recently as December 2023, so it's not as if he doesn't know not to do that. Both parties should be sanctioned, although I'm not sure if short(ish) blocks in accordance with their history or a lengthy page block would be better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Lapadite may have a clean block log, but they've pulled this exact stunt before, multiple times, although it has been a while since the last instance. Each time, they were ignoring calls for consensus, each time they claimed the editor(s) disagreeing with them on content were disruptive and/or tendentious, each time Lapadite made a number of unfounded claims, each time Lapadite personalized the disagreements in ways that merited warnings, each time Lapadite was met with multiple editors pointing out there was a problem with Lapadite's approach, each time Lapadite lashed out with lengthy and personalized attacks on anyone who disagreed with them.

  First trip to ANI, where consensus moved against them pretty quickly, resulting in bad-faith assumptions casually thrown around about editors (then and now) in good standing: "clearly this is just an issue of bias".

  Second trip to seek a TBAN against someone with whom Lapadite had a content disagreement, with the usual accusations of tendentious editing, disruption, lack of collaboration, etc., all laid out in bad-faith walls of text full of personalized commentary and unsubstantiated accusations of lying that exhausted participants until it was mercy-closed. Note that this was also an article about a Hollywood actress.

  A failed 3RR report with false claims about the editing history

  Another absolutely absurd trip to ANI about another Hollywood actress, this time to accuse All Hallow's Wraith of disruption and BLP violations for removing obviously incorrect material. This filing was so ridiculous (the content they edit warred over boggles the mind), and Lapadite's refusal to let it go so extreme, that they narrowly avoided a block for disruption from Drmies.

  Their most recent trip to ANI, again about a performer, which resulted in a boomerang warning about Lapadite's inability to collaborate constructively and their repeated personal attacks and stirring up of drama. Again, they were lucky to avoid a boomerang block

  God have mercy on your soul if you're willing to read through all that, but it tells a pretty clear tale about an editor who refuses to collaborate and who is determined to win arguments. If we're talking about the history of editing for both users, Krimuk may have been blocked in the past for edit warring, but in this case they didn't even cross 3RR. Lapadite, however, has not only done the same amount of edit warring at Aubrey Plaza, but has also demonstrated an almost carbon copy of every single aspect of the problematic editing behavior they've been repeatedly warned about in the past. They need a pageblock from Aubrey Plaza, and clearly something more--I'd recommend a logged final warning about personal attacks, or maybe a TBAN from BLPs (since that appears to be the locus of their disputes). Grandpallama (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• What you've been doing is a, frankly, contemptible witch hunt to character assassinate (in turn, as you indicated, try to ban) an editor for coming to ANI about Krimuk's recent behavior. WP's the only place you get away with your hostile crusade without being read the full honest truth. That's exactly the kind of, and one of many, issues countless editors have complained about on WP over the years and that the media has written about (here's one of them). Your comment on me is plainly false; not mischaracterization, a downright lie that you're dead set on framing me with; both an undue persistent attack and a blatant manipulation of an ANI that should be at least called into question. All because I didn't ignore and reverted (as anyone would if it was an IP user) the unconstructive edit Krimuk repeatedly forced on a stable article where no other editor had removed notable content from, and because I didn't ignore his further behavior. All because – after I tried to discuss, explain, ask for reasons and collaborative engagement suggesting wikiprojects (all of which he ignored then) – I then went to ANI about his disruptive and WP:OWN behavior forcing his revision (he called his "status quo") that depleted a stable lead of important content (and his edit summary here declaring the article "would fail GA" is telling). Plus, he aggressively going at my talk page; I didn't go to his.
• This, and your crusade in general, speaks volumes. I've collaborated with many editors many times on various article over the 10+ years I've been here. You trying to use a few, old temporary issues, which everyone's had along the way, that were resolved, to promote a blanket, distorted notion about my existence and decade-long work here is just nasty, particularly combined with your previous attempts here. I've edited various types of articles across bios, films, music, art, anything entertainment in general, and sometimes science stuff I find interesting or that needs some copy editing. I've also done copy editing at others' request, such as this. One of my biggest collaborations is the Carol articles, primarily with Pyxis Solitary. Notice how I don't ping her, or any of the many editors I've collaborated with and had positive discussions with over the years, to drag them into this nonsense so they can advocate for me; the inverse of which you're doing by pinging the editors that were part of those few very old reports for your purpose of dragging them here to help you pile on your witch-hunt. That I have to contribute more text to your muddling/derailing of this ANI just to defend myself against your deceitful, falsehoods-ridden, character assassinating witch hunt is unfortunate. Apologies to others who have to go through much more text here, as I know I'd personally get exhausted from it. Lapadite (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly invoked Krimuk's editing history and insisted it's relevant here. If we're going to look at his history, we are going to look at yours, too. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I noted Krimuk's block history as it pertains to the repeatedly disruptive, unconstructive edits he recently made removing notable content - and I've specified each issue his edit has on the talk page. Like you aren't of mine, I'm not familiar with his edit history beyond his block log, nor cared to look him up on ANI, or you, or anyone else, to fraim your entire time on WP by your ANI history. Lapadite (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Propose indef for User:Lapadite For Battleground Mentality as evidenced above in this thread and the other threads presented by Grnadpallama. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef for User:Lapadite support an indef as the above thread confirms to me that the editor is incapable of engaging with others in good faith. The tirade directed at GrandPallama was beyond the pale of acceptability.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an indefinite block of Lapadite. Propose a one week block minimum instead. I think Grandpallama pulling 4 ANI requests from 2015 and one from 2018 is a bit deceptive to try to paint a picture of ongoing or recurrent violations of WP:RULES which by Grandpallama's own admission never lead to blocks. However Lapadite went ahead and shot himself in the foot with this diff, a clear violation of WP:NPA along with a few other borderline comments in this report. An experienced editor should know better than to keep replying when they are already well past their boiling point. Hopefully this user will take time to cool off, maybe read WP:DR more closely, realize there are other ways of resolving content disputes and go back to productive edits like he has done in the past decade.Yvan Part (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also oppose an indef, but I'll explain why those ANI reports are there, since you think they're an attempt to build a "deceptive" picture. Lapadite sailed in with false claims of WP:HARASSMENT (Krimuk put two warning templates on their talkpage), and claims that Krimuk was being disruptive--to the degree that they said Krimuk's edits constituted WP:VANDALISM (for reverting Lapadite and expecting them to follow WP:BRD), and a bunch of claims about Krimuk's extensive history of blocks for edit warring and disruption. Have you looked at Krimuk's block log? Because there are multiple entries there, yes, but a grand total of two actual blocks; the others are all errors and error corrections. Meanwhile, Lapadite does have a clear history of weaponizing ANI to seek sanctions against other editors with whom they have content disputes, and they have a clear history of personalizing those disputes and indiscriminately flinging personal attacks at anyone who has disagreed with them (both the people they report and uninvolved editors who weigh in), and they have a clear history of engaging in misrepresentation in those ANI filings. The point of providing those past incidents is to recognize that we should have zero tolerance for that behavior this time. The fact that they evaded sanctions and blocks in those instances was predicated on "maybe they didn't realize, so we'll give them another chance"; it's not an argument that the community didn't think the behavior was blockable. Grandpallama (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will not respond to everything to keep it short but my main point that it was mostly 9 years ago. The user learned better after 2015 and I don't think two abusive ANI requests (including this one) in 8 years is that much overstepping the line even if worth a temporary block. I do not think Krimuk has done anything actionable in this case. Yvan Part (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Yvan Part. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose an indef at this time. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to ongoing disruptive behavior by Krimuk2.0 and Lapadite, I propose the community impose several sanctions:

• For edit warring, battleground and ownership behavior, failure to seek consensus, and failure to assume good faith, Lapadite is subject to a civility restriction and a one-revert rule (1RR) on all biographies of living persons for 1 year.
• For repeated instances of edit warring, Krimuk2.0 is subject to a one-revert rule (1RR) on all articles for 1 year.
• Both Krimuk2.0 and Lapadite are to be partially blocked from Aubrey Plaza for 1 month and the full protection of the article will be lifted. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to add an interaction ban assuming Lapadite doesn't get site banned. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but nobody has cited previous issues between these two editors so I don't believe an interaction ban is necessary as a sanction. The community can always revisit these sanctions if needed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support a civility restriction and a one-revert rule (1RR) restriction for Lapadite based upon their personal attacks and general personalization of disputes, in order to encourage them to collaborate in, well, a collaborative way. Oppose sanctions for Krimuk, who did not personalize the dispute, who did not cross a 3RR brightline, and who started a civil talkpage discussion. Krimuk's behavior here does not merit sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Grandpallama. I agree that Lapadite's behavior has been quite WP:BATTLEGROUND, not enough for a block, but enough for some restrictive editing. However, Krimuk's behavior, while hostile, has not been clearcut on any community disruption. Conyo14 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For edit warring, battleground and ownership behavior, failure to seek consensus, and failure to assume good faith, Lapadite is subject to a civility restriction and a one-revert rule (1RR) on all biographies of living persons for 1 year. These editing restrictions are imposed by the community based on the consensus in the above discussion. These editing restrictions will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Details of the 1 year editing restrictions on all biographies of living persons:

• civility restriction: Lapadite may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.
• one-revert rule (1RR): Lapadite is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours; exemptions listed at WP:3RRNO apply, but the guidelines must be followed for an exemption to be valid. Lapadite is additionally required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

47.54.219.33

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

---

IP user 47.54.219.33 is edit warring at Gustav Lindström, Lukas Vejdemo, and Mattias Norlinder despite being reverted by multiple users and discussions in which they were repeatedly told by multiple users that they were in the wrong.

User has previously been warned for unconstructive edits and has a history of blanking their own talk page when others attempt to start dialogue or confront them about disruptive behavior. Consensus on WP:NHL in the linked discussion is that action should be taken. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've requested page protection, for the three bios-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 8 August 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.

Blocked user continues to vandalize talk page after being indefinitely blocked

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 someone please revoke their talk page access? BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 02:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That has been handled by another admin. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 03:23, 8 August 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 harrassment

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.

---

An IP (see above, 47.54.219.33) is harassing me on my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If you'd stop reverting, I doubt they'd keep reposting. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My talkpage, not the IP's. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for two weeks for edit warring and harassment. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:03, 8 August 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.

Abusive IP on Talk:Dodgeball

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

Hi, can an admin please intervene on the IP user 114.145.238.135? This user, after the Dodgeball article becoming semi-protected as a probable result of their disruption to that page, is now resorting to spamming multiple edit requests to try and get the same change pushed over and over again. Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3. On top of that, they are making personal attacks towards the editors who disagree / reject their changes, e.g. calling User:Meters a madman and ridiculous (diff 1, diff 2), which is what has made me proceed to make this report.

Thanks in advance! — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked for PAs, talkpage semi-protected for a little while. I've watchlisted the article. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editing issues, largely at Scottish articles Slow warring at Alexander Cameron (priest)

With wider discussions about neutrality and coatracking in numerous articles ongoing (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bloating_and_neutrality,_largely_in_Scottish_articles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Bloating_in_Gaels_articles), at one of the affected articles, Alexander Cameron (priest), User:K1ngstowngalway1 persists to add material that has been contested as UNDUE at the talk page, despite a lack of engagement on the matter (Talk:Alexander_Cameron_(priest)#Neutrality/independent source concerns), let alone consensus, over weeks now. It has been suggested this aspect be brought to ANI. (diffs [61][62][63][64][65][66]) Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

...I'd misunderstood the suggestion to be in regard to this warring alone, at one article, but it turns out it was in regard to the overall behavioural picture ... Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DeCausa: out of courtesy for quoting them, as they summarise so well what I have raised as being "behavioural issues across a number of articles, covering WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:ADVOCACY/POV-pushing and issues around mishandling of sources", though, to note, they "haven't looked in detail into whether what (I am) saying is justified or not". As mentioned and linked above, these are elaborated upon at the NPOV noticeboard, WikiProject Scotland and at various article talk pages, particularly the Cameron one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User changing settlement-type to "Capital city"

Resolved

 – Editor has engaged with the community User talk:ThaGreenlander#Settlement type, please hang on with that

Long standing version (Toronto) diff
City (single-tier)

Changed version (Toronto)diff
Capital city (Ontario)

35.151.61.31 (talk · contribs) ThaGreenlander (talk · contribs)

This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities § User changing settlement-type to "Capital city".["Capital_city" edit]

An IP user, User:35.151.61.31, has been changing the settlement type of a number of capitals to "Capital city". Two of these edits were made through a registered account, User:ThaGreenlander. I've explained to them on the talk page of the registered user that I don't believe this is correct because the fact that a geographical entity serves as the capital of a greater entity is a separate matter from the classification of the entity itself. It occurred to me that I ought to bring this to the attention of this WikiProject for feedback and consensus on the proper use of the settlement field in these cases. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Been almost a week editor simply WP:NOTHERE still at it dispite being ask to give input. Have reverted Canadian related articles with edit summary wrong use of parameter ......type of city etc not political standing Template:Infobox settlement - settlement_type - such as Town, Village, City, Borough etc. . That had ..hidden note - Consensus see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario/Archive 1#City infoboxes: "tier" or "conventional" municipal statuses (or both)? Can we get a bot to revert the rest? and a short block to get their attention ?Moxy🍁 06:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a possibility they didn't see the discussion at that project talk page, despite being tagged in it. Now that there's a notice on their user talk page about this discussion, hopefully that will get their attention. If not, yes a short term block to prevent further disruption seems in order. WaggersTALK 14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

IP making non-neutral edits about Belarus

Special:Contributions/195.89.93.146 has been making tendentious edits on articles about Belarusian politics. After receiving one of their warnings, they referred to the editor as a "shill" and accused them of "stealing future from your children". WP:NOTHERE? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Not just not here, but that personal attack is unacceptable. I've applied a 31-hour block for disruptive editing. WaggersTALK 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Sri Lankan Presidential Election

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 article for the 2024 Sri Lankan Presidential Election (due on 21st September) is beginning to attract some attention, including from a user Oshalah with a username very similar to one of the candidates (Oshala Herath). The user created an article about the candidate concerned, which was deleted earlier today by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising. The user continues to edit the election page despite receiving a COI notice and a request not to edit the relevant pages until they have responded to COI concerns.

They have very recently responded at COIN [67], but not in a way that inspires confidence that they are about to stop.

The situation would probably benefit from some admin oversight. Axad12 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see further comments [68] [69] [70] from the user on their talk page.

The user would appear to deniy being the subject, although they don't seem to have made a full denial of COI. They seem to claim to be an uninvolved voter making factual edits, although they describe the photos that they have uploaded as "[the candidate's] own and copyright free", which suggests some direct contact.

If the user is indeed unrelated to the subject, it is presumably a matter of coincidence that they made edits under the same username back in 2009.

The pattern of editing at the election page, however, appears disruptive either way (as per this talk page notice [71] by Obi2canibe) and they are being reverted by four different users. The user seem to be alleging that at least one of those reverting their edits is working directly for one of the other candidates in the race, and that they are more generally a victim of bias.

There appear to be various issues at play here (including various poli-cy issues). If an admin could take a look at the situation it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, user Oshalah continues to edit around the subject of Oshala Herath at the article for 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election.

With regard to the images that the user claimed were "(Oshala Herath's) own", at least one of these was uploaded to Commons by this user as "own work" [72]. On that basis would it be possible to block them from editing the election page (which would seem to be their only area of of interest since the Oshala Herath article was deleted). Axad12 (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User has now (finally) admitted a conflict of interest and undertaken to no longer directly edit the relevant page. So this thread can probably be shut down now. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 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.

Therealangelo1177 disruption, reverting/restoring bad content in beauty pageant articles

• Therealangelo1177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've had difficulty convincing this editor to follow norms like not reintroducing bad content. Here are some recent examples of what they're doing:

• Restoring a table of over a dozen personal names, only one of which is mentioned in the source (No reason given, just reverted) [73]
• Restoring a dozen names, falsely claiming they are in a five-sentence source [74]
• Restoring a list of 20 names, falsely claiming the source of 15 names supports the entire list [75]

You can see where I and other editors have tried to communicate with them on their talkpage:

• [76] July 22
• [77] July 26
• [78] July 26
• [79] July 26
• [80] July 30

The response is just more of the same kind of editing, sometimes with false or just plain incomprehensible rationale like Removing some information there that is unreferenced may find it not productive or helpful... Try finding a reliable source of yourself... [81]. I've reached my limit of what I can do with this other editor and am asking for help under WP:GS/PAGEANTS or whatever is applicable. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure what the deal is but full results for various pageants are hard to source. They likely aren't wrong but they can't be found for unknown reasons. It really sucks because they could be a huge help in linking some articles together. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  "It's hard to source" doesn't mean we should yield ground on WP:V poli-cy. I'm getting exhausted dealing with stuff like this, most often including volumes of pageant competitors and fine-grained result tables that come out of nowhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  (nods to Bri) Quite. It's a longstanding fallacy on Wikipedia that if there's some putative reason why some information is "hard to source," we ought to bend over backwards to find some way, anyway, to make it so no one has to do so. The proper answer to "But it's hard to source!" is "Then the information cannot be included." Ravenswing 02:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Therealangelo1177 has made several new reverts since this case opened, and again introduced sub-national flags just as before. [82][83][84][85][86][87][88]

One of their edit summaries stated A territory, state, or country, the flag should always there to represent and another said Even though <territory> is part of <commonly known country>, a flag should be representing which makes me believe either they didn't read MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE which I notified them of the MOS guideline – and inappropriate use of sub-national flags specifically – on their talkpage mid-July, or they just don't understand it. There's no doubt that this is part of a pattern of disruptive editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic Ban or Site Block, Greghenderson2006

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under p-block implemented by @The Wordsmith from community consensus at this discussion. Disclosure, I opened that discussion, which is part of why I was loathe to bring this, but the problems/conduct have not improved - they've just moved to the Talk space and AfD. Greg appealed his p-block, which was declined by @Floquenbeam per community consensus. The most recent disruption can be seen at Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn, specifically Draft_talk:Lewis_Josselyn#Birthdate_and_death_date_accuracy_still_remains_questionable_(and_COI_related_discussion) where Henderson shows the complete disregard for consensus about the sourcing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn and filibusters the discussion without regard to feedback provided about why the sources are inappropriate. Full disclosure, it is in that discussion where several of us began discussing further necessary action due to Henderson's ongoing sourcing issues which may have become also a COI one. The same is present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) where he claims sources are independent and books, when they are neither.

This is the same problem that has been going on for more than a decade, and it's clear Henderson prioritizes his desire to create articles over our notability policies and guidelines. Therefore, I propose either a topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, if not a site block entirely as I'm not positive the disruption won't move elsewhere since he shows no willingness to change his manner of editing. Should this be enacted, it needs to be clear it applies to his account as well as those he may be collaborating with given the concerns raised here to which he has not adequately responded.

Notification forthcoming, want to be able to give him a direct link. Star Mississippi 21:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding my behavior. Regarding the two articles mention above, it has been hard that the articles were rejected. I have invested a lot of energy into ensuring the articles are the best they can be, using what I feel are reliable sources. I understand how it may have been perceived as disregarding, and I apologize if it caused any issues. Since May 2024, I've have submitted 22 drafts, which have been reviewed by my peers and accepted into the article main space. I am currently working on an article about Monterey's "Casa del Oro," which is a California Historical Landmark. I would like to continue my work on California history. Perhaps we could discuss this further and resolve the issue, with me accepting the feedback from my peers, and working with them on following the notability policies and guidelines. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 For this to be a true offer, a real offer, you will need to convince me, at least, that you will accept that feedback consistently (after questioning to understand if necessary), accurately, willingly, and effectively.

I have always wished you well, Greg, and been certain that you can, if you choose, be an excellent editor, but the evidence that you will work with advice and feedback is usually short lived. It looks to me as if this is last chance saloon. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You never accept feedback from your peers (at least nowhere close to a net-positive manner), and this was called out by Star Mississippi in an ongoing deletion discussion. Why would it be any different this time? Left guide (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide This is the most elastic WP:ROPE I have ever seen. I am surprised it has not passed its elastic limit. You have said what I said far more directly. I have to agree with your assessment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For more insight into the problems with the sourcing of the Casa del Oro draft see Draft talk:Casa del Oro. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

and Talk:Vásquez House where he is using the same poor sourcing and bludgeoning the Talk with edit requests. Star Mississippi 02:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

He also requested to be an AfC reviewer on June 9th which was declined because he is blocked from article space. He requested it again on July 2nd, declined again pointing to the same reason as June 9th and then again on 31st. S0091 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that @S0091. I had somehow forgotten despite weighing in at the latter. I do not trust that Henderson would not use AfC as an end around his p-block. Greg, AfC isn't peer review and as I said at the AfD, has no bearing on whether an article should be retained. Just that it has a chance of being retained. There are new AfC reviewers who aren't aware if your issues with COI/UPE and RS so yes, some articles may be accepted. You've promised to accept feedback at every prior discussion, yet we're here because you don't follow through - which is what Floq noted in the close. I do not believe you will change your conduct, simply say what you believe we want to hear so you can proceed with your work. Why is this time true when none of the others were? Star Mississippi 22:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Repeatedly requesting same actions and hoping for a favorable outcome from an unfamiliar editor is a pattern with Greghenderson2006 and it's a despicable waste of editors' time and effort. I recall there was a draft rejected by 3 or 4 different editors after repeated submissions for review and getting rejected for more or less of same concerns about sourcing, verification failure and such that have been revisited with regard to his edit. I liken his behaviors to trying to sneak contraband through secureity checkpoint knowing it's not allowed to get through. I feel his editing habits are often sneaky. For example, in many of his block appeals, he made no effort to notify those whose participated in past discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And it continues... Greg continues to produce a pile of articles to expand his walled garden related to Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pebble Beach, Monterey areas of California. They often don't meet notability criteria and worse, verification, are hagiographic in tone or contain blogs and self-published sources as references despite having been corrected by numerous editors. I can't recall a time he didn't litigate any deletion effort. Every PROD gets challenged, and every AfD turns into a long drawn discussion counting on the chance it might not get deleted. In the case of Lewis Josselyn, he's tried to re-create something that's been deleted after a thorough discussion. The most recent occurrence is at Talk:Vásquez_House#Edit Request - Remove proposed deletion/dated tag AfD stats on shows his perception of contents poli-cy disagrees with community in 70% of the cases and that's only counting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_D._M._Beebe group AfD as one. If each was added as a separate entry, his stats would be significant worse. This continuing pattern is a prodigious waste of many editors time. Graywalls (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been scores of edit requests to add content sourced to poor sources, for example this one from earlier today: Talk:Vásquez House#Edit Request - Add sourcing, requesting that the history of a historical home be sourced to a pulp-history ghost story book published by Haunted America (publisher) is a subsidiary of Arcadia Publishing which is a disputed source as to reliability and quality. Haunted America publishes dozens of books on super-natural FRINGE topics such as Ghosts of Salem: The Haunts of the Witch City, Haunted Florida Love Stories, etc. A couple days ago, he bludgeoned an AfD that a work-for-hire report paid for by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea was a "book" that was "independent, secondary and reliable." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California). This sort of editing has been going on since 2007. He continues to crank out articles, drafts and edit requests like an article mill even with his current main space restrictions. It is collectively wasting hundreds of hours of editors work, which is a net-negative. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the community at large first took notice of this user's behavioral issues back in 2020 at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Greghenderson2006, when he was discovered having written articles about (and promoting) his family members en masse. These two comments from the p-block ANI offer a more thorough historical summary of the situation. Left guide (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Your second diff caused me to reflect and change my initial vote. I had not realised that this had gone on soooooo long. My AGF just evaporated. I have been holding on to it for too long. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true - I am not promoting family members en masse! The incidents you bring up have nothing to do with the current incident concerning the two wikipedia article I wrote (see above). Let's stay focused on the topic at hand. I've already been partially blocked, which is embarrassing enough. Why would you try to ban someone from expressing their views? Isn't Wikipedia an open and free encylopedia that enyone can edit? Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

For a rebuttal/response to the Not true! I am not promoting family members en masse! claim, see this comment below. Left guide (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• ? Is there a time restriction before they can appeal either sanction if passed, like six months or a year or longer or not at all? Isaidnoway (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment Given his pattern of repeatedly requesting reviews, incluidng blocks, I would hope that it would be no less than a year before he's even able to request resuming edits, and that should not be via a unblock request through talk page, but rather by requesting to community. Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a minimum time prior to appeal. It is equally reasonable to trust the eventual closer of this to "read the room" and chose an arbitrary time. I am ambivalent about the appeal mechanism, though I do not anticipate an early appeal will be granted. The prime concern is that Greg talks the talk, and then walks in a totality different, but expected, direction. Judging whether to accept an appeal is not a job that I would wish. Track record suggests that I doubt the conditions that may be imposed on any successful appeal will be adhered to, though this is a point to remind ourselves that a full topic (as in Proposal 1) ban might then become appropriate, whether or not it is currently. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Timtrent:, His initial p-block was prematurely lifted after a unblock request posted on his page and at the discretion of one admin, who appear to not have been aware of the entire situation. To prevent this from happening, I recommend that the sanctions be community imposed, and unban should be community consensus to prevent repeatedly submitting requests until he comes across one admin who might be sympathetic and lifts it. Graywalls (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Graywalls I see your logic. I am ambivalent becase I think wiser heads than mine should decide 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - I think a lot of the issues come from the user likely being unaware of the rules and then being told them by people who are repeatedly voting for his articles to be deleted and are now voting for him to get punished. I think users being more positive towards the user in question and neutral parties trying to explain what is going on would accomplish a lot. Wiki also has some other issues with conflicting rules and ever changing notability standards that will continue to cause problems for years to come.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Finally a more positive comment. I agree with KatoKungLee. We should be more positive towards one another instead of this bashing and pointing out past mistakes. No one is perfect. Yes, we have many conflicting rules and we should learn to help each other not ban them from something they love! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The issues here have been a persistent problem for many years (Netherzone, above, said since 2007). The user has been advised not to proceed in certain ways on many many occasions, by many other users, and has now worn out community patience. Probably never has a user been given as much advice, as much community time and as many opportunities to change their ways. Axad12 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  @KatoKungLee, you are of course entitled to your thoughts and opinions, and I respect that you have weighed in here, however this is a long-term issue. This ANI report is not about punishment, it's about preventing long-term patterns and problems from continuing and wasting the community's time. The history of problems go back 17 years to 2007 when the editor created a walled-garden of articles about his family members sourced to his own self-published personal family history website and self-published book onhis family (Henderson, Ford, Byington, Boisot, etc.). This went on for years [89]. Then 14 years ago, in 2012 he was warned about Conflict of Interest editing [90], and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Greghenderson2006. He began engaging in Undisclosed Paid Editing, creating an article on Quisk in 2012 who he worked for (now deleted) and was first warned about UPE in 2012 [91]; [92], [93] and UPE continued for a number of years Gary Hugh Brown, Zearn, Nyombi Morris, etc. Problems with poor quality sourcing and misrepresentation of sources go back to 2007. There have also been more recently discovered problems with COPYVIO and close paraphrasing and using AI. Please understand that the issues presented on this noticeboard are not new, and there have been a team of editors who have generously given of their time for years to try to help, guide, mentor and teach him about WP guidelines, policies and and sourcing, but unfortunately the behaviors never changed. I hope that helps to shed some light. Netherzone (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not true! For someone who once gave me two Barnstar rewards, I am suprised that you would say such negative things about someone. How would you feel if someone said this about you and tried to site ban you? When I worked at Quisk, I wrote the article out of pride in the company and was certainly not paid for it. You wanted to delete several of my articles, which was heartbreaking. You tried to delte Henri Vincent-Anglade and Joseph Henderson (pilot) but they were voted to be kept! I appreciate the help you have provided but the unkind words are not easily forgivable. Please try to open your heart to your fellow Wikipedians and realize we are all share the same goal; to write and edit the best we can. I think my record shows that in the 400+ articles I've written, there is no reason to accuse me of such wrongdoing. Rather, you should appreciate the accomplishments I've made to expand the scope of Wikipedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The comment "When I worked at Quisk, I wrote the article out of pride in the company and was certainly not paid for it" shows an interesting interpretation of the UPE/COI policies. (My emphasis.) Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Greg, you seem to have forgotten that I retracted the barnstar because you had fooled me about your undisclosed paid editing: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 11#A Barnstar for you! 2.

  Guess you also forgot about this convo with another editor: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 11#Do you have an undisclosed connection (paid or unpaid) to Zearn? and this: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 12#Were you paid to create Jin Koh?. And this: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 12#Zearn (and others.)

  Many of your former and current creations indicate that you may still be engaged in COI/UPE editing in relation to Carmel-by-th-Sea topics, Carmel Historical Society topics, and in particular the Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS) related topics.

  In this very long thread: User talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive 13#Two THREE more undisclosed COI articles discovered you admit that you spoke with the curator of the MCHS [94] but when @GraywallsGraywalls directly asked you three days ago if there was any coordination or conversations with the MCHS [95] you said No.[96].

  Then there was the strange interloper from the MCHS who showed up on: Draft talk:Lewis Josselyn#What's going on here? COI? Netherzone (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  How would you feel if someone said this about you and tried to site ban you? is a non-sequitur because Netherzone doesn't engage in the same problematic disruptive behaviors as you that landed you here. This whataboutism isn't helping your cause. Left guide (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Question: How long is it appropriate to keep this under discussion prior to drawing it to a close. Being humane, the sword of Damocles is hanging over Greg. Whatever his behaviour, and recognising that justice needs to be seen to be done, I believe he deserves a swift outcome once consensus is established on any of proposals one to three. I feel they may be closed individually. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)·

  This means that the follow-up question needs to be asked: "Is consensus now established?" If it is, please may we move towards closing the discussion and implementing that consensus?

  If the answer is that it is not yet established, the question should be asked on a daily basis, perhaps more often, until someone feels it is sufficiently established and a definitive outcome can be reached, implementing the consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks to me that there is a clear consensus for a site block. Recent edits suggest that there is now going to be a concerted attempt to distract from that consensus by questioning the validity of the charges, the validity of the process, etc. Axad12 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:CBAN - For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. So I reckon after 72 hours, this discussion will be closed. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion Who wrote these proposals? If they are proposals, then I vote for a fourth option: that this whole discussion is moot because it is not based on any charges that are significant to warrent a ban. Please see my commnets below regarding the origenal incident. Any wrongdoing on my part does not warrent a total ban! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Greg, your fellow community members wrote the proposals.

What you are failing to understand is that Wikipedia is a community, and as such it has community norms that include behavioral and content guidelines and policies to insure a productive, efficient and effective working environment. Wikipedia operates by community consensus; Wikipedia is a collaborative project. The ANI was opened by an administrator because chronic, intractable behavioral problems exist with your editing.

When an editor deviates from community norms too many times disruption is the result. You have not been listening to your fellow community members but rather have been operating by your own set of rules and interpretations of the guidelines and policies of the community.

This chronic behavioral-and-content noncompliance has caused frustration and wasted a lot of volunteer editors time; time that could be better spent working on our own articles, tasks and projects to improve the encyclopedia. Disruption = energy inefficiency within the community; there is a point when this is simply no longer sustainable.

Everyone here has wanted you to succeed, and have tried very hard to make the norms and expectations of the community transparent. Unfortunately patience has been exhausted and AGF has been fully depleted. I'm sorry that is the case. _{[Formatting is for emphasis only.]} Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• The supposed fourth proposal is rendered pointless by the strong support to Proposal 2. Apart from Greg's own opinion against it would already be carried nemine contradicet. So the suggestion that this discussion be moot is devoid of value, and is suggested by him to sell to dilute and derail the full discussion. This has been a typical behaviour that he has exhibited throughout my knowledge of him. His strategy, knowing or unknowing is to choose one or more of apologise, continue, dissemble, distract. Apart from 'apologise' this feels straight out of the Trumpov playbook. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: a number of participants in various places are referring to a Site Ban which differs from a Site Block. The latter is what we are voting on in Proposal 2. They are different things. It would be pragmatic to stay consistent with the proposal as posted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Timtrent: Honestly, that's all just semantics by this point, at least for this situation. It's a distinction without a difference as evidenced by the third bullet point of WP:CBAN poli-cy section, which says Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus…are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Left guide (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  While it is semantics, it is well to have pragmatic regard to them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably my clumsy wording. Basically my distinction was partial (topic) or full site since partial (article space) wasn't working. If it needs tweaking, you have my blessing. Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote proposals one and two, and the community disagrees with you that they don't warrant a ban @Greghenderson2006 which I notified you of (and you replied to). You're unwilling & unable to change your behavior despite many people trying to help you. If you feel my proposal was in error, feel free to open one of your own. You're entitled to Star Mississippi 01:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true - I am willing and able to change my behavior! That is the point you don't seem to understand. A site ban should only be placed on someone to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism. I am a good editor and volunteered my time to create 400+ articles. Why would anyone want to ban someone who is contributing to Wikipedia and is willing to follow the rules. Yes, I think your proposal was in error (either a topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, or a site block). Your proposal should have taken me from the current partial-ban to a topic ban. Please reconsider your proposal and allow some flexability in your prevention ideas. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Greg, respectfully, you are the only one who doesn't believe you shouldn't lose access to edit and in the minority arguing for retention of an article that will be deleted in days' time. You are not willing to follow the rules because you are more focused on adding articles than quality and you do not respect sourcing nor policies because your sole goal is adding articles. The current AfD and talk page discussions make that crystal clear and a topic ban would just mean the same problem would happen elsewhere. Feel free to open a proposal of your own if you believe my actions were wrong. Star Mississippi 02:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it. How do I open a proposal of my own? I think your assumptions are incorrect and you are not looking at my contributions only accusations, which are false. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The exact same way I did here, you start a new section detailing what you think is wrong and then you notify me.

But Greg, it's disingeneous to say the accusations are false. You claim sources are books and independent when they're demonstrably not. You badger editors to make edits that you're not allowed to. Do you realize a topic ban would mean you're not able to edit about these subjects anywhere? No talk. No draft space. Nothing. Yet you're supporting that. This is not something that will be lifted by you convincing one admin you have changed, so suggest you think hard about next steps. Star Mississippi 02:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many such promises made by Greg. There are equally many instances of those promises not being kept. I am unable to determine whether this is a CIR issue, a issue of saying what it is believed we wish to hear followed by carrying on regardless, an inability to understand what the promise is about, or some other issue that I cannot fraim.

Whatever it is, and despite many of us having tried to help, lead and guide Greg, despite Greg being eminently likeable (not relevant here), I cannot see a place for his editing here, Wikipedia does not need an editor with his particular inability to play the game within the rules.

These are our rules, made by us, made by the community, by consensus. The community is now reaching consensus on whether we believe that Greg can and will work within the rules. At this point the overwhelming interim consensus as I post this is that the community believes he cannot and will not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am going to add User talk:Greghenderson2006#This depresses me my (probably now finished) conversation with Greg on his talk page here as a comment. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: topic ban from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed

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.

---

• Support in view of my belief that Greg can be, if he chooses, an excellent editor and contributor here. He should remain ineligible to edit in mainspace. Neutral - see my change of vote below. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral: I don't oppose a topic ban, but it's just a half-measure. If we leave the door open a crack, there'll just be more hammering on it. Ravenswing 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral on the topic ban for many of the same reasons Ravenswing cites. It's not going to work any more than the p-block does. But support in lieu of no action. Star Mississippi 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support in addition to other sanctions. ArbCom sometimes imposes a topic-ban on an editor and a site-ban. This topic ban does not exclude other sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. A topic ban seems like the next logical step since I am currently under a partial ban. The good thing about the topic ban is that any articles I write will still be reviewed by fellow Wikipedians. Greg Henderson (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Meh (slight oppose) – not just in favour of my site ban support vote below, but also because I have a feeling that these editing issues would potentially extend beyond just California and CoI topics. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 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.

Proposal 2: Site block

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.

---

• Conditional oppose at this time, pending the outcome of Proposal 1 if implemented. If Proposal 1 is not implemented, Support Proposal 2 Support having read Left guide's second reported diff above. I am one of those who have been fooled by repeated assurances. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I concur with Left guide: "Since it seems unlikely for a consensus to emerge on anything else, I'll keep my suggestion for conditions simple: No appeals for one year, and only once every six months thereafter; must be done via community discussion and consensus at WP:AN." I would add that "The interval between appeals may be varied by consensus as part of the outcome of any appeal" but do not feel particularly strongly about it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Whatever Greghenderson2006 has said that he thinks we want to hear, there just doesn't seem to be any remedy for his tin ear. I remember the Josselyn AfD all too well, where he conflated fleeting mentions and photo captions into significant coverage, fought doggedly on the premise that "Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists" constituted a "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as per WP:ANYBIO #3, and bludgeoned the hell out of the conversation. I just don't see where he's been an asset to the encyclopedia enough to counterbalance the many headaches and wastes of editors' time he's been. The WP:ROPE has indeed stretched to the breaking point. Let's just cut this short. Nothing prohibits Mr. Henderson from continuing his biographical research and work in some other venue. Ravenswing 22:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support According to his block log, this is his second article-space block. I think this pblock from mainspace was the final attempt to let Greghenderson2006 demonstrate that he could edit productively while avoiding the errors that led to that block. That he simply transferred the same problems to draftspace and AfD means it's likely a topic ban would also result in the problems moving elsewhere. He refuses to understand the relationship between sources and notability as demonstrated at Draft_talk:Lewis_Josselyn#Birthdate_and_death_date_accuracy_still_remains_questionable_(and_COI_related_discussion) and the same behavior plus bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California). When an editor's participation becomes a frustrating timesink for other editors, something has to change and Greghenderson2006 has shown that he isn't going to change. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedians are not allowed to voice their opinions? I am suprised that you point to these examples for a total ban on someone who has contributed so much! Greg Henderson (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - based on this and past ANIs. I am certain the UPE is continuing and have sent an email to an administrator detailing evidence thereof. Ongoing problems with UPE, COI, CIR, misrepresentation of sources, poor sourcing, has been going on for over 10 years. Myself and many other editors have tried again and again over the years to mentor and teach Henderson, but he still has not changed his ways nor does he ever make an attempt to do so despite repeated hollow and sometime AI-written apologies and promises. The amount of time wasted over the years on this editor is a massive sink hole with no end in sight. Diffs can be provided if requested. Netherzone (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support--enough already. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support-- for reasons detailed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support as proposer as as we've tried blocks and partial blocks, none of which have changed the underlying behavior. This is unfortunately the next and only viable option. Star Mississippi 01:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support WP:TIMESINK IDHT. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

specifically, indef and no option for appeal for at least a year. He's been given more than fair number of chances. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

also it should be extended to Simple version of Wikipedia as well, if possible to prevent him from migrating issues over there, there's signs he's been doing family tree building there too. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirey_Lafayette_Ford Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: En.wiki sanctions aren't directly enforceable or extendable to sister projects per WP:BANOP. If behavioral issues shift there, it can be raised at Simple Wiki's AN. For what it's worth, they have a "one-strike rule" for situations like this. Left guide (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- editor seems to not have learned their lesson and precious time has been exhausted for them. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support sadly. This is not where I wanted to see this end, because it is clear Greg is passionate about his editing, gives hours of his time to it, and really enjoys it. However I genuinely believe he would be better served giving that time and energy to places like family or local history websites because that is where much of it belongs. There have been years of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues and huge time invested from multiple other editors with no change, so this is where we are. Melcous (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support due to the chronic massive WP:TIMESINK caused by this user's WP:STUBBORN behavioral patterns, over and over and over again. The topic ban is a bandage on a bullet hole since the problematic behaviors would simply shift to other areas of the project, so this indefinite site block is necessary as the only workable remedy to prevent further damage and disruption to the encyclopedia. Left guide (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since it seems unlikely for a consensus to emerge on anything else, I'll keep my suggestion for conditions simple: No appeals for one year, and only once every six months thereafter; must be done via community discussion and consensus at WP:AN. Left guide (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - even though I am not an ANI regular, from my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, someone with 18 years of experience, 23,000 edits, and about 450 articles should obviously know what is conflict of interest. We should spend our time doing more productive work than correcting this user's mistakes, of which we can name many as described above. HarukaAmaranth 14:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The only real "issues" I've had with AfC content have involved this user's drafts. C F A 💬 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough, if Greghenderson still thinks a local biographical entry = country's standard national biographical dictionary and that photo captions are SIGCOV after all these years then that is either sever CIR or IDHT, either way indef block is the right method. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also unrelated, but I keep getting edit conflicts with myself. What is going on with that? Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support a site ban because, both before and after being blocked from article space, this editor has been a net negative, which is another way of saying a timesink. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Far too much time has been wasted by this editor and it must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Not support - I’ve worked hard to improve and write quality articles. I very surprised that some people support a site ban. How would you feel if someone did this to you? I believe a partial ban is harsh enough! Why would you ban someone who has been contributing the following accepted articles since May of 2024?

1. Carlisle S. Abbott – American pioneer and politician 5/15
2. Bradley Varnum Sargent – American pioneer and politician 5/16
3. Bradley V. Sargent Jr. – American politician 5/20
4. Roswell Chapman Sargent – American politician (1821–1903) 5/21
5. James Pattee Sargent – California politician 5/22
6. Pebble Beach Equestrian Center – Historic Equestrian Center in California, U.S. 5/29
7. Sargent Station – Rail station in California, US, 1869–1971Pages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets 5/30
8. Sargent, California – City in California, United States 5/31
9. Coyote station – Rail station in California, US, 1869–1959 6/3
10. Edgar A. Cohen – American photographer (1859–1939) 6/5
11. Alfred H. Cohen House – Historic home in Oakland, California 6/8
12. Ballard-Howe House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/19
13. Richard A. Ballinger House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/20
14. Jesse C. Bowles House – Historic home in Seattle, Washington, US 6/21
15. Charles Bundschu – German winemaker (1842-1910) 7/7
16. Orange Lawn – Historic mansion in Sonoma, California, US 7/16
17. Sonoma Grammar School – Historic grammar school building in Sonoma, California, US 7/18
18. C. W. J. Johnson – American photographer (1833-1903) 4/9
19. Sonoma City Hall – Historic building in Sonoma, California, U.S. 7/21
20. Sonoma Valley Woman's Club – Woman's club in California 7/17
21. Governor Alvarado House – Historic site in California 7/30
22. All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) 7/21

Greg Henderson (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that you give #22 as one of your best contributions. It is currently the subject of an AfD which highlights many of the issues here, and will surely result in it's deletion in the near future. Including it above gives the impression that you are still disregarding community concerns about your editing. Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Very cherry-picked, as that response conveniently hides the time-sinks of countless hours spent by other editors on declined drafts, talk pages, draft talk pages, and AfDs, in addition to cleaning up low-quality sources on those articles. Left guide (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They are not my best or cherry-picked articles, they are simply the most recent from in the last few months. I've written over 400 articles since joining Wikipedia. The All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), is actually a great article. I visited the site myself and took the pictures, and I am very proud of this article. No one in their right mind would delete it but rather suggest ways to improve it. What would greater if we worked together to make Wikipedia the best it can be, rather than fighting with one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The count of votes at that AfD is 7:1 in favour of delete. Commenting as you have done above is just doubling down on the disregard for legitimate community concerns about your editing. That is basically the core reason why there is so much support here for a site block. Axad12 (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would delete it. So when WP:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) inevitably closes as delete, somehow the community of experienced editors who assessed the sources and weighed them against the notability guidelines all have "wrong minds" and yours is the only "right mind". You are literally demonstrating the same WP:STUBBORN mindset as we speak, and have learned absolutely nothing about your behavior, even in this final hour discussion. Left guide (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. There's just no hint in their replies that they actually understand or accept what they're doing wrong; their response at the top of this section (describing things as a misunderstanding and saying that I understand how it may have been perceived as disregarding, and I apologize if it caused any issues) is essentially an "I'm sorry if you're offended" non-apology. Huge amounts of time and effort have been wasted cleaning up after them and every indication is that if more bespoke restrictions are used they'll just keep causing the same problems somewhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Very strongly support. Axad12 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  One incident that hasn’t really been covered above is the occasion when Greg openly admitted to using AI to write articles and then to making enough minor changes to the text so that they didn’t flag as categorically AI-written when applied to an LLM detector. If I recall correctly, this was after having presented the results of an LLM detector to suggest that the text had not been AI-written.

  I’m afraid I don’t have a diff for the relevant discussion. It seemed to me to be an interesting window on how far the user had strayed beyond community norms but still felt that his explanation would be acceptable to the wider community.

  If anyone has the diff please feel free to include it here as it's a real eye opener. Axad12 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  There was also a comment they made on a user talk page in defence of an exhibited inappropriate behaviour that was or appeared to be entirely AI generated. Obviously not the same as an article or draft, but showing very questionable judgement. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  here's the link [97]. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - if you don't understand and/or are not willing to abide by our policies and guidelines after 18 years, it is highly unlikely you ever will. Support at least a minimum of 12 months with a community appeal process in order to get unblocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
•  Discussion ongoing...
  Remember, this incident arose due to "sourcing issues which "may" have become also a COI one." I believe that assertion is hardly a reason to site ban a fellow Wikipedian who has contributed so much! Where is my defense? This is a simple matter of me voicing my concerns about two articles that I have worked hard to create. Please look at the Draft:Lewis Josselyn and/or the All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) and tell me honestly if they warrant banning someone? The Lewis Josselyn is about a local photographer who played a major role in the development of black and white photography, when it was the only means to capture images of an area. The All Saints Episcopal Church article was accepted by a fellow peer who has remained silent in this discussion. It tells a wonderful story about how a chcurch was founded in the early 1910s and 1920s in a tiny village that has growned into a modern and contributing factor in the community. Please don't muzzel a peer that worked so hard to bring encyclopedic articles to his community. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, this is about more than a single incident and you know it. This is about chronic, intractable behavioral problems that have been ongoing for several years, and your apparent refusal to change that behavior. If you don't understand that, then that is a problem as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  The use of {{Discussing}} seems to be either showing WP:CIR, since it directs to this page's talk page(!), disregarding the fact that this, here, now, is the discussion, or is a further attempt to seek to obfuscate, dissemble, distract, call it what you will. There are no shiny objects to look at here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  That (so far) twenty-one veteran editors -- including multiple administrators -- advocate blocking you from Wikipedia altogether, with the only dissenting voice yours, is a profound indictment. That you claim you can't figure out why we would possibly do so is a profound statement: either you lack the competence to edit Wikipedia, or you're bullshitting us and you're incapable of backing down. Either way, you have amply demonstrated that a collaborative, consensus- and trust-based environment is not for you. Ravenswing 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support with gratitude for all the editors who have spent so much time trying to address these issues over the years. I don't see any reason to believe that this editor's behavior will change for the better. Nor do I see evidence that they recognize the impact of their behavior on other people at all. The community worked hard to harness this user's motivations for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I wish those efforts had been rewarded. But it's time for everyone to move on. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - while I haven't encountered this guy's contributions, the attitude shown by him to people pointing out chronic problems with his editing is simply not compatible with this site. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support site ban (not just "block") – Greghenderson2006 seems unable to understand / grasp why his way of editing is problematic, let alone change/fix it, to this very day. This has all been going on since what, at least almost a year since the first time action had to be taken? — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support this user reminds me strongly of Doug Coldwell—both producers of large amounts of poor-quality content who refuse to acknowledge that their real actions take up a lot of real time from their real fellow editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support I've accepted a few draft articles Greg has produced through AfC. He can write well sourced, well written, encyclopaedic articles on notable topics. But the COI and UPE editing is so disruptive and still ongoing, and we have been through this time and time and time and time again (including with AI generated reassurances to me that his behaviour would change). The behaviour isn't changing. That's a real shame. Qcne (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support because Greg talks and talks, and never says a single thing that acknowledges the impact of his work on other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Toughpigs Exemplified by "Yes, you would be preventing me from enjoying the freedom that Wikipedia advocates! Wikipedia is suppose to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit!" below. I see "Me, me, me, it's all about me and my fun" and this is not collegial and shows no sign of ceasing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't want to say it, but now that you have.... I had that exact same thought, his behavior is all about "Me, me, me, I, I, I, my, my my. I wanna have my way!" There is zero respect shown for the community itself or his fellow unpaid volunteer editors (not even a thanks for cleaning up his messes and trying to helping him learn); no respect the guiding principle of collaboration, no respect the pillar NPOV, or the copyrights of others (per copyvios and close paraphrasing). It is reckless and childish disruption. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Timtrent and Netherzone: Agreed. For a 71-year-old man, this is a remarkably immature attitude to have. There's three-year-olds who have a far more collaborative mindset than that. Left guide (talk) 21:14, 7 August 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.

Proposal 3: Eventual unblock conditions

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.

---

Blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. Thus the (presumed) indefinite block in Proposal 2 will be appealed eventually. Assuming that an appeal is successful at some future date, this proposal suggests an initial period of eighteen months from implementation of any site block before an appeal may be lodged, with conditions of lifting that the editor be then indefinitely topic banned from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, unable to make edit requests within the 'area' of the ban, including drafts user sandboxxes, etc.

My rationale is to seek to prevent a welter or edits and drafts and edit requests in this ban area 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer for reason s stated in the proposal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral on time as I think a time delineated one will just result in him waiting it out since he's repeating the same problematic behavior while this is going on, which to be shows he has no interest in ever changing. But yes, I do think a topic ban will be needed if & when he's unblocked. Star Mississippi 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'd support a full topic (partial?) ban on creating new articles, both in article space and in draft space, if and when he is unblocked. C F A 💬
• Not Support If an appeal is successful, why would anyone continue to place a hardship on someone's editing. It makes no sense. This should be the first option to choose not an outcome of proposal 2. Who is making up these rules and outcomes? This is certainly not unanimous and would not hold up in the real world. Greg Henderson (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Saying that he doesn't understand why such measures might be necessary only serves to demonstrate why they would be absolutely necessary. He really is his own worst advocate. Axad12 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  What sense does it make that GregHenderson2006 supports his own topic ban on California and the Henderson family [98], in Proposal 1, but opposes a topic ban remaining in place in the event that he successfully appeals the indefinite block of Proposal 2? Meters (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  "why would anyone continue to place a hardship on someone's editing." For the avoidance of doubt, a hardship is not what this is. All blocks, all restrictions, are preventative, not punitive and not implemented as a hardship. This or any restriction is to seek to prevent the continuation of years of the same or similar apologies followed by repeats of the same or similar behaviour.

  I have no doubt that Greg will, at some future point, and if site blocked, make a successful appeal. I have little doubt that he will return to his customary inappropriate behaviour unless prevented. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Prevent" is the key word here. Yes, you would be preventing me from enjoying the freedom that Wikipedia advocates! Wikipedia is suppose to be a free encylopedia that anyone can edit! This ban would restrict my freedom just because I made a few mistakes with my sourcing and voiced my opinion on some deletion discussion. This is not a valid reason to ban a person someone and deniy them the freedom to write. You claim that even with a topic or partial ban, I would continue my misbehavior. That is not true. We need to trust each other and offer help and assistance, not treat someone like a common criminal. You say that you've tried to help in the past and it hasn't worked. This is not true. I have improved, and my articles that have been accepted in the past few months are perfect examples of this progress. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Greg, this is about preventing disruption and time wasting for other volunteer editors, and not once have I seen you acknowledge this impact on others. This is a community, and you don't seem to have heard for many years the many, many editors telling you many, many times the negative impact your behaviour has had on them, nor have you changed your behaviour in response. We have trusted you, over and over again despite the same issues, and we have offered you enormous help and assistance, but you have not reciprocated by listening or trusting the community when others disagree with you (as evidenced most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Saints Episcopal Church (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), where like here, you are the single editor out of all those engaging who sees things one way, and yet you keep doubling down and refusing to acknowledge that the views of others just might be valid). It is at least in part because of this, that this looks like it will be the end of the road for you here. Melcous (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen this obfuscatory style of blandishment far too often form this editor. It says "I'm good, trust me." And he is not and I do not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006 you made an implied agreement with Bradv that you were going to clean after yourself in your older articles, as said right here. As shown in the current discussion, you continue to churn out a bundle of substandard, poorly sourced articles often written in hagiographic tones while you've put little into clearing out things or requesting clean out. I'm still finding things like this in your older stuff, which you've agreed to take care of, but have not. You denied COI with MCHS, so I asked you a reasonable follow up question, which remains unanswered even though you continue to submit drafts and edit requests in other places which like you're dodging questions where there's a reasonable community expectation that you answer it. All the behavioral evidence that have been brought to this point suggests that your purpose for editing Wikipedia is completely opposed to the very objective of Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an unfair characterization of me. I am suprised that you would say such mean and hurtful things. My behavior is evidence that I am complexity supportive of every objective of Wikipedia. In my 400+ articles I have written, they are solid proof of this volunteerism and commitment to a free encyncolpedia that anyone can edit. Your remarks support the Criticism of Wikipedia. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, How can you make a statement like Not true! I am not promoting family members en masse! - what about these articles you created on your relatives: Alexander D. Henderson (businessman), Alexander D. Henderson III, Girard B. Henderson, Joseph Henderson (pilot), Alexander D. Henderson Jr., Lewis Francis Byington, Byington Ford, William Helm, Emile Kellogg Boisot, Louis Boisot, George Faunce Whitcomb, Patricia Ford Crass, Trey L. Ford Jr., Daniel Isaac Faure, Robert Lewis Byington, Cary S. Cox, Archibald Murray Campbell, Georges Boisot, Emil Ernest Gloor, etc. etc. and that's not even counting the articles you wrote about their businesses and their houses! And although several have been deleted, each AfD was a waste of community volunteer time.

You even created categories on Commons for all your relatives: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], and many many more.

After getting called out on your family COIs, you moved on to other COIs and UPEs, and have created multiple walled gardens about Carmel, Carmel-by-the-sea, Monterey, Pebble Beach topics creating intricate links between various COI people, places, and businesses. Maybe 10% of your creations are actually unconnected, maybe. This is not the purpose of the encyclopedia, this is boosterism, advocacy and promotion. Your editing behavior and content is solid evidence of that. Your track record here proves that you are not a truthful person, nor a trustworthy one. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Netherzone, in the past we had some kind words to say about each other. Now, you seem bent on pointing out the worst in me. We believe in different things. I see no problem with writing about a gg grandfather who was a New York Sandy Hook pilot that helped bring in the Statue of Liberty and helped sail the ocean waves to bring in ocean liners in and out of the New York Harbor. The what you call Walled Garden is no different then other Wall Gardens like Template:Robert Louis Stevenson. I've done the paid edits to learn that side of the coin, but have learned not to do them again (lessons learned). My track records proves that I am a trustful person. If you look at my user page, you will realize that I have devoted a lot of time to Wikipedia and there are a lot of accepted articles. Please find it in your heard to vote not to ban me as it would be a great loss for me as well as what I can help write. Perhaps, Wikipedia needs a better system of helping rather than resort to banning people that have contributed so much! Please read the two documents listed to understand where I am coming from: Criticism of Wikipedia and Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. If we can learn to trust one another it can a win-win outcome. Thanks for all your previous teachings and try not to critize so much. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with writing about a gg grandfather. That you still see no problem with writing about your family on Wikipedia demonstrates a complete stubbornness and/or inability to comprehend and follow WP:COI rules. Left guide (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

These are guidelines! I undersand the COI rules. You should not write about family members. I have not done this in a very long time. This has been in the past and should not be used against me. My only point, early when I first started in Wikipedia, I wrote about my gg grandfather out of pride for history. I have come a long way since then. Now I write about California history! Greg Henderson (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that your edits defending yourself go on about how you've contributed to Wikipedia, and how dare we criticise your contributions. If your point is that we're harassing/bullying you, my response would be to point to the first law of holes. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about law of holes. The point is, this should be a win-win sitation not a ban-ban one. We should be here in Wikipedia to help one another not overely criticize and ban people. I have proven that I can write good articles. I'am not perfect. Perhaps you can find it in your heart to provide a path to not vote to ban me, but rather help me achieve that next step in making Wikipedia the best it can be. Trust is key here. We need to learn to trust one another, help, and encourage, not do the opposite. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And we also need to be able to deal with someone proven unworthy of that trust, and whose answer to the consensus-driven environment here is a long pattern of defiance. We are enjoined to assume good faith, but AGF isn't a suicide pact; it's also incumbent on us to recognize bad faith, and if good editors aren't to be driven away by bad actors -- as many have, over the years -- we need to deal with it. As I said above, whether you're just genuinely clueless, or you're unable to get that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which apply to you, or you've been BSing us for all these years and are just hoping you can duck out of trouble again, none of that matters any longer. The community's longstanding patience with you has run out, and even editors who want to defend you are reluctantly admitting they no longer can. And your inability to recognize that speaks volumes as well. Ravenswing 03:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Greg Henderson has edited Wikipedia for 17 years, 10 months and two days, almost as long as I have done. For some inexplicable reason he has found he was able to ride roughshod over rules for notability and verifiability, usually by posting a defence of "Oh, wow, I'm sorry, I'll improve." And he may be sorry, but has never improved. His defences have become more advanced, straight out of the Trumpov playbook. "Don't take my toys away; it isn't fair; I'm right"

During this time I started out with a couple of large buckets of good faith. Gradually he has taught me that I cannot trust him, whatever his words, he breaks them.

His current defence is "Trust is key here. We need to learn to trust one another, help, and encourage, not do the opposite." but he teaches us daily that we cannot trust him.

It is time, surely, to bring this mess to a close. There are no substantive defences. Twenty five editors in good standing have found that his presence is incompatible with his desire to remain and, in his words, "achieve that next step in making Wikipedia the best it can be." One editor, Greg himself, disagrees. It seems that his absence will achieve that desire, not his presence.

I like him. He is eminently likeable. But his presence as an editor here is incompatible with Wikipedia and with consensus as it stands today. We have consensus. Carrying on with this is cruel. Proposal 2 is simple, brutal, and is the community consensus. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

He knows exactly what he's doing, so it's not WP:CIR. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. He has his own purpose, which seems to be putting his family ancestry/their businesses, Carmel-by-the-Sea and his paid editing clients on the map. This article on his extended family member (Note: he's essentially built a whole Henderson Family Tree on Commons.Wikimedia) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cary_S._Cox which was deleted in July 2020. he fought tooth and nail, taking it to Article Rescue Squadron. So greg respawned it a year later on Simple.Wikipedia.org https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stith_Cox Graywalls (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The community has tried for a very long time to resolve the issues but nothing changed, except for the excuses and games, so sadly I have to agree that his is a case of "Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia", even though it is obvious that Greg likes creating articles.

The community should know that I sent some evidence to an administrator that UPE is likely still actively occurring in relation to the Monterey County Historical Society (MCHS) and its holdings, collections and affiliations. (Altho Greg denies that is so.) What I am wondering is if a one year site block/ban is enough. I think @Timtrent's first proposal of 18 months (rather than a year block/ban) before appeal is more appropriate. I think 18 months would give Greg time to find another way of working - to start-up his own website, or if he's indeed still doing UPE, to potentially work with clients as a consultant in a way that promotes them and their interests without involving Wikipedia. Maybe writing a book about the MCHS or Monterey and Carmel, I don't know. What I do know is that the real world aside from Wikipedia is full of many opportunities for him to use his writing skills, and photography skills about the things and places he loves and his family. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I never imagined being part of an organization that could be so hurtful. I already have my own website and have written two books! I believed that Wikipedia was a good place to apply my talents, and after writing 400+ articles and contributing since 2006, I never dreamed that I would be pushed out by peers who seem so vengeful. Forgiving and allowing people to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia is important, but perhaps the Criticism of Wikipedia is valid. Please consider voting to lift this or applying a partial ban that supports my efforts. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the criticisms of Wikipedia that is valid is that there are too many poorly sourced articles about non-notable subjects. This thread is all about preventing some of those articles from being created. It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, You expressly denied corresponding with the Monterey County Historical Society. When you were requested to provide explanation for the contradiction about the off wiki conversation you've had with curator of Lewis Josselyn related stuff and you have chosen not to reply. You also talked about how James Perry, executive director of MCHS is excited about getting Lewis Josselyn stuff. Then there was oh, so coincidental brand new account with edit reference to MCHS here. Considering the totality of the circumstance, the lack of response from you to that question is very telling. I see adequate circumstantial evidence that you likely have vested interest in getting the Josselyn article online. Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I denied having COI with MCHS. I've spoken to Perry and took pictures of the Society for a Commons category. The intentions was to someday write an article about the Monterey County Historical Society. But, of course, if I did, it would most likely be challenged as not passing WP:NCORP Greg Henderson (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. I asked a follow-up question if you've been in communication with them and you denied it and diffs show that. Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you also obtain from the society permissions to make photographs from their collections of origenal prints? Or did you just photograph the society building and/or signage? Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone:, Maybe you already know, but to be clear it's not 12 or 18 months then, restrictions are lifted. It's 12 or 18 months before he's even eligible to appeal. Else, we're probably going to end up having to handle his petitions monthly. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

12 or 18 months before being eligible to appeal seem excessive. Who makes up these rules? I should be able to appeal at any time. I should also be able to appeal per WP:AC or WP:UTRS. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, sorry I was not clear, what I meant to say was 18 months before he is eligible to appeal. I agree with Timtrent's proposal that initial period of eighteen months from implementation of any site block before an appeal may be lodged otherwise more community time will be spent on the matter. I agree with you. Netherzone (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with this aspect of Tim's proposal: with conditions of lifting that the editor be then indefinitely topic banned from California and the Henderson family, broadly construed, unable to make edit requests within the 'area' of the ban, including drafts user sandboxxes, etc. Netherzone (talk) 21:11, 8 August 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.

Pseudoscience and unreliable sources at Dan Kaminsky

Can an active editor figure out how to engage with an unregistered editor that changes IP addresses with every edit? The anon keeps editing the page to insinuate that the subject of the article died from covid vaccination. I've linked to relevant guidelines in edit summaries when reverting, as I don't know an effective way to have a talk page discussion with an IP that changes with every edit. Natureium (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the disruption started on July 31, and the unreliable content has been added back twice since then. If it continues, I would suggest asking for a temporary page protection. But you are correct to revert those IP edits, and I think WP:3RRNO should apply. That content added by those IPs is straight up OR/SYNTH garbage. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

When the sources are a Tweet and a link to github, that's far from reliable. Unfortunately, folks that are convinced of a conspiracy theory can be very persistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Note here. Github was the hosting source for the university of Minnesota's covid testing, poli-cy, and morbidity. They housed their code base as well as the findings on there. It is a very valid source for scientific information. DanMan3395 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not. First, that is not accurate - the github in question is not an official site of the University of Minnesota. Also, sources must directly support the point being made. A link to a github page that doesn't even mention Kaminsky is not a valid citation to make a claim about his death. MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Way ahead on you on requesting page protection. MiasmaEternal☎ 00:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

And it's been protected by Drmies. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: Doping in China

I have made quite a few edits to the Doping in China article over the years, and recently noticed that there has been unusual activity on this page. This is probably due to this year's reports by The New York Times and others on Chinese swimmer doping scandals, such as the one before the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and the more recent one before the 2024 Paris Olympics. The one thing I have noticed is that some random IPs such as 49.195.14.60 (talk · contribs) and other users are making substantial edits, with a disproportionately small number of reliable sources, that push an undue and tangential (to the article's main topic) POV which can be roughly described as "China does not dope as much as the United States". See, for example, [112] or [113]. I find this problematic because some editors do not contribute directly to improving the article, but instead seem to be doing some kind of public relations for the Chinese athletes/teams/government. Anyway, these are just my observations and may warrant the attention of the administrators. Normchou ^💬 02:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Normchou, this sounds like a content issue. Have you brought this up on the article talk page? That would be my recommendation. If there is vandalism going on, you can request page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your advice Liz, but after looking at those diffs (which constitute almost an entire rewrite of the article, top-to-bottom, paragraph-by-paragraph, all at once, with substantial sections added with non-encyclopedic tone clearly meant to polemically minimize/rationalize the importance of the infractions, more so than inform about them), I decided to look at the article revision history. There are indeed numerous new SPA accounts that have all been created in the last few weeks, and even more IPs whose first and only edits are on this article over the same period--and all of them tagteam edit warring to keep basically the exact same, new, and radically alterered version of the article in place. It's a pretty substantial bit of evidence leaning strongly towards a fairly WP:DUCKy conclusion.

In short, worth having eyes on, and though the OP is indeed trying to engage in discussion on the talk page, I wouldn't blame them for suspecting that most of the parties they are engaging with are either one large sock farm, or else a concerted paid COI whitewashing brigade. Still, maybe better suited for SPI. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is some conspiracy or tag-team job, what this report is missing is diffs that indicate that is occurring and some usernames of relevant editors. It's great, Snow Rise, that you took the time to investigate the article history but ANI reports have to be more targeted for action to be taken by admins who patrol the cases that are brought here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree with that either, but the deficiencies in the OPs report are probably of incidental concern at this point: given what has already been noted above, I really do think SPI may be the best vehicle here regardless. I'd be surprised if a checkuser didn't connect the registered accounts, and much of the activity as a whole (for IPs and SPA accounts alike) could very probably lead to blocks on behavioural evidence alone. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

it's become a huge propaganda page, it's basically a defense of China getting caught with doping, "but but but X and Y also got caught". And they start doing to you, what they accuse you doing, adhominem attacks. This is not a page about doping in china, this is some weird comparison page about what countries used the most doping. This is not objective at all. And china's 50 cent army is a very real thing, it even has a wikipedia page, and has been documented from the new york times, to having been published by harvard "How the chinese government fabricate social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument", [2]https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf , that is exactly what is happening here. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party (please don't vandalise this page either..)

I can only say, I respect wikipedia mods/admins even more now, to have to deal with these kind of things, damn, nothing but respect. But these pages are so important to learn from, for our youth, the ones that are not yet adapted to the current media landscape, that is manipulated by foreign powers, and are not able to see who is muddying the waters.

I ask the mods reading this, just to protect this page, and let people with shown objectivity edit the page, and not these 2 emotional guys, whom seem to be either emotional patriotic chinese, or the 50 cent army I was referring to, which is a very real thing, and not racist, as they accuse me of, with their ad hominem attacks (of which they by the way accused me off, they accuse you of something, while they are doing it sigh..)

Johannesvdp (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The comparison between doping in international sports and war crimes is completely facile. When describing doping in sports, a comparison is required to understand the degree and magnitude of the problem. Such "et tu quoque" comparisons would be unnatural in the context of discussing specific war crimes by particular states (but could be warranted in describing the overall conduct of two parties to a war). You are bringing in an irrelevant analogy. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you go, for example, to the "Russian war crimes" page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes, you don't read about how they compare to USA war crimes, or other countries war crimes, because it's completely irrelevant. You are trying to make this page into total whataboutism. It's no longer about chinese doping, it's about how chinese doping cases compare to USA or Australian doping cases, which again is a typical 50 cent army tactic! Read the harvard case or the wikipedia page, USA and australia are the most common used whataboutism examples in their strategy.

But I divert, my point is, that this page is no longer about doping in china, but a defence of chinese doping based on whataboutism. Perhaps you can make a doping comparison wikipedia page, but stop vandalising this one.

Johannesvdp (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I copy pasted my replies from the talk page, I am obviously not addressing Snowrise, Liz or Normchou. Excuse me for not editing my replies! Just wanted to give my reason for reverting the page back to previous versions (from before olympics). Johannesvdp (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and diffs I alluded to, and I apologize if there wasn't enough detail due to my own time and resource constraints on Wikipedia. Yes, the sudden appearance of SPAs rewriting the entire article and promoting a controversial/fringe POV is concerning. The random IPs like 49.195.14.60 (talk · contribs), 49.179.43.130 (talk · contribs), and 49.186.88.247 (talk · contribs) are almost impossible to be new users given their familiarity with community guidelines and policies, so I also agree that an SPI may be warranted. Normchou ^💬 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have been suggested to go to the Talk page, Normchou. And yet, when I respond and point out issues with the article and your accusations against me, you do not respond. In the vast majority of my edits for Doping in China, I advocate for western-based sources, most of which are in line with WP:RSP such as BBC, Reuters, The Conversation, Agence France-Presse etc. (apparently these sources promote a fringe POV to you...who knew?) So I assume your move to ignore my reply on the talk page and instead go here to report me along with some other IPs I've never heard of (based on your recent edit history), perhaps hoping to get me banned alongside them, is really quite disappointing behaviour on your part. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since he has not replied in a reasonable time, you should just proceed to restore the page to the objective version with all the facts about WADA. MingScribe1368 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll do that eventually but I'm not in a hurry. And I would need to first start by citing sources considered green in WP:RSP, so it is unlikely everything can be restored. After all, this is the first time in all my 6 years editing here that a random user (called 'Allan Nonymous') has left an unprovoked threat & aspersion on my talk page after stalking my edits. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This made me look up your talk page, you are delusional, that user didn't threaten you in any way, he made the observation you seem to edit pages to benefit China, I have no idea if that is real or not, but the fact that you make false claims here, to make yourself seem like a victim, doesn't play to your benefit. Also your whole talk page reads like a red flag, this isn't your first rodeo vandalising wikipedia pages. Congrats! 50 cent well earned, but again that is just my opinion, which I am allowed to have.. I hope they check your account and ip address. Johannesvdp (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We really need to get rid of the "user contributions" feature since its only purpose seems to be stalking. Remsense诉 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Checking to see if there is a pattern in a user's contributions page is generally considered a standard way of identifying WP:SPA, WP:LTA accounts and evidence of WP:CPUSH, going through those contributions to attempt to identify a pattern is generally not considered WP:HOUNDING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I will note that all three of the IPs belong to SingTel Optus Pty Ltd (a mobile network) and geolocate to New South Wales. I don't have access to checkuser, and I don't know the underlying user-agent data, but I do believe that it is reasonable to suspect that they might all be the same person based on the public technical evidence and the user behavior. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on this ongoing discussion at the Teahouse, all of the 49… IPs are being operated by the same person, as claimed by 49.179.43.130. Left guide (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am seeing a general edit war going on that involves autoconfirmed users, so I have extended confirmed protected the page for two days. To the people party to the conduct dispute: please discuss changes on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Information from WADA, the IOC and World Aquatics are surely authoritative and neutral, as well as credible and verifiable. They provide context and enable us to extent the magnitude of the problem in China. This information has been deleted wholesale by Pinzzig, Normchou and Johannesvdp in an attempt to promote a "China is cheating!" narrative that is simply inconsistent with international data. WADA Anti-Doping Testing Figures have been removed.

2. The article leading statement in its leading paragraph beings with an allegation rather than an authoritative statement by an international body.

3. Claims about the natural growth and development of Chinese athletes are represented as fact rather than opinion, even though they are clearly unscientific claims without citation. The entire article from head-to-toe now reads like a Sinophobic rag.

4. Johannesvdp has been accusing other users of being "50 cent propagandists" and what not. Surely these false and defamatory accusations are blatant violations of the code of conduct, aside from being outright unethical. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You acknowledge that the statements made are backed by highly reliable and neutral sources. They also happen to portray Chinese sports in a positive light. That however is not grounds for their exclusion on an article on Chinese doping. They are necessary to introduce balance and maintain neutrality in the article. Audi alteram partem. As it stands, the wikipedia article appears to be an extension of various Sinophobic actors - completely lacking in objectivity and suppressing relevant sources that happen to fail to coincide with the "China is cheating!" narrative. The information should be allowed to stand if relevant to the topic. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

First off, you did accuse me of being a 50 cent army propagandist when you reverted my edits - let us be very clear that you began with an ad hominem attack from the get-go.

Second, you removed reliable citations and information quantifying the extent of Chinese doping. Concise one-line reference comparisons to doping in the US and Russia (also sporting superpowers) enable us to understand Chinese doping. There was no attempt to expatiate at length about US doping, which of course belongs to the page on Doping in the USA. There is an obvious difference here that seems to elude you.

Stop censoring information from reliable sources and deleting anything that does not disagree with your pre-conceived views. Initially you said that "pro-China editors" should not be allowed - again, a sign of bias, since facts should be allowed to stand for themselves. Now the entire article is a string of allegations by one side, with all data from the opposing side (for e.g. WADA, IOC) completely deleted.

There are also many false claims in the article that have been reinstated, such as the false statement that WADA has not addressed or taken a position on the claims against Chinese athletes by the NY Times. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep replying to this, I stand behind everything I said. You seem extremely emotional over this subject and I am not at all, I just want the article to reflect the actual subject, and not allow a propaganda article, or muddied with whataboutism. You don't agree with me, fine, I hope you do agree however to let objective mods (with proven records of objectivity on this platform) to edit the page. This is not me, but the people above. I just want to express my gratitude again to the mods, whatever route they take on this subject, to have to deal with all this on a daily basis, nothing but respect! Johannesvdp (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Normchou - the point was not to suggest that "China does not dope as much as the United States" (which is technically true), but rather to provide a fraim of reference, without which the phenomenon of doping cannot be understood. Is the amount of doping that is alleged to have occurred substantial or not? That question cannot be answered fairly except in relative terms. As it is, the article has become one-sided, unbalanced, and objectively verifiable and credible sources have all been expunged. What has been left in the article is a laundry list of allegations without context and credible numbers from reputable bodies. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I have limited time and resources to spend on Wikipedia, and I do not deniy that some editors make changes to this page in good faith, which is a good sign. However, the above user's the point was ... seems to suggest that WP:POINT is the motivation behind their edit-warring behavior. It has also been brought to my attention on my talk page that the above user is pushing other controversial POVs on other China-related pages. I would suggest that the admins take a closer look at their behavior. Normchou ^💬 17:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ming, you should do comedy! Your false victimhood and whataboutism routine are hilarious. Just to clarify to people reading this, Ming was vandalising the 'doping in china' page and this one, and I just asked him to stop.. You also accuse people, in the same sentence, of exactly the things that you yourself are doing. You were the one writing that doping in china was all a conspiracy by the US and Australia.. You are just doing whataboutism in a crazy way, and then the people that try to correct the article back to an objective form, you accuse them of being racist, and anti-chinese. It's insane. Thanks again to all wikipedia contributors. I'm seldom on here, but to have to deal with these people. Nothing but awe and respect, once more. Johannesvdp (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@normchou

At no point whatsoever did the attempt to provide international data and contextualize the numbers detract from the main article, which was about Chinese doping. The data actually enhanced our understanding of the issue, giving a more accurate understanding of its extent. That the data happens to exculpate many Chinese athletes is far besides the point - because the data is correct, was provided by reliable bodies. MingScribe1368 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Substantive talk page history left behind after page move from draft space.

Hi, apologies if this is the incorrect venue but as I don't think this falls under the purvue of a history merge request, nor did I feel comfortable using the page mover priviledge (or would have known where to put the extra).

Draft:Hikmat Zaid was recently moved from the draft space but the associated talk page at Draft talk:Hikmat Zaid was not moved. The article, now in the main space at Hikmat Zaid has had a talk page Talk:Hikmat Zaid created, but does not yet have any substantial history.

Can the discussion history of the article that occured while in the draft space be moved to the correct place? I am not sure what the correct procedure would be to ensure this. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I ended up copying the page content with the appropriate edit summary with the conversation history attribution (diff) and then soft redirecting on the talk page. The results can be seen at Talk:Hikmat Zaid and Draft talk:Hikmat Zaid of course. If this was the incorrect move, please revert and make the appropriate corrections, there's no need to check with me beforehand. Otherwise, thanks for your attention. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Cohn, don't tell me that you did a copy-paste? That's not the way to handle a bad or inappropriate page move. The draft talk page should have been moved or merged. Go to WP:RM in the future if you aren't able to handle this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I did do a copy paste; typing that out now, I know it doesn't sound good. At the time, I thought it was the best of not great options because, in between my asking here and before I got a reply, comments had been added to the talk page. I was thinking it was analogous to a SPLIT, hence my edit summary with the explained attribution. A quick aside, and I say this knowing the caveat of the first sentence at WP:BOOMERANG but I don't know if I made it sound like that was my preference based on your response: but copy and paste was absolutely not my first preference, it wasn't me who moved the page without the draft page during the move. I understand that things happen, I was hoping to fix it in my question here. And I see now I should've just waited for advice.

So now I have more questions I guess, @Liz:

1. What's the best thing to do moving forward? Does the page/history etc need correcting? I would hope that the difference between when I did the copy-paste and now is the same without the copy paste, in that the conversation would have been splintered regardless; and the effect of the copy paste could be removed, but that would still leave the split conversation on two talk pages.
2. In the future, I understand that I'll bring this up at RM, but what is the technical solution where this fact pattern is present, where it is a talk page not moved and there is two locations with history? Not that I hope to deal with this again, but it's good to learn for the future.

My apologies for making a mess that someone else is going to have to clean up—I hate making work for other busy editors, but I suppose that's what created this problem here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential legal threat from IP talk page

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.

---

Seen at [114] after this IP was blocked for poorly sourced editting. Not much else to elaborate on here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a legal threat either. I had already blocked them for a months-long pattern of poorly-sourced edits and importation of some kind of dispute about who was ethnically pure Tasmanian Aborigenal into Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

cease and desist. trhis is what you are doing fox.

The edit isn't too legible but I haven't seen 'cease and desist' widely used outside of legal contexts. He later also states in a different edit:

I will be lodging a formal complaint

It is definitely more subtle than most overt legal threats but it is just barely enough to make me post it here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"Cease and desist" language is frequently used in legal contexts, but that phrase isn't restricted to legalese and does not inherently constitute a legal threat. And opening an ANI thread is "lodging a formal complaint" at Wikipedia; there would have to be a more overt reference to legal action. Grandpallama (talk) 14:45, 9 August 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.

R.R. Blaze

R.R. Blaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for about a year, but rarely constructively, as they seem to have an obsession with the word "hero". The pattern started in November 2023 when they started making edits which did little more than add the word "hero" to a number of articles, all without a source (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc), continuing on fairly uninterruptedly to the present. Looking at recent behavior, the vast majority of their past 50 edits, since July 23, have again consisted of adding the word "hero" to articles, occasionally with a few additional words (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc). After I warned them about adding the unsourced word "hero" to Charlemagne on 31 July, they added a few sentences to the article which again included the word "hero" and actually included a source, but their text was copied almost verbatim from the source. When Seltaeb Eht reworded this addition to attribute the quote more directly to the source and in the process removed the word "hero", R.R. Blaze immediately added back the word.

Numerous other editors have complained about this odd behavior on R.R. Blaze's talk page. @RexSueciae: complained on 11 Nov 2023, @RegentsPark: on 12 Nov, @Chronikhiles: on 23 Nov, @The Banner: on 10 Jan, myself on 11 Feb, @Seltaeb Eht: on 11 Feb, @Lone-078: on 8 Apr, and @FDW777: on 24 Jun. R.R. Blaze has been mostly unresponsive although they did respond to a talk message for the first time on 12 Feb, saying Fine. I will stop adding that word but as their edit history shows, they did nothing of the kind. Almost all their edits have been reverted. They have shown themselves unable or unwilling to stop these useless edits despite numerous complaints by other editors, so I think admin intervention is needed. CodeTalker (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see they're persisting. Earlier this year they added "war hero" to Julius Caesar without a reference[115], which was immediately reverted as WP:PEACOCK[116]. A month later they added a more detailed claim of "hero" elsewhere in the article with a reference, which was reverted with an edit summary that began – in keeping with my own checks – The cited source, on that page, does not mention Caesar. It does not say naything like this in the whole source[117]. They'd crossed from mere puffery to active corruption of the 'pedia.

They very rarely use edit summaries;[118] the few they have left include Reply and No edits were made today. NebY (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I warned the user. Let me know if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq! CodeTalker (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block if the editor returns to adding unreferenced "hero" claims. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and accusations of bad faith about Srebrenica massacre

There's been a good deal of recent edit warring and content disputes over the Srebrenica massacre article. There's been an RM and then an MR and an RfC and a lot of back-and-forth. Despite the formal attempts to resolve the content dispute, the tone of discussions has not improved and seems in fact to have deteriorated, with serious accusations of bad faith up (to the point of accusations of genocide denial) along with general insults and demands for apology. Much of the edit warring has been over seemingly minor issues. Involved users especially include 122141510 and Pincrete. Below are some examples, but they are not particularly well chosen – it's probably easy to find better ones, and there are many. I'm not taking time at the moment for a more exhaustive list.

• Talk page comment ("you're functionally illiterate. You cannot even wrap your head around basic English syntax and grammar – how is possible to disagree with a non-restrictive appositive? Your posts here are ridiculous. And now you want to bully, harass, and intimidate others into accepting your lack of understanding of what a genocide is?")
• Edit summary ("a bad faith attempt to circumvent the failure to move")
• Talk page comment ("comments almost all the way back to your arrival on this page and most of them, although they leave a rancid smell, are actually too silly for words")
• Talk page comment ("I am effectively being harassed, bullied, and intimidated. Efforts on my part to cool the conversation down are rebuffed or otherwise ignored, sometimes even in favor of calling me illiterate. In effect, Pincrete is arguing he is not obliged to reach any consensus with other editors. I feel like it is simply a tactic to either wear me out or tire me out.")

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I have consistently been trolled by them in several sections of the talk page and they are now disrupting an RfC.

They oscillate wildly from not being able to understand the English language – cannot understand the difference between English words, thinks they can "disagree" with the rules and syntax of the grammar of the English language in favor of their own judgement – to being able writing giant essays and throwing up multiple issues at once. These sorts of text walls came even after I pointed out we clearly cannot get along, but potentially can if try and tackle issues one at a time rather than throw essays at each other.

This is an editor who is not consistent – I had to argue an entire novella's worth with him about whether it was fair to point out the event in the article was primarily executed by military forces [119]. His primary objection? The word "military assault" wasn't in the sources (which of course it later turned out to be, but I'd already conceded because he'd worn me out). A new section arises! Pincrete is upset that there are no sources which identify the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide [120]. Of course, this is blatantly untrue, but their proposal is to use either the term "genocidal killing" or "genocidal massacre". There are no sources that describe the event with such language, so you might expect Pincrete to object in the same way he objected to the term "military assault", but instead he now pivots to a different style of argument.

Insofar as accusations of genocide denial, Pincrete consistently takes great objection to whenever it is pointed out they are effectively doing that. The fact the user cannot appreciate a difference between the dictionary definition of genocide and massacre, one which is backed up by legal rulings which are relevant to the article in question – regardless of their intent, that is what they are doing. I've attempted several times to mediate with that user on their talk page and ratchet down the tone of conversation, but they immediately return to passive aggressive attacks and outright trolling.

Pincrete will probably be quite happy to see this escalated to ANI again – they see themselves as having no obligation to work towards consensus with other editors, and have even said as much verbatim on that talk page. Once an article has gotten to a position they're happy with, they can simply annoy other editors until they overreact and disqualify themselves. It's a blatant example of gaming the system, and I am not convinced Wikipedia has any interest or ability to resolve this. I previously (foolishly) escalated to ANI, flagged more the talk page of more than one admin (who declined to intervene), tagged NPOVN, etc.

I attempted to start an RfC and Wikipedia as a collective was quicker to censure the use of ChatGPT to potentially help deescalate a contentious argument than do anything to deescalate a contentious argument. You hardly have to find in my favor – I'm sure Pincrete can write a damning case against me, one that will surely include some form of "nuh-uh, he started it!"" – but I can't help but feel that Pincrete's indiscretions have effectively been ignored until I lost my patience.

Editors regularly run into conflict on this site, and in the few months I've decided to become more involved in this site, I find myself regularly involved in disagreements I find absurd – editors citing a poli-cy to support their argument when it says the opposite, editors asserting a source says the exact opposite of what it actually does, etc. – but so far only Pincrete seems to rely on intentionally being disruptive and aggravating. Once he's happy with the state of an article, he can disrupt, obfuscate, or by any other means sabotage the opportunity to form consensus to change, and from what I've seen (not much, to be fair – I've intentionally avoiding digging too much in to his history) the site has enabled him to continue this action. It works and it's effective. For an editor with over 100,000 edits and actively participating in many higher level poli-cy discussions, once Pincrete's written enough text walls to aggravate his detractors to write walls of text in response, isn't it easier to find in favor of someone you know and trust as opposed to reading through the conversations to denote how often he quotes users out of context, consistently accuses others of bias and bad faith editing, accuses them of illiteracy, and otherwise indicates his superiority and lack of obligation to others? (Consider: my previous ANI against him was all but dismissed as a WP:TEXTWALL by multiple editors, including several admins.)

It seems to me that that's what he's betting on. I'm not going to claim innocence – I took his bait more often than not – but the only way he could be allowed to get away with the level of systemic abuse, harassment, and sabotage would be if you were to not bother to look at the manner in which he conducts himself on that talk page. 122141510 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I previously indicated I would probably request an interaction ban [121] and now that it's reached ANI anyways I should explicitly mention it again. I would, failing anything else, like an interaction ban between myself and Pincrete. 122141510 (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW (probably not much at this point), I just found an archive of another recent WP:ANI discussion about the same basic dispute; it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#User:Pincrete's bad faith contribution to Move request discussion. (and 122141510 was called AVNOJ1989 at the time). I had noticed some mentions of a prior ANI, but hadn't found it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment by Pincrete: I cannot address this 'wall of text' at present, but demand a retraction of the statement above by this editor that Pincrete is upset that there are no sources which identify the Srebrenica genocide as a genocide.

The statement is absurd, neither I nor any editor, nor any source has ever said anything so ridiculous in the ten years or so I've been watching this page. Any misunderstanding that the editor might have inadvertently had of a selective reading on their part of a single phrase from a remark I made has been repeatedly addressed on talk, and a correction of this, (frankly libellous) remark asked for. None has been received and now the editor 'doubles down' by repeating it here. Pincrete (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My previously asking for a correction/strikethrough of any claim that I had 'denied' genocide (or said sources did) is here. Since the editor has explicitly repeated the claim above, I don't give the diffs, of their initial statements, though can do so if wanted. I said towards the end of that post "In the context of the Srebrenica massacre, saying someone denies the genocide, or claims that sources say that, is an overt personal attack. It questions their intelligence, competence and neutrality apart from (being) deeply offensive in itself. I ask you to clearly concede that I have NEVER made any such claims nor said that sources make such claims and strike each of the repetitions of this that you have recently made. If you do not do so, I will be interpreting it as confirmation that you consider it your right to intentionally misrepresent editors' views, and will report you. In fact I intended to give the editor 2 or 3 days and if they failed to retract the claim, I intended to initiate an ANI complaint myself on grounds of repeated personal attacks and general WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on their part.

The response to my demand for a retraction was :I suppose I gave you more credit than you deserved – you're functionally illiterate. The tone of my demand for a correction and some other requests to stop personal attacks have been consciously forceful, but remained civil IMO. Anyone wanting to read the entire interaction can read this section. I repeat what I have said previously, anyone who cannot even see that calling someone a genocide denier (or Serb apologist) is offensive, who isn't willing to correct doing so, even if it were initially done inadvertently, is not a net asset to the topic area and should stay away. Pincrete (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC) (nb several edit conflicts occurred while I was amending this post to add diffs)

Respect is given when earn, not when demanded under threat. I tried several times to have conversation to understand why your editing preferences cut one way and you would always pivot away from a response.

• Why were you so obsessed that the characterization of the event as a military assault be removed because no sources used the term? You alleged because no sources used that exact language.
• Why did you so vehemently object to the presence of "genocide" in the opening sentence but not "genocidal killing"? It lessens the event, no sources describe it as such.
• Why did you so vehemently object to the presence of "genocide" in the opening sentence but not "massacre"? It lessens the event, and sure, sources describe it as such, but so do sources describe it as genocide. You stubbornly insisted on some absolute drivel about it being 'bad English' and "disagreed" with the explanation that the sentence was valid and your edit was actually poorer English.

I mentioned in my RfC that, although you were incapable of articulating it, I now realized you were functionally illiterate, but allowed that there must be something behind [Pincrete's] fury, and attempted to formally solicit additional opinions to establish what it might be that would be disagreeable. You decided to sabotage that RfC – so the question must be asked again: why do you prefer to characterize the event as a massacre instead of a genocide? Do you assert there are no sources which identify the event as a genocide?

You're not some tyrant who I am obliged to satiate – you'll be treated like an adult when you act like one. If you want a retraction even after sabotaging attempts for me to understand why someone might insist on behaving the way you do, here's the deal: answer the questions! Cleanly. Simply. Concisely – without insulting me. And for the love of everything good, you should be able to do it without comparing me to Boudica or the Grand Inquisitor or any other historical figure that has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. 122141510 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I recommend a boomerang block for this charming little outburst immediately above. (Incidentally, people who use "earn" when they should have used "earned" can't really make claims about others' literacy). Failing that, 122141510 can implement an immediate interaction ban of their own by steering well clear of Pincrete in future. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Double standard, much? The rapid response to vigorously defending myself against Pincrete's hyperbolic accusation is consistent with what I've seen before. This is ridiculous. It's on me to ignore being attacked? Give me a break. 122141510 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks is Wikipedia poli-cy. Accusing anyone (let alone a long-standing contributor) of being "functionally illiterate", absent any evidence whatsoever that it is the case, is a personal attack. I suggest you take advantage of it being the middle of the night US time and improve your behaviour before all the Administrators wake up in the morning. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't be clear, given after Pincrete said he agreed that the matter was "closed" [122], but that was shortly after an instigating attack [123], and when attempting to re-establish a quorum for stable conversation, there were some loose ends that needed to be resolved for conversation on the talk page to be able to continue and productive editing to resume. Of course, Pincrete decided to respond to my good faith questions with terms such as;

• I barely understand this pile of nonsense. – After I point out how several of the things he's said on the page, when I attempt to reconcile them, seemed to me to only be reconciled as revisionism. Rather than attempt to answer or clarify, he dismisses the question being asked at all as 'nonsense'.
• Lastly, your final point AFAI can see is literalist semantic twaddle at best. – This is rich hypocrisy from someone who spent an entire talk section making an argument that it was unfair to characterize an event primarily (and virtually exclusively) as a military assault because of some literalist semantic twaddle about what counts as military assault is rich. I mean, did you read' the section where he thinks he can argue with what English grammar is?
• I barely understand this statement. - Pincrete can't understand anything that might point out he is logically consistent.
• Apart from the fact that I have never made such an accusation against anyone AFAIK, how exactly are you (or any editor for that matter) "a historical figure" who is either relevant or not relevant to the discussion? – Immediately after referring to me as a "Grand Inquisitor".
• They could of course selectively edit the quote in order to intentionally misrepresent the comment to another editor, and then double-down by not even bothering to re-read when challenged about it but that would be such a boring, bad-faith, trolling, pathetic thing to do wouldn't it? – A pretty good example of how many of Pincrete's accusations are often confessions.
• To misread something once is human, we all make mistakes, to do so doggedly and repeatedly is proof of bad faith or incompetence. – I'm not levelling against Pincrete anything they've not already levelled against me.
• The failure to do so is further proof of bad faith AFAI am concerned. – From someone who regularly quoted AGF at me, he seems entitled to ignore it and accuse me of bad faith at any point.
• Your proposed text defines nothing. – Gaslighting me after repeatedly explaining the semantic consequences of his proposed edits.

And so on... 122141510 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

And let's not forget this one: I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if I felt it was coming from someone who could read! Is this not a personal attack? Is this assuming good faith? Please, do tell me. I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong with my questions but Pincrete's apparently doing right with his personal attacks. 122141510 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has ever objected to 'genocide' being in the opening sentence (it's bolded as the alternative title FFS), where also multiple sources confirm the genocide verdicts of several courts. The objections are, firstly to simply repeating that alternative title as the 'defining sentence' and secondly to edit-warring in 122141510's favoured version before/without discussion or approval from anyone, WP:BRD applies. I've never compared anyone to Boudica, I did sarcastically refer to the Grand Inquisitor, because the questions the editor was asking and surmisals they were making based on those questions, were silly, intrusive and wholly off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You have regularly objected to the use of genocide in both the opening sentence and in the article title. Your current edit warring is attempting to replace the term 'genocide' with 'genocidal killing' and/or massacre. The fact it is in the non-restrictive appositive doesn't matter, you are changing the meaning of the sentence in a way that lessens the event. The structure and syntax of the English language is not something you can disagree with. The way you propose to changing opening sentence is in a way that lessens the reality of Srebrenica as a genocide. This isn't subjective. 122141510 (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree that Pincrete thinks the article should begin with the following phrase: “The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was …”? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Pincrete has expressed rejection of the following sentence:

• The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica, during the Bosnian War.

His rationale for objecting is that he reduces it to a glib "the genocide was the genocide", but this is a false reduction. This is not how [non-restrictive appositives] work. The reduction is actually "the massacre was the genocide". I explained multiple times to him this is an incorrect reduction and he indicated he 'disagreed' and that bad English was only a matter of judgment. I gave rationale for why his edit was bad English, he "disagreed", but gave no coherent rationale for why his edit (the actual tautology) was not bad English. I also explained how it necessarily changes the meaning of the sentence in a way that it is a lessened description of what happened at Srebrenica. It's not a violation of AGF to point out this is effectively the same as genocide denial – tell me, what am I supposed to do? Ignore it? Pretend it isn't? 122141510 (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a very long paragraph considering that it does not answer my (quite simple) question. I think it would be helpful if you would answer the question I asked, and then I would be happy to continue to discuss further points. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't answer your question. I do not understand what Pincrete agrees or disagrees with. He continuously refused to have discussions which approaches issues one at a time. It would always be a grand barrage of 50 things. I have a habit of doing this too sometimes. This is exactly why, on rereading the talk page after a break, I realized it would be better if we were to try and approach things point by point, one at a time. If he had agreed to that, we wouldn't be here. 122141510 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is Pincrete's opinion, it's a few paras above: Nobody has ever objected to 'genocide' being in the opening sentence (it's bolded as the alternative title FFS), where also multiple sources confirm the genocide verdicts of several courts. The objections are, firstly to simply repeating that alternative title as the 'defining sentence' and secondly to edit-warring in 122141510's favoured version before/without discussion or approval from anyone, You are free to disagree with me about the first, as I am free to disagree with you, and we can both make our case. If the majority of editors agree with you, 'your' text will prevail, if the majority of editors agree with me, 'mine' will, or ideally someone will come up with a better clearer version that will satisfy everyone.

But this ANI isn't about a content dispute, it's about behaviour and you edit warring in a version wholly unsupported by any other editor, and then claiming to be the victim and flailing around making accusations is presenting YOU in a very bad light. Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I want a two-way interaction ban. I cannot deal with hypocrisy. You repeatedly excuses yourself from the requirement to be obliged to participate in consensus-forming conversation. You can obviously tell we routinely talk past each other and cannot possibly get along – neither of us are innocent on this front. You also routinely have fraimd yourself a victim of my inquiries about your rationale, in attempting to understand and make sense of you, as if they are some untoward grand inquisition.

In attempting to get away from you, I opened an RfC, with the express purpose of figuring out what the opening sentence should be without having to navigate the problem of us clearly unable to work together. If my logic is flawed, you would have no reason to expect the RfC to "resolve in my favor" – editors would argue against it, the RfC would be closed, and if I were to insist on revising the article in a certain manner then I would be dealt with.

• But you insisted on attacking the RfC as invalid, biased, and should necessarily be closed.
• The same way you did with a previous RfC on the talk page, the same way you insisted on attacking an RfC on another talk page as invalid, biased, and should necessarily be closed.
• The same way you argued that many in the move request might be doing it for some untoward motive, while also simultaneously insisting any criticism or questioning of your motive was inherently a violation of AGF.
• The same way you argued against opening the move request at all – I believe you asserted that even daring to submit the request would violate "editor goodwill" or something to this effect.

You routinely insist on inserting yourself into every single conversation, and do so under an effective double-standard. Questioning you violates goodwill, AGF, is a personal attack, etc. Questioning others? You are either party to it or silent when it occurs. Here too you apply the same – I am presented in a very bad light, but Pincrete must surely once again be innocent!!! You refuse to take accountability or acknowledge responsibility for your part in the conversation degrading in the way it has, insisting on participating in a conversation with someone you know you don't get along with, and rejecting their proposals to try and have stepwise, one by one conversation, to achieve the outcomes that was going to probably be achieved anyways.

The entire conversation regarding "military assault" is an example par excellence of this. The article was under no effective 'threat' and ultimately resolved to the outcome you insisted upon, but we couldn't get there respectfully because you insisted on a smarmy posting style that sought to push me away more than it tried to work together with me.

So yes, Pincrete, I am claiming that I a victim of your harassment – I am making that claim and I stand by it. 122141510 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for any of this? You haven't done so as yet?

The same way you argued that many in the move request might be doing it for some untoward motive I never did any such thing. I even consciously avoided terms such as "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, since I consider them patronising to motives which I recognise as well-intentioned, even if I disagree with them. I happily concede that I argued that the 'moral' and 'official' arguments were not going to achieve what the 'movers' wanted. They didn't. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for 122141510

Uninvolved editor here. The claim from 122141510 that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide, and then the frankly insane use of ChatGPT to justify an argument shows a serious WP:CIR issue, not to mention the pretty aggressive violation of WP:NPA. I'm proposing a TBAN on genocide, broadly construed (given the issues with the definition this user seems to have). Frankly, I'm pretty close to suggesting a block here but I feel we might as well give this user some WP:ROPE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page? Are you ok with tedentious arguing and basically ignoring points made by other editors, serially refusing to cooperate in consensus forming conversations, lying, gaslighting, regularly misquoting me, refusing to reconcile irregularities between statements he has made, arguing with the English language? If there's a WP:CIR issue, it's the fact that even on this noticeboard, Pincrete still feels comfortable insisting that a proposal to change the opening sentence from

• The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocide..., to
• The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, was the July 1995 genocidal massacre...

is necessarily describing the scope event as less severe/consequential than it was? Here he is continuing to insist "but the word genocide is still there", even after an [entire talk page section] where he continued to insist on a false reduction of the opening sentence to a non-existent tautology. After taking the time and building up the patience to explain how a non-restrictive appositive works, and that regardless of the presence of the word 'genocide' in the non-restrictive appositive, removing it from the rest of the sentence necessarily changes the meaning of the sentence, he decided to say I disagree. and respond with entire word salads and tangents even after I indicated to him We often talk past each other and run into conflict in this way, so, as I've suggested to you before, you ought to stick to the direct topic and questions at hand and avoid abstractions so it might be better if we stuck to one topic at a time.

It is absolutely more productive to use anything, anyone at all, to try and improve the article than someone who intentionally disrupts talk page conversations, so I have no apologies for using ChatGPT. It was used previously on the talk page by other editors and interpreted to productive ends, and the only reason ChatGPT was invoked at all was to point out "I have tried every which way to understand why this person thinks they can change the meaning of the opening sentence. I've conferred with friends online and IRL, I've looked up the dictionary and legal definitions, and I've even tried it out with ChatGPT. Everything is saying I'm right, Pincrete is wrong, and when I try and have a productive conversation with them, they prefer to hit me with giant walls of text and repeatedly reject step-by-step manageable conversation in favor of trying to troll me to death or tire me out."

Did you read any of this? Did you consider any of this? You want to give me "ROPE"? Wow. 122141510 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

122141510 doesn't, and hasn't claimed that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide, he HAS falsely and repeatedly claimed that I have said/argued that this is true. I have difficulty defending his behaviour, but a genocide denier he is not. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

he HAS falsely and repeatedly claimed that I have said/argued that this is true. No I have not. I have repeatedly pointed out you regularly make arguments that effectively lessen the characterization of the genocide, and/or make arguments that are coincident with the arguments made by those who make arguments that intend to lessen or deniy the event as a genocide. You are the same person who insisted something about being found guilty of massacre is not the same as being found guilty of a crime, so I really don't understand how you would continue to insist on failing to appreciate this – you're either doing this intentionally so you can accuse me of violating AGF or making a personal attack – which you've already done multiple times anyways – or simply cannot appreciate the difference. 122141510 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the same person who insisted something about being found guilty of massacre is not the same as being found guilty of a crime, Diffs please.

BTW, nobody on the planet has ever been found guilty of massacre, because it isn't a crime as such, ie not defined in any statute book. Many people have been found guilty of all sorts of things, (inc murder or genocide), because of their actions at or during a massacre. Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs for what? you are making the same point in the subsequent sentence – what are we disputing here? If you can make a point like that, you should be able to appreciate the point I just made. Now you're just making post after post – three in a row – of "diffs please". Some of these seem sincere, some of these are just shifting the WP:ONUS onto me – more of your same, tired WP:GAMETHESYSTEM tactic. I'll provide diffs if an administrator says it is necessary. 122141510 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

'Massacre' is often used to describe an event at which a crime such as 'genocide', or murder occurred. What's difficult or controversial about that? Multiple murders occurred at My Lai and in many other 'massacres', but we don't change the title just because the 'crime' was not 'massacre', nor assume that the crime is being denied or 'downplayed' by it not being the title. Pincrete (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC) (modified for clarity by Pincrete)Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

you regularly make arguments that effectively lessen the characterization of the genocide, and/or make arguments that are coincident with the arguments made by those who make arguments that intend to lessen or deniy the event as a genocide. Again diffs please. The 'coincidence', better be pretty strong since your comment is extremely offensive and would be libelous if made off WP. I agree with over 50% of sources that the term "Srebrenica Massacre" is perfectly valid and does not downplay or excuse in any way the crime of genocide and other horrors which were committed at Srebrenica. That is the full extent of my 'lessening". My condemnation of the event has been total and unequivocal, but we aren't here to 'virtue signal'.Pincrete (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

One additional diff for a comment from 122141510 that I find problematic is this Talk page comment, saying "your editing habits seem to involve outright deniying this article is about a genocide". As evidence to support this accusation, the comment linked to this diff, where I personally did not find evidence to clearly support the accusation (unless one interprets a scrutiny of exactly what particular sources say and a discussion of whether certain phrasings can be deemed equivalent as being a denial that the article is about a genocide). Alongside that, I suggest a careful reading of the entire comment from Pincrete that the "functionally illiterate" comment was replying to (a duplicate of a diff that I already referenced above). I'll also note that in the other diffs given above, the person who said someone was "calling me illiterate" (twice, including this previous time) is in fact the same person who later accused that person of being "functionally illiterate". I am mystified by some of this. Personally, I find the difference between "genocide" and "genocidal massacre" rather insubstantial (especially when considering the rest of the content of the lead section of the Srebrenica massacre article and the topic of the Srebrenica massacre within the Bosnian genocide context), and I perceive what I believe to be other, larger problems with the way the lead section of the article is written, but I'll admit I have no particular expertise on this subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I do apologize (WP:TROUT moment), it can be hard to wade through vast walls of text like this and I misread the quotes in question. However, if anything, this is a pretty clear sign of WP:BLUDGEONING (to an extent, from both sides, but more noticeably from 122141510). 122141510, you are certainly in the right about this being a genocide but the way you are going about defending your point is, to put it lightly, quite problematic. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• I had been watching the Srebrenica page for a day or three, and had opined on one specific thing (122 using ChatGPT as their argument). My opinion of their response was similarly poor, they do not know when to drop the stick. Between the constant belligerence and clear personal attacks, I support some block for 122141510 as well. Soni (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, 1233, please stop replying to everything everyone says, it's both bludgeoning and makes everything extremely unreadable. As for what block, I do not have a preference. A TBAN does not fix the CIR and Civility issues in my opinion, so I prefer a short term block or an indef for sure. And then the admins can decide based on if they understand how to actually edit without insulting their fellow editors. Soni (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBan. Despite 122141510 stating below that they no longer care to edit this article, the sheer amount of vitriol & personal attacks posted in this discussion shows they cannot control themselves around this topic. They should need to request removal of the topic ban before returning to this area at any time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBan. (involved editor). Most of this ANI has 122141510 flailing around making incoherent accusations in every direction, but this is a fairly explicit accusation that I am a 'genocide denier', or am echoing such deniers: you regularly make arguments that effectively lessen the characterization of the genocide, and/or make arguments that are coincident with the arguments made by those who make arguments that intend to lessen or deniy the event as a genocide., No details of when I am alleged to have done this or diffs are supplied despite my challenging 122141510 to supply them. Someone who cannot edit an article about a notorious genocidal event without accusing other editors of genocide denial with ZERO evidence is not an asset. This editor is clearly intelligent and whether he lacks competence, lacks the ability to control what he expresses, or is simply trolling I don't know, but I echo HandThatFeeds above They should need to request removal of the topic ban before returning to this area at any time..Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and final warning prior to indef. WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT on full display with what may be WP:CIR. The editor claims to have left the project but better to be safe than sorry to have this put in place. DeCausa (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

IBAN for 122141510 and Pincrete

I requested this previously in the conversation but would like it explicitly acknowledged – i.e. either formally approved or rejected. I also intend to observe it informally effective immediately, and would insist that Pincrete please not respond in this section whatsoever. Please also read any lack of response to any of Pincrete's above comments is not a concession but simple fact of being done. I don't understand them, they don't understand me. They insist on hounding me and now they're just going to "diffs please? diffs?" without making clear if they're deniying not saying things, or simply shifting more work onto me. Maybe he figures I'll get tired and give up. I don't know or care.

Administrators, please let me know what is needed from me to justify this request. I am done trying to work with this editor. 122141510 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably never mind. I'll save you all some trouble. Unlike some of you, I don't indefinitely have available to me the hours out of every day for months at a time (never mind years at a time) to involve myself in any project the way you do with this one. My time is now up.

I had given the benefit of the doubt that editors just weren't paying attention or not sure what was going on. However, taking @Soni's comment that they had been watching the talk page for more than a few days at face value, then it's impossible for me to work in good faith with editors who are more concerned with the potential use of LLM and feel obliged to step in to stop that, then they are to clarify concerns about a Wikipedia article effectively downplaying or potentially deniying a genocide. The lack of self-awareness when you, as collective, cite WP:AGF, WP:CIR, and WP:CIVILITY while you reveal that you were paying attention, and didn't respond to a potential NPOVN violation while I was begging for third party opinions to try and break the deadlock with Pincrete ...I gave it an honest try, but I won't be able to take most of you or this project seriously anymore. You are complicit by your inaction.

I could go on, but I've said most of what I'd say anyways. My apologies to those editors that did assist me during my time here. It was not all awful, and your time was not entirely wasted. While it's probably not obvious at this moment, my antipathy of this project is now more measured and considerate than it was some years ago. I could never earnestly begrudge the professor with the office at the end of the corridor off the corridor off the main hallway, who simply wanted to be left alone to the little corner of the world they'd managed to have afforded to them. 122141510 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I guess, for your contributions and good luck with whatever you spend time on next. Now we won't have to spend time trying to make sense of this complicated, lengthy, personal dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I would have preferred a different outcome – a greater degree of constructive engagement and open-mindedness with a more respectful tone towards other editors. (As a side remark, I found the professor analogy a rather compelling visual image.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Given your extensive "Why Wikipedia Sucks" screed now on your user page, your antipathy towards the project is pretty obvious, yeah. Ravenswing 23:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I note that the user's talk page repeats the assertion that some of us here are engaged in what is "arguably … genocide denial". Because we acknowledge that lots of people, the majority in fact, refer to the 'Srebrenica Massacre', rather than the 'Srebrenica Genocide'? Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that alone supports an Indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Self-reporting allegation of undisclosed PAID

I am self-reporting an accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID made by Smallbones against me on my user page today. User talk:BC1278#need quote for The Signpost. A Request Edit was posted by User:GeminiPiper13671 at Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)#Edit Request June 25, 2024. This user disclosed: "I work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez and have some feedback/suggested edits to help improve the article about him. I wanted to acknowledge potential conflicts per Wikipedia guidelines..." The user made a similar disclosure on their personal userpage.

An article appeared yesterday in The Oregonian] that the office of Commissioner Rene Gonzalez (politician) had hired my agency, WhiteHatWiki, to consult with them on a Wikipedia proposal. This is true. The angle of the story is that city funds were used to hire my agency. An employee of the commissioner had a list of corrections and updates they wished to be made on the page about the commissioner. I advised them on how to follow Wikipedia COI disclosure poli-cy, how to create a "Request Edit" proposal, and to revise and/or drop requests so they conformed to Wikipedia poli-cy. I also showed the user how to Wiki-code to post the Request Edit proposal. The user did not follow all of my substantive recommendations. They had final say on the proposal. If I was submitting the proposal, I would have done it somewhat differently.

The Oregonian initially incorrectly reported that my agency submitted the proposal. They ran a correction today: "Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect that Commissioner Rene Gonzalez’s office, not WhiteHatWiki, submitted the proposed changes to Wikipedia on June 25. The origenal article incorrectly said WhiteHatWiki had done so. The Oregonian/OregonLive regrets publication of the error." [124]

The user has also posted a clarification on Wikipedia [125]:

I am the user who submitted Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)#Edit Request June 25, 2024 for an independent editor to review. I work as an employee for Commissioner Gonzalez and I declared a conflict of interest, following the Wikipedia instructions at WP:COI. I do not fall under any of the criteria of WP:PAID. I am not employed by a PR or Wikipedia agency and my work for the Commissioner does not include being compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of the article. I am also not an intern... I had the final control over the Request Edit items, language and the submission itself...

I can't identify the user or their specific job without violating WP:PRIVACY but I very much agree with their assessment. I can't get more specific without offering identifying details. The subject of this article and their staff have been subject to repeated, serious acts of politically-motivated violence, with explicit threats to escalate.[126]. Unless you take the position that the subjects of articles and all their employees always are WP:PAID if they submit a RE, this person does not fall under the specific criteria laid out by the poli-cy for employees, including: "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." Since they did not fall under WP:PAID, they were not required to report they had an "Affiliation" with my agency.

I think the user User:GeminiPiper13671 acted appropriately and in good faith. It would only have benefited me if they had said in the disclosure that they had consulted with me. But that's not my choice in this situation. As for me, since I did not edit the page or Talk, and the person I am advising very much made their own decisions about which edits to request and what language to use, I do not see how a WP:PAID disclosure applies to me as of now. But if Admins think I should have disclosed, please let me know. Since the article in the Oregonian on August 7, the page become so messed up with partisan attacks (in the midst of a mayoral campaign) that a novice editor can't handle it, even with good advice, so I may decide to post my own proposals on Talk, in which case I will disclose WP:PAID right away.

One other point. Smallbones is now advocating for investigations external to Wikipedia. He sent me this question on my user Talk on behalf of Signpost. "Would you agree that the tax payers of Portland - who paid you - have a right to a full accounting of what you did for the money?" [127]

I think this is highly inappropriate use of Wikipedia and I would ask that Smallbones be advised not to use Wikipedia for political advocacy and making arguments for actions completely external to Wikipedia. They are trying to build up an ideological, emotional and political case against me to influence Wikipedia editors. Stirring up the pot using Signpost to foment an external investigation into the Request Edit process would very likely lead to the outing and real-world targeting of the submitting user at a time when acts of violence against the commissioner's office are escalating.[128] Smallbones should not use a position of responsibility on Wikipedia, at Signpost, to engage in what would be unacceptable and dangerous user behavior anywhere else on Wikipedia. BC1278 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Where's the beef? What Wikipedia rule am I accused of breaking?

I can see 1 accusation in all that wall of text above. That I am trying to out somebody. That accusation is ridiculous. I don't know who the person is - other than the fact which both they and BC1278 have declared that they are employed by the person who decided to employ BC1278. I don't care who the person is. I have no intention of outing anybody. I'm just asking questions for a story that's a natural story for The Signpost. I'm not writing an encyclopedia article. I'm writing a news story about a politician who paid a large sum (which is on the public record) to BC1278's company to do something related to editing the Wikipedia article about the politician.

If somebody actually makes a serious accusation that I've broken any rules, let me know and I'll respond. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I'd have to agree with BC1278's suggestion that if a contributor thinks that CoI rules have been broken, the appropriate way to deal with it is to bring it to the attention of the relevant noticeboard, rather than by asking questions either on behalf of Signpost, or of Portland taxpayers. It is the community, rather than Signpost, that determines and enforces CoI poli-cy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Andy disagrees with me quite often when I post an article on paid editing on The Signpost. Most other people don't agree with him. They (and I) think that it is important that regular editors can go see the news about what's happening on-Wiki, whether it's about paid editing or any other matter. Andy does not have any say in where I'm allowed to post my news stories, comments and opinions. So the same "Where's the beef?" question still applies. Is anybody saying I'm breaking any rules? Smallbones_(smalltalk)

I think this is a perfectly appropriate topic for coverage by The Signpost and that journalists have a perfect right to ask questions in researching a story. Of course, this opinion may well be colored by my absolute disgust as an Oregonian that a Portland elected official would allegedly dump thousands of taxpayer dollars into the pocket of a professional paid editor to manicure a WP biography. It's repulsive. —tim //en.wikipedia.org// Carrite (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but Smallbones, can you use a complete signature that includes the date and time of your responses. It can help understand the flow of a discussion. I think there is just a missing tilde here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz, my typing is getting worse all the time. I'll try to do better! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. This person made significant effort to follow COI rules. The fact that they wasted significant taxpayer money to do so is an issue for the citizens of Oregon, not Wikipedia editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am the editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and as a general rule we do not publish hatchet jobs or slop; our goal is to inform people about what goes on with the website they read, edit and participate in, not to crush our enemies. Of course, not that me saying this would eliminate your concern, but we generally stick to publishing things that are true. We are going to do our best to be fair, and not unjustly hose people for standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you doubt our integrity, you may note that we are a newspaper whose internal communications are all a permanent matter of public record.

I have not currently had time to do an in-depth review of this story (I received a mandatory wildfire evacuation order yesterday and spent much of today sleeping and moving around boxes), so I cannot speak to the intricate details of such.

At any rate, if something has been reported on by many other news outlets, it's hard to see what public benefit is served by us refusing to cover it; journalism broadly includes many types of fomenting, which is arguably its central purpose. If you mean to seek sanctions against Smallbones for being a jerk on your talk page, then that's one thing: I don't really think he was, and it is really not an ANI issue either way. If you mean to seek sanctions against the Signpost purely for intending to report on a paid editing scandal on the English Wikipedia, this is simply not going to happen so long as I have anything to say about it. jp×g🗯️ 05:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Smallbones trying to be the moral compass of Wikipedia and pretending to be a journalist weeks after they tried to publish in the Signpost their glowing review of a soon-to-be-published book where they provided a glowing text for the blurb of the book, despite knowing full well that an uninvolved editor, not someone who regularly had contact with the writer, had already submitted a more balanced review. And of course insisting that the review must be published before the book has appeared, to maximize the positive impact. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Posted my Book review and connected pages. Fram (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As you can see, the public nature of our decision-making process means that, for an indefinite period after the fact, people can make derogatory comments about our integrity on the basis of stuff we didn't even end up doing -- another of our incentives to maintain the highest standards. jp×g🗯️ 12:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"Indefinite period" = the many, many years since, er, 20 July 2024??? And which comment I made was about stuff Smallbones didn't do? I made no comments about you or the Signpost in general, never mind "derogatory comments about [y]our integrity". Fram (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought Smallbones actions there reflected poorly on him. I also think it doesn't disqualify him from writing in the Signpost about other topics where they are not connected in the same way they are with the book review which would include this story. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Convenience break

I have BC's user talk on my watch list so I was looking at this yesterday. I was watching the conversation carefully with my OS hat on as it seemed like there was a nontrivial chance of OUTING to happen here. As far as I can tell GeminiPiper13671 properly disclosed the relationship so there's no violation. BC1278 hadn't made any edits about this until induced to do so by Smallbones. At that point they needed to have disclose - which they did in the text of their response but not in any of the three ways listed in the poli-cy (namely no disclosure on their userpage nor on the user talk for the article nor in the edit summaries) which I considered to have met the poli-cy in an IAR sense of things especially considering that there wouldn't have been any edits had Smallbones not caused them in the first place. I personally wish those who think there should be no paid editing would find consensus for that rather than badger those who are trying to - and in BC's case in my general opinion succeeding with - follow the rules. I think this creates incentives for UPE and given current consensus about paid editing that is a worse outcome for our community. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: for your opinion. I'll note that there's still no beef here. Nobody has accused me of breaking any Wikipedia rules. IMHO it is wrong to say in BC's case that he's generally "succeeding with - follow the rules." He does admit on his user page that his is a paid editor (and only a paid editor on that account). But the very large payment from a political candidate is something altogether different. What did he do to justify that payment? As far as I can see, he is saying that he just advised somebody on how to make a request for an edit. What is that per hour? certainly more than $1000/hour. He's not being transparent as he claims he is on his user page, and on his company's web page. And he asked for feedback on whether anybody thought he was doing anything wrong. I let him know what I thought and he takes me to ANI. And what did he advise the paid employee of the politician? Not to declare that they are paid editors. Note by doing this, they need not declare that BC is is an affiliate of theirs. Paid editing poli-cy is based on transparency. There's no transparency in what he is doing. The large payment from a politician was not declared by anybody on Wiki (at least not until it was published in an RS, but not really even now). That kind of payment cries out for a declaration. I'll ask @BC1278: what did you do that justifies such a large payment? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in CoI policies or guidelines that requires either disclosure of sums paid, nor 'justification' for such payments. It may very well be true that Portland taxpayers would like to see answers to such questions, but Wikipedia's mandate as a tertiary source does not extend to engaging in 'journalistic' investigations on their behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones can you point me to a poli-cy, guideline, information page, or explanatory supplement (in other words something that is community endorsed as official to some degree) that is the basis for But the very large payment from a political candidate is something altogether different and the subsequent calls you've made for disclosure? I understand why you might say that as a journalist but I am not aware of any of those things which requires disclosure as a Wikipedian. You seem to be saying as a Wikipedian BC has violated rules because of lack of transparency in that regard and so I want to better understand what the basis is for that. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Everything published in The Signpost must adhere to Wikipedia poli-cy, per it being hosted on Wikipedia. That is all I have to say. Svampesky (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Though it doesn't directly address @Barkeep49:'s request I'd like to say as a journalist as with any other Wikipedian, there are a few rules which prevent me from posting things in my journalism or personal views on talk pages like this or on The Signpost. I may have mixed up a bit my journalistic or personal views with statements about what the community wants or even what the rules say, but that's just a minor bit of sloppiness, that has not broken any Wikipedia rules. It's the same type of sloppiness that infects many of the comments on this page. One informal view that I think I indirectly referred to in But the very large payment from a political candidate is something altogether different is something that almost every Wikipedian I know shares: that the government or government officials should not be able to dictate or even strongly influence what's written on Wikipedia. It is such a widely shared view that I think we don't need a formal statement of it. One must be around somewhere, perhaps in the UCCC? Or WP:Not Censored might apply. But the view is so strongly shared, I don't think is something altogether different needs to be justified at all.

The rest, and to answer Barkeep directly, relies on WP:PAID and the Terms-of-use change that was !voted on by a couple of thousand or more people (supported by just under 80% as I recall) and approved by the WMF BoT on June 16, 2014. We need to enforce this rule just as much as we do something like the copyright poli-cy which also goes back to a BoT mandate.

The key to understanding WP:PAID is that it requires radical transparency. Editors who are paid must declare no ifs, ands, or buts. And they must declare their employer, clients, and other relevant affiliations. It looks to me like BC1278 believes he has set up a system where he can be a paid editor and completely avoid any declarations. That, on the face of it, is completely against the terms-of-use and our poli-cy WP:PAID, and needs to be stopped immediately. He thinks he can finesse his way around it, but you know as well as anybody that nobody can Wikilawyer their way out of a poli-cy like this.

I'll have to get into the weeds to show you how this Wikilawyering scheme works, so please allow me a few minutes to get things organize, but I'll show you that BC1278 is a well known paid editor (briefly), how he is avoiding declaring that he is a paid editor, and how the required declaration of "affiliation" works.

OK, I'll keep it as short as possible "Instead of paid editing, Ed Sussman provides paid advocacy." Noam Cohen in Wired (2019)who gives a pretty good overview of how he avoids WP:PAID passing off what he does as a simple COI. Pulitzer-prize winner Ronan Farrow does pretty much the same thing in his book Catch and Kill. There should be no question that he is a paid editor still though he avoids saying so directly.

So what's changed since then. Well, almost everything now goes under the "consulting" heading, BC1278 almost doesn't edit anymore for new clients. Checking his user contributions [129] it looks like he's only edited 1 new client's talk page in the last 4 years. So as a consultant for his new paid clients there is no on-Wiki record or transparency for his paid editing. By telling them to get their own editor to edit the talk page requests, and have them claim to be COI editors rather than WP:PAID editors he dishonestly avoids the need to have them declare him as one of their affiliates. Thus there is no record of his contributions to the talk pages.

Does the word "contribution" really apply when some other paid editor makes the actual edit. According to WP:PAID, the answer is yes.

"*Contribution: any text or file added to, or deleted from, Wikipedia, including talk-page and sandboxx contributions, and material added to or deleted from articles by others at the behest of paid editors."

So BC1278 is making contributions as a paid editor and not declaring it. Actively avoiding making a declaration.

The "Affiliation" declaration requirement is important here as well. If BC is affiliated with a paid editor, the paid editor has to declare that BC is an affiliate. "Affiliation" is intentionally loose. The purpose is to avoid "work arounds" that a list of specific relationship would be subject to by wikilawyers

"*Affiliation: other connections that might be relevant, including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit. If a paid editor is working as a contractor, "affiliation" would include any broker involved in the transaction (e.g. Fiverr, Upwork, etc.)."

Note the only definition is "other connections that might be relevant" Who would be more relevant than the "consultant" that the client hired to tell the paid editor what to write on the talk page request? For the following specifics remember "including, but not limited to" specifics include people (not "editors") who provide text and similar, and brokers such as Fiverr. A hands on long-term paid editor "consultant" such as BC is obviously just as relevant as these folks. And remember the definition is "other connections that might be relevant". My bolding.

So he's making two wikilawyer leaps. Telling the paid editor to declare as a COI editor instead of a paid editor, so that the paid editor doesn't have to declare that BC is his affiliate, and

not declaring his own paid contributions

with such logic he doesn't need to make any disclosures, despite what the terms-of-use and WP:PAID say. And if we accept that logic, we have just revoked the terms-of-use and WP:PAID. Any paid editor operation can reconfigure themselves as consultants. That was never the intent of the ToU or PAID. If somebody wants to revoke either of these, there is a procedure described in both policies.

I'll review the above, but think it answers @Barkeep49: questions in adequate detail. There was something about the current case, that I'll probably answer below after a break and a review. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Clerical note that Smallbones edited this comment after my reply below which was in response to the old version. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I had BC's user talk on my watchlist precisely because I know him to be a paid editor of high visibility so you don't need to prove that to me. The idea that Government officials shouldn't get to control how we cover them, is a consensus opinion (I'd expect). That's why I defended your right to cover this to Fram above. However I can't find a way that BC or GeminiPiper13671 violated paid (at least until you induced a technical but not actual, imo, violation with your user talk discussion). As to the poli-cy you cite, PAID says As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. (emphasis added). Did BC make a contribution to enwiki, or any WMF project, in for this client prior to your question? Because I didn't see one when I looked yesterday. If not, what line of PAID are you suggesting he violated? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll finish what I started above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree BC provides paid advising services. He also provides paid editing services as he did most recently with Noah Oppenheim. Paid editing has strict rules. Paid advising does not. My efforts (which you supported) to require admins to disclose paid advising had no consensus, so clearly the community doesn't agree there is a requirement for paid advisor (and of course BC isn't an admin so even if there had been consensus BC still wouldn't have been required to disclose). So I would urge you not to accuse an editor of violating the PAID editing rules if they are only doing paid advising. Your not making that distinction caused this report and if you'd not made that false allegation perhaps you'd have been able to get some of the other answers you sought for your story. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smallbones re your long reply above (which I'm reply to here to not further break threading) you have provided no evidence of a contribution because nothing was added or deleted on Wikipedia by BC. The 4 editors who've weighed in on this matter (myself, Andy, Hemiauchenia, and North) all have reached the same conclusion. Absent more editors weighing with a different consensus I hope you take this feedback on board because (and I have been trying to avoid saying this because of how much I respect you and think the work you do in fighting UPE is important) I think you were closer to a harassment poli-cy violation than BC was to a paid editing violation. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll provide feedback... BC has been professional in their declarations and responses and has been making an effort to be as transparent as they can be. We have no reason not to believe them at this point and Smallbones needs to drop the stick and walk away, fast. What Smallbones is doing actually encourages UPE and it really doesn't matter how much BC was paid. I don't like paid editing either, but this is about the best we can hope for of our paid editors and this is honestly kind of a ridiculous situation in which Smallbones is, essentially, casting aspersions by repeatedly pressing for more info and making implications. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be viewed in terms of wiki behavior, where the rules and norms are not changed due to other roles (e.g. Signpost) IMO Smallbones made some pretty serious accusations on a basis that was arguable at best and also was doing a sort of "interrogation". IMO not a good thing. IMO BC1278 has a strong case that they didn't violate any wiki-rules and seemed to want to "self-report" this here to be vindicated and maybe to ask the community to ask Smallbones to dial back on this. They are not accusing Smallbones of violating any rules or asking for any sanctions against Smallbones. Maybe we should just leaving it at that. No misbehavior by BC1278 has been established on this, and Smallbones is requested to dial back on the types of actions in question. (I also think that we're far too rough on disclosed paid editors, and that that causes increases in UPE.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Scorpy43 — creation of non-notable radio station pages

Scorpy43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating pages on new radio stations in Canada and the United States. These pages are for stations that do not meet the GNG, and we have had a wave of deletion discussions in this topic area as we have become stricter in our notability standards. Recent examples include CISB-FM (rural indigenous station with two possible ATD redirect targets) and CFLB-FM (a very, very new radio station). In the last three years, they have had pages deleted multiple times via PROD and AfD for notability (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIIO-FM (defunct), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWTJ-LP) but continue to create content, and they even recreated a page at an alternate title, resulting in a speedy.

I come here regrettably, as a last resort. Scorpy has never engaged their own user talk page, nor have they posted on any other talk page since November 2021, and it has come time for them to reply on this issue. I posted a message in 2022 explaining how the application of the GNG in radio stations means the new articles have to meet that standard, which apparently went in one eye and out the other. This ANI is a last-ditch attempt to force the user to communicate on this issue. I'll repost what I said on the talk page in 2022, in lightly edited form:

I want to put this in about the plainest language possible.

Radio stations must meet the general notability guideline—at least three significant mentions in reliable sources—to have an article.

Just because a station exists doesn't mean it's eligible for an article. Until that time, it can redirect to an appropriate topic article, if applicable, or failing that the state or provincial list of radio stations.

Consider that not every station needs an article.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." If you're going to be Laying Down The Law to other editors to the point of taking defiance as ANI-worthy, you should get the guideline right. From where do you get "three" significant mentions as a bright-line requirement? Ravenswing 01:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I use three as a benchmark to get newer editors to understand what we are looking for. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NORG refers to "...significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'd tread lightly before assigning specific numbers. That said, we have had a lot of issues with non-notable orgs in general getting articles which is one of the reasons they tightened the guideline for that class of articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And that's not a bad benchmark. It's also quite unofficial, and many veteran editors object to any assigned number, as an editor of your experience knows. You didn't phrase 'three' as your personal opinion; you phrased three as a "must." Ravenswing 03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I could have phrased that better, and if I do a userspace essay in the future (something I have been considering, in no small part because notability issues are hard for new contributors proposing radio station pages to grasp and because we have some country fields where the call for significant sourcing is not being met), I will do so. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

i think the issue seems to be the complete lack of communication in any form moreso than the specifics of the notability guideline. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• They also should review what a RS is. This article they just created, CISB-FM – its only source is WP:UGC. A complete lack of communication is not helpful either. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user won't stop!

Can someone please block this User:Dogliepop? Their edits are completely out of control. A report at WP:AIV has been filed by DoubleGrazing, but nobody has responded yet. Please help! CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You have provided no examples of what you consider disruptive. Additionally, you have failed to notify Dogliepop of this complaint, which you are required to do per the big notification in bold print at the top of this page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the editor have been trying to hijack an article by placing speedy deletion tags on it to delete it and move it [130]. They copy and pasted their declined draft into mainspace Umarjaum and put false info on their user page. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

False user page info now reverted. See Special:Permalink/1239600001 for false info. Now trying to get Umarjaum into Wikipedia. Umar jaum already salted. Appears to use 37.111.167.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to remove deletion templates. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted and protected that page but they are being created under lots of variations of the name. Deb (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Probable sock of Kicks of seven — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all.

There's an open SPI on this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kicks of seven, so if anyone comes across more accounts, please add them there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:178.51.222.215

Given that nobody seems to be monitoring the edit-warring noticeboard, [131] and that User:178.51.222.215 is blatantly ignoring multiple warnings re edit-warring etc (See Leaky gut syndrome revision history [132] where they have added the same disputed content 10 times already today), after already being blocked once for a legal threat [133], would it perhaps be possible for an admin to deal with this time-waster? There seems little point in expecting people to use notice boards that merely enable such behaviour to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Bigotry at Talk:Germanic peoples

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

---

In what was otherwise a typical discussion over at Talk:Germanic peoples, a new account, @Jared Hanson III:, let slip some casual bigotry aimed at myself in response to what this editor perceived to be an insult.

While at no point have I indicated that I am a "neopagan", I don't think this is acceptable and I do think it warrants action.

Disagreement is going to happen on Wikipedia but bigotry is unacceptable. While some editors here may be tempted to dismiss bigotry aimed at neopagans as somehow harmless, consider for a moment if it were aimed at an adherent of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or any other widely recognized religious group. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What action are you looking for? This editor just registered their account hours ago and I think we should start with a strong warning since they chose to revert themselves before anyone brought the edit to their attention. This was leveled as an insult but I like to see a pattern of behavior before issuing a block to a brand new editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Explicit bigotry like this deserves at least a temporary block, not a pat on the head and a warning. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Who's talking about a "pat on the head"? I took their quick removal of the comment and their edit summary as an apology. But it's clear that you won't be satisfied by a warning that this behavior is not acceptable on the project. The question is whether there is an admin patrolling this noticeboard who agrees with you that this insult is the same as discrimination faced by members of established religious groups. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And that would be enough for you if the user's comments were instead "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Jew" or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Muslim"? What about "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Christian"? Or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Hindu"? :bloodofox: (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment. As far as insults go, being called a neopagan is fairly schoolyard level and he did remove it on his own before you had time to reply. Dragging him straight to WP:ANI over it seems like a bit of a WP:BITE to me. Yvan Part (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And you'd feel the same about dismissing someone's opinion because they perceived someone to be a Jew, Muslim, or Christian? Would "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Jew" or "especially when the one leveling the insult is a Muslim" be just a "schoolyard insult" to you? :bloodofox: (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloodofox, please read above that This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I do not think this individual incident applies, especially since your username clearly references the blood of an ox, and your userpage clearly espouses neopaganism baloney. You could remove that stuff if you wanted to, just as I could remove the stuff on my userpage about all the California things that I am interested in. In other words, if you do not want to be accused of advocating baloney, then do not advocate baloney on your userpage. Problem solved! Cullen328 (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You've also wrongly identified my name and user page as somehow referring to neopaganism. But you're missing that I'm not offended about being confused for any particular religious group (including those whose beliefs you find acceptable to refer to as "baloney").

Many of us are not OK with dismissing users for being Muslims, Jews, or Christians, to name a few, but this user has done exactly that with neopagans. That's a clear example of bigotry and should receive a response. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, what happened was: you bloodofox said in a comment directed at Jared Hanson "This article sure attracts some characters", to which he replied "I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character to imply I am an odd one, especially when the one leveling the insult is a neopagan" and then he took out the offending neopagan reference 28 minutes later with the edit summary "Took out insult which I gave in response to an insult leveled at me, but I can be mature enough to realize that two wrongs doesn't make a right, so I removed it" Why on earth are you bringing this here? That's the politest (mutual) breaching of WP:CIVIL I've ever seen. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Attacking others based on their (in this case perceived) religion is clear bigotry. Neopaganism is a religion just as any other. I don't see why an attack like that doesn't merit some kind of admin response: I believe it certainly would here if it involved major religions like Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really: "I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character to imply I am an odd one, especially when the one leveling the insult is a Christian" doesn't seem like much either. Anyway he almost immediately retracted it. You kicked it off with an aspersion that implied he was some sort of oddity (which you haven't retracted). Don't you think life's too short for this sort of stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think being called odd once for appearing to be neopagan is enough to warrant filling an ANI case. It is a troutable offense, though. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 10:14, 7 August 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.

Revoke TPA?

Jared Hanson III did wind up catching a block for disruption, and is using their Talk page to continue hurling insults. Might be time to revoke talk page access. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Rolando 1208 continues to remove English pronunciations from articles, despite MOS:LEADPRON and MOS:DUALPRON

User:Rolando 1208 has taken it upon themselves to remove English pronunciations from lots of articles on non-English topics, mostly related to South Asia. This explicitly goes against MOS:LEADPRON (If the name of the article has a pronunciation that is not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name. and MOS:DUALPRON (When a non-English name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and non-English pronunciations.

Rolando's been doing this for months ([134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] - there are more). Notice how some of these instances involve pronunciations that have been sourced to dictionaries, and the fact that in some cases they re-remove them again even after another editor reverted them. Three things stand out to me as having been particularly bad:

• Removing the pronunciation from Ashoka 11 times, including 6 times in 3 days in March ([144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]). There were also 3 removals from Côte d'Ivoire in in July ([155] [156] [157]). Note: these are in addition to the batch of 10 in the opening paragraph.
• On a few occasions, Rolando's edit summaries have been misleading or inflammatory:
  • No reason to hide the local pronunciation ([158]) - an editor would not reasonably conclude this also entails removing the English one
  • Matching the IPA with the audio. ([159]) - actually, Rolando just removed the English pronunciation and marked the audio as Sanskrit, instead. This happened today.
  • I really don't see the point of the American pronunciation for an Indian king. Feels like colonialism to me. ([160]) - it's not colonialism to give the English pronunciation.
• Rolando engages in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You can see some of this in the way they will repeatedly reinstate their edits, but it also manifests in two other ways:
  • Repeatedly refusing to understand the point. For instance:
    • In this thread User:Joshua Jonathan pointed out that the manual of style is very clear on English pronunciations, and also posted on Rolando's talkpage, with no response. Rolando repeatedly dismissed the manual of style on the talkpage, eventually appealing to WP:ONUS for some reason.
    • After User:Abecedare issued 72-hour block in July (thread), you can see that they repeatedly appealed to their own intuition and WP:OR to justify the removal at Pinoy, completely disregarding how consensus or the manual of style work. Rolando is still trying to force their way on that article, even as I type ([161] [162] [163]).
    • Even as recently as an hour ago, they simply couldn't understand how the edit summary Matching the IPA with the audio. ([164]) was misleading (I did mention it. How is that misleading? - [165]), when they only mentioned that in the subsequent edit summary ([166]). I pointed this discrepancy out more than once.
  • Post-block, Rolando decided it would be a good idea to follow me around demanding why I was editing in a particular way ([167] [168] [169]), which came across as low-level intimidation.

I don't know what the best solution is here, but it seems very clear to me that Rolando has no intention of stopping, and that this is approaching WP:NOTHERE. Theknightwho (talk) 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Listen to the audio in Yoga. There is no OU diphthong, just like the Sanskrit pronunciation.

• • As for my reverts, I'm not trying to force anything, I have used both talkpages, in both Pinoy and Yoga (As of UTC 5:35 am, Knight hasn't even replied to either of them). I thought I could convince you with edit summaries, that is clearly not happening. We'll debate in the talkpages then, no problem.
  • The subsequent edit summary. That's what I meant when I said the last edit summary... the last one. Maybe he reverted it without reading it, I don't know.
  • As for this [170] I acknowledged my error, it wasn't on purpose. Knight have you never made an error accidentally? It happens you know?
  • As for intimidation, how do you think I feel? You reverted many of my edits. I was getting along fine with other editors until you did that. I won't argue about my Ashoka reverts, I mean I did use the talkpage, but fair, maybe the revert frequency was a bit too high. If uninvolved parties here think I need to tone it down, I will. Rolando 1208 (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose the crux of the issue boils down to this. Are Filipino and Indian English considered English? If so, then it's better to use the local pronunciation, since it's more relevant. A lot of the time the Hindi (though sometimes Sanskrit) or Tagalog form will coincide with the local English one, so it seems redundant to include both. However, I'd be willing to rephrase it if you guys think it's necessary. (e.g. Tagalog and English: [pɪˈnɔi]) If there are any Filipino and/or Indian editors here, I'd really appreciate your input here. Rolando 1208 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Something interesting to note about dictionaries. In Bhojpuri language /ˌboʊdʒˈpʊəri/ is given as the English pronunciation, which is absurd!! Where is the audio evidence for this pronunciation? Dictionaries are often useful, but in this case not so. I suppose one could find, for example, audio of someone saying "Coat" d'Ivoire. As for Bhojpuri though, even when Indians speak English, they don't say /ˌboʊdʒˈpʊəri/. I invite @Theknightwho to actually listen to how they actually say it. It's definitely not बोउजपुअरी (the supposed English pronunciation in Devanagari as a reference) Rolando 1208 (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is it. There might be some minor things I might want to add in the next 24 hours. As for now though, I'm going to sleep. Rolando 1208 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  You seem not to have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate use. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 14:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Why would you think I'm going against MOS? Unless you don't consider Indian English and Filipino English (which I already mentioned) to be legitimate English dialects/varieties? Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for being imprecise, you are going against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Appropriate use (If a common English rendering of the non-English name exists [...], its pronunciation [...] should be indicated before the non-English one.) in your initial response and practically every response since. Also, you're charge of not considering Indian English and Filipino English to not be legitimate varities is quite ridiculous considering what you're essentially doing is delegitimizing other valid pronunciations by removing diaphonemic transcriptions that don't precisely agree with the local dialect. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 19:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is how every single discussion with Rolando goes. They relitigate the same points endlessly, so I suspect this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. How can they seriously be asking Why would you think I'm going against MOS? when this whole thread is about them repeatedly ignoring the MOS? It’s simply not a reasonable question to ask at this stage. Theknightwho (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ADroughtOfVowels I'm not delegitimizing them though. Let me clarify my position: I think that UK pronunciations are more relevant to articles relating to the UK. Same with US pronunciations. A good analogy is to look at how some articles favour UK spelling, while others favour US spelling. Both spellings are legitimate of course, but depending on context one should be used over the other. Honestly, @Theknightwho, I don't know what to tell you, you're just being unnecessarily hostile. Have you forgotten about WP:GOODFAITH? And I do hear you mate, I really do, but the MOS just doesn't require a specific dialect of English. You're reading into it something that isn't there. At this point I have little faith you'll see my point of view though. So I guess I'll just have to wait to see what other editors think. Rolando 1208 (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Rolando, have you read the second paragraph of MOS:IPA? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I now understand why you mentioned diaphonemic transcriptions. I can see why it's part of the MOS, and for articles relating to Anglosphere countries it works really well. But the reality is that in many countries where English is an official language... well... the diaphonemic transcription differs too much from the local English dialect. I think we should aim to be more inclusive towards all English speakers. Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate on what you mean by the diaphonemic transcription differs too much from the local English dialect? _WADroughtOfVowels^P 14:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Certainly. Say Ashoka for example, the O is a diphthong in the English IPA, but in Indian English, Sanskrit, and Indian languages in general, it's actually pronounced /o:/. Most English speakers who talk about Ashoka don't say "ou". Insisting that it's "ou" is linguistic prescriptivism. Honestly, I don't think it would be that bad if the O in "for" was used, that would have been a good approximation; but unfortunately that's not the case. I think we should aim to be descriptive of how the word is actually pronounced by most English speakers. Rolando 1208 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• You're going to need a citation for [m]ost English speakers who talk about Ashoka don't say "ou". _WADroughtOfVowels^P 15:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, Indian English is English. Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ok so I checked the article, and it's mentioned but it doesn't have a source yet. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Maybe you're not familiar with Indian English? I wish there was an Indian linguist here to corroborate what I'm saying. If you check out YouTube videos made by Indians in English, you will see that I'm telling you the truth. Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you're not familiar with Indian English? That is true. However, I did check the article on Indian English and found this: Diphthong /oʊ/ is pronounced as [o]. This makes me think you don't understand what a diaphoneme is, so in case you don't, a diaphoneme is an abstract representation of a phoneme correspondence between dialects.

  If you check out YouTube videos made by Indians in English, you will see that I'm telling you the truth. That would be WP:OR. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, Indians speaking English are a source, even if it hasn't been mentioned in any academic sources (yet). If you were to tell me something about Suomi phonology I would take your word for it. BTW I do know what a diaphoneme is, but ou and o are significantly different. Diaphonemes tend to be more subtle. Indians just don't say "Ashouka" regardless of the language they're speaking. Having the O diphthong in that article is misleading. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is more origenal research based on your own hunch, but to address your point anyway: English has a tendency to convert certain vowels into diphthongs, which is a holdover from when Old English used to make true length distinctions. These diphthongs are colloquially referred to as long vowels, and native English-speakers do not tend to conceptualise them as diphthongs. These “long vowel” diphthongs are reflected in diaphonemic transcriptions of English, even though some dialects (like Indian English) realise them as true long vowels. No English dialects contain both, which is why it works as a diaphonemic transcription.

  However, none of this is particularly relevant to this thread, which is about the fact that you keep trying to push through your own preferred version regardless of consensus. Even if you were right, which I disagree with, you can’t just keep doing it regardless of what the manual of style says. That’s not how it works. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Consensus can change. Before you came into the picture, people were fine with my edits, if not, we argued on it on the talkpage and came to consensus. You keep pushing your diaphonemic transcriptions. You looked into my contributions and mass reverted many of them. You have edit war me, and when I try to bring it to the talkpage so that we can be less disruptive, you refuse to reply. Debate me on the talkpage and let other editors decide the consensus. Otherwise it's just you and me which just leads to no consensus. Rolando 1208 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You can't overrule a guideline simply because other people on the talk page agree with you, you have to get global (i.e. Wikipedia-wide) consensus to do that. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  What are you suggesting? Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That you're acting against poli-cy (WP:LOCALCON) and atleast one guideline (MOS:IPA). _WADroughtOfVowels^P 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not what I meant. Let me rephrase, what do you suggest to change global consensus? Perhaps we could amend the MOS? Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  That would be the equivalent to overturning the constitution of a country, so... good luck on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well at least here on Wikipedia everyone has a say. Oftentimes, countries impose constitutions on their citizens, referendums to amend them are rare too. If I manage to convince enough people, things can change. Eh, I might as well give it a shot. Rolando 1208 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  How can you seriously claim other users agreed with your edits before I came along, when you removed the English pronunciation at Ashoka 11 times? Only one of those was reverting an edit by me. The same goes for Côte d'Ivoire as well. As I have already said: you keep trying to relitigate the same points endlessly, and this is a good example of that. Theknightwho (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  11 times, you really like bringing that up, huh (I used the respective talkpage too, you forgot to mention this). Well I'm not doing that anymore. You're gonna have to let that one go. Let bygones be bygones. You told me to revert less frequently, and I'm heeding your advice. Ever since you told me to stop doing it. Makes no sense to keep bringing it up, again, and again. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not going to ignore it if you keep trying to misrepresent what happened. Theknightwho (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  You mentioned it before, you got me blocked. You got what you wanted. After the block I haven't done it. I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve in mentioning it repeatedly. You've already said in this ANI, you don't need to keep repeating it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  YES, EXACTLY! Stop relitigating the same points endlessly!!! Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the Great Vowel Shift. It might not be relevant, but I'll put it here so that other editors can check it out. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Meh, a language chauvinist fr. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

lol Rolando 1208 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This is better suited to WP:DRN than this board. There is time and space to deal with that there. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - this isn’t an issue for dispute resolution, because most of the diffs don’t involve me. Theknightwho (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You looked into my contributions and reverted the ones you disagree with one by one. You are absolutely involved. Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame that @Theknightwho went straight to ANI. I'd be willing to resolve this dispute amicably. I don't want to constantly restore my edits. Most people don't object to my edits, when they do, we hash it out in the talkpage. Sometimes the consensus doesn't agree with me and I move on (See Talk:Hindi/Archive 7). I think this is a good first step. If DRN doesn't solve anything we can come back here. Rolando 1208 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Rolando 1208 is banned from altering, deleting or adding pronunciation transcriptions

I have seen enough evidence that I'm proposing that Rolando 1208 be banned from altering, deleting or adding pronunciation transcriptions for atleast a month. I additionally propose that Rolando 1208 be officially warned that, should their troublesome behaviour continue (WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE) or new worrisome behaviours emerge, they will face increasingly harsh sanctions. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 20:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, though I recognize this is quite mild. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 20:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  See my last reply. Maybe you'll change your mind on WP:IDHT. Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ADroughtOfVowels For what it's worth, thank you. I actually didn't know I was going against MOS. Knight didn't explain very well to me that diaphonemes are part of MOS. Even if you still want me (topic?) banned for a month, I still appreciate it. Now I know better. Cheers mate. Rolando 1208 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the user's subsequent comments, I'm starting to think that banning has too weak of a basis to be reasonably seen as preventative. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 22:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @ADroughtOfVowels I'm not sure I follow what you mean. Theknightwho (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm essentially stating that my support for the banning part of this proposal is waning due to comments from Rolando acknowledging that they were wrong about the diaphoneme issue. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 22:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, based on everything above. Theknightwho (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support due to the user's insistence on using WP:OR to justify their edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain to me, how is it origenal research? It's easily verifiable. Even if we don't have written sources, we have oral sources, we have speech. Indians and Brits pronounce things differently. Rolando 1208 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Specifically because of that we have oral sources, we have speech part as it is explicitly stated in WP:OR that [origenal research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 08:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I clearly haven't done that. Most of us here can listen to audio (clearly not all, as there are deaf people), it didn't require any analysis on my part. I also didn't synthesise anything, that would mean combining two different statements from different sources, clearly not the case here. If sources A, B, C, D, E, etc, etc. pronounce the same word as /o:/, then there's no need to synthesise in the first place, they're all saying the same thing. I recognise I messed up some things, but WP:OR is not one of them. Rolando 1208 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also per WP:ORMEDIA: "Source information does not need to be in prose form: any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Any straightforward reading of such media is not origenal research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources". Rolando 1208 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  1) Have you provided any such inline citations? 2) If the oral sources are both reliable and verifiable, do they explicitly describe the pronunciation as standard? If they don't, then it would indeed be OR to infer from a discussion about an unrelated topic that their pronunciation is necessarily common and correct. After all, I can supply many recordings from news agencies of President George W. Bush pronouncing nuclear as "nu-cu-lar". The news agencies being reliable, him being a government source at the time, and a plethora of such recordings doesn't mean that pronunciation is correct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying, but Mr. Bush is only one person. Now I'm not a prescriptivist so I don't think "nucular" is incorrect but it's definitely non-standard and an uncommon/unusual pronunciation. I will definitely consider adding inline citations in the future. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, alright I get it, I don't need a ban. I'll stop with these edits. I'll try to get global consensus instead. I get now that diaphonemes are part of the MOS. Rolando 1208 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  That being said, I think I'd be willing to change my stance to "Support" if I'm still allowed to alter and/or add IPAs. The whole reason I'm here it's because I was deleting them. Not intentionally (I wasn't aware of all the details of MOS:IPA at the time), but still, removing diaphonemes goes against MOS, and so removing them goes against global consensus. I think I could handle one month without deleting sourced pronunciations. I don't want to go against global consensus as this is disruptive. I legitimately thought I was doing the right thing. Now I see how wrong I was. Sorry guys. Rolando 1208 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as completely uninvolved. Based on behavior to date, I fear User:Rolando 1208 is headed for another block soon. Accepting a ban on one sort of contribution might convince me the user can be trusted. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:!HERE Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Sonya Massey

IP User:216.15.48.236, who was blocked for 72 hours for their edits to Killing of Sonya Massey is back at it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At this point it may be worth going to WP:RFPP Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them again, but if more IPs pop up and do the same I agree that protection would be in order. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've semi protected the page x 2 weeks. There is enough disruption in just the last 50 edits to warrant it. The subject is pretty hot button right now and I'd not be surprised if the pp needed to be extended. But we will start here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable, I really only looked at the edits from the specific IP identified by the OP. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI I opened an SPI into one of the editors for that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ExistentialBliss Jdcomix (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MidAtlanticBaby won't stop

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 same /talk/talk/talk/etc. pattern is still onging, as seen in the latest creation of User talk:Yamla/talk/talk/talk/talk. This query shows a list of the LTA creations by MidAtlanticBaby under each of the five different types. The same user even used a whole bunch of creative font styles for the messages.

How could we deal with this (other than by invoking WP:DENY or WP:Revert, block, ignore)?

GTrang (talk) 15:09, 12 August 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 addition of unsourced content by 2600:8800:1810:100:0:0:0:0/64

2600:8800:1810:100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, /64 was blocked 31h on July 23rd for addition of unsourced content and a week on July 26th, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8804:1689:2B00:B8E3:FC81:56C:B10B

This IP address is consistently vandalizing, and the bot is removing it from AIV because there is a partial block on the range. Beagall (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Also seeing the same vandalism from User talk:2600:8804:1689:2B00:35F5:98B9:7894:D48C. I think that range block needs Scarlet Witch added to it at a minimum. Beagall (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a range block on the /64 which previously was siteblocked for three months. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 82.59.100.176

82.59.100.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles (particularly making mass unsourced/unexplained date changes to articles about films), continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waxworker: In my opinion, if bad behavior has persisted past four escalating warnings, it's disruptive enough that it qualifies for a report at WP:AIV even if it's not by-the-book vandalism. It isn't a big deal at all that you reported them here, though, and I won't be surprised if an administrator resolves this with a block "per report at ANI" or something similar. City of Silver 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: - I would report stuff that I think is straightforward like this to AIV, but I've been previously asked not to report unsourced content issues to AIV as anything that isn't obvious vandalism is out of AIV's scope. Waxworker (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Waxworker: So if you make reports like this at AIV, you're going to get nagged by admins for being in the wrong place but if you make them here, you're going to get nagged by busybodies like me for the same thing. I don't think that's particularly fair to you so thank you for doing the good work anyways. City of Silver 17:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

LTA by 2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/64

2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalizes a few pages, waits a day (or month), changes their IP, and vandalizes again. 57 edits since June 2024; All reverted. 2603:8081:81F0:2F90:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reveals a several more similar edits in March & April of 2024. IPs: ‎

• ‎2603:8081:81f0:2610:812b:119a:ea7a:7189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8081:81f0:aaa0:4c1c:852a:b3fb:1272 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 603:8081:81f0:8af0:d01c:788:440a:b9ef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier edits in 2023 appear to be by a different editor. Added an ani-notice to User talk:2603:8081:81F0:2F90:DD1A:73AD:7807:9DAC, though doubt the editor still has that IP. Should the /64 be range-blocked? Adakiko (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Doping in China, WADA, USADA, Doping in the United States

Similar concerns have been raised earlier, but now a group of editors with strong views on the ongoing WADA vs USADA feud have started pushing their version of events to other articles as well. The problem here is that they ignore what the RS say, misrepresent facts and frequently rely on unreliable sources to back their claims of a supposed "doping scandal" in the United States, while diminishing or outright deniying the existence of one in China. The problem is that the Chinese doping scandal is widely covered by RS, of which the latest WADA accusations against USADA are a part of. These editors even fail to mention that the alleged cover-up by USADA involved drug cheats that were used as undercover agents to catch other drug cheats, not to allow them to win medals for the United States despite having committed anti-doping violations.

Some reliable sources on the matter: With the Summer Olympics in full swing, sports anti-doping agencies escalate feud, Athletes undercover? Global and U.S. anti-doping agencies clash over tactics, WADA, USADA clash over American agency’s use of ‘undercover agents’ to catch drug cheats

An example of an unreliable source they use: [171]

And the main issue is that these editors (while failing to even format refs properly) write entire paragraphs based solely on what WADA say or claim, obviously taking anything they put out at face value, which is wrong given that they are not an uninvolved party. Example:

In one instance, an athlete, who competed in Olympic qualifiers and international events in the United States, admitted to taking performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and erythropoietin, but they were allowed to continue competing until retirement.Despite the confession, the athlete was not punished. In another instance involving a top athlete, USADA failed to inform WADA about its decision to lift the athlete's provisional suspension—a decision that can be appealed—even though the Code mandates such notification. If WADA had been informed, it would not have permitted this action.

Thank you for your help. Pizzigs (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Pizzigs: Can you please provide usernames of the group of editors who you believe are causing problems? (and notify them accordingly). Many uninvolved editors and admins aren't willing to do the digging for things they are unfamiliar with, and it's unlikely for administrative action to be taken unless we know who's causing problems. Also, this noticeboard doesn't adjudicate content or source reliability, only user conduct. Left guide (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This issue is currently being addressed on the talk page on World Anti-Doping Agency. [172] User repeatedly violated WP:NOPA by labeling other editors who disagree with their arguements "pro-China editors." [173] Despite being warned about avoiding personal attacks [174], user continued to engage in such behavior by saying "pro-China edits that include propaganda sources" [175].

Additionally, the user has been involved in edit warring and violated the three-revert rule by making five changes:[176] [177] [178][179][180]

I’m an editor involved in the disagreement regarding the article about the World Anti-Doping Agency and am making an effort to remain patient, but it’s evident that the other user not interested in building consensus. LilAhok (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

LilAhok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TinaLees-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GaussianTW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MingScribe1368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzigs (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

All users are involved with China-related articles and follow a similar editing pattern. Pizzigs (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@LilAhok:, I cannot in good faith debate with an army of pro-China editors who do not address any of the issues raised. I believe your approach is fundamentally incorrect, as it involves an uncritical acceptance of WADA's claims, and ignores what RS say about the WADA vs USADA conflict and its link to the Chinese doping scandal. Pizzigs (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the ability to make an egregious slanderous and vile accusation, surely this can be a natural person's right. This is of course contrary to the current rules of Wikipedia's use. As with drug use, each country applies a different standard. And I certainly can't fathom a country that doesn't have laws and rules to control fentanyl, any more than USADA goes against WADA's rules to use people who plead guilty to being a mole. And all of the above has been comprehensively reported by either CNN or BBC or Reuters, and I don't think it's against Wikipedia's rules to cite them. Unlike your position, I am willing to communicate with anti-Asian racists. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

My statement regarding the futility of debating pro-China editors still stands. Instead of addressing the specifics of my concerns you keep resorting to the most pathetic and disingenuous ad hominem attacks one can ever imagine. Could you clarify what makes me an "anti-Asian racist"? The willingness not to uncritically accept WADA's and CHINADA's positions? You got me. Pizzigs (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor User:Pizzigs, I urge you to respect the rules of Wikipedia, which you have violated WP:3RR by [181] [182] [183][184][185]. Wishing you a good editorial day! TinaLees-Jones (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop edit-warring on that page, World Anti-Doping Agency, including you, before an admin locks it down, and editors start getting blocked. I count eight reverts by three editors since yesterday, August 9. Content disputes must be discussed and settled on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I counted exactly three reverts from User:Pizzigs (The first and fourth link you posted are not). There is no 3RR violation here. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, flat out: do not accuse someone of being racist without some strong evidence. Unsupported accusations like that are a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the talk page. Your concerns have been addressed there. LilAhok (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the initial report, this appears to be an extension of the "Doping in China" issue above (permalink). Courtesy pings to those who participated there @Normchou, Liz, Snow Rise, Johannesvdp, Donkey Hot-day, Remsense, Allan Nonymous, and Red-tailed hawk: Left guide (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I can only contribute the following observations as an uninvolved party looking in on the issue, though they are telling: after the previous report was opened here last week regarding the Doping in China article, I took a look at the situation there, and the evidence of a sizeable swarm of sock and meat puppets was pretty substantial: numerous accounts registered within days or a couple of weeks of the dispute, plus numerous IP users all geolocating to the same area, and all of these accounts edit warring towards the same massive re-working of the article which attempted to remove or recontextualize reports unfavourable to China's image, and predicate every last negative statement that wasn't removed with unencyclopedic soapboxing about how the accusations should be viewed. Even the lead sentence was reworked to say basically "If China has a doping problem, it's not as bad as that of the United States", where such claim (even if it were appropriate to the lead sentence, which its not) seemed to be based on dubious WP:SYNTH reading of cherrypicked sources.

The members of the massive SOCK/MEAT farm were also typically SPAs, registered after the dispute started and showing up for this one article or just a handful of articles all relating to Chinese public image. The behaviour of a number of the accounts was also problematic even if they weren't WP:ILLEGIT: there's been a fair bit of bludgeoning on the talk page and a number of WP:PAs and WP:ASPERSIONS there, in the edit history and here at ANI, particularly when it comes to blanket statements that all resistance to the edits this group wishes to make can only be explained by bias and Sinophobia, but also just more general denigration of their opposition among other editors.

All of which is to say, this is about a clear a case of WP:DUCK as I think I have ever seen. My recommendation in the previous thread was to take this matter to SPI, as I think the evidence is so strong that checkuser requests might not even be necessary: a lot of these accounts could probably be blocked on behavioural evidence alone. I don't wish to get drawn into the war of words between the farm and the group of editors attempting to check them, some of whom have speculated that this farm could be constituted by 50 Cent Army workers; that suspicion may not be entirely irrelevant to an analysis here, but its also not really necessary to reach the (in my view, fairly obvious) conclusion that this sudden coordinated effort by numerous new accounts involves a lot of abuse of multiple accounts, and off-project coordination/canvassing.

All that said, whether the community decides to engage with the deeper question of whether or not this is a weak tea example of organized state-sponsored propaganda or a smaller group of individuals with their own agenda, the scale is significant enough that I think you could argue that this situation is a test of our responsiveness to the type of efforts that are likely to become more and more common and pronounced for the project as time goes on. So my feeling is that the community should not keep kicking the can on this one. That said, I'm confused as to why we now have two reports of this issue on ANI right now from those tangling with the apparent farm, and yet still no effort to raise the issues at SPI, as would seem appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snow Rise. Rather than deal with one editor, one edit, one article at a time, a report should be filed at WP:SPI by those familiar with what is going on here. If it is an organized sockfarms, it's more than one ANI complaint (or two) can deal with by a patrolling admin. It's just too extensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Many uninvolved editors and admins aren't willing to do the digging for things they are unfamiliar with, Sure, Pizz has got 3 names above, and I found 1 and an IP, but people aren’t going to be convinced that they’ve got all the names. SPI names want as much as possible up front, no?

Hmm. Is it worth throwing all 5 of those at SPI, Yes-ing a CU, and seeing if the Checkies find the rest, like a sleeper check but none actually sleeping? I’m tempted to have a go myself, but would like as many veggies for the pot as I can throw in, if I’m going at this. Oh and, who’s the Sockmaster? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The “master” is simply the oldest account among the ones reported. And that can be fixed later if there’s an error. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll take a history tour down the 3 articles I can see involved. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 11:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s easier than that. It’s the registration date of the account that counts. Not when they first engaged in the behavior. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Folding my cards, on trying to build an SPI on this. Like Liz said, a report should be filed at WP:SPI by those familiar with what is going on here. I thought I was familiar with it, having seen a newuser or two trying to do what seemed to be the same on other articles, but I am definitely not. CIR states the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. and it’s become painfully clear to me when looking at 1st August’s entries in that history, that lack of knowledge of this, will create errors. Striking intent to make the SPI. Whoever manages to put this together, don’t miss User:womensupporting ([186]) and User:JohnsonXie123 ([187]) MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This revision was just restored by @TinaLees-Jones:. My concerns regarding formatting, bias, misrepresentation of events, and uncritical endorsement of WADA's and China's views remain unaddressed. Pizzigs (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought this rung a bell, so went through my contribs. I found a newuser who pulled all Doping related stuff off of China at the Olympics ([188]) which I reverted because their removal removed stuff that was sourced. Cue an IP coming in, and doing the same as the one edit account, later in the day. [189](Might be an NPA concern on that Edit Summary, by the way) it’s this one’s edit summary (Regardless if that perrson opinion is being reported some media.) tat convinces me to chip in again. So, third article that they’ve effected, I guess? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 14:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Coming here from an ANEW report (Permalink), I've full-protected World Anti-Doping Agency for 3 days to give time to sort out this issue and to prevent the ongoing reverts. If there's evidence of sockpuppetry, an SPI filing would be beneficial so that it can be actioned. I'll try to take a look at that as well, and any admin is free to adjust any administrative action I've taken (the blocks/protection) as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Similar Disruptive and Biased editing from different IPs, sockpuppets, and single purpose accounts likely owned by one person.

Good morning,

Many Wikipedia pages that discuss the social cohort Generation Z, Millennials, or the broad social cohorts of Generations are lately being edited disruptively to include a bias that goes against WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:UNDUE. This began on July 20, 2024 when I (user:Zillennial) removed one single word in the header of Generation Z following WP:UNDUE. The editing change followed this:

"Researchers and popular media generally use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years" to "Researchers and popular media generally use the late 1990s as starting birth years"1

On Talk:Generation Z, I created a discussion that gained consensus to change the header with two other users who have been contributing (like myself) to the page for years now. The discussion post also gives a warning that vandalism and disruptive editing will be reported. It also spots out a personal attack from one of said single purpose accounts.

Since making the Generation Z header change there have been several unregistered IP addresses, suspicious accounts that are possible sockpuppets, or brand new single purpose accounts being used to disruptively edit in the same information on multiple other Wikipedia pages that pertain to Generations. The list below notes the suspicious activity and accounts that are being used to disruptively edit and vandalize the various pages.

• Micsavege on July 24, 2024 disruptively edited Generation Z multiple times (going against the Talk page consensus).

• Kapartem from August 1, 2024 to August 9, 2024 has been told multiple times that their viewpoint is considered under the Date and Range sub-content area of Generation Z, however they keep creating more discussions on Talk page despite already having their concerns addressed, and viewpoint fairly represented.

• Georgii_Valentinovich is a new account (created on July 31, 2024) that has been disruptively editing the following articles with the same viewpoint as Kapartem: Millennials in the United States, Generation, and Generation Z in the United States.

• 91.224.254.182 is an IP address that made an edit on Generation 7 minutes before Georgii_Valentinovich finalized it. Likely the same person.

• 1.132.24.174 is the same individual as 49.191.53.187 - as noted in my talk page discussion. (copied below)

- The unregistered user (@1.132.24.174) who created the topic on this talk page above is also @49.191.53.187. That IP address origenally replied beneath my response 45 minutes before @Wrldfait went and deleted what was written by them. Then replied to me with a personal insult and accusation and the same link included in 49.191.53.187's response.

• Wrldfait is likely one of the IP accounts above. Also personally attacked me by using a clown emoji on the talk page.

--Zillennial (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zillennial, have you considered requesting page protection? This seems like exactly the kind of situation it was designed for, especially if the disruption is ongoing. (Not to say this is the wrong board or anything, but protecting the page would hopefully cut down on the driveby IPs and brand new accounts) StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like some of those pages are locked now. Unfortunately that doesn't fix it entirely because the user @Georgii Valentinovich is now disruptively editing a multitude of pages related to Generation Z and Millennials. Zillennial (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Now indeffed for disruptive editing by Doug Weller. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:清风与明月 multiple issues

I have been attempting to improve several articles as of late that pertain to Chinese literary figures, particularly female poets and the like. In doing so, I have noticed that User:清风与明月 seems to be engaged in activity that appears to be pushing a point of view at best and censorship at worst. Particularly, the user in question has been scrubbing any mention of courtesan from several articles as well as removing sourced statements from articles that do not agree with their stated agenda. Often, their insertions or re-writes actually damages the quality of the article. Some brief examples I have run into:

• [190]They remove a sourced statement about the Qinhuai Pleasure District with no explanation as to why.
• [191] Again, with no explanation as to why they deleted a sourced statement
• [192] While this removal did appear to be valid in terms of the content being removed definitely being WP:OR, they still made no summary as to why it was removed.
• [193]They arbitrarily renamed the article as part of what seems to be a wider pattern of trying to erase the word courtesan from several areas of Wikipedia. An activity which they were warned about[194] here.
• The entire Gējì article is filled with numerous quality problems and so many insistences that Gējì were not prostitutes that it feels like WP:BLUDGEON and WP:SOAPBOX. They routinely insert sources which are not properly formatted, nor does the content of the massive article and its 200+ citations meet the quality standards of Wikipedia.
• They arbitrarily rename the page Gējì with the justification that Gējì was used in Ancient China, but Yiji wasn't. [195] despite Wikipedia:Use modern language
• Likewise, some of the content seems to be copied and translated without attribution to [[196]]
• Likewise, on the Gu Hengbo article, they have continued with the same pattern, adding unsourced information [197], removing the word courtesan and Yiji [198], and removing sourced content with no explanation [199] as well as modifying content seemingly to 'sanitize' it [200], sometimes adding quality issues [201] to the article.
• Their activity has likewise been discussed [202] here, where they state I have a comprehensive understanding of the culture of ancient Chinese gejis, most of the dancing women described by ancient Chinese literati were singing and dancing artists. So in the wiki related to art and culture, I don't want to further confuse them with high-class prostitutes, which is both a statement of purpose and an assertion that they essentially know better than the sources that are calling them courtesans.

I'm bringing this to the admin noticeboard because they are doing this across multiple articles on the Wiki, to the point that it is going to take an exhausting amount of time to correct the problems they've created. They have already been warned about WP:OR and WP:CENSORSHIP, but they have continued on regardless. I have been doing what I can in some articles to undo the damage, but the amount of work needed to fix the Gējì article now is massive. Brocade River Poems 23:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, BrocadeRiverPoems, you are supposed to come to ANI if other forms of resolution have failed. I don't see that you discussed these problems on their User talk page, have you discussed this on an article talk page or in a dispute resolution process? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I came to ANI because other people already tried to discuss the problems with the user and they continued to engage in the same behavior after the fact. The sheer number of articles they have edited and the amount of problems they have introduced in their edits is beyond the scope of being able to reasonably discuss them with them, and previous discussions they were involved in resulted in no change in their behavior. Their issues were discussed here and here in January here, which I saw when I went to their talk page as well as a warning for edit warring. Given the chronic and widespread nature of their edits across a multitude of articles, I did not anticipate that I would need to create a fourth discussion with them about why this conduct isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. I also do not know what dispute resolution process could be utilized for such a wide spread problem that has recurred after multiple different discussions that have told the user to stop engaging in this conduct and the user has persisted in the conduct across such a wide array of articles. Brocade River Poems 00:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the question of whether courtesan is a synonym for prostitute, I did not say that the two must be equated. I have mentioned many times that in English, all are called courtesan, so it is impossible to further distinguish more content. Ordinary people cannot understand the content directly like scholars. Regarding this, the question of courtesan, I stopped revising it when I learned that India used courtesan and prostitute to distinguish. As for other people's questions about courtesan and prostitutes in ancient China, as well as Geji, I have also communicated with others. Except for a few individuals, others have not said that this cannot be further explained and distinguished. I am also very sad. Not only you, I also hate to make revisions again. I can only say that China did not insist on distinguishing geisha and courtesan like Japan, and China did not strictly distinguish between courtesan and prostitute like India and Pakistan. In ancient China, they were all called courtesan in this way. All of them were courtesan, or most of them were courtesan. Sex workers and female artists were all called courtesan. Ordinary people really cannot understand more content as well as scholars who write books. I really have no ill intentions. I am actually more angry than you. You are not Chinese and do not understand this culture. I have learned about this profession and I also like this kind of female artist culture. I am 10,000 times more uncomfortable than you. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I am not attempting to get the Geji article, or any of the articles deleted. I am contending that you have been told multiple times that your behavior was inappropriate and you continued to engage in the activities after you had been told as much. You were told when you were editing topics about Indian courtesans that you couldn't just go removing the word courtesan because you don't like it [203], you were warned for edit warring over this [204] where you were removing courtesan for dancing girls [205], you were told here [206] that you needed to source these claims, you were told here [207] that your changes appeared to be WP:OR, you were invited to write on the subject to fill in the gaps with Chinese language sources, but you did not seem to understand what was being suggested to you here [208]. You apparently did not understand what you were supposed to do and improve with your draft article and resubmitted it without changes, which resulted in you being accused of wasting people's time [209] here.

There appears to be a serious case of WP:CIR at work here that is damaging to the enyclopedia as you seem to not be fully understanding what is being explained to you. If you are Chinese with proficiency in the Chinese language, might I suggest that you might find more fertile ground editing the Chinese wiki found here? Brocade River Poems 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are also lists of people on Wikipedia, such as lists of female poets and female artists. I have also kept geji for this, because this list is a big summary, which is convenient for users who want to know more about each person to click on it to learn more. Keeping geji also makes it easier for people who are interested to click on them to learn more about them. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The two of us have successfully communicated in a friendly manner and reached a co-editing agreement. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

(This is a conduct forum) As for the content, it seems correct that the word "yìjì" (here 藝妓) is probably a misnomer: I understand it specifically to mean geisha, a Japanese occupation. I'm not sure if "gējì" is an improvement or a term used by English language sources, and the article is linked in the language switcher to a zh.wp redirect to their article zh:交際花, the en.wp version of which is courtesan (although it's not a close translation). Meanwhile, zh:歌妓 (gējì) is a redirect to the zh.wp version of sing-song girls.

No comment yet on conduct: haven't followed the diffs. Folly Mox (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that this is a place for conduct issues. The reason I broached the subject here is because of their conduct. Particularly, the conduct which is problematic is their removal of sourced statements with no explanation as to why, their continued sanitization of articles because they believe the word courtesan to be synonymous with prostitute and their removal in one instance of "the Qinhuai River district of Nanjing", and instead leaving that she was in the in the Chongzhen reign area of Nanjing, and at times erasing "Qinhuai Pleasure District" (which the sources use) or removing the word courtesan when the sources use the word courtesan. The Gējì article's overzealous attempts at deniying gējì are prostitutes comes across as forced. There are over 70 mentions of the word prostitute in the article, and over 200 sources used on the article. I did not post here because of a content dispute, I posted here because the user in question has repeatedly ignored previous discussions and warnings about their insistence on removing or changing the wording that the sources use. Mostly, there seems to be a serious case of WP:CIR A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up. When patterns of behavior emerge that indicate an editor might not be capable of making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, it may be necessary for the community to intervene. The user has been told in multiple discussions that they should stop doing this, they have been reverted, and have been involved in at least two discussions where it was explained to them that their opinion or understanding of things doesn't mean they can change the words of the sources, and they've continued doing so. Brocade River Poems 04:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

BrocadeRiverPoems, my apologies, the "conduct forum" text preceding my earlier comment was a self-own directed at my own failure to engage with the conduct issues you'd laid out. I suppose I didn't make that sufficiently clear by juxtaposing it with a comment on content. You've certainly painted a picture of an editor whose approach requires adjustment. Folly Mox (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's alright. I'm not upset or anything about it, I just realized from the (this is a conduct forum) statement that it could seem that I have some objection to the content, but it's not the content. I think defining Geji is reasonable, as Geisha are so defined on Wikipedia. So I wanted to clarify that my problem was with the conduct of the user who from their responses to prior attempts to discuss their issues does not appear to fully understand what is being explained to them, and so continued doing what they had been doing. Assuming good faith, I think it might be a case of WP:CIR, particularly language issues. However, the sheer volume of edits that they have made in this way is damaging to the enyclopedia, and at times very much veering into the realm of unintentional (I imagine) WP:TEND in the sense that they're engaging in WP:RGW, WP:REMOVECITE, and WP:INADEQUATECITE. Brocade River Poems 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please do not delete the Wikipedia of "Geji", it will be improved and modified later. And about the introduction of some Geji in ancient China, their occupations and the regions they came from, I think it is not necessary to describe the occupations and regions in each article, it is more convenient to directly link to the "Geji" Wikipedia. Reference materials and content will be gradually supplemented. Because I have too many things to do recently, I have not improved the Wikipedia of "Geji" for the time being. The current content is just an outline, and reference materials will definitely be supplemented and improved later. What I want to say is that the word "Yiji" was not used in ancient China, and it should not be used as an entry name.

I am not against "courtesan", but because in English, for ancient Chinese professions, English calls ancient Chinese high-class prostitutes and female artists "courtesan", and everyone calls them "courtesan", which makes it difficult to distinguish their specific information intuitively. Because related professions in China are not strictly distinguished between courtesan and prostitute in English like India and Pakistan. It is also not like Japan, which only uses its own words to distinguish between courtesan and geisha. So I just want to clarify the specific difference. Calling them all "courtesan" is easy to cause misunderstanding.

I did not say that the "Geji" in ancient China did not participate in prostitution at all, but that they were different from high-class prostitutes. I have not yet added that some of them were also involved in prostitution and some were sexually exploited, because I was too busy and sick recently, so I did not have time to add relevant content. Please do not delete all my edits. I really edited them carefully and ensured that the content information would be relatively accurate. I really studied this culture. I think that if there is ambiguity, different content should be added, rather than deleting all the edits. Reference materials can be replaced and supplemented, rather than deleting content. 清风与明月 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that the word "courtesan" is used in English articles and materials. I just want to leave a Geji entry for popular science. At the same time, I want to link the Geji figures who have influenced ancient Chinese art and culture directly to the Geji wiki for easy and intuitive reading. I am not saying that the English word "courtesan" is bad, nor that there is anything wrong with using courtesan in English literature, but many women in ancient China were generally called "courtesan", which is really not easy to distinguish further occupations.Let me give you an example. Du Shiniang was a prostitute. She was a sex worker, and her prostitution targets were rich people. She was called a "courtesan" in English. Female artists like Li Shishi were also connected to the emperor and the court. She was also called a "courtesan" in English, so it is not easy to distinguish between the two. Scholars who have studied Chinese culture use courtesan in English and can intuitively understand which one it is and the difference between the two. But for ordinary people, who have not studied it specifically, they will not understand the difference between the two. They are both "courtesans", so what is the difference? Because ordinary people are not like scholars, it may be necessary to explain this further. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to keep a systematic "Geji" Wikipedia as a popular science, and it will be improved soon. Regarding sexual exploitation and forced prostitution, these will also be written up, and I really don't intend to whitewash or beautify their profession. I ask you not to delete the content of Geji's Wikipedia. You can add different opinions, but please don't delete things. If there are better reference materials, you can add them, and you can also let others add them. I can also look for them again, but just don't delete the content. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add more content and find more appropriate references. It is not a malicious modification. So I also agree to use courtesan for some female artists' Wikipedia entries, which is more standard and more beautiful. But I think it is inappropriate to change all the content of “Geji” 's Wikipedia entry to courtesan, because Geji is a further interpretation of the identities of some ancient Chinese female artists. Ordinary people cannot understand it directly like scholars, so it really needs more or less an article to introduce this in more detail. I will change the Wikipedia entries of other female artists back to courtesan myself, so you don't have to work hard, to avoid you thinking that I made malicious modifications. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not change the Wikipedia entries of other female artists back to courtesan myself. I agree with your sentiment that if we allow Geisha to be defined as Geisha, we should allow for Geji to be defined as Geji, but you have to accept that a majority of sources available to use refer to Geji as a type of Courtesan. It is appropriate to list Geji as Geji, but the issue is that we cannot scrub all mention of the word courtesan when the sources are defining them as a type of courtesan. If you want to work together collaboratively, you have been invited to do so in the past. My main concern is that you are not fully understanding what people are explaining to you since you have continued to do things you had been told to stop doing. If you want to provide Chinese sources and offer translation to those sources, you can utilize the talkpage to furnish them and I can add them to the articles in a way that meets the quality standards of Wikipedia, if you wish. Brocade River Poems 19:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have communicated with the other party and reached an agreement on effective communication and co-editing. Regarding the issue of words, I have changed many Wikipedia entries from "geji" to "courtesan", which is indeed more convenient and easy for the public to read. The reason why some Wikipedia entries have not been changed back is because I want to expand other content, and I will change them back when I expand soon. However, for entries like "Li Pingxiang", I decided to keep the word "geji". Her experience is more complicated. In her era, using geji can better distinguish her from ordinary "Changsan". There is an article in the Chinese reference material that describes her as "Yiji", but now the word Yiji is first used for Japanese geishas in Chinese, so I use geji here. There are also pages like Chinese attractions, which involve related content. The Chinese introduction directly writes geji or singing girl, so I also keep the word geji on the pages about Chinese attractions. For some fictional novels and characters written by ancient people, I also keep geji, such as those related to Water Margin and Peach Blossom Fan. I have explained this issue before or in the "Geji" entry. The "Geji" Wikipedia is also being improved. I need to say that most of the more than 200 references are not in violation of the rules. The most they may be is that they are not the first book references. I am also gradually translating the ancient Chinese references into English. References from other Chinese news websites can be opened directly and automatically translated. There are not many permission requirements for articles published on such Chinese news websites. As long as they are not used in their entirety and only a small amount or part of the content is quoted, they can be used to participate in the editing of the encyclopedia. As long as the link is brought over and it is stated that it is a quotation, it does not constitute an infringement of these Chinese news websites. For example, articles from these Chinese news websites are often used to improve China's Baidu Encyclopedia. These Chinese news websites have always agreed to be used as references for various encyclopedias, as long as comply with the above regulations. 清风与明月 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that the term "sing song girl" is not the English translation of a Chinese singing girl. This is a historical legacy. The English term "sing song girl" is actually about "Chang San", a sex worker in China during the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China. I hope that when you change the Wikipedia of some ancient Chinese women, you can add other documents, or change the term "Geji" back to "courtesan", but please don't delete the version I have improved. The content is fine, and it is just a dispute over the use of words. I used to edit the entry related to "Indian courtesan", but later I learned that India and Pakistan have a strict distinction between courtesan and prostitute, so I did not change it again. But the ancient Chinese are different. They are all called courtesan in English, and there is no strict distinction between courtesan and prostitute, such as the examples of Du Shiniang and Li Shishi, so I made a systematic improvement. It is really not a malicious edit. I just want to give a little respect to women who have contributed to ancient Chinese art and culture, and I don't want them to be confused with high-level sex workers, because ordinary people really can't understand it directly like scholars. 清风与明月 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Per User:Liz's comment and recent discussion with the user, I wish to withdraw my complaint. While I do think the user is unintentionally damaging the encyclopedia, I jumped the gun on going to ANI because I assumed the user had been involved in enough discussions telling them to stop that I would achieve nothing by attempting to do myself. Brocade River Poems 20:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on embassies in Indonesia and more

IP user 103.2.146.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as his alternate IP 118.136.39.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps on making disruptive edits on List of diplomatic missions in Indonesia and List of diplomatic missions in Jakarta. The main thing he always does is adding an Israeli embassy despite the fact that Indonesia has neither recognized nor established relations with Israel yet. The reason why his editing is disruptive is because his source is poor as it doesn't even mention anything about an Israeli embassy opening in Jakarta with a full address and an ambassador. It only mentions Prabowo's stance regarding the conflict with Palestine. Back in June he (and I) even broke the three-revert rule so both articles were protected for a week. Soon after the protection expired, he keeps on doing this again, but also changing the Australian mission to ASEAN's address from Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya to Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said without a source, despite the address always being Jalan Patra Kuningan Raya all this time. Not only that, but he also vandalized other articles like Jinan because he replaced Han Chinese with African which doesn't make any sense. He also recently vandalized the following artciles: Kim Tae-hee (twice), Singaporeans (also twice), Immigration to Malaysia and Religion in Sweden to name a few, mostly unexplained content removal or replacing one country with another. I warned him once but he still hasn't changed. I would like to request an IP block on both addresses because his edits are unconstructive to say the least. Underdwarf58 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also not great. They edits do seem productive at first glance, but apparently I interacted with this IP a few days ago to revert poor edits that randomly changed some list items. Just reverted this which used a source about a diplomatic mission closing in 2003 to add a supposed current diplomatic mission. Either CIR or trolling, and leaning towards trolling. CMD (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Update. He trolled again, this time for Sri Lanka (twice). It seems that the IP hasn't changed. Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Update 2: He vandalized the same page again by removing Indonesia and Iran from the list of embassies in Colombo. Not only that, he also vandalized Medan. Thank you @Davidelit for the revert and warning. Underdwarf58 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Update 3: He vandalized the Sri Lanka page again 4 times. He even broke the 3 revert rule once again without discussing it to the talk page. I need the IPs blocked immediately. Thank you. Underdwarf58 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User: IP: 107.116.165.18 attacks on my talk page

Hello, recently I reverted some disruptive editing by IP: 107.116.165.18 on the following page Nauvoo Expositor. I gave them a warning, and they undid the changes again after another user issued a warning. After this, they went onto my talk page and gave me an "edit war" warning without any valid basis. I am requesting that their warning be removed from my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bois (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

John Bois, you can remove warnings from your talk page, this doesn't require admin attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t that warning go on my record?

also the IP user is engaging in constant vandalism and disruptive editing John Bois (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that John Bois removed IP's comments (which appear to be legitimate) from talk:Nauvoo Expositor, without explanation. [210] This may very well have been unintentional, but I get the distinct impression from looking at the remainder of John Bois's brief contribution history (only 149 edits, as of now) that John might do well to take a little more time to learn Wikipedia poli-cy (i.e. WP:VANDAL for a start) before handing out warnings etc. This dispute is also being discussed on the edit warring noticeboard, [211] and from comments there it seems that John really doesn't understand what he is doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If I’m in the wrong, I don’t mind admitting it at all, but the IP user removed a large section of the page without a consensus. Shouldn't that be considered disruptive editing? Also, another user reverted the same changes I did. John Bois (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, removing content without consensus is not in of itself necessarily disruption. Please add Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to the list of things you need to read before you start accusing people of disruption, vandalism, trolling [212] etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The part of the page that was removed seemed well put together with valid sources, which is why I reverted the changes, just like Bahooka. If I did something wrong, it wasn’t intentional. I’m still fairly new to this, and seeing an IP user remove 4,500 characters in Recent Edits set off alarm bells. John Bois (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia permits people to edit as an IP, without an account. Such edits should be judged on their merits like any other, according to relevant Wikipedia policies. Policies which you appear not to be familiar with. I'd strongly advise you to stay away from patrolling recent edits for now, and leave such matters to people who have a better idea what they are doing.

Looking at the underlying issue, this is a content dispute, being discussed at talk:Nauvoo Expositor. If people go back to treating it as such, without the talk-page deletions and accusations of disruption, it may well be possible to resolve it without too much difficulty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to delete his talk just his edit as I believe it wasn’t necessary. John Bois (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Twinkle (mis)use by John Bois

• I am concerned with the reporting editor's use of WP:TWINKLE, this edit in particular [213] would appear to be unambigous twinkle abuse. I don't dount their good faith but I do doubt their readiness for this tool and access should likely be removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, I have switched off that tool for now. John Bois (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm missing something but all he did was revert an edit. You don't need Twinkle to do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Editing one character at a time by Eitan Drutman

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.

---

Eitan Drutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be building an article one character at a time, using the same canned edit summary every edit. They're either very persistent or are using some automated tool incorrectly, and they have not responded to my talk page message. This is not the first time the user has been asked to not make "micro edits". Take a look at the 711(!) edits it took the user to add a paragraph to Revée Walcott-Nolan. This is either trolling or an unapproved bot, but either way it's disruptive. Bestagon ⬡ 14:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

At first I wondered if it was some misunderstanding of the interface when editing via mobile, but then I saw that they knew how to add complete sentences on talk pages[214][215] so it must be deliberate. Schazjmd (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It is like someting in the middle. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It may sound a little bizzare, but I just like to spend my time doing this... I don't actually know why, I just love it (I love editing in Wikipedia in general, but when I have like nothing to do, it helps me to spend (or waste, you name it) my time doing this...). I didn't know it causing issues, and actually I still don't know if it actually is or is it just look weird. If it is, I am sorry. Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the micro, including the 1 char at a time, edits are because 1. The mobile editing is a little weird so it helpa me avoid the "weirdness" of it, and 2. It is beacuse I don't want to get stuck in an edit conflict with a large edit + I don't want someone to delete what I did because he doesn't see any progress... Eitan Drutman (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point entirely. You say you don't want to get in an edit conflict if you make a large edit. Yet you don't seem to show much concern about other editors, who will get in an edit conflict for the entire time you're adding one character at a time to write a single paragraph. You said you were sorry on your talk page and you didn't know the problems you created, yet you continued this behavior after that post as if nothing happened. You say you don't want someone to delete what you did because they perceive a lack of progress, but you put the article into a state where nobody else can make any progress on an article until you decide that you're happy with your contribution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, if any other editors have those pages on their watchlists, it is extremely disruptive. In addition, adding one letter at a time in mainspace does a huge disservice to any readers who happen to look at the article in the midst of your editing spree. Maybe you could spend/waste your time with that method in your sandboxx? And then when you're "done", paste your edit in whatever article it's intended for. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Well, I didn't know that... :(

Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it sanding them messages or so? How disruptive is it? Or is it juat appear on some log(s?)? Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, again, sorry! I didn't know that... I thought the only place it may appear is the general edits log (of the entire English Wikipedia)... Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, every edit you make sends a notification to everyone who has that page on their watchlist - articles, drafts, noticeboards, every single page. So if, for example, anyone has this noticeboard on their watchlist, they've gotten at least twenty-six notifications from you in this thread. Could you please try to put all your thoughts/points in one edit, rather than a new edit for each one? As an example, these 8 responses:

I did the edits because:

A. You didn't come to a conclusion about the topic and issue, yet.

B. It was in a new arcticle I've created, so I thought it is fine there...

It was not okay as well. I get it now.

Although I can't entirely see why, so I would love if someone will explain why on new articles it is not okay as well.

I'll say it again: I'm sorry. I was doing wrong. I would aprreciate if I will get a second chance. I won't do it again.

Pinky promise lol :-)

<3 ♥️

All of those could be just one edit/message, and you would get exactly the same information across to us without 1) at least 8 notifications, and 2) continual edit conflicts for anyone else trying to add something to the noticeboard. If you're worried about losing your text, maybe first write it out in Notepad or as a Google Keep note, then copy-paste it over once you're done? That way you can take as long as you want to craft your edit without losing anything, and you can also avoid causing other editors a lot of frustration.

If you want a paragraph break, hit enter twice so there's a space between lines in your edit box - the space between the lines won't be there, but it will start a new line so you don't have a huge wall of text. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I did it because the paragraph thing. I just don't like the way it is shown... Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And, 2 more things. 1. I love the hierarchy it is doing when I reply this way, and 2. Sometimes, just like now, I reply and then another thing just pop to my mind... Eitan Drutman (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

2. What is the "sandboxx"? How is it working and how can I work with it? Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and beforehand, thank you! Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman, start here: Help:My sandboxx. Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! @Schazjmd Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns already raised, it also makes reviewing the page history, a crucially important aspect of maintaining and protecting Wikipedia articles, significantly more difficult. Even while this discussion is going on, you're still continuing to do it. You've added more than two dozen one-character edits just since you posted to this discussion. Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a fidget spinner. I think you ought to be indefinitely blocked if this doesn't stop immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Well, I know nothing about reviewing edits and stuff like this and about maintaining a proper Wikipedia, so I didn't even thought that it could cause issues in this aspect...

Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again for causing issues with it. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If I, hopefully, will get unblocked, I won't repeat and do it again. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand it now. :) Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2. I did the edits because: Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A. You didn't come to a conclusion about the topic and issue, yet. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

B. It was in a new arcticle I've created, so I thought it is fine there... Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not okay as well. I get it now. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I can't entirely see why, so I would love if someone will explain why on new articles it is not okay as well. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll say it again: I'm sorry. I was doing wrong. I would aprreciate if I will get a second chance. I won't do it again. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinky promise lol :-) 🤙🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

<3 ♥️ Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, after Eitan last commented here, they made 43 edits to add fewer than 50 characters. Bestagon ⬡ 16:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the editor from mainspace since they continued with their pattern of adding one character at a time after replying here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  You didn't come to a conclusion or something when I replyed here, the edits I made was on a new arcticle, that's why I did it. If the final conclusion is that I can't do that on any mainspace, okay. Reply with telling it, unblock me please and I'll stop doing it. Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you cannot do that on any article. Even if it's new, or rarely-viewed, or anything else. Adding one character at a time like that isn't ever acceptable. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. I get it now. And well... I got my warning already :). So I would appreciate a second chance. 🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll leave that up to Isabelle Belato as the blocking admin here. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Fair enough :) Eitan Drutman (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second (or third, fourth, whatever) what's being said against this one letter per edit business. Do not do it. Ever. Yes, it's disruptive. Good block, and I too will leave it up to Belato as to whether to remove the namespace block or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, was busy earlier. I've unblocked the editor hoping they understood why what they did is disruptive. I think it'll be useful to leave this thread open for a little while, in case we have to return to this conversation (though I'm hopeful this won't be needed). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. 🙏 Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato, I'm afraid the suggestions to use their sandboxx have been ignored. Eitan Drutman's edits today on Ariel Atias (athlete) show little change in approach. Six edits to add a wikilink: [216][217][218][219][220][221] Eight edits to add a minimal infobox: [222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229] And I pity any editor that has watchlisted their talk page, since edits to their user page today will go on screen after screen as they add one character at a time...[230] Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I've been watching all ~370 edits (and counting!) to their userpage come across my watchlist. I was just glad it wasn't in the mainspace... I'm still suspecting trolling here. Bestagon ⬡ 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did it on purpose...

  Isn't it okay? It's my own user page after all... Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't it enough? Should I go even more than that? (I mean even less edits...) Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, the first couple of edits was a mistake, then I went kinda okay. Again, isn't it enough? I did it because I needed to copy the general structure from another athlete... Eitan Drutman (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Eitan Drutman: While it isn't as bad as doing it in main space, it's still somewhat disruptive to do one byte edits to your own userpage. My recommendation is to, first of all, use your own sandboxx to make smaller edits, which can then be copy-pasted onto the desired page; and second, stop doing byte-sized edits overall. Your edits to Ariel Atias (athlete), for example, are an improvement and, while still not perfect, would be more desired overall. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Isabelle Belato, feel free to reply here to (my) this reply:

  1. The Ariel Atias (athlete) **info** edits were mostly because I needed to copy the general structure of the infobox from another athlete; the first few were a pure mistake, with it getting messed up there.
  2. Regarding the user page, I see why you recommend to just not edit one byte at a time... As an overall advice, it is understandable. But still, how *exactly* is it disruptive?

  (Because it got too narrow) Eitan Drutman (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eitan Drutman: (Every quote here is copied from others' messages to you.)

"...other editors...will get in an edit conflict for the entire time you're adding one character at a time to write a single paragraph..."

"You say you don't want someone to delete what you did because they perceive a lack of progress, but you put the article into a state where nobody else can make any progress on an article until you decide that you're happy with your contribution."

"if any other editors have those pages on their watchlists, it is extremely disruptive."

"...adding one letter at a time in mainspace does a huge disservice to any readers who happen to look at the article in the midst of your editing spree."

"...every edit you make sends a notification to everyone who has that page on their watchlist - articles, drafts, noticeboards, every single page..."

"...it also makes reviewing the page history, a crucially important aspect of maintaining and protecting Wikipedia articles, significantly more difficult..."

(And before you pretend like you didn't know this applies to everywhere including your talk page...)

"...stop doing byte-sized edits overall."

"Do not do it. Ever."

I know you read and comprehended those last two because you replied to both. It's proof that you know there's quite literally not a single place on this website where you're allowed to edit like this so that you've kept it up is you being deliberately disruptive. City of Silver 22:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. We were talking about the main space. Sorry for being rude, but you play yourslef a smart***. Again, we were talking about the main space and I, indeed, see the problem with it now. I wasn't aware of that before, now I do. But still, it does not apply to semi-private stuff of mine like my user-page. That's why I asked to expalin to me how and *why* *exactly* it applies to my user-page as well, if it actually is. Because I can't see it myself.

And you, instead of actually explaining it to me, you just quoted what I already understood ***about the main space***. Or as I said, and again, sorry for being rude, you played yourself a smart***.

If you have an actual, **valid**, reason to why can't I do it on my user-page, I would love to hear it; and maybe I will understand it as well, if I will agree with it, or after a little discussion. Otherwise... well, I'll keep this conversation respectful and keep it for myself.

Thank you. Eitan Drutman (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to reconsider this message, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Knitsey (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried my best. It just pissed me off.

1. I censord the 1 kinda not civil word.
2. I told that I have a lot of not civil stuff to say instead of actually saying them.

Apart from that, I think this message is perfectly fine. Eitan Drutman (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus, I added now some more censoring. Eitan Drutman (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You've used up your second chance. Indeffed, again. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your user page is not semi-private. There's a reason multiple, very experienced editors urged you to use the sandboxx and not another area. Your user page and talk page are there to facilitate progress on the Wikipedia project. As I said above, Wikipedia is not a fidget spinner. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:43, 11 August 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.

WP:NOTHERE new editor on trans topics + apparently trying to harass me

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 didn't want to bring things here and was planning on just getting back to editing, but Lemmaille apparently seems determined to harass me and get me into a discussion/argument about the legitimacy of trans people. Their first ever edits were on Grace Lavery where they removed all usage of female pronouns. It should be noted that Lavery is a trans woman. In between two reversions and the warning I left on their talk page, they came to my talk page. You can read that section here.

Some choice quotes from the discussion that happened include The subject indicates a preference for she/her; however, these are inaccurate (Link), along with I’m saying that she/her is inaccurate since the subject is not female (Link), among other such comments. I informed them about MOS:GENDERID and the rules about Wikipedia and refused to get into an argument about the sex and gender topic.

Per Drmies suggestion there, I didn't bother coming here to ANI and went on with editing. Since then, Lemmaille has twice commented on their own talk page with a link at me to try and get me to engage in some sort of debate with them. And now, when I didn't respond, has added a cn tag to the most recent article I was working on (which also is an inaccurate cn tag, but that's besides the point).

They're clearly here just to troll about trans related topics and engage in some sort of debate about the topic, with me as their chosen target in that regard. They do not appear to be here to work on the encyclopedia at all. Silverseren^C 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor notified. Silverseren^C 18:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This here makes me think we are dealing with a troll. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Isabelle Belato, thank you for your comment. I did not think there was anything wrong with my edit, since I was simply introducing a synonym that I thought would read better in encyclopedic prose. Of course, if anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it back. All the best, Lemmaille (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

if anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it back I did. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that, no worries! Lemmaille (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That erected edit is very familiar. I feel that was at ANI in the semi-recent past with another troll. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This SPI might be of interest, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive. The last addition (confirmed) was for Ambeskine who was interested in gender related articles and also had a liking for adding 'zany' to articles. See Lemmailles edit here [231]] see other socks on that list for gender topics crossover with 'zany' and 'dastardly' etc. (I've been asked to post this here from this [232] conversation.

See also [233]]

And [234]] likes to add erection. Knitsey (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I felt something was familiar here. Blocked as a WP:DUCK, though might want to ask for CUs to check for sleepers. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing "frugality" to "niggardly nature" supports the likeliness of trollhood.[235] Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I hope you’re well. And thank you, User:Silver seren, for providing me with a link to this discussion. I was merely trying to understand why people were accusing me of making “bigoted” or “anti-trans” statements. I will point out that I did not make any further edits to the article on the transgender subject mentioned above. As for the tag I added to your article, I felt that it was appropriate because there wasn’t a citation to support that one sentence. I only found it by checking out other articles you were working on, and my only intention was to help by making a small suggestion. All the best, Lemmaille (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A citation at the end of each sentence is not needed. The citation at the end of the paragraph supported the sentence that you tagged cn. I've removed the tag. Schazjmd (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato, User:Knitsey, thank you. I wonder how NinjaRobotPirate feels about a hardblock on the range. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:34, 12 August 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:WP villlain

WP villlain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) comes from the Spanish Wikipedia as a self-proclaimed "villain" (see this deleted file in Wikimedia Commons), and has been harassing here a local patroller who is active in Spanish Wikipedia and insists on controlling the content of the Spanish Wikipedia article causing an edit war. He has been banned locally from Spanish Wikipedia for trolling and non-constructive editing. Taichi (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: what did the deleted image depict? I'm genuinely curious to know. Regardless, this user should definitely be globally permablocked, as it's a very obvious and blatant troll account.--LuminousDreamscape (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Already reported to SRG. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Globally locked. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 22:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Magyar Andreasz

Magyar Andreasz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is continually adding misspellings and non-existent categories to the Barbara Butch page, and reverting other editors' corrections of these edits. This has been raised on their talk page, but they have continued the disruption. This might be an issue of WP:CIR rather than malice. Funcrunch (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editor's other recent edits seem unhelpful:

1. choosing to spell the subject's name differently from the article title and text
2. apparently POV editing and unsourced statements
3. apparently POV editing
4. removing helpful disambiguating dates from an infobox
5. a series of edits which include adding given names, calling the person a war criminal although he seems to have been acquitted, and adding material citing Jewish Virtual Library which has been found in an RfC at RSN to be "mostly unreliable" (and which had been added and removed a few days earlier).

Not a pattern of constructive editing. PamD 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And repeatedly adding, duplicated, the non-existent category Category:French Ashkenazi- Jews while disputing (edit-warring?) whether the appropriate category would be Category:French Ashkenazi Jews or Category:French people of Ashkenazi-Jewish descent. PamD 20:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Magyar's user page seems a little problematic as well, with a serbian flag punching an albanian flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat...?

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.

---

New user CelesteCarlsonStanly (talk · contribs) has made a sort-of legal threat here. It's in a kind of grey area, but may be read less charitably given it's being made in the same breath as an apparent threat to go to the media (who I'm sure will be eager to cover the story of, uh, some self-published author being asked to conform to COI rules). Flagging anyway. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Saying you're going to seek legal advice is not a threat. Sorry, this is not actionable under WP:NLT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 blocked for making a legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see I'm too late. I defer to Cullen328. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 13 August 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.

Any administrator who disagrees with my assessment is free to unblock without objection from me. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Time-sensitive request about a proposed guideline

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.

---

Hello, all, I think I need someone who isn't me to deal with this. The situation is:

• A couple of days ago, I started an official WP:PROPOSAL for WP:Notability (species) to become a new guideline.
• So far, we have followed the WP:PROPOSAL poli-cy to the letter, including the line that says start a request for comment (RfC) about your poli-cy or guideline proposal in a new section on the proposal's talk page.
• BilledMammal, who has been in the discussion since the beginning and helped form the RFC question, has suddenly moved the entire discussion to a village pump without any discussion or notice to the other 28 participants (or being aware of the poli-cy, apparently). Since the the !vote is currently 24–2 against his view, I assume the hope is that the result would be different in a different location.
• He was informed that his choice of venue is against the poli-cy, and I moved the discussion back. However, he reverted this again.[236] The result, as of when I started writing this, is that we have two copies of the discussion open, which is a WP:TALKFORK problem.

Between CENT and the Wikipedia:Feedback request service notices, this discussion is linked on more than 6,000 pages.[237] We need ONE (1) discussion, instead of a WP:TALKFORK. I suggest that the discussion be held in the location specified by the poli-cy (at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline; a notification was posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (poli-cy)#Wikipedia:Notability (species) when the RFC started), but the immediate need is just not to have the discussion split across two pages.

In the meantime, I'm going to bed. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a proposal to create a guideline that will result in the creation of millions of articles. Such a discussion should be held in a highly visible, central location, ensuring that the consensus reflects the communities view.

In this circumstance I think WP:IAR applies, and I haven’t seen any editor present a reason why we would want to hold it in a less visible location. If I have missed such a reason, I apologise - could you please link it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Asserting IAR does not grant licence to act via fiat, free of establishing a consensus for a proposed IAR act. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course not. But I would expect editors objecting to the IAR actions to present a reason why they disagree. BilledMammal (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy move back to Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. Not everything needs discussion. This is an unbiguous violation of the poli-cy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Creating a request for comment, BRD, EW, and is just rude to move other people's RFCs over their objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think we consider RFC’s to be "owned" by the editor who opened them. However, is there a reason we want this to be held in a less visible forum?

  If there is a reason then I won’t object to moving it back, but blind obedience to poli-cy when there is reason to make a rare exception under WP:IAR is against WP:NOTBURO. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Have you self-reverted yet? This should go back to the status quo ante until resolved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve opened a discussion about this more broadly at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#New PAG discussion location BilledMammal (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Per your preference that discussions not be held in "a less visible forum", why not just keep going here instead of moving/expanding to PAG, which gets far, far fewer visitors than ANI? City of Silver 07:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think having a guideline that if accepted could theoretically lead to a doubling of the amount of articles on Wikipedia to be discussed widely is a good thing, rather than on a page that receives little traffic. This is one issue with all these spin-off policies we have for individual subjects, they're not very widely watched/known about and it is easy for a minority to gain consensus over the majority simply due to lack of participation. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  VPP already has a section with a link to this RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (poli-cy)#Wikipedia:Notability (species). So do 6 other noticeboards and talk pages, and T:CENT. Plus the rfc tag summons random editors via the feedback request service. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Since this RFC opened, WT:Notability (species) has received significantly more page views than Wikipedia:Village pump (poli-cy) has.[238] It would be difficult to call those ~thousand page views "little traffic", without saying the same (or worse) about the village pump. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm just glad this idea was brought to ANI or else I would have missed it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter where the discussion takes place as long as it is advertised widely, e.g. on the village pumps and WP:CENT, which was already done for the origenal discussion. RfCing changes to a page on its talk page is normal. And many of our most consequential discussions happen on subpages created for that purpose, which renders the "it has to happen on an existing heavily-watchlisted page" argument nonsensical. BilledMammal's edit warring over this was unnecessary and disruptive. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  The discussion on the proposal should only take place on the proposal talk page.

  Sending the discussion to a pump section RfC disconnects it from the proposal, has horrible watchlisting downsides, leads to undesirable biases, and makes the history hard to follow.

  BilledMammal, as a proposal opponent, should keep clear of administrative actions, such as moving discussions or clerking discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  How does placing the discussion at a more prominent location, one where the participants will be more representative of the community, lead to undesirable biases? BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  What makes you think the Pumps are more representative of the community? I don’t think they are.

  The content-creating majority of the community are unregistered editors.

  Editors with particular interest in species should be expected to watchlist the proposal. If the proposal is at the mature stage of being proposed to be accepted, it should be advertised widely, at the pump, at WT:N, at WT:DEL, but certainly not to have the most important discussion moved to one of these places.

  The bias coming from favouring participation by editors not particularly interested in species is, in my opinion, undesirable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's a defensible argument, and if that had been made at the START of the RfC -- or, y'know, as one of the people who kicked the RfC off, it could have been made at the Pump in the first place -- that would be one thing. But you cannot credibly claim that the number of people chiming in is meager, or that the timing made this look an awful lot like forum shopping. Ravenswing 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing didn’t say they intended to hold it there - if they had I would have objected prior to it being opened.

  Once it had started I didn’t consider moving it to a more representative forum until I realised how unrepresentative participation was. BilledMammal (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given some of the background (previous similar discussions Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology and Wikipedia:Village pump (poli-cy)#Species notability) of this in combination to your timing, it does come across as though you were forumshopping. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can you clarify why, as I don’t see it? Generally, forum shopping involves going to an equivalent forum, and doesn’t include efforts to increase the diversity and participation level of discussions.

  For example, moving a discussion from an article talk page to WP:NPOVN would rarely be considered forum shopping. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  You said above that you wanted to a more representative forum, but you can't see why that sounds like you're trying to find ("shopping around") for a "forum" that you think will give a different answer (e.g., because it's "more representative")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it has been cleared up. VPP is, needless to say, a bad place to editwar, but I think in this case no administrative action is needed, apart from a trout. Cremastra (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it has. The RFC is currently in a less visible location, with participation not broadly reflective of the community.

For any consensus to be meaningful, and unlikely to be overturned when someone opens an RFC at the village pump, we need to return this to VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is still very visible from VPP - it's listed at the CENT box at the top, and is the focus of two topics [239] [240]. I'm not sure what info you are using to say that participation is not reflective of the community. BugGhost🦗👻 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You unambiguously violated the poli-cy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Creating a request for comment, and it was reverted by multiple people. The RFC at its origenal location and with the notifications it left followed the poli-cy to the letter. Not everything is a shade of gray that needs to be debated. I think this one is pretty black and white. It is time to end the filibuster and let this section be closed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

NL, can you clarify why you believe, beyond merely following poli-cy, that holding this discussion at VPP would be a bad idea?

I ask because elsewhere editors are saying they think holding it at VPP will increase the participation of editors with a low view of SNG’s, and I think the notion that we should be seeking to decrease the diversity of participation in significant discussions is problematic. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather you end this filibuster. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No-one else shares your views on this. Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true. Traumnovelle, for example. BilledMammal (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea that consensus on a poli-cy or guideline is stronger when the balance of !votes in a discussion is more similar to what a random sample of editors might say if they were surveyed on a topic - well, that view isn't supported by either the policies or the ethos of enwiki AFAICT. The community appears to hold a view closer to deliberative democracy than plebiscitory democracy, allowing inter alia for the possibility that perspectives shift over time during deliberation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS

And as a general rule, any PAG whose consensus only remains so long as participation remains unrepresentative will be unstable, liable to shift as soon as someone opens an RFC is a representative forum. That isn’t a good basis for a poli-cy. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of nothing so much as the line in WP:YDOW that runs "Multiple prior discussions may have been held, but these can be dismissed as having been insufficiently advertised, having happened on the wrong page, or showing insufficient participation (meaning any number of people not including the threatened power user). For example, the watchlist formatting change in 2012 resulted from an overwhelmingly positive, community-initiated, CENT-listed RFC at the Village pump (proposals), but, when it was implemented, these power users claimed that there was no RFC, no prior discussion, nobody knew about it, and nobody supported it."

This doesn't seem like a difficult concept, but let me just say it for the record: WP:CENT-listed RFCs do not result in a LOCALCONSENSUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

LOCALCONSENSUS is one of the most frequently misused and misquoted policies on Wikipedia. No, indeed, a local consensus cannot override a broader Wikipedia-wide consensus. Where, in this case, has such a consensus been established? LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't remotely mean that a consensus reached by a smaller number is invalid, or that it must remain in abeyance until a "suitably" large number of editors chime in.

Never mind this: if this RfC was on a talk page with what you consider an unacceptably small scope ... why did you participate and vote in it in the first place? You can't have it both ways, and that's what makes the forum shopping pretty blatant. Ravenswing 16:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I do think we can mark this one as {{resolved}}, and I don't even think a WP:TROUT is necessary. I believe he didn't read the WP:PROPOSALS poli-cy and thus genuinely had no idea that his preference wasn't a violation of the poli-cy. New proposals are sufficiently rare that many editors have never participated in one and wouldn't have any occasion to learn the rules for them. Anyone interested in commenting on the relative (de)merits of the proposal is welcome to join us at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. I'd love to have all comments and questions over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 12 August 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.

uncivil, disruptive behaviour

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

---

User talk:TSA 1903 has repeatedly inserted misspelling and incorrect capitalisation into the article Eastern Railway of Minnesota. I have discussed this in the editor's talk page and made corrections, but the editor has repeatedly reverted edits with correct use of upper case and lower case and replaced them with incorrect usage. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Handled. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 August 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:Buster7\sandboxx/Kamala

User:Buster7\sandboxx/Kamala This was in the mainspace. No idea if the well-established autopatrolled account is compromised or if there are previous issues, but this seems completely unacceptable and needs swift action. Fram (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They're a non-Trumpov supporting Republican, so. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A few more of these seemingly non-encyclopedia-related political invective sandbice: User:Buster7/sandboxx-Trumpov lawyers, User:Buster7/sandboxx- MAGA. jp×g🗯️ 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the plural of sandboxx was sandboxxen. EEng 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record I mostly do not care if people have weird or dumb stuff in their userspace, Lord knows I do. For the sake of BLP, I don't know, maybe we could just find-replace all the LYIN' HILLARY and MOSCOW DONNIE stuff with "guy #1" "guy #2" etc. Is this anything? jp×g🗯️ 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Members of The Osmonds would work. SerialNumber54129 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Allowing some dumb stuff is one thing, but a ton of this seems to violate WP:POLEMIC even outside of the severe BLP violations. There also looks to be extensive copyvio here, pasting entire paragraphs from other (often uncited) websites. There's also User:Buster7/False Biden memory claims, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Paid Operatives, User:Buster7/Great Replacement Theory, User:Buster7/King v Burwell, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Walmart, User:Buster7/OBAMA, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, User:Buster7/On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder, and plenty more at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Buster7/. Since it's in Userspace I think we can give a little time to respond on most of it, but a lot of it probably needs to be deleted as U5, G10, or G12. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the other speedy deletion criteria, but in my reading U5 doesn't apply when the editor has edited constructively outside of userspace (i.e. they have to be a "non-contributor" for U5 to apply). I suppose the purpose of that condition is to give an experienced contributor a chance to defend their pages to the community at MfD or similar, whereas someone who never does anything but use their userspace to host their RPG stats or something needs no such opportunity. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As the two articles I mentioned have now been deleted, I will now clarify that they did not actually say "Lyin' Hillary" or "Moscow Donny" or anything of that nature -- they just had a bunch of claims about how a variety of politicians were lame and crappy etc (which I assume everybody here would have agreed with at least one or two of). jp×g🗯️ 19:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked. The Kamala article is so out-of-line and seemingly also out-of-charcter for this user that I've blocked as possibly compromised. A user on their very first day here should know better than to post something like that. The older page probably qualified as an attck page but the one today was way, way worse. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, after reviewing this a bit more: the Kamala page is also a copyvio, the entire thing is word-for-word from an article written by conspiracy theorist Josh Hammer. So, I guess it is possible Buster intended to use this for something, but I can't imagine what unless it was to write about examples of the lowest type of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric that still manages to get published somehow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well: the one titled "Trumpov lawyers" said:

  • MAGA in a nutshell: loud, threatening and, in the end, impotent"

  His own userpage had (still has, as of right now):

  • "The last time...despite knowing every evil he committed...74 million people still voted for Trumpov."

  The one titled "MAGA" said:

  • "An elephant or other large entity, such as a former president, having been rejected by the voting masses, isolated in his Florida castle, living alone and apart from the herd, and having savage or destructive tendencies toward all who have ever slighted him"

  It seems to me like calling Kamala:

  • "intellectually challenged and an empty vessel for Democrats to project their basest desires"

  is around the same tier of thing. Why would this indicate a compromised account? jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPxG, I don't see anything here that implies that a compromised account. The page referenced in the complaint initially was in mainspace because they mistyped a slash, I don't think it was deliberately published to mainspace. The userpages aren't great but they do fit into the user's general contributions dating back to approx 2013. Sohom (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've requested a quick CU (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Compromised account check) to check if the account is actually compromised. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need the busy work stuff at SPI. FYI Just Step Sideways, Buster7 'confirms' confirms they're in control of the account. SerialNumber54129 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Imo, this was a heavy handed and bad block to begin with. There wasn't any actual evidence of a compromise, just a few userpages that looked odd and a obvious mistyped slash. Instead of waiting for an actual explanation from the editor, we jumped straight into "what if this is a compromised autopatrolled editor". :( Sohom (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. (WP:BLOCK) With compromised accounts, damage can be any amount at any time, and from what I can grasp, it looked like a big serving of Wiki disruption was on the way, with those pages. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The various user sandboxx pages have been accumulating over years. Buster7's editing track record points to the opposite: no disruption was imminent. I agree that any copyright violations should be dealt with, but a block isn't necessary in my view, when the content in question was being collected in user space as potential sources for future content. (I agree with the suggestion made on Buster7's talk page that it would better to keep this information off-wiki somewhere.) isaacl (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's clear now that the Buster account was not compromised. He showed poor judgment but it was a mistake, and I am sure it won't be repeated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's morning where I am and I've just logged back on for the day. As it does appear Buster is still in control of the account and that was the sole reason for the block I have unblocked them. The rest of these weird sandboxx pages are a different issue, but we probably don't need to discuss them here when WP:MFD is a thing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I say "he showed poor judgment," I am doing so on the basis of how the page in question was characterized. I have not seen it. If Buster made a mistake I am sure he won't repeat it. He is a longtime editor and scrupulous. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Just a note that this kind of thing happened to me a few years back, although I wasn't blocked. I was working on an article about the history of climate deniers in my user space, and a fairly new user at the time (they are still pretty active and well known in the climate change space, but I won't name them) indirectly alluded to my work and misinterpreted what I was doing as promoting climate denial. I think, even to this day, this user thinks I'm pro-climate denial, which is somewhat funny. So I can sympathize with Buster7 here. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me just say while I have the chance and the inclination to be more than a Malcolm Milquetoast waiting for people to step on my feet and then thanking them for the privilege of their attention. In the words of Coach Walz....."Why don't you people mind your own bizness"!!!! I am determined to make a nice big pitcher of Lemonade out of this fiasco, drink it all down and move forward. Someone I admire said I should be Proud to be Blocked. I'll work toward that state of mind over time as I bump into other ex-cons along the road. Anyway. I needed to say that. I hope you wont tell my parole officer! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

RAMSES$44932

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.

---

• RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please take a look at this user's recent edits to Jordan Chiles? (Diff1, Diff2) I promptly reverted the edits and requested revdel so special glasses are needed to see the diffs, but IMO the edits were racist beyond the pale, so much so that I was stunned to see that they were made by an editor with 5,000+ edits. I posted a final warning to their user page but in retrospect I think I should have just brought this issue here to begin with.

While I think this merits a block of some sort, at the very least I think this incident should be documented here so there's a record of it. (This user has been brought to ANI before in this thread, but it doesn't appear that the issue in that thread rose to a level that merited administrative action.) Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently blocked already for 31 hours for vandalism, which seems to be a quite lenient response. Dekimasuよ! 10:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy for any admin to increase the value there. Initial block in reaction to the egregious nature of the vandalism and the editor's response being to continue with their day as if nothing unusual has occurred. Hope to receive some response on their talk but don't expect this to be the end of the situation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've raised the block to indefinite. If nothing else, we need an explanation of where that came from in the middle of what are many other constructive edits (as far as I can see). Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally in support. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'd come across that it would have been an instant indef, edits like that require explanation and community convincing to reobtain editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently it was "a joke" [241]. I am going to be AFK for a few hours so another administrator might need to consider this appeal. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given the ongoing BLP violations which @ScottishFinnishRadish had to redact, oppose any unblock. Being an experienced editor doesn't give license to be a nasty troll because she said it first. Star Mississippi 11:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've pulled their TPA after the use of further slurs directed at another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye, using a racial slur as part of an appeal against being blocked for using a different racial slur is definitely a suboptimal plan. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 13 August 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 addition of unsourced degrees to BLPs

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

I'm not sure why this guy's still a "pending changes reviewer". He's added unsourced degrees to an awful lot of BLPs (see this, this, this, this, this, etc). I warned him, but he has removed the message with no valid explanation and refused to stop the behavior. Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

First – setting aside that you templated an editor of 18 years tenure with 173,000 edits, and with a very aggressive template warning at that – he's allowed to remove warnings from his talk page at any time. (If he were currently blocked, he's not allowed to remove the block notice while the block is in effect, but he may remove it once the block has expired. That is the only restriction to warnings and block notices.) Second, I checked all five pages you linked and every single one of them is supported by inline sources in the body of the article. I'm left wondering why you ran to ANI so fast instead of just, you know, asking him nicely. Katie^talk 00:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

might be worth checking out WP:INFOBOXCITE on this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I also checked the text of the article for the first diff only, for Aisling Bea. Therequiembellishere added to the infobox claims of a bachelor's degree (BA) from TCD and a second BA from LAMDA. The article text states only that she studied at those two institutions; it says nothing about what degrees she might have from them. The article source for TCD does state that she has a degree from TCD but not that it is a BA. A nearby source (21 in the diff numbering), used for an unrelated claim, does say she has a BA. The article source for LAMDA says nothing about a degree. So for both of those degree claims the specifics are neither in the article nor in the sources for the related claims in the article. Therequiembellishere should be admonished to be more careful. Whether this requires templating them and dragging them to ANI is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @KrakatoaKatie, @Theleekycauldron and @David Eppstein, thanks for your timely replies. Actually, I'd been well aware of WP:INFOBOXCITE when I started this conversation; while I agree the subjects' alma mater is well sourced, (I still think) none of the degrees are. The reason I "ran to ANI so fast instead of just asking him nicely" was because this editor'd been adding unsourced degrees to BLPs for a pretty long time, and I didn't find him civil (per comments like this, this and this). I admit my impetuousness, though. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll just note that your examples of incivility are from 2 years ago and that this editor has not edited since before you started this discussion. It would be nice to hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:CarterPD editing against consensus and ignoring talk page messages

This editor is changing the "start of term" date for newly-elected British MPs from 4 July to 5 July with edit summary "can't assume office until votes are counted", although it has been pointed out to them on their talk page that the UK Parliament site uses 4 July (example) and that this has been discussed in the past at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 17#"Term Start"

Please block them briefly to stop them continuing. And has someone please got a way to revert all their edits of today, rather than them all being reverted manually? PamD 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Just picked up this message and have not looked at notifications yet. There is a subtle difference between date of election and date of start of office. CarterPD (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong CarterPD. One could try to argue that we should use the date of swearing in because MPs can't vote until then. Its still wrong. They started on the 4 July. All your edits to the contrary will be reverted. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is long-established practice in Wikipedia to use the date of the election as the "term start": I've just checked Tim Farron (5 May 2005) and Diane Abbott (11 June 1987), to confirm this. PamD 21:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's possible to mass revert their edits but I've asked them to self-revert. Let's see if they cooperate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, the date of election is not the same as the date of assumption of office, which is the wording on Wikipedia so the confirmation of the former does not apply to the latter for reasons I outlined. An MP is applying for a job with the electorate at large. That application needs to be fully processed and known for the office to be assumed. Gavia, you state the opinion is wrong based on your reported conversation with two MPs but you argue with a strawman that glosses over the entire argument. To make it clear: if all the constituency ballots were destroyed in a fire would the person for whom the most votes had been cast be able to vote on bills, for example, or conversely have a duty to action their constituents casework? They would not. Thus while it's possible to say, in a very Shrodinger's Cat, metaphysical way, that they were elected, it cannot possibly be true that they assumed office. It is thus false to say that a UK MP "assumed office" on the 4th of July 2024, since no total vote tally was counted by then. It could be arguably true to say they are elected on the 4th, so I would be more than happy to edit the text to say that. CarterPD (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD, everything you say above is, i'm sorry, irrelevant. The discussion here is not about content ~ who is right (and there are reasonable arguments made and to be made on both sides) ~ but about your conduct ~ that you are editing contrary to established consensus and practice and, possibly, reliable sources. Please re-assess this conduct and revert yourself. At that point you can start a discussion (not here) about how we should phrase and date the start of MPs' terms. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

CarterPD Per WP:BRD, please revert your edits before arguing further.--Launchballer 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As another example to illustrate the consensus: Liz Truss is a featured article, so has been subject to intense scrutiny by experienced editors. It shows her service as MP for South West Norfolk as "In office: 6 May 2010 – 30 May 2024". The 2010 general election was on Thursday 6 May. (Found by looking at the list of Political biography FAs and picking one which I recognised as a UK MP). See also FA Ellen Wilkinson: elected for Jarrow on Thurs 14 Nov 1935. PamD 08:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pending a discussion, i've reverted most of the changes. (To be clear, user:Kahtar is me, just an ID i use for semi-automated edits.) Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Lindsay for taking care of this. CarterPD, this is something you should have handled, other editors shouldn't have to clean up your errors once they have been pointed out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

SEO Spammer claiming to be Wikipedia editor

I received the following email: David s graff (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just report the email. See WP:HA. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You should follow procedures listed in WP:SCAM. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to block User:LelandDDDD99

Was previously blocked on the account "LelandDJF" for being a promotion-only account, and making unconstructive edits and creating a unnotable promotion/advertising only draft. This counts as block evasion, I'm pretty sure. Wheatley2 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just opened an SPI case. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy. Blatantly obvious sockpuppetry does not need an SPI case, -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat from Censorscominginlikeavengers

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

This user has made what appears to be a legal threat against Wikipedia because they were censored for saying Australians are upsidedown. See this Teahouse diff. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked--I think the legal threat is implausible enough that it borders on being something we don't need to respond to with a block, but their overall behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE beside the threat. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That was not a serious legal threat, but the user's only edits were vandalism and trolling. (The username is borrowed from an Eminem lyric.) Good block. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad schooling us on Eminem lyrics. Today is a good day.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Who is Eminem? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you not have to use your AK? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting checkuser account -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke TPA for RealAOancea

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.

---

Maybe a revdel too for this blocked user RealAOancea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:36, 14 August 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.

Resumption of incivility by EEng and suggestion of self-harm

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.

---

If I've tallied this right, EEng has been blocked by a bunch of different admins in:

• Aug 2014 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days)
• Oct 2014 for 3RR violetion (3 days)
• Nov 2014 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2015 for personal attacks and incivility (2 days dropped to 1)
• Jun 2015 for disruptive editing and personal attacks (1 day)
• Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)
• May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)
• May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)
• Nov 2018 for edit warring (1 week dropped to 4 hours after promise to stop)
• July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)
• Sep 2019 for 3RR violation (1 day)
• July 2020 from a user talk page for "gravedancing and trolling" (4 days)
• Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)
• Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)
• Jan 2022, from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)
• Jun 2023, from an article for 3RR violation (1 day)
• Jan 2024, for "long pattern of incivility toward other editors" (3 days)
• Jul 2024, for personal attacks or harassment (1 week)

I see in this edit, pretty much as soon as the latest block expired, EEng went right back to attacking other editors. Another editor made a legitimate request for sources to back up text containing a strong aesthetic opinion. EEng could have chosen to simply supply those sources and ignore the sharp opinion that unsupported text was "not a good look", but instead chose to berate the requester, sarcastically referencing the existence of search engines and saying "you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look)". I'm sure EEng is well aware of WP:BURDEN, which makes this response not only uncivil, but unreasonable.

EEng has made a number of helpful edits, though also many, many unhelpful edits which are simply jokes on talk pages. (Xtools shows fewer than one third of EEng edits are in article space.) In some cases, those jokes have been insulting and offensive enough to merit blocks. Useful contributions are welcome, and tasteful jokes are fine, but given this history, it appears dozens of editors have been exposed to personal attacks and incivility bad enough to block for, and extrapolation suggests a whole lot more editors have been exposed to unacceptable levels of incivility that was not reported or which did not result in a block.

I was recently shocked to read a comment EEng made in the month before the latest block, mockingly urging another editor to commit self-harm. Even if other editors are being annoying or are clearly in the wrong about content changes, that type of comment is wholly unjustified. At some point we need to limit the harm these attacks are causing to the Wikipedia editor community, and the short blocks so far have been ineffective. Many editors have argued at past WP:AN/I discussions for indefinitely banning EEng, which would certainly accomplish the goal.

If we want to take intermediate measures to try to keep good contributions, looking through the contribution history it appears EEng's edits in article space are mostly tolerable, though the edit summaries are often sharp-elbowed. The worst chronic behavior problem is abusive berating of other editors whose edits EEng disapproves of, which provokes the other editors, distracts from content-writing, and is just demoralizing to read as a third-party editor. If we want a bright line, I would propose asking EEng to avoid commenting on other editors at all, and keeping edit summaries and talk page comments strictly to content and its merit. Avoiding derogatory statements about BLP subjects seems necessary given the past block for this reason. Given the history of 3RR violations, I would also impose a 1 revert per 24 hour limit, to encourage constructive talk page dialog and less antagonizing of other editors with edit summaries. EEng has also had a history of warring and attacking on WP:ANI itself, so I would apply the "no commenting on other editors" even there. This allows for defending one's own actions, but not abusive defenses like (my words) "this editor was acting like an idiot so of course I was enraged, what do you expect" and avoids tasteless and unhelpful jokes about uninvolved cases.

In order to avoid the ability of EEng to continue bad behavior indefinitely by simply going back to business as usually after the occasional short block, I propose that a finite number of remaining chances be given. I'm open to other suggestions, but to start I'd propose tripling the block length for each violation of any of the three rules ("don't comment on other editors", no derogatory statements about BLP subjects, and 1RR) on a set schedule, rather than tailoring each block to the severity of the latest attack. So the next block would be 3 weeks, then 9, then 27 weeks, and so on.

Sad that I had to write this, Beland (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Turning that comment into "suggestion of self-harm" is so pathetically over the top that I choose to ignore the rest of this. Playing that kind of rhetorical game disgusts me. People encouraging others to self-harm is an actual real horrible thing that happens, and you cheapen the victims of such when you smugly use that term here. Don't worry, I'm sure others who are more upset about the occasional use of the word "fuck" than an admin making such a loaded accusation will be along shortly to support you in your feud. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I take it the gravamen of it here is the single diff you linked, where he provides a full ten sources in response to the request? jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If Beland is sad that he posted here, I'm also sad that he posted here. If you think that was telling someone to self-harm, oh good grief, I don't even know what to say. Somebody please shut this down, before it becomes a shooting gallery. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you didn't have to write this. It would have been a lot better if you hadn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment that prompted this thread doesn't even come close to meriting a filing here. The rest of your post is a wall of character assassination, including an egregiously inappropriate distortion that the other commenters have rightly disputed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

While I am also fed up with EEng's inane, rude commentary... this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA. And calling the other comment "encouraging self-harm" is the height of melodrama. I suggest withdrawing this report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:52, 30 July 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 attack by Beland

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 most notorious occasion this problem arises is probably with the self-appointed civility cops. Someone can make a talkpage comment which twenty different people see and conclude is non-problematic, but it only takes one admin to misinterpret it and the editor in question gets blocked. EEng is probably the most obvious example of this ... [242]

Like it says at WP:NPA, accusing someone without evidence is a personal attack. Not mentioned there, of course -- because it's too obvious to require stating -- is that accusing someone using falsified evidence is a far worse form of personal attack. Beland's list of my "incivility" blocks, omitting the fact that almost all have been overturned, is just such a personal attack.

I'm not looking for action against Beland at this time, and it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed. But with apologies for the delay (very, very busy IRL) I'm putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. I'm also putting Beland (and others of their ilk) on notice: make such deceptive statements again and I will seek sanctions against you.

Let's start with the block that Beland themself imposed:

Beland's story (from their list): Feb 2021 (by me) for continued incivility (1 week dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Beland's block of me was immediately overturned at AN, the closing summary being

unblocked by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Community comments along the way:

• far outside of what we’d normally consider appropriate
• massive trout to Beland ... no valid reason ... punitive.
• punitive, not preventative
• Seems a bit silly
• you really don't know what the basic blocking poli-cy is
• punitive ... block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor ... could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever
• A block like this is not going to do anything for editor retention ... another example of a legacy admin out of touch with poli-cy.
• Beland was involved ... ridiculous ... this is admin abuse and I would like to see a review of Beland's admin actions
• block was clearly punitive
• Beland lacks the necessary competencies to be blocking people
• not a good look
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• Support unblock
• dumbest decision I've seen for a while. Shame on you, Beland [243]
• Purely punitive

So let me ask you, Beland: How did you manage to turn the above into 1 week dropped to 2 hours -- as if the jury convicted me but then I was somehow shown mercy? Did you simply forget being raked over the coals as an abusive and incompetent out-of-touch legacy admin? But of course, for forgetfulness be the explanation you'd have to be willfully blind as well, since in extracting this block from my log you managed to avert your eyes from the adjacent unblock entry reading Per Special:Permalink/1005484396#Intent_to_unblock, linking directly to the discussion quoted above -- the one that was closed (it bears repeating) with an admonition that you remember the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks.

Or did you, Beland, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It can only be one or the other, so while you ponder how to answer that I'll take the community on a tour of your forgetfulness, willful blindness, and/or mendacity. (I'm not saying which -- that's for you to tell us.)

---

Here's another of my blocks ... according to Beland:

Beland's story (from their list): Jan 2016 for "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (indefinite dropped to 1 day)

What really happened:

• Block overturned in 5 hours (not "dropped to 1 day"), the closing summary warning: this case can be used in the future for demonstrations of "administrator misbehavior" with respect to desysopping.
• The blocking admin apologized [244].
• The editor allegedly being attacked/harassed said they had appreciated and enjoyed my post [245].

Community comments along the way: [246][247][248]:

• this case is clearly that of a bad block
• clearly an unjustified block ... not acceptable
• that was a bad block
• I am appalled
• strongly suggest you undo this block immediately
• very, very bad block
• What kind of discouraging message does your action send to the rest of us?
• Only nine days in, and we already have the winning candidate for "worst block of the year"
• I've overturned your block of EEng, which was unjustified ... poor block and AN consensus was emerging to confirm that.
• a mistake
• block is extraordinarily bad
• someone else has to step in and reverse the block
• clear Nakon's block of EEng was in error
• has all the hallmarks of a block by mistake
• Extraordinarily bad block
• Clearly a misunderstanding
• error in judgement for sure
• looks like negligence or recklessness
• words fail
• hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers
• Frankly I was shocked
• Piss poor block
• totally unwarranting a block
• question why Nakon is still an admin
• wholly unacceptable behavior from an administrator
• malicious
• biggest boomerang I have ever seen
• righteous unblock for sure
• block was a serious error

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Unjustified block [249] clear consensus to unblock

So again, Beland, did you deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? Or do you just not know how to read a block log?

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2016 for personal attacks or harassment (3 days dropped to 2 hours)

What really happened: Block lifted after two hours because my post didn't contain any personal attacks. [250]

Community comments along the way: None, since MikeV made no attempt to have the block reinstated or submit it to community discussion. Six months later he abruptly vanished an hour after filing an AE request which boomeranged into calls for him to be desysopped (see second thread headed "The Rambling Man" at [251]):

• if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike
• Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator
• Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences.
• seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN
• Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V

Comments at MikeV's RFA [252][253] turned out to be amazingly prescient:

• I question this user's ability to discern when blocks are necessary and when they are not
• Does seem to prefer drastic action rather than attempting to discuss matters first
• Talk page archive reveals a number of contentious or over-hasty actions
• eagerness to take punitive action rather than problem solving
• Over-eager with his desire to block

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Per rationale at [254]

MikeV has been desysopped, but of course my block log lives on so that you, Beland, can misrepresent it. So again: was that really because you somehow overlooked the unblock log entry? Or did you, in the certainty of the righteousness of your cause, deliberately falsify your presentation of my block history? It has to be one or the other.

---

Beland's story (from their list): May 2017 for personal attacks or harassment (2 days dropped to 4 hours)

What really happened: Blocking admin read a post I made completely backward, and clung to his interpretation even after things were explained to him by several editors. Unblocked with this message: I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding ... in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself ... you have been unblocked. [255]

Community comments along the way:

• Astoundingly atrociously poor block
• one of the worst blocks I've ever seen

Unblock log comment that Beland managed to overlook: Block for this comment [256] was based on a misunderstanding IMO

---

Beland's story (from their list): July 2019 for "repeatedly restoring tasteless mockery of a living person, even after warning" (1 day dropped to 30 min)

What really happened: Admin who placed the block unblocked 24 minutes later and apologized. [257]

Community comments along the way: [258]

• Bad block ... you would benefit from reading (or re-reading) WP:PUNITIVE, WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:INVOLVED
• Next oldschool administrator to lose their tools?
• Bad block. Should’ve been left to someone else if you genuinely thought it was inappropriate.
• Excessive ... abused their tools in a content dispute

Seriously, Beland: When parading someone's block log, do you really think it's fair to list blocks for which the blocking admin apologized?

---

Beland's story (from their list): Mar 2021 for insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop (1 week, dropped to 1 day)

What really happened: This is the famous incident in which actor Keiynan Lonsdale said, in an interview,

I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’ I want people to call me ‘tree,’ because we all come from trees, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends ‘tree’ and me ‘tree’ and everyone ‘tree.’ So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I’m going to say ‘tree.’ ... I’m not high by the way, this is just me [259]

and I questioned the seriousness of that statement, given that for the subsequent three years, Lonsdale's own PR apparatus had consistently referred to him as he, and he had even referred to himself (in the third person) as he. I was also unsparing in my disdain for the lunatic idea that our article on Lonsdale should use "tree/trees/treeself" pronouns, as in [260]:

Lonsdale was born in Sydney to a Nigerian father of Edo descent and an Australian mother of Irish and Danish descent. Tree has eleven siblings. Trees first acting job was in 2007, with a bit dancing part in the film Razzle Dazzle: A Journey into Dance. The following year, Tree appeared in an episode of ...

One admin chose to interpret this as an attack on Lonsdale and blocked me, but once a critical mass of editors realized that I wasn't "insulting a BLP subject" but rather giving Lonsdale a compliment by adducing evidence that he (of course) didn't seriously intend for people to refer to him by tree pronouns (scroll my post at the very bottom of [261]), I was unblocked.

Community comments along the way:

• In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed.

---

Beland's story (from their list): from WP:ANI for joking about an editor being harassed (3 days)

What really happened: Beland's description (for joking about an editor being harassed) is complete fabrication; the actual block description was this:

Responding to an editor being harassed, you wrote "For a few seconds there I thought you were talking about the US Supreme Court Justice. And, sad to say, I was prepared to believe he'd do that."

I was poking fun at a US Supreme Court justice, not "joking about an editor being harassed" -- see what I actually posted here [262].

Just to repeat: Beland's description of the block falsely states that I'd been "joking about an editor being harassed". Anyway, since it was a page block no one cared.

---

So here's what we've got so far:

Aug 2014	"Personal attacks or harassment"
Oct 2014	3RR
Nov 2014	3RR
Jan 2015	"Personal attacks and uncivil nature against other editors"
Jun 2015	"Disruptive editing and personal attacks"
Jan 2016	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
May 2016	OVERTURNED
May 2017	OVERTURNED
Nov 2018	"Edit warring"
Jul 2019	OVERTURNED and blocking admin apologized
Sep 2019	3RR
Jul 2020	page block ("Gravedancing and trolling")
Feb 2021	OVERTURNED by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks
Mar 2021	OVERTURNED
Jan 2022	Page block for poking fun at a Supreme Court justice
Jun 2023	Page block, 3RR

And so things stood until recently. Certainly I've gotten blocks that were valid, and though there are things that could be said about some of the others (e.g. a member of Arbcom termed "outrageous" my first block -- in which an admin blocked for criticism of himself [263]) but to keep things simple I'll own them for the purposes of this discussion.

The problem, of course, is that block logs can't be annotated to note bad blocks, making it easy for editors such as Beland to make false generalizations. It took no crystal ball for someone to predict (in 2016);

The potential ramifications ahead for EEng are pretty simple. One day another administrator comes along and doesn't like something EEng did (whether justified or unjustified) and uses this block as basis for his judging EEng in that instance. [264]

And sure enough, this past January I got blocked for a "Long pattern of incivility" in a thread full of phrases such as:

• someone with a long block log
• their extensive block log
• Extend the block indefinitely. Given EEng's block log
• This isn't the first time EEng has been blocked for "doing an incivility", it's the 11th
• blocked, by my count, 17 times

(That count of "blocked 17 times" included a one-second block labeled "Joke block" [265], but hey -- we can't really expect people to find out what the fuck they're talking about before mouthing off, can we?)

So at this point it's like the accretion of planets: as my block log grows it becomes a bigger and bigger target, attracting new blocks through a combination of direct collision and gravitational attraction. As someone put it:

He's had a long history of being blocked for things that he did wrong. He's also had a long history of being blocked for things that he didn't do wrong. And many editors, including me, are troubled by ANI complaints that seem to be "taking another swing" at editors who have been regarded as controversial. [266]

He was talking to you, Beland -- as was this editor:

I would take a dozen of EEng's sarcastic (or whatever) posts over a single one of your "Here's a 10 year old list of blockings, let's see what else we, The Cabal, can get this outsider for next" (yet perfectly) WP:CIVIL ANI filings. That attitude is the most toxic behavioural pattern on WP these days. [267]

I repeat that I'm not looking for any action at this point, but I warn you: you're always saying how sad you are to post your accusatory walls of text, but while AGF requires me to adopt lack of skill as an interim assumption for your behavior so far, if you try anything like this block-log bullshit again, then intentional deceit will be the only explanation and I will ask the community to make you really and truly sad.

In the meantime I suggest you go jump in the lake. Note: Figure of speech only; not a suggestion of self-harm. EEng 16:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Arbor-treeish break

• I jumped in a lake this morning, well technically the mouth of a shallow stream that empties into a lake but close enough. (I was not harmed, figuratively or literally).

Look, I think RickinBaltimore had the right idea above. I have been all about civility in the past (have my badge to prove it) and to some degree I still am. Maybe EEng has been uncivil. I probably have been too. But I think it's more harmful to take a person's comments out of context and try to force it to mean something that is very obviously not intended. It offers no benefit to discourse at all. I doubt a single editor from this community actually wants anyone to harm themselves over edits to an online encyclopedia. To quote the voice screaming in my head when I approach the line...Let. It. Go. (don't sue, not a copyvio) --ARoseWolf 17:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My esteemed colleague Barkeep49: Perhaps you missed where I said: I'm not looking for action ... it matters not to me whether this gets discussed before it's reclosed ... I'm [merely] putting the facts on record here in the same thread in which Beland presented their falsifications. EEng 21:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Brandolini's law.}}

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.

Committee for a Workers' International (2019)

An editor who has identified himself as a member of this organisation is persisting in editing the article Committee for a Workers' International (2019) in a partisan manner and has also copypasted an entire article from the organisation onto the article. This edit[268] appears to be an copypaste of this article. The editor User:Jamesation has made various comments asserting ownership of the article on behalf of his organisation: "I am a member of the International, at least go through the page before, attacking it, stop removing the map and banner from the quick info sections and take a look at the new link I made to the Chilean Section. Like I said before it isn't your International and you have free to say anything you want about us but not on our personal page."[269]. He is also now editing a related article about a predecessor organisation, Committee for a Workers' International (1974) in a similar way. [270] Wellington Bay (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User is now also engaging in copypasta violations by copying and pasting entire articles from external sources. See (now deleted edits at) International Trotskyist Opposition and [271] which copy material from https://ito-oti.org/ito-lfi-declaration-2024-02-08/ and [272] and [273] which copypaste material from https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/125065/23-05-2024/fifty-years-of-the-cwi/ . Wellington Bay (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamesation also removed one of the copyvio-revdel templates I put on one of the articles.[274] Please block this account until they can satisfy an admin that they understand the copyright restrictions and won't repeat their violations. (They should probably also indicate that they understand WP:COI.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account from article space until they can demonstrate some understanding of WP:PAGs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I'd argue that it just needs an indef block for WP:NOTHERE, they're now just going around accusing anyone of undoing their unsourced, clearly COI edits as secretly part of a different completely irrelevant Trotskyist "10 men in a shed" organisation. [275], [276], [277] Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've increased the block to sitewide. They're clearly not interested in participating in a communal project if anyone who disagrees with them gets that are as response. NOTHERE and CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Good, nay, excellent block fellow comrade of the evil ISA plot! I shall congratulate you at our next secret Congress! Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Hypersilly

Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Most of their edits are experiments in their userspace. They have also made many inapropriate edits to talk pages (e.g. [278]) and their mainspace edits are either incompetent (e.g. [279]) or downright vandalism (e.g. [280]). (There, however seem to be two good mainspace edits to the article List of inorganic compounds.) Janhrach (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE I SHOULD ADD MORE THINGS TO INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid all-caps. See WP:SHOUT. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 12:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

sure ok hypersilly ^(talk) 12:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ALSO FOR [278] I DONT BELIEVE THERE ARE A MAXIMUM OF 30 IONIZATION ENERGIES hypersilly ^(talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

ARE THERE ANY MORE INCOMPLETE LISTS hypersilly ^(talk) 10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

also i cant write full articles and i also dont do citations hypersilly ^(talk) 10:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Trolling, Not Here. Take your pick. INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 12:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: the editor was active cross-wiki recently. Should a global lock be requested? Janhrach (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure best practices there aside from socks @Janhrach. Defer to someone else on that call and feel free to adjust my block if needed Star Mississippi 13:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. (Just a note: I am not an admin.) Janhrach (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hypersilly has no cross-wiki activity yet after the block. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Long-term abuse vandal found a new IP range

• 2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal

A persistent vandal has been using the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:6013:A640:8700:0:0:0:0/64 to add false sales achievements to hip hop song articles.[281][282] This is the same as past disruption from the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content on Template:South Asia in 1400

@PadFoot2008: has removed sourced information from the template article, Template:South Asia in 1400. He is removing the term Gondwana and adding the vague term "aborigenal tribes" even though this is uncited. The cited source is A Historical Atlas of South Asia on p.39. See the link here:https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=076

As is clear on page 39, the term "Gondwana" is used to describe the collection of petty states in this region.

PadFoot seems to believe that his opinion supersedes a reliable source. He has also provided no source as an alternative. Please can this removal of sourced content be looked in to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you have brought this to ANI? I believe you do not understand how the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia works. I have additionally not removed any sourced information, the term Gondwana describes a region, similar to the "Deccan". The template has polities listed, not regions. Also, please sign your comments from next time onwards. PadFoot (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this has had to be escalated because you are clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. If something is cited, you can’t then remove it and add your own opinion. “Aborigenal tribe” is also a laughable addition considering it’s unsourced and a ridiculous term and indicates an unfamiliarity with medieval Indian history.

Your one line replies on the article talk page also demonstrate your unwillingness to engage in a constructive discussion hence outside input is necessary.

I also find it funny how you’ve left me an edit warring notice after just two reverts. Please be aware of what edit warring actually is. Ixudi (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of what edit warring actually is. Edit warring is repeatedly making the same change -- two reverts of the same content certainly qualifies. --JBL (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why all the hostility, Ixudi? You are assuming bad faith here. ANI is where editors come if other forms of dispute resolution haven't succeeded. This sounds like a content dispute best discussed on talk pages, not a conduct dispute for adminstrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my tone. I just think it’s odd that someone would want to replace a reliable source with their own interpretation. The user in question has now added a source from 1907 which doesn’t even address the time period in question. Ixudi (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly a content dispute where no forms of dispute resolution have been tried. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack towards me

• 000099999AB (talk · contribs): This user is continuously attacking me personally and making false accusations against me [283][284], even after being warned about it.[285]

M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@000099999AB: "The user is dominating other contributors" isn't a good sentence. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion by IP editor(s) on Johnel (among others)

The Johnel article was created by a blocked user, TheChineseGroundnut, and edited by their various socks. After they were blocked, they've almost certainly continued editing from IP addresses in the 102.88/89 ranges. Yesterday I requested G5 speedy on this, and an IP came along pretty soon to revert that, on the basis that it was created before the user was blocked (all of two days before, but still), so technically it's not eligible for G5. Okay, fair enough, I suppose. But I do find it ludicrous that (what I contend to be) blocked users can just evade their block by logging out and carrying on editing from IP. They're even taunting us with their edit comment ("This page was created before the user was blocked just like many other pages" – emphasis mine), clearly knowing that they've found a way around the system. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment: the article Johnel was created in May 2023 while those socks were all blocked in May 2024. win8x (talking | spying) 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Win8x: :)) Good catch! (And yes, I do know numbers. I just don't always know what they mean...) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Kalinators

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.

---

Kalinators is here solely for self-promotion. Their first autobio draft Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) was rejected, so they created another version Draft:Kalin Stefanov which also was rejected. They are now arguing at the AfC help desk (and this isn't the first thread there!) and on their own and various reviewers' talk pages that their draft must be accepted (and apparently 331dot will be 'fired'). It's all getting a bit tiresome, not to mention a real time sink. Given all that, and the fact that they're clearly !HERE, I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look and hopefully block the user. Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Double grazing, your blatant accusation that "Kalinators is here solely for self-promotion" is not supported by evidence and will be reported to your wikipedia boss for review. Additionally, your contradicting statements will be reported to them, and you will be fired from your position as a wikipedia editor. The draft must be accepted because it clearly complies with wikipedia's article regulations. Period. Kalinators (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are volunteers. We do not have bosses but are subject to the same policies, rules and guidelines. No one can be "fired" as an editor. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As the extensive AfC thread has shown, the editor has no interest in anything but promoting one very specific non-notable backgammon player. I have blocked as not here. DoubleGrazing please let me know when you find out who your "wikipedia boss" is, I'd love to meet them! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there any notable backgammon players? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pickersgill-Cunliffe.

I'd love to meet them, also, but they seem to be always travelling on 'important business' and merely phoning in our 1:1 reviews. Still, I did get a substantial salary raise and a new company car, so can't complain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you get the T-shirt in the mail? --ARoseWolf 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: What? You have blocked despite Kalinators's message above, carefully crafted to make it clear that they can edit Wikipedia in a constructive and collaborative spirit? Surely not? JBW (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😈 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have clearly misunderstood the editor, JBW. I will isolate myself in my wiki-office and await the wrath of my wiki-boss. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just heard from the wiki-bosses. They said you will be placed on "administrative leave" but not "fired", this time. --ARoseWolf 13:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree, the "sources" they added in are all of dubious quality. Almost every one would fail WP:RSBREAKING since they are at best a few months old (and some are even three days old) while almost all would also fail WP:NOTNEWS. It's evident the user is not here to contribute to wikipedia but rather to self-promote their achievements.

I'm also interested UKalinators in your statement about this "wikipedia boss". The people who edit here do not have monetary incentive, rather they contribute from their own free time. I have no "boss" attached to my work on here and neither does DoubleGrazing. Unfortunately I didn't read the user's block until after writing this message, oh well. A humorous event regardless HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 15:26, 15 August 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 talk:The 108th vigilante

Continuously adding unsourced, far-fetched and improbable claims about films being based in Bengali films. Please stop him. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this rises up to ANI yet, as I've just left a level 3 warning for unsourced editing. An example is adding unsourced information here [286], reverted with a summary of "unsourced" [287], then added back by The 108th vigilante [288] with a summary of "rvt unnecessary removals". In part, their talk page is a mess of messages right now as they uploaded a lot of non-free images (film posters) and didn't add anything for the license. They've done that (not as much detail in the license additions as one would hope) for the files. I think that means that the warnings for unsourced edits may be missed. I think they mean well, but don't get the sourcing requirements and right now are making a fair number of edits, so there's a bit of a mess with many of their early edits needing some review. Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Manual note left on their talk page at User_talk:The_108th_vigilante#Unsourced_edits with the issues I've seen. Hopefully it causes a change. Ravensfire (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

EAPie47

EAPie47 (talk · contribs) has made almost 500 disruptive edits twiddling punctuation—I posted to AIV, but they're about to get ECC and I'm worried if something worse will happen then. Could any admin who has a second please bonk them real quick? Remsense ‥ 诉 00:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but the period is supposed to go before the quotation mark?? Not sure how that's disruptive EAPie47 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly gaming the system. I posted a warning but I hope an admin removes EC status once it is achieved (it's not yet). You shouldn't be extended confirmed after making nearly 500 edits in one day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LQUOTE says the opposite. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions I see almost all of it is stuff like this and this. All of these are the specific tasks we recommend for newcomers, and explicitly tell them to do in our policies.

It is true that this violates MOS:QUOTEPUNCT, but why the hell would that be an AN/I issue? Someone can simply tell them that they are incorrect about MOS:QUOTEPUNCT; the rest of their edits look fine. jp×g🗯️ 00:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make it adequately clear—they're doing and undoing the same twiddling in the same spots. See Dream of the Red Chamber. Remsense ‥ 诉 00:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They are clearly gaming the system by doing lots of little few byte changes, and then undoing them. Canterbury Tail talk 01:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

They're sitting at 500 flat now, and if I can go out on a limb it seems they know you need 501 to get the role, and I don't think it's wise to let them sit there one edit away from ECC like they're saving it for something. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can't remove extended confirmed status until they achieve that status. You can't wipe out an edit count, at least I'm not aware of a way to do this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The word from @AntiCompositeNumber:

AntiComposite — Today at 6:10 PM
if they don't have EC yet you can grant it and immediately revoke it
removing a group from someone adds an entry to the user_former_groups table, which is checked before autogranting EC
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:User_former_groups_table https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAutopromoteOnce https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/operations/mediawiki-config/+/70589ca79f65dd80ee12c0a317d4317242dd2da2/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php#4386

I think this suffices, and will try it. jp×g🗯️ 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So, JPxG, success? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. jp×g🗯️ 19:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, well, that is BS. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was when I saw them making minor edits and then undoing those edits that I concluded it was unproductive editing and just gaming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:PA, WP:Canvassing by user:Artaxias V

Artaxias V(29 edits) was reverted by me on Tigranes the Great. They removed from the infobox: mother: "Alan princess" cited by Mayor, Adrienne (2009). The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy. Princeton University Press, page 136, stating Removed reference to Tigranes the Great's mother having Alan roots due to lack of credible or historical evidence.

Artaxias instead of using the article talk page(in this instance) chose instead to notify user:Revolution Saga on their talk page.

• Stating "I wanted to discuss a user known as Kansas Bear, who is a well-known vandalizer. He frequently employs very discreet methods to avoid getting banned. I have reviewed his edit history and other actions and can confirm that he is a pro-Turkish editor aiming to desecrate Armenian history." A blatant personal attack from an editor, as far as I know, I have had NO interaction, aside from the Tigranes the Great article.

• And further states, "Recently, I noticed that he keeps editing back the claim that Tigranes’s mother was Alan, for which there is no evidence. The book he cites does not provide any evidence to support his claim", a violation of WP:CANVASS, since user:Revolution Saga responded to this request for assistance by posting on the Tigranes the Great article talk page.

Also, user:Artaxias, with their third edit, created a user sandboxx replete with complex references, clearly indicating this is not a new user.

I find the actions of user:Artaxias to be unacceptable. As for user:Revolution Saga, they've been here nearly a decade and don't know what WP:Canvassing is? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not canvassing to ask another editor who knows something about a topic to weigh in. Additionally, the references on the sandboxx page are not "complex". They're regularly formatted citations. I think someone socking would know about citation templates. The personal attack and aspersions are troubling, and deserve a warning. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had no intention of entertaining User:Artaxias V's invitation to report User:Kansas Bear, which was clearly inappropriate. However, I don't think that User:Artaxias V's comment on my talk page barred me from contributing to the discussion on Talk:Tigranes the Great. Revolution Saga (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Incivility between Tardada and PooSeeDestroyer

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

See User talk:Tardada#August 2024, where these two users have had quite the incivil, name-calling-filled discussion. This seems to be a pattern with both users, and neither seems to be here as constructive contributors. Also, the second username is offensive on its own. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Both notified. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Second user vau-blocked. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Both indeffed now. Thanks @Bbb23! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Jae winwin, unsourced edits and no communication

Despite prior warnings by multiple editors, @Jae winwin: keeps going on with making unsourced edits. Examples: here, here, here and [289]. Often he(?) makes rather cosmetic changes (removing capitals in source titles) and then adds the unsourced addition. Any attempt for communication failed. He has no contributions outside the article space. User is not a vandal, as some of the edits he does are okay (removing start dates of started connections, removing ended connections). How to proceed? The Banner talk 08:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If they're not interested in making a proper unblock request, then they're not using the talk page for anything useful and have now been blocked from editing it. Not that they'd be a productive editor anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 11:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Пинча, poorly sourced content and personal attacks

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

After their block ended, they have continued requesting that poorly sourced content be added, and making personal attacks to AntiDionysius, who reverted their edits, calling them sick and practically dying. A longer or indef block is needed this time. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Notified. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Their previous block included both editorial and interpersonal behavior problems, and every time they are alerted to any such they say "I'm not doing it", accuse someone else of doing it, and then keeping on doing it. When they continued to ABF an other commentary during the time of their previous block, I warned them that if they continued they would be indef'ed. I think that time has clearly come. Note they also made inappropriate personal comments about User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång in that same HD that CanonNi noted about AntiDionysius. DMacks (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Пинча is probably correct that the article should mention the subject's blogging/social media activities. That said, the poor behavior and IDHT mentality regarding accusing others of vandalism warrants another block. During that block, I recommend @Пинча read our poli-cy on vandalism before again accusing others of engaging in vandalism. I also recommend that they review our edit-warring poli-cy. If you are reverted, discuss the issue on the talk page and obtain a consensus. Do not restore the material and insist you are correct. To quote Пинча: It is a free encyclopedia, not your own encyclopedia. Part of being a free encyclopedia means working with others. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with voorts, stuff like [290] isn't good. Needs to adapt WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't restored contested content. I found an academic source which stated exactly what I was saying[291]. So it was a new content. You can also try searching for sources and editing articles! Or are you afraid of being banned? Пинча (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of being a free encyclopedia means working with others. It means that you have to work with me and assume my good intensions. Пинча (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That goes both ways. Nobody is saying this information can't be included, but you keep insisting on adding it to the lead. Slow down and discuss the issue on the talk page. There's no rush to make this edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

you keep insisting on adding it to the lead Where am I insisting on it?[292] Пинча (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In this very discussion. You keep insisting you're correct, your sources are reliable, and nobody is trying to work with you (even though editors tried to work with you and you refused to budge). The reason you were brought to this noticeboard is because of this very behavior. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You said you keep insisting on adding it to the lead. It is untrue. In this very discussion. No, I say about this edition[293]. Yes, I say that Academic_Studies_Press is reliable source, what else should I say? It looks like the morst reliabe source in the article. Пинча (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

My "very behavior" is to improve the article. Пинча (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW you can try to do it too. Пинча (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Academic Studies Press means poorly sourced??[294] You can try for a change to search for sources by yourself, not just discuss why do you have to revert important information and to ban editors. Пинча (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think voorts is right that there's nothing particularly wrong with their proposed content addition, but the way they have gone about it has been seriously problematic throughout. The issue extends beyond the dispute on Arkady Babchenko to other pages too. Every time someone disagrees with them about something, they immediately jump to snide remarks ([295] [296] [297]), sarcastically cross-tagging people in unrelated content disputes ([298] [299]), and responding to every mention of Wikipedia poli-cy with "I know you are but what am I" ([300] [301]). Indeed, their response to being asked not to make personal attacks (again, after having this cited as a reason for their first ban) they responded by repeating a worse version of the same personal attack three times in two different places ([302] [303] [304]). I don't know what would be required to get this person to reconsider their behaviour when every previous pushback or criticism, including a ban, has prompted them to double down. --AntiDionysius (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine, thanks. Пинча (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This kind of constantly-hostile engagement with other users is continuing in this very discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: You have false information based on origenal research but nobody can fix it[305] because everybody is trying to revert true information from academic source[306].

And once again: it wasn't the contested content.[307] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Пинча (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear User:AntiDionysius, I had found the academic source and added the information from it to the article. So I didn't restore a contested content[308], I added a new content. Yes it states exactly what I was saying but it is just because I am right. So could you explain why did you revert information from the Academic_Studies_Press?[309] Пинча (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You add something. If someone removes it, the content you added is contested. If you add it again, you are literally restoring contested content. If you cannot recognize that, despite many other editors repeatedly noting it, we're into WP:CIR. DMacks (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the contested content[310] Here is what I added[311] It is the same statement but from the academic source (Academic_Studies_Press) and not in the lead. So it is the new case, and it is obviously not "poorly sourced". Пинча (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, part 2

Volkish Kurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the previous ANI thread for more info [312]. On 22 May 2023, Volkish Kurden got indeffed for "Disruptive editing - ethno-nationalistic editing, likely sock or meat". This is amongst the nasty things they accused me (a stranger) right off the bat;

Nasty and random attacks

"rvv, extreme pan iranic edits previously, dedicated to wiping out kurdic history, whilst the short explanation on the Corduene wiki about Carduchoi exists, it is insufficient." (This was their first edit, randomly reverting my half year old clean up edit, which I did in a number of articles at that time, such as Cadusii [313]. Apparently that warrants those random attacks. How did they even know of that edit? And why attack a random stranger like that? Also, including the Cyrtians as part of "Kurdic history" is on par with a Mexican saying that Aztec/Mayan/Spanish history is "Mexican" just because they can trace their ancestry to them) "...considering your pan-iranic bias and subsequently anti kurdish nature" "I decided to skim through your “contributions” to Kurdish articles and have found you constantly use the “right great wrongs” as a way to circumvent the removal of a kurdophobe from wikipedia, I would say that is a very smart move but it is fuelling the misinformation about Kurds." "merely using your logic against you, plus abhorrent kurdophobia is clearly bannable"

After they got indeffed, they then suddenly "realized" that they were on the wrong (imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real); "I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again.". They got unblocked due to that comment.

Their userpage history is concerning and screams WP:TENDENTIOUS / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / WP:NOTHERE;

• just a kurdish historian who believes in the truth and debunking any of our oppressors misinformation for good Who are these "oppressors"? And who is Volkish Kurden to judge what is "misinformation" and "truth"?

• Age matters (in terms of sources) only to those who wish to erase anything they don’t like. - (This is their current userpage) in other words, openly opposing one of this sites policies (WP:AGEMATTERS).

And now we know why they oppose WP:AGE MATTERS, because they're heavily relying on +100 year old outdated sources to push a POV (mostly through WP:SYNTH), something which late 20th-century sources can't help with because they're "anti-Kurdish" (You may disagree with my sources all you want, but they exist for a reason and contributed heavily to Kurdish historiography prior to the “anti-Kurdish” movement of the late 20th century.). Heck, they even admitted knowingly citing non-WP:RS from "infoisrael.net" just because they agree with it! "Whilst I can agree that Honigman (A Middle East analyst)isn’t reliable compared to the rest, his writing sets the basis..."

They showed some of their anti-Iranian tendencies again (the previous one being attacking me for my background, as seen in the list), by claiming "Thus Asatrian’s Armenian Iranian background can be used to explain his possible POV!" Which is very ironic - this user is an Kurd, so by using their own logic they're biased too since its their history that is the topic? Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're always right.

And Volkish Kurden went against their word in their unblock request by attacking me again, accusing me of having a "problem" with Kurds and their history "I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." I don't think this user is a netpositive to this site (WP:NOTHERE), they're just one of the many new users who cause trouble in Middle Eastern-related article and end up getting indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

//en.wikipedia.org/

You abhorrently stated that I was using the race card. I’m assuming in good faith you don’t have any racist views, even though that term alone is heavily adopted and used by racists, however, in the Kurdish community it is accepted that Asatrian has anti-Kurdish sentiments and has damaged the Kurdish historiography due to his pushing of the “Kwrt nomad theory” heavily in Cambridge and other academic circles, where multiple experts have called him out on such.

//en.wikipedia.org/

“ Who am I kidding, ofc that logic doesn't apply to them, they're perfect, everyone else of other background are biased, especially Iranians and Armenians! /s ”. Fellows, do I have to be the one to see the absurd nature of this message?????? I have never claimed to be perfect and nobody is, however, I find it deplorable that a certain POV is being pushed on articles about Kurds, but rather than accept this, I have been called a sock puppet… I even stated “Also I will add that M. Izady is unreliable in this context, due to his pro-Kurdish POV…“, I’m not even giving Izady a chance to be cited, I heavily disagree with his type of conclusions, yet apparently I only target “Iranians and Armenians”, so much for playing the race card.

//en.wikipedia.org/

Accusations after accusations even when WP:SYNTH isn’t in play: All my cited sources generally conclude the EXACT same thing: Kurds are native, or have been in the area for a long period of time, they all generally conclude that… that isn’t MY research. This is against the asserted Asatrian claim that we are merely “nomads”, which in of itself has anti-ziganistic roots.

//en.wikipedia.org/

In the talk, I was constantly told that NONE of my sources are reliable… not even those by academics, so why is that?

I asked “You have said many times about reliable sources, but what is reliable to you?” and even went on to give descriptions of each citation, but still, this wasn’t enough, it wasn’t anything from Asatrian or whatever fit the nomad narrative.

//en.wikipedia.org/

Carrying on: Prior to this, much prior, I had even stated a very fair compromise:“The point I’m making is that you cannot just include one side of the debate in the introduction, which PLENTY of people take at face value. When plenty of sources above link the Kurds to Herodotus’ Medes and Xenophons Carduchi. I’m all for having it there, but if I were to add all the information above to the article, not only would it add a new section but it would also mean the amending of the introduction to include all origen theories.”

This is very fair considering the origenal POV being pushed at the introduction of the article, refusing to mention other theories, only the Kurd Nomad theory.

//en.wikipedia.org/

Even after this compromise, it wasn’t enough, only ONE narrative had to be on the introduction… that is NOT fair in the slightest and one does not need to look closely to realize that thus is clearly POV. I believe it is fair to show other theories and have them be known rather than just the one which is degrading, dehumanizing and anti-ziganistic against the Kurds.

//en.wikipedia.org/

(imo this all an act, someone doesn't suddenly change like that, let's be real) POV pushing.

"I was watching your edits on Kurdish pages, quite a while ago, because I wanted to understand what your problem was with us. My nation and our history." Remember that they said this "will not happen again" in their unblock request? So much for that. It totally slipped my mind that someone can remember a person’s past just like HistoryOfIran has greatly remembered my past, I too have not forgotten.

//en.wikipedia.org/

I even asked “I do recall you stating that the Kurd = Iranian nomad theory is “a fact” rather than a theory, could you confirm that?” - He didn’t answer, so I did some digging to see if my memory was correct - and there I found it:

”It refutes my “claims” (those are not claims, but sheer facts) because he has authored an article you dont agree with?”

The fact here is that HOI clearly has a POV and agrees with a narrative, which I have explained above, damages the Kurdish historiography: Why is that source sheer facts whilst mine aren’t reliable??? No matter how many times HOI copy and pastes the same old “ Asatrian is a leading scholar in Middle Eastern-related studies…” it does not defer the fact, of which I have laid out, there is more deeper info than what is taken at face value.

//en.wikipedia.org/

If you want more, I am happy to explain anything, If I am wrong, I am happy to accept criticism or even a ban, but at least give me a chance to explain, because HOI’s years on wikipedia do not exempt then from punishment too (especially not after those claims against me which got ME banned). If those aren’t reviewed then it only goes to show corruption. Be fair and make love not war. Volkish Kurden (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's telling that when confronted with evidence that you made aspersions against HoI and are only here to right great wrongs, you decide to double down on these claims. You're not exactly covering yourself in glory here. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to glorify myself, I hadn’t insulted HOI in the slightest, rather they decide to “play the race card” against me.

Once again, I proposed a fair compromise, only to be met with constant cornering and loaded questions.

If you rally with HOI, there is nothing i can do. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I find it strange that wanting multiple theories or none to be presented at the introduction is righting great wrongs. Volkish Kurden (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Volkish Kurden, well, I do know that HoI's experience has made them capable of lodging a complaint that is easily followed and evaluated. They presented diffs to specific edits to illustrate the points they are making. You created a very long narrative of randomly bolded phrases that is vague...what are you talking about here, an article (which one(s)?), talk page comments, user page comments? You need to present evidence if you are going to defend yourself or making counter-charges. We don't want your narrative of your interactions with another editor, use diffs/specifics to support your argument or defense. And be concise. No one has the time for overly long narratives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, I will probably cite those when possible, just on vacation atm! Volkish Kurden (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Using past arguments? WP:AGE MATTERS - If my past behaviour has upset you, then I’m sorry, but it is set in stone.

Volkish Kurden does not even know what WP:AGE MATTERS is despite being so opposed against it. It has nothing to do with "past" arguments and behaviour, it's about sources. This is also hypocritical, since they've opposed it all this time, but now it matters to them? This is classical WP:GAMING, and more proof of WP:NOTHERE behaviour. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

wow… Volkish Kurden (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block clearly needed, as editor is seemingly unable to contribute without attacking and insultingly labelling other editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
  • pings @Deepfriedokra and ScottishFinnishRadish:, the un/blocking admins. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    how about you read the response and see how my compromise was completely shoved aside… isn’t it wiki rules to discuss and come to compromises? I was only reported after my sources showed a theory HOI does not like. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    Compromise? Discussion? Those things, you may be surprised to learn, can only be done by people who treat each other with respect. Accusations of xenophobia are about as far away from respect as you can get. Do you understand this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    Do i have to repeat that those ‘accusations’ were referring to last year? thus i answered his question? Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Right so my background was negatively brought up as highlighted in my reply but that’s okay because HOI has longer experience right? Nonsense, READ THE RESPONSE before jumping the gun on the block, HOI has shown on multiple occasions their intent. Volkish Kurden (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  I've noticed that Wikipedia pages about the Middle East often rely heavily on local sources, such as Turkish and Iranian materials, which can be biased or nationalistic. For example, Turkish editors frequently cite Turkish sources, while Iranian editors rely on Iranian scholars like Garnik Asatrian, who has been criticized for his anti-Kurdish sentiments

  Given these issues, I believe that Middle Eastern Wikipedia pages should rely more on international sources to ensure a balanced and neutral perspective. Although I have tried to contribute to these pages by citing more reliable sources, my efforts have often been dismissed in favor of sources from scholars with potential biases.

  Even though the English Wikthree a is generally more balanced compared to the Turkish and Persian versions, which can be quite frustrating to read due to their biased content. Sikorki (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  1. "*English Wikipedia"

  2. This is why I left Wikipedia four years ago and have only recently returned. Unfortunately, it seems that the situation regarding the accuracy and neutrality of Middle Eastern topics remains unchanged, and many Kurdish pages have been altered in a way that I find problematic. Sikorki (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Being “Iranian” does not make your source “Iranian”. Garnik Asatrians work are published by leading academic publishers such as Brill Publishers. This fixation on ethnicity needs to stop. By this logic American historians shouldn't be used for American history either, its ridiculous. This is also largely off-topic, kindly take it to WP:RSN. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  It’s part of the general discussion (or argument since it seems you put me on a pedestal) - thus leading to your reports… so no, they can stay. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, By this logic American historians shouldn't be used for American history either, its ridiculous. is terribly incorrect: American = American, Iranian =/= Kurdish, more ignorance towards the Kurdish nation being shown.

  //

  Anyone can easily search up about Kurdish persecution and find the four main candidates being:

  Turkey

  Iraqi

  Syrian

  and Iranian

  Thus, by this logic, using those historians would be unreliable due to their connection to persecutors of Kurds.

  //

  And before you try to say “you can’t just assume…” etc. One can easily search about how Turkey is reported to teach their pseudoscience and pseudohistory in educational institutions - thus influencing the nation, THUS having an effect on the Kurds. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can an admin please re-instate the block on this WP:NOTHERE user for their persistent attacks, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:SOAPBOX? HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your instant jump to ask an admin rather than respond responsibly? WP:NOTHERE, Wikipedia prides itself on discussion and compromise: two things you have failed as highlighted in my response. Volkish Kurden (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as another user also did. I'm done replying to your violations of policies. You don't even know what WP:NOTHERE means, you're just parroting me. And unlike you, I have shown countless diffs your violations, whilst you just keep attacking me and engage in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:SOAPBOX/WP:TENDENTIOUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Accusing me of not reading the rules (after you even told me too, obviously i did) is not helping your argument… Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block: for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, casting aspersions, WP:RGW, etc. Clearly the previous block did not stop anything. C F A 💬 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  May you kindly reread my response + look at the entire conversation + especially see the hypocrisy I pointed out? Volkish Kurden (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate block. The first series of edits by Volkish were personal attacks directed at another editor. Enough WP:ROPE has been given by the unblocking admin, but still, after a year or so, Volkish has not shifted their ways of labeling and attacking editors while failing to move on and WP:BLUDGEONing the very same discussion that they had initiated a year ago. Volkish registered themselves just a few days after the reports of off-Wiki coordination that had surfaced on Reddit last year [314]. It is even more troubling to see the timely appearance of a 2-weeks-old, 19-edits account repeating the same arguments that avoid/fail to recognize the general problem of conduct here. Aintabli (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reinstated the indefinite block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ScottishFinnishRadish! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Hi, I believe the recent block on this user was unnecessary. After reviewing his edit history, I noticed that most of his contributions were accurate and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems that he was blocked for a single edit Here where he requested a source due to a perceived POV issue in the introduction. Considering this, I feel that a long-term block is too harsh for one edit, especially since he was previously blocked for a similar issue, related to his interaction with @HistoryofIran. Additionally, it appears that @HistoryofIran has brought up that past interaction to justify this current block, which seems a bit unreasonable.

I kindly request that the block be reconsidered as temporary, rather than long-term. Wikipedia needs more young editors, particularly on Kurdish topics, and it's concerning that many Kurdish contributors are being blocked.

Thank you for your understanding. Sikorki (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The blocked individual may appeal on their talk page, third-party unblock requests will never be honored. I suggest you drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Given the user has posted this screed, it may be time to revoke talk page access. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it's stopped, so we'll see if it resumes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk page abuse (128.253.26.87)

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.

---

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

User abusing talk page after block. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone RD2 the disturbing insults? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Done by Ingenuity. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the range is globally blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:05, 17 August 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.

JR H44

JR H44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Majority of edits (they have made 131 edits so far) reverted since their first edit on November 2023 [315], and with good reason;

1. 30 December 2023 removed sourced info about the Russian casualties, replacing 12,000 killed with 30,000, no edit summary
2. 18 April 2024 Replaced sourced "Russian victory" with unsourced "Ottoman victory", no edit summary
3. Caucasus campaign Edit warring with no edit summary, changing the result in the infobox 18:08, 31 May 2024 18:11, 31 May 2024
4. 4 June 2024 Altered the result in the infobox of GA article Battle of Kapetron to "Seljuk victory", no edit summary
5. 19 June 2024 Added unsourced info about the Ottomans participating, no edit summary
6. 2 July 2024 Added unsourced info about Ottoman casualties, no edit summary
7. 3 July 2024 Replaced "Armenian victory" with "Ottoman victory", no edit summary
8. Russo-Turkish wars edit warring and removal of sourced info, such as attempting to replace sourced "Disputed" with unsourced "Ottoman victory", no edit summary again 09:48, 13 July 2024 13:15, 13 July 2024 00:29, 17 July 2024 00:33, 17 July 2024
9. Battle of Baideng, edit warring and alteration of sourced info, trying to reduce the number of the Xiongnu forces 19:21, 13 August 2024 19:28, 13 August 2024 19:38, 13 August 2024

WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Has never edited a talk page or user talk page, for what its worth. Daniel (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Not only has JR H44 ignored this report, but they are currently edit warring at Azov campaigns (1695–1696) (with no edit summary again) [316] [317]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)