Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wefa and nothere

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

After two attempts at subtle POV pushing on Talk:Libs of TikTok [1][2] they dropped all pretense of editing in good faith or respecting NPOV and posted this:

I have given up on this article. The discussion archived above has amply shown that the cognitive divide has reached such an extent that we seem to live in different universes. Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children (which by definition is always involuntary since children can not possibly give informed consent to something destructive and far reaching like that). So while folks like me, who are disgusted and revolted by what these hospitals do to children, see LOT as a courageous whistleblower and critic, the above mentioned group sees her as a hatemonger and is motivated to paint her in the worst light possible. There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.

In such a situation, especially with the "paint in worst light" part, Wikipedia's policies just do not work. The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences. The mostly lefty administrators and the various informal councils make sure of that.

And that is that. We as Wikipedians collectively get the Encyclopedia we collectively deserve, and right now, that picture is less than pretty. All I can say on this point is good luck with this article. Wefa (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Which to me says that they're not just done editing that talk page but its time for them to say goodby to the project as a whole, I guess I would accept a topic ban from anything related to sexuality, gender, or politics but they appear to intend to disrupt more than just those topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have left a DS notice for WP:ARBGSDS. Not looked into the comment much more than to see it was under the scope of that DS. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This person hasn't disrupted anything, and they're arguing for NPOV, so I don't see any reason to ban them from anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an argument for NPOV. In fact, it's the opposite, a call to slant the article towards the conspiracy theory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That is hardly evidence of anything. In my personal experience, no person who ever tried to go against NPOV in any serious capacity (i.e. not straight up vandalising) did so by openly stating that they have an axe to grind. Ostalgia (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a poor look, IMHO, to hand someone a topic ban (or worse, an indef) for no other cause than that he's expressed sentiments on the talk page that you don't like. The best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 00:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and I am not sure I favor a ban, but when you start accusing your interlocutors of being in league with "Mengeles," to my mind it is something more than expressing a sentiment that people don't like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless they set off carving a path of distuption across the encyclopedia, there doesn't seem to be any point blocking, and while they have been playing at the edge of stuff that can get users banned, they haven't gone there yet. Based on what they've said, they might have been NOTHERE (on that page anyway), but they apparently aren't there anymore anyway (i.e. they left). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That was yesterday and they didn't leave, they were removed[3]. Note User talk:Shibbolethink#you hid my talk page text on Libs of Tiktok where Wefa castigates @Shibbolethink: for removing their rant from the talk page. Also note they're now disrupting their own talk page, how is this not carving a path of disruption across the encyclopedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Treating them preferentially because they've invoked baseless conspiracy theories is a bad look, its effectively a get out of sanctions free card. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They aren't commenting here but they don't seem all that worried about our enforcement action... From their talk page (emphasis added):

You are basically making my point. That article is constantly changed without consent, against the objections of a the conservative editors present, and no editor nor admin saw need to call out, let alone threaten, the editors doing that. AGF was immediately violated by other editors who called my position transphobic; "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else.

But as soon as I point out the discrepancy, as well as the fundamental problem with editing Wikipedia under such circumstances, several people jump at me, you with all your administrators might threaten me on my own talk page. Where was such threats/warnings for those who called all conservatives "transphobic"?

Yep. Thanks for making my point. Wefa (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editors who can't set aside their fringe beliefs have no business editing the encyclopedia because they are incapable of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this user's apparent belief that people with XY chromosomes are men and people with XX chromosomes are women, I don't think that can be called fringe for any standard definition of "fringe". Korny O'Near (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE is things which aren't accepted by mainstream medicine, science, and/or academia. Such as the opinions you just elucidated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wew, you're just going for every checkbox on the "how do I get banned" bingo, aren't you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with editors here that Wefa's conduct is disruptive and pretty clearly not here to build consensus. It amounts to the my way or the highway style of argument. But I also agree that the best way to deal with this editor is to stop giving them what they want. This user engages in long drawn out time-wasting culture war arguments. So why don't we all stop engaging? Either they will run out of steam, or they'll edit article space against consensus or in a disruptive manner, thereby justifying their own WP:NOTHERE block. If they, instead, decide to edit more productive and less vitriolic areas of the encyclopedia, it's a win for everybody. To summarize: WP:DFTT. Honestly I would apply this same logic to several other users in the space as well. If they bludgeon, edit against consensus, or otherwise break rules, then that should be dealt with appropriately. If all they’re doing is spouting out loud culture war arguments in support of their conspiracy theory, then collapse, delete, or ignore.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

you would be wrong in your assumption. My note on that talk page was to explain why I would refrain from further editing the article, and was prompted by someone else's comment on the talk page asking for my input. Unfortunately someone had deleted my comment from the talk page near instantly, so the majority of editors there probably did not even see it. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the best course of action is to just let it go. I'm not seeing anything particularly actionable. I just see an editor who is tired of being contested, which is fairly understandable. When you get into the weeds of controversial or political topics on WP it's hard to internalize that we aren't here to preach the truth, we're here to aggregate information from public sources. I think just letting them storm off is best for everyone. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Wefa: It's best to just not make such editorializing comments on talk pages. Just state your opinion about the content dispute and move on. That's all you can do. If you continue to make such comments you will likely be topic banned rather soon. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• that is basically clear to me, too. I just underestimated how fast the Wikipedia landscape on that matter had changed. Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees. I explained here - clearly I think - why in the context of Wikipedia, its rules, and the people currently interpreting and enforcing those rules, editing under such circumstances leads nowhere. I originally came there to make a suggestion to improve NPOV, but went down in flames quickly.

BTW - thanks for the ping - I had missed this debate here completely. Wefa (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to claim that Wefa is NOTHERE. They've done good work on a wide range of articles through the years. That doesn't mean that they aren't about one poorly-worded comment from a long-term DS block, though. Stop comparing other people to Nazis, take a break, edit articles that aren't going to raise your (and everyone else's) blood pressure, and keep being a valued member of the community. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to."

That is one of many such comments, and though you do not say it explicitly, I would caution against seeing this as weighing their other "good work" to this disruption. The net positive fallacy is pervasive, and is unhelpful.

The comment, and others, aren't even an attempt to discuss what's supported by reliable sources, it's pure culture war soapboxing. It should be considered in the context of the harm caused, not in the context of their other work.

It's one thing to disagree on how we include reliable sources, it's another for Wefa to compare people to Nazis when they disagree with him. Accusing other editors of being part of "the left's propaganda arm" when consensus is against them, is also not constructive, nor are the many other implicit and explicit accusations of bad faith.

The trend here, i.e. Wefa's insistence that people either agree with him or are acting in bad faith, is not indicative of intent to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I don't weigh the other good work against the disruption. I just say that the other good work tends to invalidate the NOTHERE accusation. You can be HERE and disruptive at the same time. Wefa has been very thoroughly warned of the community expectations at this point: it's their choice if they're going to listen or if they need to be separated from the community for a time for the good of the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats fair but someone can also be NOTHERE and have made productive contributions to the project. This isn't exactly new behavior though, two years ago they were at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with a very similar rant about "The current debate climate is not conductive for a solution. For the time being we have to live with Wikipedia's erosion of NPOV, and see it slowly become Leftopedia on political matters. And that includes the constant low key disparaging of conservatives in their respective BLPs."[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2018 at Talk:Rape in Islamic law "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves, even though we can guess it from peripheral parts. This is unencyclopedic"[5]. From what I'm seeing in their edit history the vast majority of their edits are not constructive at least from 2018 to the present. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX warning. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Considering the message posted by Horse Eye's Back, and their decision to continue that kind of narrative here, a topic ban from gender and sexuality seems more appropriate. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I’m in support of a topic ban from gensex with a warning for wider soapbox issues. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 21:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• We have lots of editors in the GENSEX topic area, of all manner of POVs, who are good at separating strong private feelings from their encyclopedia editing. This does not strike me as such an editor, and an indef GENSEX TBAN under DS seems reasonable. I've been minimally involved (viz. I made two "gain consensus first" reverts) in a dispute over whether puberty blockers are chemical castration, so probably shouldn't be the one to impose that sanction, if only to avoid an appearance of impropriety; but if another admin wishes to do so, I think that would be in keeping with recent "jurisprudence" in the GENSEX area [6] [7]. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Whilst I did suggest that a siteban or siteblock wouldn't be helpful, a TBAN most certainly should be on the cards. If they aren't going to voluntarily keep out of a contentious area which they have obvious issues with editing in accordance with policy on (including soapboxing on article talkpages and their own talkpage), they need a TBAN. I'd say that, in WP:ARBGSDS, they show signs of not being there to build an encyclopedia, but in others, they are definitely constructive. By stopping the distracting stuff, hopefully they will be more helpful in the areas where they are HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really struggling to find helpful edits in any area post 2018, it almost looks like two completely different editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  Most of 2021 looks fairly reasonable. What am I missing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  That there are only 19 edits in all of 2021 perhaps? Their very first edit in 2022 was POV pushing at Soy Boy[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think a GENSEX TBAN is a bit tough at this point. At least give them another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  I actually don't think it's a bit tough. I just really want to give them a chance to fix things themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

GENSEX TBAN: Wefa

I feel like it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other whether to move this to WP:AE or make it a community sanction, but since we already have multiple opinions expressed above, I'll go with the latter (although I do think it would still be acceptable for any uninvolved admin to issue a DS TBAN). Proposed: For repeated comments in the topic area not oriented toward building an encyclopedia, Wefa is indefinitely topic-banned from gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people.

Already expressing opinions above: Ravenswing (generally against), Vermont (for), Mako001 (not against), Iamreallygoodatcheckers (against), SarekOfVulcan (not against). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I'll reïterate my comment above that we've already had two DS TBANs this year for similar conduct. [9] [10] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wefa has acknowledged the issue and have been adequately warned. I have no reason to believe more restriction is needed to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Give them a second chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  How is Wefa coming to ANI to say "Only a few years ago there was a consensus that mutilating children was completely out of question and unacceptable for the Trans community, but on the progressive side of things that seems to have changed 180 degrees." at all describable as having "acknowledged the issue"? Or this comment, the other response to this ANI thread. It's the exact behavior that resulted in Wefa being brought here and it's this singular interest in discussion over ideology rather than sources which necessitates a TBAN. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The editor made a couple soapbox edits on one talk page. When he was confronted about it here he said that it's "basically clear" to him that he needs to stop. The quote you mentioned is Wefa explaining how they view Wikipedia and the topic have changed recently; he hasn't been editing much in the last few years. It's reasonable that he might be a little rusty and ignorant to Wikipedia standards today. There's no evidence of sustained disruption in the GENSEX area by this user. Therefore, a topic ban would be more punitive than preventative. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, and he has come to AN/I to continue to show that he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but no disruption would be prevented by banning him from GENSEX discussions? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  "he has come to AN/I to continue to show" isn't accurate; he was brought here, he didn't come here to continue to show anything. It'd be different if he had inserted himself into a dispute that didn't involve him. Levivich (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I've read through the proceeding discussion, and some of Wefa's other contributions. I think a topic ban from GENSEX content is the right call here. To editors who believe we should not topic ban for just talk page contributions, I'd point out that actually in practice we do. To quote/paraphrase from another AE case (comments by admin Joe) where an editor was topic banned because of their talk page contributions; it is abundantly clear from the initial diffs that we have an editor who a) has a strongly held, minority view on gender; b) has proved themselves incapable of putting that aside and contributing to the topic area without causing disruption; and c) made several comments that disparage trans people (conflating gender affirming care as mutilation of children, likening health care professionals with Josef Mengele, asserting that transphobia does not exist, denying that trans and non-binary people are who they say they are) in a way that is contrary to the UCOC and the civility policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa lacks the sensitivity and tact required to edit in this topic area productively and collaboratively. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not seeing where -- and there haven't been any diffs to demonstrate -- (a) Wefa has made ban-worthy objectionable edits to articlespace, or (b) where he's continued to make objectionable and explosive comments to article talk pages in this line. I'll reiterate my statement from above: the best way to refute Wefa's belief that the Thought Police are running Wikipedia -- and seeking to suppress opinions they don't want anyone to hear -- is not to prove him right. Ravenswing 10:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is, we are discussing a topic ban, not a site ban. It is clear from Wefa's talk comment quoted above that they disagree profoundly with both the enwiki community consensus and the consensus of reliable sources on key questions in the GENSEX topic area, to the extent that they are willing at least to make a public thought experiment about crusading against consensus reality. In this context, what purpose is served by allowing an editor to contribute to a topic area within which any contribution they make is bound to be counter to policy, and therefore disruptive? The whole point of sanctions is to prevent future disruption, is it not? This isn't about "thought crime", it is about contributing to a collaborative project. Wefa's comment - conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and, if we ignore the extremely rare cases of biological nonbinaries, nothing else - is essentially an assertion, against all the sources on the topic, that transgender identity does not exist. Editors can believe what they like, but bringing their pastafarian or flat earth beliefs into the determination of article content in this way is inherently disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, and this is the sort of thing your side is tripping over when it comes to "thought crime." That green quote does not state that transgender identity does not exist. It states that conservatives believe it doesn't exist ... which, in point of fact, many do, and there are a whole whopping lot of concurring academic and scientific sources, so perhaps you can spare us the insinuation about "all" the sources on the topic; they are merely "all" the sources with which you agree. In a field dominated in several directions by personal belief, declaring a side to hold the only settled, objective truth is at best badly premature.

  There are many subject areas on Wikipedia involving conflicting beliefs: religion, politics, history, race relations. We do not seek to impose orthodoxy: not on whether Sunni or Shia is the legitimate strain of Islam, not on which entity legitimately owns Kosovo, not on which percentage of African descent makes an American "black," not on hundreds of other contentious questions. To call the mere introduction of such a view "inherently disruptive" ... well, perhaps disruptive to a side wanting its view of things to be considered unquestioned orthodoxy, sure. Is that genuinely the Wikipedia you want? Ravenswing 18:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Meh, Wefa had made all of 20 edits in 2022 before this. AFAICT, ~1,500 edits over 18 years and there apparently has never been a problem before, until Sep 19, 2022, when Wefa made one offensive forum/soapbox-y article talk page comment and a second, similar user talk page comment; the sentiments were repeated a third time in this ANI thread above. Wefa hasn't edited in the past week. I don't think going straight to a TBAN for two disruptive edits (not counting ANI) is merited, particularly for an editor who barely edits. What are we preventing? I see no reason to think this problem will be repeated, and if it is, the proper mode of action is a full NOTHERE site ban (or block), not a TBAN. But for context, here's a perfectly fine comment from earlier on Sep 19, and another from Sep 11, I do not see any kind of ongoing pattern outside of two edits on Sep 19. They barely edit; most of their edits are fine; the disruption is limited to two comments posted on one day; I continue to support closing with a warning but a TBAN is too much paperwork for this. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support are we seriously just going to give this user a slap on the wrist in this topic for comparing transgender care to Josef Mengele? There is no way Wefa can edit this area in a civil or reasonable manner. Dronebogus (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• It's bizarre to see opposes based on "too much paperwork" and what amounts to WP:DENY. Not only does Wefa compares their fellow editors to a Nazi figure and denies the existence of trans people, they clearly refuse to work within our policies and guidelines and sources go against their point of view, which can be seen on this report and on this earlier discussion on a topic in the same DS area. They are clearly a net negative on this area. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 10:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  It might be bizarre if any opposes were based on the premise of "too much paperwork." Would you care to point any out? Ravenswing 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I guess she's quoting me, but I don't really oppose a TBAN, so much as I just think a warning would be better than a TBAN ("too much paperwork" == "not worth the editor time to administer"). (What I really oppose is no action.) Levivich (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Warn per Levivich, although further disruption would merit a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Tamzin. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Wefa has shown they do not have the neutrality necessary to participate in this sensitive area. Should they develop that sensitivity at a later date, they the community can always re-evaluate, but for now- they are not a net positive contribution in this area and I am not convinced they have realized what the problem even is. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support Let me make it clear that I think a topic ban is completely appropriate…if we had an active editor here. The lack of activity on a long term account suggests that this isn’t going to prevent that much disruption. With all that said, I don’t think Wefa would be able to edit collaboratively on that topic should they become more active, so I’m supporting the ban. I also want to make it clear that it’s okay to have opposing views regarding stuff like this, and a TBAN simply for different views would be invalid. However, when you express those views in a soapbox post on an article and user talk it is no longer appropriate, just like it wouldn’t be if someone made the opposite argument in a soapbox comment on a talk page. Talk pages are to discuss improving the Wiki, the comparison to Mengle is nowhere near that. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above, and the fact this thread is still going with no resolution — haven't we sunk enough time into this? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the above. AKK700 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose after seeing an editor above repeating "he doesn't understand what is acceptable in a GENSEX discussion" a couple of times. Since when is only one opinion acceptable in a discussion? A discussion requires people from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, being allowed to express their opinions, not just one side humming in unison. TBANning someone for daring to express an opinion that is very far from being fringe, and shared by a very large number of people violates the principle of freedom of speach, and Wikipedia is supposed to be free, and not censored. And please don't call me transphobic or anything like that for daring to oppose a TBAN based on the principle of freedom of speach, because you have no idea where I stand on GENSEX matters. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  One opinion is not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, but more than one opinion is also not acceptable in a GENSEX discussion, because WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX means that nobody should be giving their opinion about GENSEX issues in a GENSEX discussion. The only acceptable GENSEX discussion is one about RSes. The posts at issue here were straight-up preaching a political viewpoint. Wikipedia is free and not censored -- that's the mainspace articles -- but talk pages are not free, and they are censored, e.g. by WP:NOT policy and the WP:TALK guideline. There is no freedom of speech on talk pages. The reason I support a warning (and oppose no action) is because it is not OK for an editor to express their political opinions on article talk pages. (The reason I prefer a warning over a TBAN is because it's a first offense and hasn't been repeated since.) Levivich (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Thomas.W: are you saying that a very large number of people believe that doctors who provide healthcare to transgender people are the equivalent of Josef Mengele? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to say it HEB, but that's probably true. First, trans people aren't exactly widely accepted in the US or in the West--in some parts, sure, but a majority? Not sure. Second, think of the rest of the world. A majority of the world still doesn't accept homosexuality; I doubt a majority accepts even the concept of gender identity (as distinct from biological sex). Heck, I doubt a majority of the world even accepts interracial, interreligious, or interethnic marriage. Sad but probably true. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Theres a difference between not accepting it and thinking that contemporary doctors are in general comparable to the absolute worst that industrialized, putatively civilized, man is capable of. I will desist because dwelling on it puts me in a dark mood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  We don’t pander to cultural relativism on Wikimedia. There was one admin on Amharic WP that was extremely homophobic, as is typical in Ethiopia (where Amharic is principally spoken) and he was still banned from WM. If you’re a vocal bigot, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  lol, "pander to cultural relativism" is a funny way of saying "tolerate other people's cultures". I guess it's just your culture we should tolerate? This is why I (and others) don't support promoting NONAZIs beyond an essay. Sure we can all agree about being tolerant of people regardless of their gender identity (or sexual orientation or ethnicity), but what about... [insert list of divisive cultural issues]? This is a slippery slope. That's why our "rule" isn't "you must agree with Western values," it's WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOTSOAPBOX, as Tamzin explains below. "Bigot", like beauty, is too often in the eye of the beholder. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see why I’m supposed to take seriously someone whose first word in their response is “lol” Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it's a good thing then that transgender existence and transgender health, like evolutionary biology and vaccines, are topics where WP's content is to be based on reliable sources and not on opinion polling. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, this isn't about TBANning someone for having the wrong opinion. Plenty of people edit constructively in the GENSEX area—as all areas—despite having strongly-held controversial views. It's not even per se about admitting to having that opinion in a talkpage discussion. I don't think we'd be here if he'd said, in passing in a discussion, "Personally I think all of this should be illegal"; that would go against NOTFORUM, but not in a way that usually leads to sanctions. No, this is about someone using talkpages to rant about their political views. The fact that those views are divisive makes it worse; it is immaterial whether they are right or wrong. If someone were saying "All people who oppose puberty blockers for transgender youth are doing so purely out of a desire to drive them to their deaths", and then doubling down as Wefa has here, I would support sanctions there too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you Tamzin but if you read DB's comment above, it isn't at all clear that this isn't about TBANing someone for having the wrong opinion. DB is expressly saying the opposite. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I was refuting that your apparent appeal to the majority and appeal to cultural relativism to excuse (but not endorse) an egregious statement (that transgender care is morally equivalent to Nazi human experimentation). I might’ve been wrong to say “bigot” instead of “bigotry” (since it’s the offensive, extreme statement itself which is the problem here, not what the user and their opinions) Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would’ve let this slide if Wefa hadn’t brought godwin’s law into this mess; personally I find their general subject commentary grating and inappropriate but not ban worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't excused anything and don't try to turn this on me because I disagree with you. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Support due to their comments here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Artificial break

• Oppose - I find it ridiculous to consider banning a user for making a single talk page post that, as far as I can tell, does not violate any policies. I'll grant that Wefa's language is somewhat hyperbolic, but their basic view - that performing surgery or hormone injections on children under 18 in order for them to look more like the opposite sex is immoral - is a significant mainstream view, and probably even the majority view around the world. Not that I'm a fan of banning people for their views in any context, but to ban someone for holding this particular view makes no sense. And no, I don't think they disrupted anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  An editor who trivializes and ridicules gender-affirming surgery ("getting surgery is a choice, just like running for president") should probably not be offering their opinion about what forms of POV advocacy are or aren't disruptive, and it is questionable whether such an editor ought to be participating in GENSEX TBAN discussions, at least not by !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you know what "ridicule" means. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd go with the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way. Comparing access to gender-affirming surgery to being eligible to run for POTUS strikes me as both cruel and harsh. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think that comment reasonably disqualifies their opinion in this matter, not that their argument (based on opinions on the perceived reasonableness of Wefa’s views on transgender care, ignoring the fact that they’re delivering them in a WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way) was all that great. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, just the idea to put transgender care and Josef Mengele in the same sentence would justify a TBAN from all gender-related materials. —Sundostund (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• 'Oppose no serious violation, he expressed himself, let's move on instead of targeting him for his opinion.Lmharding (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a free speech forum. Dronebogus (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the statement Apparently there exists a sizeable minority or even majority here who is complete unable to concede that the term "gender affirming care" (which includes not only primary sex surgery but also things like mastectomies and chemical castration (aka puberty Blockers) is an ugly euphemism for mutilation of children is essentially a statement that Wefa's feelings about the topic take precedence over what reliable sources actually say about the topic, and that because editors are unable to concede that the sky is actually puce, that this is a problem with the Wikipedia community. Elaborating such solipsistic views on WP Talk pages is inherently disruptive, and people who are unable to concede that their personal reality has diverged from the reality documented in reliable sources are not qualitied to participate in WP in areas where they are unable to restrain themselves in expressing their, umm, idiosyncratic POV.
• I would ask those placing "Oppose" !votes why they think the TBAN is a bad idea - do they want to see Wefa make more such comments so that we come back here again? There is no suggestion that they are likely to comport themselves any differently on this topic in future... Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  As one of the "Opposers" - I see no problem with the way they have comported themselves, either in talk pages or in articles. We accept people with all different political opinions here, as long as they make reasonable edits, and that seems to be the case with this user. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  It probably doesn't hurt that you share their opinion about the immorality of trans healthcare. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The admin-supported left wing rules by majority, even though there is no policy allowing such, NPOV on this particular topic is even hard to define, let alone implement, in such spirit, and this part of Wikipedia has essentially been captured as the left's propaganda arm. I came here with a good faith suggestion to make this article more NPOV, and that was roundly rejected. Now, given there is no consensus, I would have as much right to be bold and just change things as all the left wing "owners" of this article who do this all the time, but the practice is different. While non-consensus changes by me would, given enough persistence on my part, result in me getting banned, the exactly same actions by the lw majority would and constantly do have no such consequences.

  This is not a reasonable edit - it expresses the editor's opinion that their personal intuitions, rather than a discussion of sources based on WP policy, ought to determine what NPOV means in a specific (ACDS) domain, and that because the editor is right about this, they would be justified in edit warring against consensus reality even though it could result in a community ban. (Even the editor's opinion that their individual dissent is sufficient to deny consensus to article text already represents a degree of solipsism.) This is not a reasonable edit by an editor who is able to contribute to a collaborative project, at least not in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The user was clearly making a rhetorical point about double standards, not actually threatening to engage in an edit war. Ironically, by calling for banning them, I think you're making Wefa's point even better than they could themselves: people on the other side of the argument (about Libs of TikTok, etc.) do routinely revert changes without consensus, but this user risks being banned for just talking about doing the same thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are nicely sidestepping the question, "what is the consensus among the reliable sources on this topic?", which is where the "two sides" WP:FALSEBALANCE civil POV argument goes to die. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Depends on the topic, of course. Given that this user doesn't seem to have made any bad edits to any articles, this seems like a strictly theoretical discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no reason to excuse disruptive POV rants on Talk just because an editor doesn't follow through in article space. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tend to agree with Ravenswing's view here. I would warn them per Levivich but removing them the first time they screw up in expressing their views isn't going to result in articles written from a wide ranges of edits. If they haven't been taken to ANI in the past them give them some leeway and help them learn what is/isn't OK. Springee (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Their statements are simply explanatory toward them not being able to properly edit in this topic area. Also, what I've gathering from the comments above is that we have a significant amount of editors (at least in this discussion) that are openly bigoted toward the LGBT community. A lot of this is very mask off in showing said editors' true colors. Silverseren^C 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear from their comments here that this is not an area in which they are capable of constructive collaboration, and I think some gentle guidance towards topics they are more suited for would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Warn This is complex and I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments from the support side. Beyond the hate speech, I read Wefa's words more in terms of "resignation", someone who considers themselves defeated, but will remain unbent no matter what...one great big middle finger at consensus...but that appears to be it...I'm struck that to date, we've not been presented with evidence of disruptive activity in the realm of content creation or content discussion (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, what is the consequence? We are asked to support this on the basis of preventative action, but we have no evidence of acts ... we are asked to infer that these statements are strong indications of a willingness to act (whereas the words, on face value, reflect the opposite). I'd argue the subtext to Wefa's outburst is to seek to prove that no dialogue (by their definition) is possible - by being "censured" they are confirmed in their point of view. They more or less consciously recognise they cannot meaningfully dispute scholarly consensus on the issue and they are unable to dispute community consensus. So this gesture. I would support a TBAN if there was evidence of them being shown to impede content creation or content discussion. I'd note that the London Review of Books last month published a letter in the most prominent position of the letters' page from a transphobe with a cogent, critical reply. It's a fine line, but talk pages and ANI are not a school, a public library, a newspaper, a university, or a board room ... it's the engine room (or maybe ANI is the janitor's closet). We should place this in the context of the consequence of the action, not our own perceptions of the somewhat nebulous possibility of where this might lead. Yes to admonish and warn, at this point, but refrain from stepping beyond our own frameworks to provide this editor with that they seek: proof of their righteousness. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose or Warning, at the mostNo, please, no warning after this discussion, which is waaaaay enough, actually excessive. I agree with Ravenswing and Levivic. I don't see any disruptive behaviour - they didn't touch the article namespace, they just expressed their views on the talk page. Reminding them about WP:SOAPBOX would be enough as really there's nothing sanctionable here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC) ; edited 15:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support The issue to me is not one of hate speech or having the wrong opinions but simply whether the user is here to build an encyclopedia, and in particular whether they can be trusted to edit the topic area constructively. Therefore, to say that they have been "warned" about their comments is insufficient because it's not really about whether they'll say them again or not, it's that by those comments they have already shown that they will not be able to edit constructively in the GENSEX area. Pinguinn 🐧 07:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature: they haven't edit warred or pushed their opinions into any articles, so a topic ban would be an overreaction imv. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A TBAN would certainly be quite harsh in this instance, as this isn't a case where there's been repeated or similar conduct across several articles. Further, this has only been demonstrated on the one talk page. I would advocate for a warning and suggest that they perhaps tone down their opinions. Nevertheless, they are absolutely still free to hold those opinions and express them respectfully in a discussion, which they have been. Going on the offensive and calling them "transphobic" or other pejoratives isn't contributory--that is behavior that constitutes WP:NOTHERE, not Wefa's. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  My understanding of "respectfully" does not include comparing the other editors one is in "dialogue" with to supporters of Nazi torture, but clearly perspectives differ (the relevant sentence being, There is no middle ground here - "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time. You either get that or refuse to.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  And you once again show that you're trying to get rid of an editor merely because of them expressing an opinion you don't like. Which isn't what topic bans are for, they're intended for protecting the encyclopaedia from editors who have repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. Which Wefa hasn't, all they've done is express an opinion you don't like, on a talk page. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but I am generally able to express a controversial opinion without comparing those I am in dialog with to supporters of genocidal torturers, and also without threatening to engage in a righteous edit war against the admin supported ... propaganda arm that apparently dictates Wikipedia content. Perhaps my abilities in this regard are exceptional.

  But regardless of this, the purpose of a topic ban is never punishment but always to prevent further disruption. And if this editor were to put oar in GENSEX waters again, there is every reason - based on their own comments - to expect further disruption, and no reason to expect anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  They did not threaten to disrupt articles, so repeating that over and over again, in spite of having been corrected by others, is a deliberate misinterpretation by you, in an attempt to, as I wrote above, get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't see a threat to disrupt in Wefa's edits on this topic (of the form "I could edit disruptively on this to fight the cabal - but really I shouldn't have to because right-thiking people would see that I'm right") - then I can't see that you were reading the same comments I read. Also, your repeated and unsubstantiated assertion that my reading s a deliberate misinterpretation ... in an attempt to ... get rid of an editor merely for daring to express an opinion that you don't like - that's an WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA violation. Please don't do that.

  I also find it telling that you have repeatedly ignored the most basic point at issue, namely, whether it is disruptive to compare those one is in "dialog" with on Talk to suppoeters of genocidal torturers. Is that a question you'd like to take to the Teahouse, perhaps? Newimpartial (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't see it as a threat to edit disruptively, just a hypothetical discussion about what someone could do, just as others have pointed out previously. And you don't seem to understand what topic bans are for, they're for protecting the encyclopaedia, and prevent further disruptive editing, while personal attacks, harassment and other kinds of unwanted editor behaviour are handled through warnings and blocks of varying length, not through topic bans, especially not against editors who have never even edited an article within the very wide area the topic ban is sought for... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't think discretionary sanctions are used to prevent disruption caused by an editor's patterns of incivility that are specific to an ACDS domain - well, then, you aren't someone I would ask for an explanation of what topic bans are for. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  "Pattern of incivility"? Where's that pattern? I see one post on an article talk page, a post that was removed by another editor within two minutes of being posted. And one edit makes no pattern, so how about sticking to the truth? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban under WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. Like, c'mon people! He's calling trans surgeries "mutilation" and comparing doctors to Mengele! Just earlier today, someone was quickly reported to ANI and banned for posting How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? on my talk page. If that's across the line, than I have no idea how Wefa is anywhere near the right side of it. The things Wefa is saying are not and should not be analyzed as just a problem in the GENSEX topic area. They are a personal attack on every trans editor on the project. Loki (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Many people (possibly a majority of the world) would consider removing a healthy 15-year-old's breasts to be mutilation, and would have a low opinion of any doctor who performed such a surgery. Is it your view that all these people should be banned from editing Wikipedia? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So are you also pushing the conspiracy nonsense Korny? That's the exact sort of pseudoscience and conspiracy pushing that Wikipedia has WP:FRINGE to deal with. Silverseren^C 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they generalize their outrage and assert (with a broad brush apparently including patients of all ages) that "gender affirming care" is the new lobotomy craze, and its practitioners are the Mengeles of our time - yup, they ought to be banned from participating in discussions of topics where they cannot restrain themselves from deriding editors who disagree with them.

  Furthermore, the view (expressed here) that "transphobic" itself is a left wing fighting term trying to pathologize dissent. There is no such phobia, conservatives simply recognize that there are men and women, and ... nothing else is at odds with the reliable sources that show, in fact, that transpbobia, anti-trans violence and anti-trans attitudes are still causing the deaths of young trans people. Ironically, these are precisely the same young people that your supposed possible majority are allegedly trying to protect from mutilation. Because the feelings of those flat earthers "gender realists" are apparently of greater importance than the lives and mental health of trans youth. Ugh. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  This user is talking about a full ban, not a topic ban. Neither of you answered the question, which is not surprising since it wasn't directed to either of you. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  People who can't restrain themselves from making bigoted comments about vulnersble minorities should not be editing Wikipedia, period. Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. And you know this is a bullshit argument. Over 40% of Americans think the election was stolen. In the 50s interracial marriage was unpopular. At one point racism and slavery were positively viewed. What's popular is not an indication of what is correct. What you may be trying to say is that you think this, in which case you should just say that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Like I said, this is not a poll on whether transphobia is in the Overton window. It’s about a user making inflammatory comments about a subject they clearly don’t have the necessary knowledge and professionalism to participate in. Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I of course wasn't talking about the correctness of the viewpoint, just its bannability. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, a viewpoint is not bannable on Wikipedia; expressions of a view point can be bannable (as in this case, IMO, and in the recent RfA "expression of a viewpoint" pretty much incontrovertibly). Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Does it make sense to ban the expression of a viewpoint that's held by most people? (Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that that's the case here.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The number of people holding a viewpoint isn't relevant, what matters is whether or not it is expressed disruptively. If I were to write "cis people just need to sit down and shut up" that would have a disruptive impact somewhere between me stating that "I think the views of cis people are overrepresented in this discussion" (non-disruptive), on the one hand, and referring to "jack-booted goose-stepping gender skeptical thought police" (highly disruptive) on the other. Wefa's comments we are actually discussing seem quite clearly to fall on the "jack-booted" end of the spectum I just outlined, which is what makes them inherently disruptive.

  And in the hypothetical example I just gave, I don't think the question of how many people agree with me about the gender-skeptical thought police would be relevant to Wikipedia Talk page norms. Do you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would actually consider only the first of your hypothetical statements to be truly disruptive. Anyway, it seems like your views on banning are less extreme than Loki's. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this, stop strawmanning people. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Who did I strawman? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Korny, we’ve been over this. No sealioning or playing dumb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I literally have no idea. But thanks for the insightful contribution. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If they say it on Wikipedia, yes, absolutely! I'm sure a majority of the world believes gay sex is sinful, but that doesn't get you out of getting banned for telling other users they're going to hell. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we're sure as hell not some weird kinda democracy where we're weighing the personal opinions of every person in the world before we can do anything. Loki (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support These comments aren't okay, and I'm not seeing a clear understanding of that. If people use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to spread hatefuly views, they should expect sanctions. Tamwin (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Korny, That Coptic Guy, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Ultimately he went on an off-topic rant and has been warned about soapboxing. It shouldn't need to go any further than that, and I don't find it appropriate to ban someone for holding fringe views (if they can even be called that), especially when they have seemingly abandoned editing that article. If he disrupts the project in future we should return to this discussion, but I don't see anything rule-breaking at this juncture. — Czello 14:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Comparing mainstream, science based on-wiki consensus to support for Mengele - You either get that or refuse to - doesn't break WP:CIVIL "rules"? (Backs slowly away) Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not to the point where it warrants a T-ban. It warrants a warning, which he's received. — Czello 18:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It warrants a ban from the whole project. WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE, and a calmly phrased personal attack is still a personal attack. Loki (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by Locke Cole

Editor Locke Cole is edit warring against consensus on multiple templates Template:Bit and byte prefixes Template:Quantities of bits Template:Quantities of bytes (including a possible 3RR violation [11] [12] [13]), disrupting talk pages (here’s one example [14]) and carrying out personal attacks [15] [16]. Some editors are trying to hold a discussion at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits, but the discussion is continually disrupted by Locke Cole's edits. Can someone take a look? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: You have failed to notify Locke Cole of this ANI filing, as the red notice on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 He did notify Locke here, but was reverted here. ~~~~ ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to apologise, in that case. I was going to check shortly after I made the comment and notice, but forgot to. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Without commenting on the possible edit warring and general discussions I find it odd that the discussion for Template:Quantities of bytes is being held at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#New_proposal:_Legacy as part of a proposal that appears to have gained consensus and been implemented in November 2021. The only reason that I was able to figure out to go there was the fact that there was a November 2021 message on the Quantities of bytes template Talk with a link. The same goes for Template_talk:Quantities_of_bytes (where the previous talk items date to 2015). This discussion appears to have been going on for multiple years in different forms both on individual pages and collectively. I also note that the templates link to Kilobyte and other pages where the nomenclature should align with what is in the templates otherwise it is going to get even messier and the discussion will migrate there or the Template discussion will be used to support viewpoints elsewhere.

With all of this I suggest that a formal proposal be started at the Wikipedia:Village pump with messages left on the template talk pages alerting people and whilst the discussion is being undertaken the templates should be left in a stable form. Apart from anything else:

1. That will gain a wider viewership and input than on a single page.
2. Changes based on consensus at the Village Pump are easier to support and require an equivalent level of consensus to change to something else.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this should have been held at WT:MOSNUM, as one of the templates under discussion (Template:Bit and byte prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is transcluded at WP:COMPUNITS (part of WP:MOSNUM; thus making it a MOS change, not simply a template change). As to the November 2021 "consensus", the TL;dr version is, Dondervogel 2 drags out discussions, waits a month or longer to reply, apparently in an attempt to force their POV. It worked this time because I and other editors who would oppose it did not notice the "new" discussion (you can see I was heavily involved in other discussions in that main section; the proposal they made nearly two months after the last meaningful discussion in that sub-thread was quickly closed in only six days when they got what they wanted (with no attempt to ping or reach out to other editors they knew were heavily invested in the discussion)).

It is my intention to collect evidence of this disruptive behavior by Dondervogel 2 (back to when they edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which goes back literally over a decade, present it here, and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG wherein Dondervogel is restricted from editing pages in any namespace that have any relation with units of measure that involve computers or technology. If you want just one taste of how they treat this topic as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, look at the full edit history of User:Thunderbird2/The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which they have religiously updated for fourteen years. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)If I'm reading correctly, a header at WT:MOSNUM indicates that this is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, so any editors involved in a dispute about this topic should beware and tread lightly, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice the failure of Locke Cole to assume good faith in his post of 25 September, justifying the comments by Quondum and Zac67. Further examples can be found by following the link provided by Quondum. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Locke Cole's editing against consensus, disrupting the discussion chronology and edit warring, I'd like to direct attention to his severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations of lying and generally rude tone at least bordering on harassment. A productive discussion is impossible. I'd seriously appreciate an admin calling him to order officially. --Zac67 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please also note the recent, open edit warring on NTFS.[17][18][19][20] Locke Cole's edits were reverted for the sole reason of introducing ambiguity and not following WP:MOSNUM. --Zac67 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread is about disruptive behaviour by Locke Cole, and as I see it, any comments relating to the merits of the debate and forum (for example by Gusfriend above) will only distract from the purpose here. I confirm Zac67's observation above: there is a long history on this topic, including (section 'Should it be there at all?') accusations of lying, failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and generally being unpleasant to interact with. Included are accusations such as the one above against Dondervogel 2. This unpleasantness by Locke Cole and the failure of the community to censure him caused me (about a year ago) to decide to leave WP. I will no doubt leave again, but for now, I'll see whether the WP community can restore a little my faith in managing this disruptive behaviour. What is needed to deal with this? —Quondum 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you knew anything, anything at all, about technology it would be amazing. Instead you're going against our sources AND WP:COMPUNITS by reverting changes to bring our articles into reality. Truly amazing to see you all feel like victims when you're the belligerents here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Too much drama. This is a long-running dispute between essentially two warring parties. Claims of “editing against consensus” should be looked upon with critical scrutiny as they can often be a tactical move that is the Wikipedia equivalent of leaving Novichok on a doorknob to remove inconvenient obstacles. On this long-running war (over whether Wikipedia should adopt terminology like “gibibits” instead of "gigabits”) “consensuses” tend to actually comprise just one complainant and a fatigued friend extracted from the woodwork who barely cares. Were someone to induce just one or two more people to somehow care and join these discussions, purported consensuses simply swing the other way.

This dispute truly had a consensus many years ago with very many editors weighing in and a consensus discerned and declared with an admin supervising. At that time, Dondervogel 2 (then known as Thunderbird, if I recall correctly) didn’t accept that consensus and doesn't agree today with the current policy that sprang from that consensus. Nothing has since changed other than drama persists. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Quondum said above that there is a long history on this topic and Greg L says that it is a long-running war. As I mentioned above, the way to solve the underlying root cause, the best way of getting more involvement in the discussion and stop having this pop up again in a few months and a few months after that is a formal RfC at the WP:Village Pump which then becomes a formal consensus at WP:MOSNUM. Once it is there it applies everywhere in the project, people can be referred to the MOS in correcting their edits and sanctions can be applied to those who continue to act against consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend: I wish to add canvassing to the list of Locke Cole's disruptive activities. He has summoned Greg_L at least twice [21] [22], knowing that Greg_L would support his position. Except when summoned by canvassing, Greg_L was not involved in the discussion on any of the templates since [2008], when he supported the disruptive activities of the socks Fnagaton and Glider87. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: He has summoned Greg_L at least twice 2021-06-21T19:06:37 2022-09-28T21:50:37, knowing that Greg_L would support his position. (original edited to add dates to diff links) As to the first linked diff, that comment was posted over a month after Greg L had already participated in the same discussion: 2021-05-07T23:27:25. As to the second diff, I provided Dondervogel 2 with an explanatory diff (2021-06-23T01:45:08, where Greg L had participated in a discussion at Quantities of bytes regarding header titles), and instead of dropping the stick and stepping away, they doubled down by casting aspersions (see Special:Diff/1113072411). As Greg L was involved in the discussion at the Quantities of bytes template, you made his involvement important when you used a separate talk page as justification for making changes he had previously opposed: Special:Diff/1056250211. With this in mind, you might wish to ask Greg_L how he became aware of this ANI thread. Sort of like how Quondum just showed up randomly here I presume.

Now that we've settled Dondervogel 2's latest attempts take issue with my behavior, can we please address their behavior in so far as WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:CANVASS (for the Quondum canvassing) and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes? I'm still preparing my WP:BOOMERANG proposal, but clearly if they're going to escalate to casting aspersions about me, this needs to be stopped now.

@Dondervogel 2: I see you can spend time here making more aspersions against me that are unfounded, can you spare a moment to reply to my question on your talk page? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it’s time for a reality check and history lesson since this tendentious behavior by Dondervogel 2 isn’t going away and occurred so long ago, almost no one currently on Wikipedia remembers.

First off, I’m a senior mechanical engineer at a major electronic manufacturer, where I help establish engineering standards for the company. Although I’m close to retirement, I’m not yet retired and have better things to do with my life that spend time here dealing with tendentiousness that makes Wikipedia’s articles look foolish.

Secondly, no one “summons” me. I seldom visit Wikipedia anymore to edit and happened to notice an “1” badge on my alert bell because my name had been mentioned on that template page.

An objective look at the most recent 100 of Dodgervogel 2’s edits shows him to be a near-single-purpose account user with an apparent obsession over how Wikipedia should be using terminology like “kibibytes” and “mebibits.”

The consensus hammered out years ago, which resulted in the current MOSNUM policy was one that Dondervogel 2 (then known as “Thunderbird2” or something like that) vehemently disagreed with. Sometime after the consensus went against his position, Thunderbird 2 dropped off the radar… I don’t remember when and the circumstances, just that there was no disruption for a while.

Now, newly reincarnated as Dondervogel 2, he spends an unusual amount of time on Template:Quantities_of_bits, which links to an uncanny amount articles, and where Dondervogel 2 seems to always have a presence.

Wikipedia doesn’t need those tables featuring the “gibibit” terms if the price is continual disruption. Those units are largely ignored by the mainstream computer world and the computer press; Dell doesn’t use them in their literature or packaging. Same for Apple. ‘PC World’ and ‘MacWorld’ don’t use them… unless perhaps it is an article of a proposed standard that never took off. Spell checkers from Apple—a tech company—don’t even have those terms in the dictionary… when I try to type “gibibits,” my spell checker tries to auto-correct it to giblets.

If Dondervogel 2’s contribution was to just produce a nice table and let the community use it as the MOSNUM-memorialized consensus intended, that would be fine. But instead his tendentiousness expresses itself as doing his best to put that table in articles where the units aren’t used… as if “keeping the units front and center amounts to keeping the dream alive” that the computer world will one-day follow Wikipedia’s lead.

Finally, as for me somehow being in Locke Cole’s hip pocket, there’s zero truth to that. Locke and I were on opposite ends of a different disagreement (linking dates) around the same timeframe and it was a bitter ending for Locke when the consensus went against his wishes. Though Locke didn’t like it, he accepted the consensus and didn’t edit against it… or at least didn't edit against it much as I recall. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2 casting aspersions

It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Evidence and Discussion

During discussion at Template talk:Quantities of bits I had advised Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to inform other editors who had expressed concern over the topic under discussion of the new discussion at this new talk page. They seemed to largely ignore that, ultimately pinging Quondum instead. Noticing that Greg L (who had previously participated in discussions at Template talk:Quantities of bytes) had been conspicuously absent from the other ping's, I finally did what Dondervogel 2 appeared incapable of doing: ping of Greg L. To which Dondervogel 2 replied (with an edit summary of why?) What is the reason for wanting to involve Greg L? I answered with a diff of Greg's previous participation, asking I wonder perhaps if you could explain why you'd exclude him? And instead of recognizing their error, they elected to cast aspersions about why he was pinged: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. Is that a good criterion for involving a new editor? I replied Where did I imply this? I expect an answer to this Dondervogel 2.

No reading of what I wrote could possibly be taken as inviting him because he would support my position, nor the logical fallacy that follows. After receiving no answer but witnessing Dondervogel 2 continuing to edit elsewhere, I took the behavioral issue directly to their talk page: With this edit you commented in a reply to me the following: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. I had replied, asking Where did I imply this?. Can you explain your comment as I've already asked? To which they replied, adding conditions to any answer (clearly now meeting WP:ASPERSIONS as they are unable to substantiate their false claims about me): I will consider responding to your questions once they are expressed as questions (or requests, but not demands) and when you learn to assume good faith. Further replies on their talk page yielded no answer, just further demands to meet conditions even after explaining that such conditions are inappropriate (especially in dispute resolution).

Request

My goal from the beginning of that line of discussion was to ensure that any concerned parties on other talk pages were informed of the discussion now taking place at this alternate venue. Dondervogel 2 appears to be both WP:FORUMSHOPping and engaging in WP:CANVASSing by being selective in who they ping and when. As they refuse to answer my WP:ASPERSIONS concerns (I suspect because they can't, but they also refused to withdraw them as well), I am asking for an administrator to either directly ask them to answer for their claims against me, or block them indefinitely until such time as they do. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruption at NTFS

In case it helps, here's another example of edit warring by Locke Cole, this time at NTFS: One revert on at 05:50 on 4 Oct and then three reverts on 5 Oct, at 15:57, 16:02, and 16:36. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In case it helps, the sun rose this morning, and after a week Dondervogel 2 still hasn't answered the demand on his talk page to explain why he's casting aspersions about me. They apparently also believe that their comments are more important than anyone else's and tried to place this sub-thread above mine from nearly a week ago. Oh, and Quondum, who has never edited NTFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), made an appearance randomly apparently to carry on their disruptive abuse of consensus by changing an article to units not used in any of the sources. So in addition to a WP:COMPUNITS violation, we're now seeing a WP:V violation. Anyone wanna do something about the editors ruining Wikipedia and making it a laughingstock of the internet with this -ibibyte/ibibit dreck? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot bickering between you and Locke, Dondervogel 2. I don’t have time to wade through all the drama edit by edit. So… I have a fair question that might save everyone some time. Have you been editing in full compliance with the letter and spirit of WP:COMPUNITS? Greg L (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Greg L: It is no secret I used to edit as Thunderbird2. I stopped editing because of bullying by Fnagaton and his band of socks. You were heavily involved at that time and you never once suggested to Fnagaton he could improve Wikipedia by stopping his disruptive behaviour, so why should I consider you a neutral third party? And why should I consider your question a fair one when it is addressed only at me and not at the editor causing the disruption? Nevertheless, I shall assume good faith and respond accordingly.

  • This particular sub-thread is about NTFS. I have not edited at NTFS recently (I’m not sure I ever have, but it was not on my watch list before Locke Cole brought up the subject at WP:MOSNUM. I can safely say that all recent edits I have made there comply with any guideline you choose to mention, because I have made no recent edits there.
  • The broader thread was precipitated by Locke Cole’s interventions at Template_talk:Quantities_of_bits#JEDEC_column. You only have to read a few lines to see Locke Cole’s multiple unfounded accusations. The content issues there are about what name to use for the 'JEDEC' column. I don't see the relevance of COMPUNITS to that heading, so yes, I assert my edits there also comply.
  • If your question is not about one of those two articles/templates, you’ll have to be more specific. I can safely say I always try to comply with the spirit of all aspects of MOSNUM. Do my edits also follow the letter? Probably not all of them, but I don’t believe any editor who has made more than (say) 1000 edits to Wikipedia has done so without ever falling foul of one aspect or another, and COMPUNITS in particular is full of internal contradictions (remove all unambiguous prefixes but keep the article unambiguous is a tall order and you are probably the only editor who consistently used to achieved that – I can’t speak for editors today, except that I know Locke Cole makes no attempt to disambiguate, which is why his edits were reverted several times at NTFS, by different editors).
  • You said in a previous post you are a senior engineer nearing retirement and don’t have time for this nonsense. Well, I am a senior physicist nearing retirement and I don’t have time for this nonsense either, so why don’t you demonstrate your good faith and help me stop the nonsense by addressing Locke Cole’s disruption instead of calling my behaviour into question without evidence?

  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved in NTFS, I'd like to report that the edit conflict has been resolved. Locke Cole has seen reason and properly fixed the inconsistencies and included proper disambiguation notes. Thank you for this!

What hasn't really been addressed here though is the bullying, generally rude tone, severe lack of WP:AGF, frequent allegations, frequent disruptive editing and edit warring made by Locke Cole. I'd just like to quote a few phrases from this very page and the ones linked above: If you knew anything, anything at all, about technology it would be amazing., Please refrain from lying then, apparently this lying thing is catching, Or you just gonna keep repeating that lie. Do these represent the desired tone for WP? Are they totally OK to use around here? Personally, I'd like to continue looking for a solution to the initial issue, but if the atmosphere remains this toxic, there's no way to get anywhere. Please, could someone take a look at the mess and try to mediate? I think it's still time that a call to order may prevent further damage. If this is allowed to continue without moderation it's not going to end well. --Zac67 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Time out. I see the confusion here, and some editors are too quick to throw around inflammatory wikirhetoric like “edit warring” without thinking through whether they themselves might not understand Wikipedia’s policies.

All this wiki-drama is product of only four castaways on Lord of the Bytes island, and they’re warring over an issue that was long settled. It’s a three-to-one issue with Locke Cole, who appears to be the only editor active who is attempting to ensure Wikipedia’s articles don’t look foolish by using terminology unused by the mainstream computer world in advertising, packaging, brochures, or user manuals, and the mainstream computer press never use.

Those who are editing in violation of WP:COMPUNITS may not be aware of the prodigious effort into the RFC that lead to WP:COMPUNITS—and the large number of participants in that RFC.

My evidence that there may be confusion over what MOSNUM calls for:

• Here is an edit diff by Zac67 in which he wrote this as an edit comment: if you create ambiguity don't expect others to fix your mess.

• Here is an edit diff by Quondum in which he wrote this as an edit comment: prefix use was very inconsistent; throughout, binary prefixes are clearly intended, so making these unambiguous.

It’s notable that both those editors are endeavoring to address “ambiguity” (which is in reference to how terms like “megabyte” aren’t equal if one is talking about RAM or storage), yet this ambiguity is precisely what the RFC—as memorialized in WP:MOSNUM, addressed. That clear and well-thought through consensus was that

1. Wikipedia should disambiguate using the same techniques the rest of the computer world uses, and…
2. Not use terms and symbols like “kibibit” and “kib” as pretty much no one in our readership recognizes them.

Now here is the edit history of Template:Quantities of bits. There we find a lot of familiar names: Dondervogel 2, Zac67, Quondum, and Locke Cole.

This issue, which boils down to a belief (or faith-based view) that if Wikipedia began using terminology like “kibibits” in an “Oh, didn’t you know?” fashion, that might one-day lead to the rest of the world adopting them. This has been going on since 2008.

In the last 14+ years, is there any evidence that anyone in the computer world slapped their forehead upon seeing these units mentioned on Wikipedia and saw to it that the packaging on boxes of computers at Costco read “Now with 16 gibibytes of RAM”?

What has changed since 2008? (Other than editorial conflict, flame wars, and wiki-drama are still occurring and there's zero reason for it.)

Clearly, significant passion surrounds this issue. Dondervogel 2, then as Thunderbird 2, made a special page, titled The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes.

So I ask everyone who has found themselves at odds with Locke Cole to respond to this question: WP:COMPUNITS reads as follows… please read this:

The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except:

• when the majority of cited sources on the article topic use IEC prefixes;
• in a direct quote using the IEC prefixes;
• when explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes; or
• in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical.

References
Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 2²⁰ and 2¹⁰ respectively) and their unit symbols (e.g. MB and KB) for RAM and decimal prefixes for most other uses. Despite the IEC's 1998 international standard creating several new binary prefixes (e.g. mebi-, kibi-, etc.) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 10⁶ and 10³ respectively) from the binary ones, and the subsequent incorporation of these IEC prefixes into the ISO/IEC 80000, consensus on Wikipedia in computing-related contexts favours the retention of the more familiar but ambiguous units KB, MB, GB, TB, PB, EB, etc. over use of unambiguous IEC binary prefixes. For detailed discussion, see WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive/Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008).

Now, I have three questions for all the editors active on this thread (Dondervogel 2, Zac67, Quondum, and Locke Cole), which are as follows:

1. Did you know that MOSNUM reads this way?
2. Did you read all of the above excerpt from WP:MOSNUM?
3. If not, are you willing to abide by this policy?

As I’m active on this thread, I’ll answer my own questions: I haven’t been editing on this topic for years, but when I was, I abided by the spirit and letter of WP:MOSNUM and WP:COMPUNITS. And I am quite familiar with WP:MOSNUM; I helped write portions of it. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm very aware it reads this way. I'm grateful you fully expanded the embedded footnote that explains the reasoning, as it seems to be ignored or overlooked by the other participants here. We have a site-wide consensus against using IEC prefixes in articles. If there is a matter of ambiguity, WP:COMPUNITS prescribes methods of resolving that. It is unacceptable for editors here to edit war over implementing in our articles what has been an accepted for 14 years (and with no changes to really justify an adjustment in all that time). My goal has always been to follow our sources and the long-standing consensus at COMPUNITS. My first foray into this issue was when Dondervogel 2 was making edits like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Each of these edits goes against the long-standing consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Locke.

Are we going to hear from any of the others?

Particularly Dondervogel 2, who filed this ANI. We should hear from him. Please answer the above three questions.

Greg L (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Greg L, you are doing yourself no credit, trying to sidetrack this thread into a MoS discussion and showing your supercilious tone by linking that file: you've gone off track and do not deserve a response, since you are using the same tactics as Locke Cole, demanding a response to a question designed to sidetrack the purpose of the ANI thread. For any uninvolved admin thinking that I am trying to avoid the question: I have already made clear that my position on binary prefixes neutral, though that is hardly relevant, since this thread is not about the MoS. —Quondum 00:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Your protestations of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are noted, but just don’t withstand critical scrutiny when one compares what you say to what you persistently do, Quondum. Your claiming that you are “neutral” to the binary prefixes is wholly undermined by edits like this.

  It stretches the imagination to think that by this far into this drama that you still don’t understand the WP:COMPUNITS policy. Notwithstanding that you just now claimed to be “neutral” on the manual of style and the underlying widely-felt and well-deliberated RFC that went into it, your edit history shows your real intent: 1) you have been editing against consensus and against policy, 2) you know you have been, 3) you objected when another editor took you to task for it, 4) and then you resort to wikilawyering and drama creation in an effort to get out of hot water after your hand was caught in the cookie jar so you can continue to do as you please.

  Important point here: Now, this is something that maybe you might truly not know about, but per WP:CONLEVEL, a consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Perhaps when you and Dondervogel 2 work in concert, you feel you have achieved a de facto consensus to do as you please and flout a wider consensus, but things don’t work that way on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, “consensus” rules supreme, is precisely defined, and those definitions have been labored over in order to preserve peace, make the project a better collaborative writing environment, and make Wikipedia a better product. Now…

  All of this can go away if you merely agree to stop editing against a widely-felt, 14-year old consensus that every other editor abides by.

  Can you simply agree to do that so we can put this behind us? Greg L (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring, disruptive editing, addition of unsourced content and use of WP:SYNTH by User:Lmharding

User:Lmharding have been engaging in long-term disruptive editing on multiple pages related to LGBT rights claiming the countries impose vigilante attacks and executions as a legal penalty without providing sources or using WP:SYNTH sources where the content outright contradicts or have nothing to do with the claims being made. The user has also engaged in long-term edit warring by continuously reverting the removal of content by multiple users.

The user has claimed to @LocalWonk: that the behaviour would cease and no complaint to WP:ANI is necessary but as the user continues to repeat the behavior, I believe a complaint to WP:ANI is necessary.

The user continues to revert and add the same content that had been removed by both me and @AukusRuckus: multiple times The user has provided no sources for the claims or have used WP:SYNTH sources for example in here a source suspect who was arrested and tortured during interrogation on his alleged ties to the militant separatist organization the LTTE has been used to justify the claim despite having no relevance to the claim of vigilante attacks or any action against LGBT people specifically as the source mentions the person involved only identified as LGBT well after the incident. The user has not yet provided an actual source that supports the claims the LGBT rights in Tunisia as well despite continuously reverting to re-add the content and instead the user simply removed some of the sources but the source present still used makes no reference to the claims of vigilante attacks being a legal penalty. Thank you. -UtoD 07:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just awoken to this notification, and it caught me a bit by surprise. I was still in a process of compiling a wide index of edits by @Lmharding to show a pattern of behavior despite warnings. I am requesting a few hours to finish compiling said index and present it and thoughts in a more coherent manner than I am currently. Apologies for not replying chronologically, not sure what the correct procedure here is when another user doesn't tab out their response. LocalWonk (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I immediately reverted as I reverted in the heat of the moment only realizing what I dsid right after and it was undone. As for Tunisia, there are plenty of incidents of vigilante action but it was sourced as [23] does mention executions torture and other punishments. However, I will revert it. Small setback as a small slip-up. My apologies. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)~

Reply: Hoping that for now this apology is enough for us to move on and not continue bringing up the past as I putting a strong effort to acting better. As for those edits, I admitted my mistake and I undid them. Let's not make a bigger situation out it than we need to. Any past mistakes have been resolved with aukus the editor in question and other then this small slip-up I am doing edits in other categories of articles primarily and the articles have been brought back to any consensus edits. @LocalWonk: there is no need to bring up old edits as we resolved any edits your "compiling" with him being satisfied that I am cooperating so there is no reason to dwell in the past. Lmharding (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I motion to close this, as this editor LocalWonk is now bringing up old and already settling or in the process of settling discussions doing WP:FORUMSHOPPING in a WP:HOUNDING campaign without any context into the fact that they are already being discussed and are being done so civilly without any future edit warring or other guideline regulations other than the two edits I mentioned above which I realized were wrong and immediately self reverted. Please don't punish me for trying to do better WP:NOPUNISH. My WP:FRESHSTART does not mean I'll be flawless or perfect and I have apologized for it. I encourage WP:FAF and to WP:AGF as I am sincerely trying.Lmharding (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding, thanks for your response.

I find it a bit disparaging to refer to me as a 'random editor' — aren't we all? Also, we haven't heard from @AukusRuckus as to if this is their position on the matter, so please let them speak for themselves. Some of these issues persist on the latest revision of the pages, and the issue at hand isn't limited to interactions you've had with User:AukusRuckus. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Pattern of Behavior

The rest of this message is addressed to everyone:

I share @UtoD's concerns. I’ve noticed that User:Lmharding has taken interest in editing various articles related to LGBT rights in various countries and administrative subdivisions. Overall, they seem to edit the articles to portray the situation as harshly and pessimistically as possible, even when that means flattening real nuance about the current reality, and compromising an article's factuality. I’ve organized some questionable edits by article:

• LGBT rights in Zambia (Removing information, flattening nuance, not providing new sources to support the change)
• LGBT rights in Sudan (Removing information, no change in sources)
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia (The use of the phrase “with certain death for those who participate” seems to stand in opposition to WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can write about legal penalties and nuance surrounding that, but cannot make such definitive statements about the hypothetical fate of people engaging in certain actions.)
• LGBT rights in Mauritania (Flattening of nuance without providing sources to support the edit)
• LGBT rights in Senegal (Changing information without providing a source to support said change)
• LGBT rights in Syria (Use of language that lacks precision and not fit for an encyclopedia (see WP:WORDS), with contribution “Vigilante executions, beatings torture, and vigilante attacks happen all the time in Syria, including by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham a rebel group.” — this goes without mentioning that the claim has no solid citation to back it — that would be impossible, as the phrase ‘all the time’ makes inferences about the future.)
• LGBT rights in Sierra Leone (Nuance completely flattened in this edit, namely that the has no recent history of being enforced, and provided no sources to support the edits. Another source, not previously cited on the page confirms the prior state of affairs described in the article.)
• LGBT rights in Eswantini (More nuance was flattened (including the non-illegal status of lesbian acts), and a sentence was contributed that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL; “The only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts”)
• LGBT rights in Uganda (Edit warring against two other editors who raised valid concerns)
• LGBT rights in Morocco (Changed information, without citing a new source, that contradicts the original source which was left unchanged.)
• LGBT rights in Malawi (After being informed by another editor that they were flattening nuance and removing information that was factually true, they engaged in edit-war behavior, undoing the other editors reversion of your work, without addressing their concerns in any meaningful way. See edits relating to a disputed moratorium on 23 August 2022.) LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous warnings

Lmharding has continued to put catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox, which they have already received pushback on. This problem dates back as far as June of 2022. The mass of edits to comb through is so wide, so I apologize if I've missed anything.

In closing, though their desire to contribute to articles on this topic is appreciated, their edits are not improving these articles (if not violating Wikipedia rules), and they are not addressing concerns raised by other editors. There is also something to be said about their unwillingness to abide by basic Wikipedia etiquette, like tabbing their responses, even in the face of being told by another editor that they have a visual disability which renders tabbing extra important. To quote WP:CIR, "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." I would like for a topic ban relating to LGBT issues to be considered for User:Lmharding to protect the integrity of these articles and to give editors the space needed to begin to repair them. LocalWonk (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As for mOst of this edits, they were shortened to clarify, be less wordy or list up to top punishments to get to the point nd to copy the style of other articles which took the same approach. It was not to "flatten" or erase any important information. Other details like id a punishment was "unenforced" was removed if there was no source to verify it Finally, for Malawi it was an editing battle that both sides both me and other editors edit warred and reverted rapidly so all parties involved are equally guilty of violatios there but I apologize for my addition to that situation. Overall, mpst if these are either misunderstandings or old behavior I'm growing out of. 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding:, I can't accept your contention that you removed statements like "unenforced" because they were unsourced. For example, at LGBT rights in Eswatini, you removed sourced statements here which I restored, with a better source. I thought perhaps the first removal of "unenforced' was due to lower-quality sourcing, but that can't be right, as you used the Beast cite to add "the only way to repeal the country's sodomy law is to go through the courts."

I posted on the talk page about this and received the reply from you:

It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct.

That was in June. By 3 September, you made nearly the same edit again. Following that, "unenforced" in the table and "female same-sex behaviour not criminalised" were restored, only for you to, yet again, on 29 September remove these points, saying in ES: "(removed original research and unfounded conclusions)". There's also the entirely unsourced "Penalty: 2 years" now added by you. Numerous sources state no penalty is prescribed, and no prosecutions have taken place under the criminalising law.

Normally this could all be hashed out in the talk page as a simple content dispute. But the type of editing detailed here is very widely distributed across the whole topic area, and contributions to talk page discussions only occur up to a point. They may degenerate in to long, drawn-out, somehow impossible-to-reach-common-ground back and forth, or you, LMH, simply abandon them, as here and as here Talk:LGBT rights in Texas#Still waiting: "nullified" claim. There are many other examples, but this reply is already too long. I can supply more if wanted.

I don't know if posting on this board is the right approach or not, but I do not think things can just go on in the same vein: the whole topic area is really poorly served. Your approach to editing and lack of consensus-building efforts do not help. I, for one, feel like I spend all my WP time putting out spot fires, rather than contributing substantive improvements, as I had hoped to. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Added dates AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak for that edit as I would have to research more into my reasoning as it was a while ago and I made 50+ edits since then. I doubt you compartmentalize all your edits. I do not have time right now, but as for the the longer disputes I did go back to the UAE discussion so don't pretend that I didn't. I discussed those edits a few days ago here As for the Texas discussion, I am still in the process of researching hence why I did not respond. There are a lot of nuances to Texan laws, and sadly there is a lot of information to sort to find correct information as you would know being WP:CAUTIOUS. Plus, I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me. But those are again, either old discussions I have responded to or or have been in the process of looking into t. You have reverted and 3RR'd me as well many times breaking your own rules with harassing and time consuming spamming on multiple pages often with your own personal attacks towards me as well, pestering and annoying me trying to prod me. Hypocrisy at its finest. Lmharding (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This kind of response makes it hard to believe that you've changed your ways. What do you mean by "you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me"? Lmharding, trying to collaborate with you has been very frustrating. Is there anything short of administrative action that could convince you to change your approach to content and conduct disputes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Patience and understanding, I am trying to change but again the process is not straightforward, I am not WP:PERFECT and I again want to shed my past but with disputes like this you don't let me. It feels very much like a group tagteam in my perception, hence why he had followed my edits and watched me. I am free to have that opinion. That view has no bearing on the situation so let's get back on focus.Lmharding (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

tangent

@Lmharding: I make plenty of mistakes and missteps. If anyone looks, they would be able to bring a shedload of diffs here to my embarrassment. Nevertheless, although I will argue my corner, I try to accept constructive criticism. I modify my behaviour. What I don't do, is turn and around and attack those who raise concerns. If I have personally insulted you (rather than criticised your editing) I apologise without reserve. That is entirely unacceptable and no-one deserves it. If there is something specific that has affronted you that I have not already made amends for, please raise it with me. That said, I believe you may sometimes confuse an editor insistently objecting to your edits with someone attacking you.

Either way, I have tried really hard to understand your point of view; I have been subjected to a fair quantity of what I would call less-than-polite responses from you. This is our very first interaction: [24] In addition to being a little unfriendly, it displays a mistaken understanding of WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. This approach is one that continues to be shown in your editing to this day. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: To help me understand, would you be able to address your thinking in regard to the Eswatini edits that I detailed above, please? This may seem like a small matter, but as a representative edit of your wider patterns that I have found puzzling, it would be helpful to get your thoughts on it. I realise you have made many edits since, but those two I mention in particular were only done on the 3rd and 29th of September. If you click on the diffs I provided, which show the edits, that may help you recall. I'm especially at a loss to understand why they were made when you said you agreed with my restorations in June, but then apparently thought better of it, but without engaging in more discussion. The 2-year penalty addition is just plain mystifying.

(And, if you won't take it amiss from me, I'd like to suggest the consistent use of edit summaries; they act as record of your thinking as well as being helpful to other editors).AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: None of the sources mention lesbianism being legal and but according to ILGA report (2020) there was a law pending that made homosexuality punishable by a minimum of 2 years, but does not mention a top penalty hence penalty of 2 years in jail.Lmharding (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I have made some comments about your recent article edits on Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini; thank you for letting me know the reasoning. What I would like to discuss here in this venue, are the reasons you did not think it warranted talk page discussion before you made your edits—especially since you had earlier said on the talk page that you concurred with my view of the sources. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing content after posting

Addendum: Would like the record to reflect that Lmharding is editing the content of their replies after publishing them, here's an example where they referred to me as a "random editor" (not something I imagined, as I initially thought I did when I first refreshed the page). I am also not bothering to address the (newly) introduced accusations of me participating in WP:FORUMSHOPPING or WP:HOUNDING — a cursory reading of either policy reveals them to be irrelevant to the situation and my conduct, and a deflection from the issue at hand. LocalWonk (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I refer to you as a random user because we have barely talked before. That's not meant as an insult just a realistic observation. Now the hounding and forumshoping comes from the two of you seeming like you gang up on me by collecting up resources together against me might I add communicating outside of Wikipedia to do this which is also against the rules. You also bring the issue to other forums almost like it seems like your shopping to find admins that side with you You are breaking rules here. 13:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well hey, I was wondering when I would see this here. So I would like to comment as the person who gave USPOL DS alerts to both AukusRuckus and Lmharding, and engaged a bit with both of them regarding this dispute, specifically on the Texas LGBT Rights article, a couple of months ago. I posted on the talk there after reading through the dispute with both of them, encouraging them to drop the stick and seek a 3O. I later noted that there did appear to be some disruption from Lmharding, and encouraged Aukus to see if there were other editors wiling to go to ANI with them, as the disruption and disputes were taking place across a wide variety of LBGT Rights articles. Given that, almost two and a half months later, despite assurances that an ANI would not be needed, we are now here, there may need to be some concrete action taken here. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To your point FrederalBacon you said oth of us were typing paragraphs, and hat there was edit warring and 3RR on both sides, either both are guilty or neither. You don't get to pick and choose who should get action against them when AukusRuckus was doing the same thing. It wasn't just "my disruptions" so don't try to edit history. Lmharding (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the some of the edits of Lmharding I agree that concrete action may be required if only due to their behaviour on article talk pages where they often change what they have previously written without indicating changes. In particular Lmharding should :

• Not remove article talk page discussions as was done at [25] even if it has been "reviewed and handled".
• Use strikethrough and insert (i.e. <s> and </s> and <ins> and </ins>) rather than editing their previous entries as they did at [26], [27] and elsewhere including multiple times in this conversation.
• Not remove something of your own after it has been there for 4 days as you did at [28] as whilst people may not have replied it may have affected how someone edits or is planning to edit the main page.
• If they have concerns about what someone else has written on a talk page then they should raise your concerns to allow for retraction rather than removing it for themselves as at [29]
• Take some time to read up on talk page formatting as correct use of indents is important.

Gusfriend (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations.

Commitments to change

Another running issue is that the user continuously claims that the user has changed behavior and will not repeat the actions when faced with the possibility of being reported but if you look at the edit history the user has made no attempts at making any changes and would simply continue with disruptive editing as usual. This comes off as taking advantage of other users' willingness to make a collaborative effort. Even now the user alternates between promises to change and throwing accusations of other users organizing off wiki against the user without providing any evidence for the accusations. -UtoD 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie I have been working on it, you don't know me personally? Can you read my mind? an you now my intentions in my head? No. The proof of talking offline has been sourced and mentions collection offline through email which is against Wikipedia rules as well as collaborating through the discussions I sourced to talk to only people they agree with and going to other forum to shop for moderators. Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me. I have been changing, other than the slip ups I reverted immediately I have been primarily not even editing LGBT articles temporarily and I have been successfully editing other topics. I take that as a personal attack, please purge your last acccusatory allegations. Lmharding (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have changed. Poland LGBT righ§ts state in the gender identity section that transition requires approval which only occurs twice a year and is often rejected. For Belarus,other than homosexuality being legal and gender changes being permitted almost no rights are offered in that country. The sources are all there. Nice try with your knitpick but there was no problem with it. Your knitpicking searching for miniscle reasons, albeit false and incorrect ones are enough proof for WP:HOUNDING for me.—Lmharding (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: Who are you addressing here? AukusRuckus (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a reply to UtoD.Lmharding (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Throwing accusations of WP:HOUNDING in an administrative noticeboard is meaningless because it's mandatory for users to find the necessary diffs. You have not provided any evidence of wiki hounding. Edit warring in the LGBT rights in Texas and being dismissive when warned and the continuous dismissive behavior such as " Nice try with your knitpick but there was no problem with it. Your knitpicking searching for miniscle reasons, albeit false and incorrect ones are enough proof for WP:HOUNDING for me" again keep contradicting your claims of having changed. Total dismissiveness, confrontations which implies WP:NOTHERE -UtoD 03:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about NOTHERE, but Lmharding does consistently demonstrate poor collaboration. The clear 3RR breach at LGBT rights in Texas happened over a individualized edit-warring warning and a request to self-revert. They called an obviously good-faith editors efforts "unconstructive". I get that this is a long filing, but it's disheartening to see a lack of input from uninvolved admins and editors. AukusRuckus' #Working rough summary below has a good encapsulation of the issues, to which I'd add these recent troubles at the Texas article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The edits in Belarus and Poland were not breaking dome promises, because I said I generally don't edit those articles, not that that I never do. Secondly, the information was the same and saying exactly what the sources say. 3. Nitpicking and semantics to target me. 4. Any recent edits in Texas were using the talk page for consensus but I don't know maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me. firefangledfeather it was inappropriate to bring those up as you and I both know this IP was blanking and I reverted them so it was unconstructive. I'll come back to this issue in the talk page. Lmharding (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Again another random accusation, dismissive behaviour, and refusal to change. " maybe you were aware of this IP and you were hoping it would disrupt me as you love to find reasons to hate me". This is a continuation of problematic behavior and a serious accusation which you randomly keep throwing at other users. This is again a contradictory behaviour to your claims of having changed as you have consistently engaged in the same behavior across the entire page

1 ": I don't answer to you and I have a life outside of Wikipedia and you have been demanding of my time more ridiciously that any other user I have ever contribute and sometimes I don't want to WP:IGNORE you and you group of WP:TAGTEAM trying to WP:GRIEF me. I cant just have a day of peace because you continue to tag and pester me."

2 "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me"

Continuously being dismissive and throwing accusations of users conspiring against you without any evidence of such is WP:NOTHERE behaviour. -UtoD 18:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing comments of others

Do you you think redacting the comments of other users in in a noticeboard without any administrative authority to do so will not be noticed? Trying to remove complaints, throwing out random accusations without any evidence and claims like "Stop trying to deflect guilt of others who do wrong against me " don't really show you as putting any effort to changing or any intention of collaborating. -UtoD 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC).

I restored your comment, and I agree this is additional troubling behavior from Lmharding. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

An administrator warned Lmharding "Don't remove other editor's comments just because you don't like them" earlier this month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That was an attack on character based on assumptions of my mind and process of thinking. Under NPA that was justifiable to be removed. Don't you dare accuse me of being a liar I have changed, tbut that was a personal snipe obviously against Wiki guidelines. Lmharding (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The only use of lie and liar that I can see, seems to be in your posts, Lmharding. It's understandable that you may resent someone saying they disbelieve your stated intentions; few of us would enjoy that. Still, UtoD is only stating how they view your behaviour going by your history. We are all entitled to make the case as we see it, using reasoned statements and evidence. How do you think editors here feel when they read unfounded accusations from you regarding quite serious WP policy violations? (I know you believe you have evidence of that and provided it, but an entirely appropriate discreet user talk post is in no way improper. Similarly unfounded are the HOUNDING and FORUMSHOPPING jabs.) Nobody redacted your posts. You make a plea for "patience and understanding": Would you please display some towards your fellow editors here?

The best and easiest way to overcome others' scepticism about your intentions is to engage in civil dialogue about their concerns, be open to what they're saying, and expressly state how you'll change your editing. It is not by being defensive, accusatory, and using their slipups against them, nor by insisting everyone believe you just because you say so. I genuinely hate to see anyone upset by comments made, but can't in all honesty read what you removed as a personal attack. You will find others more likely to be sympathetic to your attempts to change, if you show them you are doing so. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding, what the hell are you doing? You edited my comment in the midst of a discussion about your problematic editing practices, one of which is removing or editing the comments of others. Please stop! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit referenced above just now pretty much declared a WP:Battleground. Doesn’t seem promising. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8BC:8C48:62A5:C5B (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Although quickly deleted by the user, I cannot but conclude that someone who harbours attitudes such as displayed in this edit

"4. Because of your lack of cooperation and attacking of me, I will be taking back my compromise edits in Texas, as you are not willing to see reason and see that I was trying in good faith to find a reasonable middle ground edit with this vandalizing IP so I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult."

is less interested in collegial discussion and more so in ensuring their own viewpoints are not challenged. (And to think I've been ashamed of my less conciliatory posts!) AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Working rough summary

This discussion rapidly became long and unwieldy − something I contributed heavily to. So, I hope it's ok; I've decided to make a summary list here, extracting everyone's main points from the above. If others think it's worthwhile and wish to, perhaps diffs or (very brief) comments could go under each category. (Feel free to improve these rough points, change, or add to them): Then, if warranted, proposals for specific action could be made. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Part of following discussion, a reply to Lmharding by AukusRuckus, moved to User talk:AukusRuckus

 – Added little to already overlong section

Major points

1. adds catch-all phrases referring to extrajudicial punishments in the penalty section of the infobox and summary tables in large number of LGBT rights articles
2. uses inadequate sourcing, SYNTH and OR for these additions, or even lacks cites entirely
3. continuously reverts multiple users who remove questioned content
4. when reverting others, often does not give any indication of reasoning for reversion, even in edit summaries:
5. alters own comments on article talk pages without indication of having done so [Altered for clarity AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)]
6. alters and deletes others' posts
7. makes apologies and suggests intention to change, without noticeable follow-through, minimising extent of issues
8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining

If okay, could examples or evidence be added under relevant point/s below in "Examples", with any discussion or responses added separately below that subsection? (Just an idea...) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples

3. Reverting multiple users:

• Table of some diffs from LGBT rights in Texas removing and reinstating same material. An assertion added by Lmharding was removed by at least seven separate editors and reinstated by Lmharding each time:

"Nullified by Religious Freedom Bill" edits, March–September 2022

By	Date	Description	Diff / ES
Lmharding (LMH)	11 March 2022	"nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom" inserted, among other changes	[30]
AR	11 March 2022	Query change, and text rearrangement	Last edits inserted multiple "nullified by the 2019 Religious Freedom Act" caveats in table-seems bit too strong. ...can state law. for example, "nullify" federal protections?
LMH	14 March 2022	re-added in 24 edits, deleting fv tags	[31]
IP	18 March 2022	Removed in 2 edits "nullify" (table only)	[32] 207.192.196.154
LMH	18 March 2022	IP reverted in 5 edits	[33]
AukusRuckus (AR)	10 April 2022	re-added failed verification tags, among other changes	[34]
LMH	15 April 2022	deleted failed verification tags, among other changes	[35]
AR	15 April 2022	restored failed verification tags, table in other section, formatting	None of the sources: a) 2019 Guardian article...b)TX SB1978; or c) Tribune piece...say anything about protections being "nullified". ...please leave tags or provide a relevant ref. Columns for Universities section)
LMH	16 April 2022	deleted failed verification tags in 6+3 edits	"bullying is not the way" + [36]
AR	4 June 2022	Added disputed tags and completed LMH's quote from Bill	Religious Protection Bill quote is about disqualifying complainants from suing government after remedy; it is unrelated to any purported overruling of antidiscrimination laws and is misinterpreation of the source: tagged accordingly.
LMH	4 June 2022	Reverted AR	[37]
AR	22 June 2022	Removed "nullify" statements among others	...The "nullify" note also unsourced & highly contentious, disputed by several editors. Discussion opened on talk page some time ago has had no response from inserting editor. Please do not reinstate without WP:RS
LMH	22 June 2022	reverted AR edit	Undid revision 1094486359 by AukusRuckus (talk) the tags cover this discretion discussion is still pending talk in the talk page I'm here to discuss it
ME123	23 June 2022	Removed "nullify" statements among others	Lmharding, you need to discuss this material at the Talk page, NOT via edit summaries. Your editing is becoming increasingly disruptive
LMH	23 June 2022	Undid much of ME123 change	adoption was left alone, but the rest of the mentions for religious bylaws remain and have not been voted to be removed ...
CodeTalker	23 June 2022	Reverted LMH	Reverted 7 edits by Lmharding: Unsourced claims of "nullification"
LMH	24 June 2022	Reverted CodeTalker	(Undid revision 1094652882 by CodeTalker)
AR	25 June 2022	Removed disputed edits again, among other changes	rmv unsourced "nullification" claims; added discussion of this, new bill and sources; added correct quote from passed act, instead of mistaken one from old bill that was amended ...
LMH	25 June 2022	reverted AR	Undid revision 1094901320 by AukusRuckus (talk) discussion still pending stop editing this or I'll get temporary protections on the page do not edit again we're still talking about it
AR	26 June 2022	restored earlier - reverted LMH	talk is ongoing, but lmh you are not there, except and until your edits are changed. Your edits are the disputed additions, ...
LMH	26 June 2022	reverted AR	[38]
AR	27 June 2022	tags	restored tags that were deleted several edits ago & never restored despite requests; added new {cn} tags; restored deleted par that was pre-existing (it's never been objected to), and was not later restored in "partial self-revert"...
LMH	29 June 2022	In 9 edits - no idea	[39]
IP	3 July 2022	Removed "nullify" statement (table only); other changes	[40] 2601:601:200:3ef0:2d10:5c93:17c7:81ef
LMH	3 July 2022	restored earlier, pre-IP version	[41]
Laura Trump (LT)	30 July 2022	Removed disputed edits, also using 2 further edits	... is very wrong as far as the RLA is concerned. This Act did not override local protections from discrimination, nor did it harm Obergefell or Bostock. Still need to change the summary table. Wikipedia has to keep an eye on it. This article is wrong in that regard
LMH	31 July 2022	Undid LT's edits	changes without reasoning or citation
FireFangledFeathers (FFF)	19 August 2022	Removed disputed edits, and with 1 further edit	...removing content suggesting that federal, county, or city protections have been nullified ...
LMH	19 August 2022	Not only reverted FFF's changes, also removed other supporting evidence suggesting "nullify" is not right	no edit summary (again)
FFF	7 September 2022	Made changes: nullified unsourced as discussed	[42] series of edits rectifying (several ES)
LMH	7 September 2022	Undid FFF	Undid revision 1105933040 by Firefangledfeathers still too early)

This is a copy of a table I posted at a talk page that illustrates a pattern of reverting multiple editors; it also demonstrates lack of edit summaries used when LMH reverts. (If the table format is too cumbersome or disruptive for this page, let me know and I will remove or modify.) AukusRuckus (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

4. Reversions without edit summaries:

• Brazil nut reversions; diffs:
  • edit by LMH
  • LMH's edit reverted; edit summary supplied
  • LMH reverts reversion, without edit summary AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

8. removes maintenance tags without addressing problems identified or explaining. For example see this series:

• LMH removed here at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates and
  • a repeat of same removal of two {{cite check}} and {{fv}} tags the on same day; and
  • again, LMH removed one of the two tags)
• An editor added more tags {{better source needed}} for a Florida student newspaper article Lmharding had added to source the death penalty and soon after, Lmharding's
  • removal of those newer tags, also again deleting the older tags they had removed twice before. There was extensive explanation on the talk page from other editors about why the source/s were not sufficient, including linking to an older discussion about it on RS noticeboard.
• Discussion of this source, a WP:SPS which still exists on the article as source for execution as penalty, met with similar resistance from Lmharding regarding its unsuitability as RS:
  • removed by an editor, with ES explanation
  • Restored by Lmharding: "the source says in the line above for pride at ESUC that certain countries sentence LGBT to death including the UAE read the source first"
  • I objected: "ESUC source is a Washington State church page. Sure they're very fine people, but not RS for claim of death penalty in UAE ... (had enough of shenanigans now)"
  • Lmharding restored the ESUC Church source and again removed the maintenance tags for the Oracle student news source, and, perhaps because of my ES, said in their ES: "you alone don't have the authority to singlehandedly claim any source is not valid enough", which is strange as it had been first objected to by another editor, and had been discussed on talk, going back to 2021
  • a third editor removed the ESUC church source and returned the maintenance tags
  • Lmharding reverted, removing the "better source needed" tags for The Oracle again and restoring the Church website source AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to point 1: I take offense to you calling my edits "catch call". If there is any source I find that can back it, whether or not you nitpick these sources and incorrectly call them "inadequate" according to Wiki standards, many of them are suitable. It does not matter if they mention these punishments in passing. Wiki standards are followed not your micromanagement or made up additional rules. If they are deemed as not enough according to community consensus, I can and have been looking for additional supporting sources to add.

To point 3 and 4: Many of your reverts were done too with you 3RR ing as well and not explaining your reverts ma good amount of the time either. When you have remembered to, I take them to the talk page and discuss them. Your false narrative is incorrect I have been doing what I needed to. I have been using the edit summaries but yes go ahead and pretend I haven't if you look many of them have explanations.

To 5 and 6: No edits of others have been edited, 1 was removed as a personal attack according to removal of personal attack policies. Go ahead and look at those, I did nothing wrong there. I have no requirement to explain or not remove things on my own talk page according to WP:DRC and WP:BLANKING.

Again, not sure if you read the top comments but I'll repeat for the last time I did and thern made 2 other edits which I immediately reverted to keep with my agreement which I have kept. No action is needed, stop wasting the moderator's time there have been no new edits since those self-reverts and the issue is taken caee of. Any new dispute s on content I'm dealing with in talk pages first.Lmharding (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Above numbering and paragraphing in Lmharding's response above added, by me, for ease of reading and navigating. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to cause anyone offence, @Lmharding: I'm trying to summarise everyone's discussion and I took "catch-all" directly from an earlier post (see 1st par in #Previous warnings section). AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Have added an example, with diffs, above. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Cross that out, it was in the process of being repaired for some reason the edit summary was not showing up in the talk page due to a glitch. Lmharding (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you search through my edits for small things, stop WP:HOUNDING. Lmharding (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence for WP:WIKIHOUNDING and you have clearly continued with the same pattern of adding uncited opinions in LGBT pages for Belarus and Poland. This is a clear contradiction of your claims of no longer editing LGBT articles and changing your editing behavior. -UtoD 06:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that someone who leaves comments like this on the ANI board reviewing battleground behavior doesn’t get a topic ban.

“I take back any middle ground attempts and will be crossing out and taking back this attempt. uI'm playing hard ball now. Good luck with getting the article written as you like. You shouldn't have been difficult.” [43]

For openness and clarity, I am an involved editor on LGBT rights in Texas disputes. 2600:1700:1111:5940:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

2600:1700:1111:5940:6981:4A73:C9A6:4D9B was the user in the Texas discussion. The above IP 2600:1700:1111:5940:9DFD:661D:4636:AE91 just admitting to be an alt. Please ban this user and cross out his comments from the record, no alts allowed. 05:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This amount of change in the IP address is common in IPv6 addresses. Nothing untoward has happened here. While you're thinking about the IP, care to apologize for accusing them of vandalism? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Would you please respond regarding your baseless aspersion against the IP? It is so clearly not vandalism. Have you read WP:VANDAL? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping

Housekeeping (refactor): Lmharding's comment of 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC) and AukusRuckus response moved up to beneath post it was responding to. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Comment/Housekeeping Hi Lmharding: Would you mind me moving your reply here to go up page beneath the question that it's answering, above? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC) [Done. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)] I have gone ahead and moved the above-mentioned response of Lmharding's to be immediately below the post of mine to which it was responding. If not ok with you, let me know and I will change back. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC) Comment/Houskeeping Can someone look at the edit history of this thread? There is a lot of content, including a comment from myself, that shows up when you click edit, but it isn't displayed here. I don't think anyone maliciously hid others comments, but there are indeed some that are not displayed for some reason. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC) LMHarding fixed it, it was an errant ref tag, all good now. Thanks Lmharding. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC) I have a general query about this process. Is it acceptable to notify editors who may have had past relevant experience, that this discussion is taking place? I do not want to make this more difficult, but I know there are a few other users who might like to know. They may be able to offer something constructive to the discussion, too. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate move reversal

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

---

A RM of Belarusian ruble was closed and moved [44], TheCurrencyGuy reversed the move to their preferred spelling [45] saying:Page move request was made out of spite and not genuine concern for content. [46]. This doesn't seem like an appropriate way to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Sorry in advance if this isn't the right forum for this sorta thing—blindlynx 14:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved the article back and left some reasoning at the talk page of the user. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to seriously look at this user's overall conduct? It doesn't seem drastically different than prior noticeboard discussions and blocks. Star Mississippi 16:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I only looked at this incident, but of course any uninvolved administrator is welcome to have a broader look. Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester, @Bayonet-lightbulb, has since admitted that it was a knee-jerk reaction and that they now agree with the "rubel" spelling, thus meaning the RM is now without support. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not, and in any case, it is not up to you to decide. Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The only appropriate ways to challenge a good-faith closure of a requested move are (1) civilly discussing the issue with the closer and asking them to self-revert and (2) following a discussion with a closer, opening a discussion at move review. It is not appropriate to summarily revert a close of a requested move simply because one disagrees with the closer, particularly so in a DS area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The move requester has since admitted they were in the wrong. They moved the article after very little actual discussion was made. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There were other participants in the discussion besides you and the move requester. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN User:TheCurrencyGuy from currency

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

This is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7th time we are discussing this 3-month-old WP:SPA's currency-related disruption at a noticeboard (3 of those threads were started by TCG). A WP:TBAN from currency, broadly construed, seems necessary to prevent any further disruption. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • This is at least the eighth time, because Levivich is not listing a dispute at DRN, which I had to fail because TCG was commenting on the other editor rather than on article content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_221#Egyptian_pound Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support and if that turns into a site ban due to him being an SPA, that is no net loss. Star Mississippi 19:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It is demonstrably provable that I am not an SPA. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support After looking into the history behind the original page move, and recalling some of the prior threads on this noticeboard, it appears that TheCurrencyGuy is chronically unable to collaborate in a positive manner. It doesn't matter whether TheCurrencyGuy is correct or not in this particular conflict. The problem is that TheCUrrencyGuy's actions caused this disruption. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Surely what matters is the resulting content. If content is incorrect or misleading it ought to be corrected, I have tried to improve coverage, that is all I am guilty of. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Preventing disruption is more important than being correct, see WP:WRONGVERSION that codified that idea. Masem (t) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - among other things, they just now claimed that the move requester moved the article. Once they've edited other topics enough to prove they know how things actually work here, we can look into letting them back into the topic. As it is, I'm not sure an outright block isn't called for, but we can try this first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  But it is true, I contacted them on their talk page and they admitted the entire affair was a knee-jerk reaction. User talk:Bayonet-lightbulb TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, replying here to every comment is not going to be to your advantage. Defend yourself in one statement, but please, try to take on what people are saying. You are not currently headed in a good direction. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support In my 13+ years of editing, I do not remember any disputes about traditional currencies. (Cryptocurrencies, yes.) In the four months since TheCurrencyGuy began editing, these disputes have proliferated. This editor has absolutely bludgeoned Pound sterling and Egyptian pound. They have edit warred, and despite their denials, they are an SPA. I have concluded that this topic ban is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I have partially blocked TCG from this page for a week for bludgeoning of this discussion despite much helpful guidance not to.He has access to his talk and other areas of the project. Should any admin feel this is no longer necessary, feel free to modify the block

Star Mississippi 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Qdrx82 is clearly a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, Special:Diff/1114136852 in particular seems to be an admission that TheCurrencyGuy is controlling both accounts and briefly forgot who they had logged in as. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted there, we need to determine whether this is socking, or a Joe-job - and I'd have to suggest that the latter seems very likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I almost hope it's a joe-job as as unfair as it is to prevent me from defending myself. would be an exceptional lack of Clue. Star Mississippi 01:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with that account whatsoever. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The SPI has now been closed - 'unrelated'. So almost certainly a Joe-job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's the matter of User:MoonlightHowling666, who certainly is a non-joe-job sock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I had issues (wholly mine) with this pblock and am about to log off for a few days. Explicit permission for any admin to fix this in addition to adjusting it if a different consensus evolves. Star Mississippi 03:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support in the hope that they don't talk themselves into an indef ban. Gusfriend (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment All of the prior incidents have been resolved and where I was in the wrong I admitted my mistake. I am a relatively new editor and I am learning all the time. I would however reject the claim I am an SPA. I have a diverse range of interests, but I prefer to focus on one topic at a time rather than being eclectic because it allows me to focus. My temporary block a while back was due to an edit war with a user intent on retaining misleading information in an article. Some of the past incident notices were, I admit, my fault, but others, the majority of the initial ones, were a result of the poor behaviour of a now-banned user.

This latest incident arose because I filed a move request @ Polish złoty on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME viz. WP:RELIABLESOURCES. User:Bayonet-lightbulb had a kneejerk response and filed a competing request against Belarusian rubel. I do not believe sufficient grounds were reached to move that article as only a single source was ever cited by supporters of the move and no actual discussion followed despite my attempts to engage.

I absolutely reject Cullen328's claim that I "bludgeoned" those two articles. All I sought to do was bring them into line with fact. In the case of Egyptian pound I was fighting a battle to keep factually incorrect/misleading information out of the article. In the case of that article one user had been perpetually reverting any edits of a demonstrably incorrect notation for 16 years, if THAT is not bludgeoning I do not know what is. I sought to resolve the issue through engagement on the talk page. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You are just displaying more of your battlefield mentality. Cullen328 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are quite happy to allow inaccurate information to proliferate? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I want any problems with inaccuracies to be corrected by editors who do not behave disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You admitted as much. Christ almighty. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a Jew. Please keep your religious figures out of this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice.

While Wikipedia is a secular space, one is not prohibited from using common expressions that reference Christianity. Otherwise common phrases like “Hail Mary” “fight the good fight” or “A wolf in sheep's clothing” would not be permitted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"I have no interest in what religion you do or do not practice" would also not be permitted. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy I am simply asking that you refrain from referencing your Christian deity in debates with editors with a multiplicity of religious backgrounds. Do you really consider that unreasonable? Mohammed and Buddha and Confucius and Ahura Mazda and the countless Hindu deities should also not be trotted forth to support an argument on a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. TheCurrencyGuy seems incapable of understanding that believing they are in the right isn't an acceptable justification for this sort of behaviour. Not when it comes up here time and again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this hasn't happened already, to be honest. I don't see anything but a continuing time sink going on here. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately this very thread have shown that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Unfortunately, having looked at the other six disputes listed by Levivich. I concur with Cullen328 that TheCurrencyGuy bludgeoned the Egyptian pound dispute. When an editor both is the initiator of multiple disputes and is reported in multiple disputes, it is evidence that the editor is combative. I thought that I had gotten the two editors in the Egyptian pound dispute to mostly agree when TheCurrencyGuy provided a long complaint about the other editor. I don't see any other way out. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  What was I supposed to do in that instance? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • When a moderator says "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, answer the questions about article content. When you have been asked not to discuss other editors by name, do not discuss other editors by name. The issue wasn't Matthew S, but the Egyptian pound. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Wow. Does not play well with others. A time out is definitely needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just reminded that this is the editor who believes You're just shifting me back toward my belief that there needs to be a different general wiki with no American English in it. This is either a topic ban, or a site ban as with that belief I'm not sure he's going to be collaborative elsewhere Star Mississippi 01:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would have no objection to a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looking over the previous threads (and TCG's comments in this thread), a topic ban is clearly needed. Wouldn't necessarily oppose a flat-out site ban either, but let's try a topic ban first and see if TCG can collaborate constructively elsewhere. SkyWarrior 02:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a site-ban, because a topic-ban hasn't yet been tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support TCG cannot continue their WP:IDHT and unrepentant currency-related hostilities any longer. The last straw is that unilateral non-admin reversion of a discussion outcome; ArbCom has just this year heftily t-banned somebody who tried the exact same anti-consensus tactic. A topic ban from currencies to me though is a bare minimum, to at least soothe the area most inflamed by TCG's conduct. Given how utterly against the basic principle of consensus TCG seems to be, I'd prefer a harsher sanction to get at the root of TCG's problems, but I can't come up with any better ideas yet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. I don't know if non-Admins can contribute here, so feel free to revert if not. As may be seen from their talk page, I have crossed pens with TCG many times in the past few months and done a lot of informal mentoring. At this stage, I don't think the "I'm new here" story washes any more. My more fundamental concern with a T-ban is that this editor has contributed a lot of new RSs and in so doing has significantly improved many currency articles. The problem with their editing is arrogance: they are convinced that they are right and any other perspectives are just wrong, urban myths, sloppy writing, "as everybody knows" or whatever (and they aren't always wrong in that assessment). So the problem is that they don't seem to have any negotiation skills or ability to recognise that when a different view is presented, it is done in equal good faith. So if is possible I would support a t-ban in main space but oppose a t-ban in article talk pages. I don't know if they will actually want to contribute any more if t-banned but contributions at talk pages that propose and justify requests that an edit be made might just work. If the only option available is negotiation, then maybe negotiation skills will be learned. (I'm not sure if a site ban has actually been proposed but if it has, I would definitely oppose it as premature and unjustified by any events.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  Non admin (such as yourself and I) are always welcome to comment and contribute here. It is the same as being involved with AfD, RfC and the other back end elements of Wikipedia which rely on consensus. In fact, given the sanctions and issues, the more people helping determine consensus here the better.

  I like your thinking about talk pages.Gusfriend (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have also engaged with TCG on a few of these issues (to a lesser extent than JMF). TCG's interest in consistency of notation for obscure currencies is a natural target for conflict, in that sources (for the notation to use in English) are limited, and the changes he wants to make span many pages. I find that his viewpoint is more often than not more compelling than the opposition, and it is true that the way currencies are presented on many articles is a bit of a mess, so I am hesitant to support telling him to leave the area entirely. But he needs more patience for letting discussions play out, and for respecting consensus rather than his perception of truth as the ultimate determiner of what goes into the articles. So I agree JMF that requiring TCG to stick to talk pages in the currency topic space for a while would likely be helpful in helping him build these skills. I do believe he has a lot to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I also tend to agree that he has been consuming quite a bit of editor time and this is a real concern. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• Update TCG has admitted to operating an alternate account, User:MoonlightHowling666. However, it has not edited currency-related articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - To be clear, I support a full topic ban, including talk pages. The amount of issues caused by an account less than four months old is highly disproportional to the constructive edits made in that same small window of time. Given the confirmed sockpuppetry, the issues of interaction with others, and this unwarranted railing against American English, I would fully expect that a topic ban won't go far enough in solving the issues here, but it's a step in the right direction and a block should be a last resort. I support a topic ban; maybe I'm proven wrong and a topic ban will put the issue to rest. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Some time ago I became aware of this editor and not in good terms. There is clearly a misunderstanding around the difference between "accuracy" and "pedantry" and with this being yet another discussion around the same behaviour, a topic ban would be the best course of action. doktorb _words^deeds 02:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is overdue considering the number of editing disputes involving TheCurrencyGuy, and considering his acrimonious conduct. (Note: I !voted in the dumpster fire that was TCG's move request for Banknotes of the pound sterling.) 68.43.231.28 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Disney XD template mess

• Template:Disney XD original series
• Template:Disney XD originals
• Template:Disney XD
• Template:Disney XD P

A huge mess has occurred due to MegaSmike46's careless string of page moves of whatever the original title of this template was, I honestly can't tell anymore, and their constant requests for speedy deletion by {{db-g7}} of the resulting redirects, which does not apply. As a result, the templates linked above all have had their histories split and fragmented in a complex manner. EvergreenFir then proceeded to delete Template:Disney XD originals as uncontroversial maintenance despite the page having over 1,000 revisions, in violation of legal requirement of the page's history (I have since restored it). Template:Disney XD P also has some history, but I couldn't tell you where it came from. I can't look at or take care of at the moment, so I'm bringing this here. ✗plicit 04:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My description of what happened:

1. As a predecessor to the main mess, what was then called Template:Disney XD original series and what was then called Template:Former Disney XD original series were merged per a TfD in May 2022. This merge was fraught with some drama. In the end, Template:Former Disney XD original series was the survivor template.
2. This was cut-and-paste moved by MegaSmike86 to Template:Disney XD original series in June 2022.
3. In October 2022, MegaSmike46 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD original series to Template:Disney XD.
4. Amaury reverts this cut-and-paste move.
5. MegaSmike86 uses the page-move feature to move the template to Template:Disney XD originals
6. MegaSmike86 uses the page move feature to move Template:Disney XD (which was then a redirect) to Template:Disney XD P
7. MegaSmike86 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD originals to Template:Disney XD P
8. BrickMaster02 cut-and-paste moves Template:Disney XD P back to Template:Disney XD original series.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is that I warned MegaSmike46 24 hours ago that he was causing a big mess by tagging transcluded templates for CSD and yet he continued to mess around with these templates, redirects and deletion tagging. Template deletion should occur via WP:TFD not CSD. It's okay to make a mistake, even a big mistake, but when someone tells you your behavior is causing problems, you need to stop what you are doing and understand why your actions are causing problems. This didn't happen. I'm sure that every admin who was patrolling CSD categories last night wondered why two dozen Disney articles were suddenly tagged for speedy deletion. I can't even begin to comprehend what to do with these cut & paste jobs and page moves. Template space, especially templates being used in articles, is not a place for experimentation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And I just found that they placed a PROD tag on Template:Disney XD! I'm beginning to wonder about competency if they think templates can be PROD'd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Template space, especially templates being used in articles, is not a place for experimentation - agreed; more generally make sure one knows what one is doing before doing anything, especially things that are difficult to undo. I've cleaned up worse messes on other wikis where I'm an admin, but they usually occurred by accident rather than from someone deliberately fooling around. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There are also issues with {{Boomerang}}, which seems to have been swapped with... {{Cartoon Network}}? Don't know. They haven't edited since this thread was started, but if they edit it again I'm going to drop a p-block on them. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac There's also a cut and paste move at {{20th Century Animation}} and {{20th Century Fox Animation}} that needs fixing. {{Otter Media}} seems to have started out as a template for a different company - it started out as "Warner Bros. Consumer Products"? {{Warner Bros. Discovery International}} started out as "Template:Warner Bros. Themed Entertainment" about theme parks, but was overwritten with a template about television stations and moved? 192.76.8.81 (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Bugger. Thanks for that. If there are any others, pop them on the WP:REPAIR list for this case. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, Boomerang, 20th Century, Otter, and WB sorted. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, all of the Disney templates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Explicit for fixing my error in deleting the history. That is something i need to learn more about. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the histories and try to sort everything out, histmerge-wise. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that multiple editors have had issues with MegaSmike86, going back some time (just look at their Talk page!) – i.e. before the most recent template mess. There is even a current thread on my Talk page about this editor. It does seem likely that this may be a WP:CIR issue, and it's possible that a (temporary?) narrow topic or editing ban on some subjects (e.g. animation and/or childrens TV and its television networks?) might be in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Update and proposals

 Administrator note I have restored everything back to its original locations; there don't appear to be any significant edits made other than the moves themselves (just bickering and template-name updates) so there's no content or attribution lost. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this today while giving him anotther warning for adding unnecessary spaces to FX Movie Channel, I have also noticed questionable edits and not even sure how to deal with him. He has been doing this to several templates and articles over the past few weeks from what I have noticed. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Primefac, and anyone else who helped, thanks for sorting out this mess. I am not familiar with Template space and thought if I tried to undo their edits, I'd likely cause more damage. Thanks for spending your time sorting this all out. Maybe a partial, limited time block from Template space? They don't seem responsive when editors bring up problems their edits and page moves have caused. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a pblock from the Template space is the minimum we should be doing here. They made 20 edits last night, more than half of which have already been reverted, so I could even see a DE or CIR block as a possibility. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Their non-template edits mainly look to be, at best, pointless messing around, and in many cases are just as disruptive as their template edits. Things like cosmetic edits bypassing template redirects [47] [48] [49] adding articles to duplicate categories (in this case adding them to a parent category when they are already in a subcategory) [50] [51] [52] adding articles to incorrect categories [53] and moving articles from proper subcategories to a diffusing parent category [54] [55] [56] are all either unproductive wastes of time or are just making work for other editors. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I recently made a revert {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Disney_XD&curid=25065465&diff=1114841438&oldid=1114783285], where she removed well sourced sections and appears to have adding shows randomly without leaving sources to these additions. A few days I did report here [57], but wanted to me to go here. I just left it, since this was still an ongoing issue. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sensing a block will be needed sometime soon here. Has continued with similar edits despite this discussion currently taking place- doesn't seem like much will be changing anytime soon despite a multitude of warnings prior to this discussion, as well as multiple warnings during this discussion, with them also staying entirely silent here. Magitroopa (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: I have indefed them -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Third edit-warring notice for User:Elspea756, requesting third-party insight regarding behavioural issues

For full disclosure, I personally am currently in a content dispute with User:Elspea756 on the Stable Diffusion article. Normally I wouldn't really care, and just continue on as per normal, but I've noticed on the user's talk page that this is the third time they have engaged in aggressive content warring on topics ralating to artificial intelligence, and that all of their past interactions with other editors, just like their current and ongoing interactions with mine, are particularly hostile in rhetoric.

I feel that the third time is probably the time when they should be more reflective on how they should conduct themselves in a collaborative environment with other editors. They are quick to become aggressive, and do not demonstrate willingness to listen to other editors. Their user talk page comments especially give off the tone of someone who is here to "win arguments" rather than to seek common ground. I'm not sure whether this user requires cooling off for a bit, or whether some guidance is required to address these long-running behavioural issues, but I feel like if I don't bring this up now, then this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Any thoughts? --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Drmies: in particular regarding an earlier dispute over artificial intelligence content in January, in case you have additional things to bring up. Cheers, --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, three times in over a year, editors have expressed that they are in a content dispute with me on my talk page. First, another user was making edits to promote false claims of a "world's first artificial intelligence art book" that was created several decades after earlier AI art books; I along with other editors removed these false promotional edits. On a second occasion, an editor was spamming their user-generated images into several articles; again myself and other editors removed these unnecessary self-promotional images. Now, on this third occasion, benlisquare has created an image that they describe as "I made the image literally 27 minutes ago ffs" and they have been spamming it into the Stable Diffusion article. At first I didn't realize it was their image, just that it was not supported by sources and does not illustrate what they claim it does, so I removed it as unsourced and inaccurate. I have earlier created a section on the article's talk page to discuss this and I have suggested alternative images. So far, benlisquare's response has been failure to compromise and escalating "my brother in Christ" profanity. Elspea756 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you should probably apologise to all of Christendom for your remark just then. Now, onto the main issue at hand - can you name any Wikipedia policy that backs up any of the claims you have made regarding what editors can and can't do, or are you merely making everything up on the spot? I've posted, on numerous occasions, specific Wikipedia policies on the talk page and in edit comments. I've yet to see you make any procedurally-based arguments. Your idea that users cannot upload files they create and use them to expand Wikipedia articles is completely nonsensical - I created and uploaded File:CDawgVA at SMASH 2022.jpg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it on the CDawgVA article? I created and uploaded File:Kattā kanji.svg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it at wikt:Appendix:Unicode/CJK Unified Ideographs Extension E/2C000? I created and uploaded File:ASCA at Crunchyroll Expo Australia 2022.jpg, does that mean I'm not allowed to use it at the Asca (singer) article? Your entire premise is completely flawed and inane, I don't even know how you came to such a conclusion.

As for your earlier disputes, I do not care who was in the right, and who was in the wrong. We're not talking about who is right. My concern is that your conduct is not compatible with that of a collaborative project like Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. My comments above were directed towards other editors who may be reading this page, who may be trying to determine the accuracy of your claims. My comments were not intended as an invitation for you to continue your content dispute here. If you'd like to further discuss this content dispute, there is a section I created on the article's talk page. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't let this behaviour slide. It is perfectly okay to disagree with other editors, but there is a correct and an incorrect way to do so. Had you been more reasonable in your engagements with me, then we may have been able to resolve this issue without any of this hubbub from occurring at all. I strongly feel that you need to understand that approaching other editors in the manner that you have is completely unacceptable, as it does no good to yourself or to others, and simply results in unnecessary escalation. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You know, it would be much appreciated if I wasn't being wikihounded on Commons literally three days later. I'm starting to get really sick and tired of this obsession with me. And I'm not even touching upon all the borderline personal attacks being left in edit summaries. For the record, I have not edited the Stable Diffusion article since October 6, so this is crossing a line of what is a content dispute, and what is harrassment. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Suspicious editing

Arskelrod (talk · contribs)

Arskelrod just created an account today. Their first edit was to (mostly) copy User:HangingCurve's User page, complete with a barnstar, Rollback rights template, and the claim to have been editing since 2018 with more than 13,000 edits. This seems like a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny by appearing as a more experienced editor. Does this ring any bells, perhaps an LTA? Woodroar (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody I know with whom I've crossed swords. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the userpage. Others may wish to consider this edit, 38 minutes after registering. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I do recall seeing a user that got scammed by someone who had just copied someone else's userpage to make them look more credible. THere's a possibility it's the same person (or company) but it could just be coincidence. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

For Clarity. -- Mike 🗩 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:OliveYouBean

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

Today, I got an email from another user to keep me from engaging in polemics with that type of user. I was offered to report the matter to the administration immediately. So, I did that.

At the beginning I will say that I assume goodwill, however, actions by User:OliveYouBean have the hallmarks of trolling, edit-warring, and even signs of vandalism in article of Adelaide.

User pushing new changes to article (also using edit-warring - per Wikipedia:edit-warring, 100% clear reverts, without partial reverts or attempts to compromise). New changes are actively discussed on the talk page. The user doesn't even try to apply Wikipedia:CYCLE (if there is new edit, later is revert by other user = first must to be discuss and consensus to new changes).

The user appropriated the article. I added content to article + sources - this user deleted it with destricpion of changes "rev edits by subtropicalman, there is no consensus for these changes and discussion on the talk page is still ongoing". However, when he added disputed information and incorrect sources to intro - I have no right to remove it.

User enter new disputed changes in intro without any consensus. There is a suspicion of breaking a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population. User pushing text about this to the first paragraph of the article and intro of article [58]. He write in destricpion of changes: "rv, there is no consensus for these changes", however, there is no consensus that this text is in the first paragraph of the introductory part of the article. We are dealing here with extremely perfidious trolling and misappropriation of the article. The user either does not know what he is doing or deliberately creates such manipulations to stuff his POV.

Further offenses

User OliveYouBean restore in the intro a text with an aboriginal name [59][60]. There is no consensus on the use of a name of city center as the name for the entire Greater Adelaide. According to the discuss and per many sources, Aboriginal name apply only for the centre area. This name is added to Adelaide city centre [61] by other user, with whom there was an earlier discussion. User OliveYouBean stil restore this in the intro, without consensus, against sources.

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - templates have been inserted correctly. The content of Traditional Owners in the introduction to the article is still debatable (still under discussion), and the sources have also been questioned. Verification of the sources showed that they are inconsistent with the content of the article and a breaks rule of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is clearly explained on the talk page. The sources do not show what is written in the article. User OliveYouBean deleted templates twice (including [failed verification]) [62][63]. In this case, we are dealing with vandalism - deliberate deletion of correctly inserted templates.

The user on the talk page did not follow the comments on the sources, and even proved that he was breaking the rules of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. User inserts different sources from different cities to create a larger area together, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia rules - Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research.

These are serious offenses. It does not matter that someone may have a different own opinion. Each user must obey the rules and guelines of the Wikipedia.

User OliveYouBean appropriated article: removes my content with sources from article without consensus, he himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove without consensus.

User OliveYouBean inserts incorrect content with the Aboriginal name of the city center even though the matter was clarified in the discussion and the content was moved to corerct article of Adelaide city centre by other user [64].

User OliveYouBean removed templates inserted by another user - among others, a template about the defectiveness of sources.

The user is unreformable, he conducts a discussion by means of edit- warring, removes content with sources without consensus, himself inserts content without consensus + wrong sources. Removes bad-source templates. The user is not willing to compromise. The user broke a number of Wikipedia rules within 2 days, including all of Wikipedia: Core content policies. It is doubtful that it would be possible to continue further discussion without his POV-pushing, vandalism (remove templates, remove data with sources) , and without edit-warring.

I am asking for help in this matter. I cannot solve this problem myself. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reading talk:Adelaide, seeing OP’s prior blocks, and reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Subtropical-man disruptive editing suggests that an Australian Aboriginal curvy stick is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the issues on this topic. The Aboriginal issue is very extensive and very controversial. There have been several lengthy discussions on this in several articles (mainly about the largest metropolises in Australia), after which other users felt that Aboriginal names should be removed. In one discussion there was no clear consensus, however the consensus was tending to include aboriginal names, but only to which there is no doubt, and if the sources clearly state what area they cover. This does not apply to the Adelaide article as the sources clearly indicate that the Aboriginal name only refers to the center. Aboriginal name was entered into the article of Adelaide city centre by another user [65]. Everything was cleared up and it was ok, but the user:OliveYouBean decided to put this name back in the first paragraph of the article's intro, although the name does not apply to Greater Adelaide (which is what this article is about). That's one of the issues on this topic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As previously noted, that I am helpless with such disruptive users, who based own changes on their own opinion (POV) instead of Wikipedia rules and then I am bitter and annoyed, because Wikipedia does not provide the appropriate tools to counteract such disruptive activities. This time, after good advice from two users (including the advice of one administrator) I decided not to get involved dispute with this type users (who are overtly and deliberately breaking the rules to push their new changes), but to ask for administrative or mediation assistance. So, I did that. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You missed my point. You are the problematic person here and a WP:BOOMERANG is indicated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't say I come from this from a neutral point of view, but I want to note this is a consistent behavioral pattern from the user in question, judging from the more recent ANI Dispute regarding them that I created and you participated in. Sam Walczak ^Talk/_Edits 17:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, just seen this now. Firstly I'm not a dude so please use she/her, not he/him. Sorry if I was doing something wrong, I'm still relatively new to editing. I saw there was some back and forth on the article and a discussion on the talk page, so I thought I should revert back to the version before that started happening while there still wasn't a consensus. I tried to contribute to the conversation on the talk page (providing sources to show why content was relevant to the lead). I probably shouldn't have reverted the second time because it seems like that escalated things. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OliveYouBean, it is not "just" about two reverts. Here are serious allegations.

• You have entered content with an Aboriginal name that is incorrect and has been moved to the correct article (twice).
• You deleted templates that were correctly inserted by another user (twice). You are not allowed to delete templates until the problems are corrected or there is consensus that the problem no longer exists.
• You have restored the faulty sources, manipulated. You broke the rule of Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS / Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
• You made clean reverts, complete reverts, not considering that you reverted several edits done on a few issues (each with a description of changes, explaining exactly what is being changed). Without any attempt to improve the lyrics or looking for a compromise. This is typical Wikipedia:Edit warring.
• You removed the content along with the sources from the article without consensus. Typical appropriated article: you removed my content with sources from article without consensus, you himself inserts new controversial content and says I can't remove it without consensus.
• You breaks a rule of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: favoring one selected group of the population (Aboriginal people) who had no influence on the construction of the city and they constitute the margins of the population (1.6%). Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all, you pushing text about this (from fourth paragraph of intro of article) to the first!!! paragraph in the intro of article. This is extremely non-neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: what actually happened, as anybody will see who follows the links you provided, is that OYB made a grand total of two edits to Adelaide. First one that reverted a number of edits by you; you reverted most of it back to your preferred version; she then made a second, much more minor edit to the article, to which you reacted with extraordinary aggression. You posted a diatribe to the article talk page accusing her of all kinds of violations, gave her a "last warning" for edit-warring (!) containing the same attacks as on the article TP, reverted her edit with an aggressive edit summary, and immediately started this ANI report without waiting for a response from her. To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks. I agree with rsjaffe that your conduct has been unacceptable, especially since you have already had warnings and blocks for failing to assume good faith and to be civil. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bonadea, you wrote "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks". This is doubling attacks? Listing a few problems is an attack?
• My report here was about 7 issues, but she just wrote about the reverts, omitting any other explanation to other problems. I reminded this user what it was about in several points[66]. I did not use any profanity, I did not use any personal attacks. My comment above complies with Wikipedia rules.
• I listing problems is not an aggressive changes or "attacks". One of my questions: why she was removing templates like {fact}/{Failed verification} from the article? Can I ask such a question? That's the simply question, but some of you think it's an attack or incivility. I have presented a few complaints against the user, and await an answer to each of them. I created a report here, not because I want to punish user: OliveYouBean or block she, I only expect mediation - a person (like admministrator) who will help solve the problem and keep order. A person who will protect the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates. A person who will verify the sources and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. If Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is wrong place for such requests for mediation, please link to the page where such a request would be a good place. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  First, this is primarily a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Second, the only thing here actionable at ANI is Subtropical-man's behaviour.

  The comments being made by Subtropical-man have included:

  • Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all. Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title.
  • because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity. I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually.
  • Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro.: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago.
  • Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing.

  I think a TBAN should be an option here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but how would you feel if someone wrote: I think a 'TBAN for any comments in ANI for User:Mako001' should be an option here. Why? you manipulate quotes, you analyze quotations out of context, you carefully analyze each word by user (with intermediate knowledge of English) to find any problem, you not assuming good faith (per Wikipedia:Assume good faith), you are not wondering about "what the author wanted to say?", that's why you even accuse other users of racism. See how easy it is to write such an opinion? The rest of the explanations in the comment below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think here some users forgetting completely that even if there was a dispute (on the content or not), there are two sides. Some users here treat unusual comments by one user for something worse than the vandalism of the other user. I think there is time to clarify the matter. I also remind you that my English is "intermediate" in terms of quality, so it may contain grammatical errors and you should consider "what the author wanted to say". The most was written by user Mako001, so I will mainly refer to his comment.

• Although there is still a discussion whether controversial and misleading information about "traditional owners" should be included in the intro of article at all - Mako001: "Using the scare quotes there is entirely unnecessary, and suggests that they dispute the legitimacy of Native title" - please explain what the problem is?
• because the Kaurna people are just a curiosity - Mako001: "I don't know quite what to say to this, it seems to be quite racist actually" - quote taken out of context. Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? The information about Kaurna people in the introduction to the article is just a curiosity, it was not these people who built the city and currently they constitute 1.8% of the population. There is no mention of larger groups of the population in the introduction to the article, so we even have here presumably a POV rule violation. There is nothing racist here.
• Political process in Australia or/and Australian customs you can use at home (in Australia), but not in an international project. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible for most people in the world, so such controversial information should not be in the intro - Mako001: This is not consistent with the policies and guidelines, including ENGVAR, and by the same logic, delete most of the mathematics articles, as they include topics which are "incomprehensible for most people in the world". Also, Native title in Australia stopped being considered controversial by the mainstream at least a decade or more ago - again you don't understand the context. I wrote only about the issue of entering "traditional owners" to the introduction of the article. In the intro of article, there should be no data controversial, debatable, unclear. Term of "Traditional Owners" is incomprehensible (or even confusing) for most people in the world. I don't mind adding such information to the section in the article.
• Even, if your federal or local government recognizes the Aboriginal people as "gods", then we will include this information in the religion section - :Mako001: This comment ridicules reconciliation efforts. I have never seen Indigenous Australians referred to as "gods", and I would think that they'd rather not be either, just given some respect, which Subtropical-man doesn't seem to be doing - here maybe I have actually used an example that is too abstract. Is it wrong? Does it break Wikipedia rules? I have been taught that abstract examples stir the imagination, so the listener looks at the matter from a third perspective. The above text was supposed to stimulate the imagination that even if this group of people will be recognized as gods, such data will not be entered in the intro, but in the section (for example Religion) - these are standards of Wikipedia. To intro of articles about cities in Wikipedia, no data is entered about the faiths of a certain group of the population.

and here's the problem. The user Mako001 takes the quotes out of context, does not understand what the author wants to convey, and suggests TBAN based on a misunderstanding of the situation. ..and what did this user say about the unlawful deleting "sources" templates by other user ? - nothing! If there should be an opinion - then I am asking for neutral opinions from neutral users, the user Mako001 has proved to be extremely biased. Besides, I wasn't looking for opinion here, but for help. I was looking for a person who will protect (do not confuse with Wikipedia:Protection policy) the article against arbitrary deletion of correctly inserted templates because one user deleted the source templates twice. A person who will verify the two sources in the article and make sure that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are not violated. Do I require a lot? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: ANI is not a place for you to discuss article content issues. You do that at Talk:Adelaide; you did in fact open a discussion there, but you are misrepresenting other editors' contributions to that discussion and their article edits – so far, nobody has agreed with you, and if there is a consensus it is against your removal of content, which means that your repeated arguments about edit warring and WP:CYCLE are at best disingenious.

Above, you say Do you understand that the discussion concerned inserting information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? No, the discussion was started by you because you proposed to remove information that had been present in the article for more than a year. You have been removing the info, and when it was restored you moved it down a couple of paragraphs; your edit summary here contains personal attacks against an editor who had simply restored the version that you wanted to change, and that is unacceptable. It's inconceivable to me that you do not see that you attacked OYB there, as well as in this very ANI thread. You need to apologise for your attacks and make more of an effort to assume good faith. You also have to stop restoring contested edits while there is ongoing discussion, particularly if you are the only editor who is arguing in favour of one side – this unblock discussion is relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, regarding the discussion: I used an unnecessary word of "inserting" in explaining the matter. The point is that do you understand that the discussion concerned information about the Kaurna people into the introduction to the article of greater city? This is what I ment. About the context in which I wrote it. And yes, I started the discussion, but that's good because there is place for discussion. In my description of changes I have included very key words that should turn on the red lamp, for example: Breaks the ... Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removing templates inserted by another user. Sources = failed verification, suspicion of ... Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS). I can see nobody cares, it is not important to break Wikipedia rules, it is important that someone too boldly wrote about it!?!?

Also, I want to inform you very kindly, that version by user OliveYouBean and your restored version[67] contains content along with manipulated sources (the content does not agree with the sources), which I informed about both in the discussion and in the description of changes. You got involved with the case of article of Adelaide (not only in ANI), but you didn't check any problems with breaking Wikipedia's rules, you only attack my person... and this is unacceptable. It is clear that you regard any of my remarks on OliveYouBean as an attack (for example, your words: "To her perfectly reasonable reply above, you replied by doubling down on your attacks" (sic!?!)), and it's inconceivable to me that you do not see you do exactly the same to me. I would also like to inform you that you are currently very aggressive towards me, and totally break Wikipedia:Assume good faith, especially since you not only ignored the erroneous sources, you even deleted the correctly inserted templates ([failed verification][dubious – discuss]) added by another user[68].

I would also like to remind you that my new changes did not remove the content about Kaurna people, but as you mentioned above - only moved the content "down a couple of paragraphs" (still within the intro of article). It is one thing to delete the content, and another to shift the content. Users don't need to ask for permission or seek consensus to move the content down three paragraphs.

After thinking about it, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, sorry for too blunt words. Maybe I should be more calm during writing a description of changes in spite of such a clear breach of the rules by other user. My bad, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mako001, it feels like subtropicalman has made some statements about Indigenous Australians that are at best ignorant, like using the word "Aborigines" (in this edit summary), a word which is considered offensive. I'm not sure if this is a language issue because I noticed on their user page that they're not a native English speaker. I'm trying to be generous because this may just be that they don't know how their words are coming across. I did ask them not to use that word and they haven't used it since then.

On the other hand, I didn't realize they'd had previous blocks. bonadea is right that they're definitely misrepresenting the situation on the content dispute in terms of where the consensus sits. While technically they haven't broken WP:3RR they have tried to make changes to the same effect six times (I think I've counted right: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]), each time removing the same content from the lead paragraph (sometimes putting it elsewhere in the article). The last time that they attempted to make this change was the edit summary where they accused me of trolling, edit-warring, vandalism, WP:SYNTHESIS, and breaking WP:CYCLE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V (an impressive list of crimes, I am surprised I was able to commit so many wrongs in just two edits). It feels like while they're following the letter of the law, they're not exactly following the spirit of it. OliveYouBean (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remind you once again that my English level is ~en-2. My level of English does not allow me to communicate easily. I use a translator a lot because I only know a limited number of English words. The translator automatically translates the Polish word "Aborygeni" into the English word "Aborigines"[75]. Maybe it is worth writing to Google to improve its translator. Second thing: in the beginning I deleted the sentence about Kaurna people, but then I looked for a compromise and only moved the content from the first paragraph of the intro to the fourth paragraph of the intro. These are a completely different kind of change, move is not deletion. Third thing: As I wrote above, maybe I used the description of the changes too bluntly, and I apologized for that.

However, I regret to recall that the problem of sources still exists, and you don't feel responsible at all, you did not apologize for removing the template informing about the wrong sources. Is this the way ANI should look like? Everyone carefully analyzes my edits to find any problem and... I reported the problem of break the Wikipedia:Core content policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research) and no one reacts and no apologies? This is supposed to be a neutral approach to the matter? Attacking a single user and doing nothing about the reported problem? In order not to waste time and prolong unnecessary discussion, I have a simple question mainly for users who have spoken here before (but also to other users): what are you going to do about the problem of sources in this article breaking the two fundamental policies of the Wikipedia? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 11:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That question concerns article content. Article content is not discussed at this notice board. The fundamental policy violations have in fact been committed by you, Subtropical-man, in that you have been aggressive in discussions and edit summaries, calling good-faith edits "vandalism" ("my bad" is not an adequate apology), and edit warred against a budding consensus on the article talk page. You promised not to edit war when you were last unblocked, you know. If you have been using translation software, that might partly explain why you have problems with the policy based arguments made by multiple other editors in the talk page discussion. But that also means you should absolutely not make any claims about expressions being "incomprehensible to many people", and it is yet another reason for you not to edit war against the emerging talk page consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 12:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, I do not agree with first half of your opinion. This is page of "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents", I used this page to report incorrect actions in an article, first of all about remove templates that inform about incorrect sources, as well as to break two Wikipedia policies in relation to these sources. As mentioned above, I was not asking for a penalty for the user OliveYouBean, but for a response to the problem. Is this page used only for reporting conflicts between users? It is possible, however, that another page would be better for this report, for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I do not know. Second: "The fundamental policy" is only three: Wikipedia:Core content policies, the rest are just additional rules and guidelines. I have not broken any of these fundamental Wikipedia principles, on the contrary: here I am discussing the respect of these principles in the article. This is just a correction to your text. Third: you wrote: "my bad" is not an adequate apology" - I apologized twice, not just using the words "my bad". Please read more carefully. However, I partially agree with the opinion that due to my poor English, I should try to be more reserved in discussions. I think that with the help of translator I understand most comments, but I must admit - not everything. Sometimes I have to guess what's going on. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here. I'm not doing anything different to the other users who have reverted your edits or engaged with you on the talk page. You're accusing me of breaking Wikipedia's policies and introducing new content to the article, but I've just restored the article to the stable version as per the consensus on the talk page. Is there a reason you've singled me out in particular here? Is there something in particular I did that none of the other editors have done? It doesn't feel good to be accused of vandalism and edit warring when I'm just trying to follow what other editors are saying. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• OliveYouBean, you wrote: " I would like to know why you think I'm the problem here" - basically because when I was doing this report (8 October 2022 UTC) you were the person doing the reverts. I don't know any other explanation. Personally, I don't have any negative feelings towards you. This was a reaction to the current actions in the article. You wrote: "'I've just restored the article (...) per the consensus on the talk page" - not exactly. There was no consensus on the Aboriginal name used in the article. On the contrary, it was explained that the name referred to only the city center and not all of Adelaide, so this information was transferred to Adelaide city centre by other user[76]. So, you have restored the wrong content in your edit, twice. Moreover, you deleted templates inserted by another user twice, also without consensus, which is a serious violation of the rules. So, you restore old version with one wrong sentence back and deleted two templates, so your change naturally can be considered harmful to Wikipedia. I would like to remind you that the issue that is currently being discussed in Talk:Adelaide is the removal of the sentence about Kaurna people from lede of the article. Maybe that the discussion showed a greater consensus for leaving this information in the article than for deleting it but your "restore version" only move information about Kaurna people in the first paragraph of lede, in my version it was the fourth paragraph of lede. So, your "rollback" has changed almost nothing in this regard. Your edit made three changes: introducing one wrong sentence to article, removing templates about defective sources, and moving content about Kaurna people from the fourth paragraph to the first paragraph. I recognized your change is harmful, and since you continued undoing, I reported it here. As for the use of the word of "vandalism", it is generally a matter of interpreting the term "vandalism". If someone deliberately - for example - removes source templates from an article (against discussion and without consensus), some users may consider it vandalism. De facto the only thing that divides a destructive change into vandalism or non-vandalism is the intentions/good faith of the user that makes this edit. It's easy to forget Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I was nervous at that moment so didn't think about assume good faith. I used this word incorrectly, it was my mistake and I apologized.
• I would also like to point out that your changes were not exactly the same as other users because my changes have changed over the course of the discussion. Your edit made three changes, which two of which are wrong. So you can't say that you was doing exactly the same thing as the user before me. Editions was similar, but the result was slightly different. The user in front of you undone my other changes and you undone others. However, it is the responsibility of the user who restores the stable version to take into account indirect changes, e.g. inserting templates. You tried to do something similar to another user, but did not notice that this user may have made an error. Even if you want to restore the content that complies with the stable version, it is your responsibility to check everything and made edit it 100% correctly. Not knowing the rules and making a mistake by another user do not justify you to make a wrong change by you. Also, I would like to inform you about an important sentence in Wikipedia:Stable version, I am quoting: "Editors who attempt to enforce a stable version may be blocked from editing without warning". So, intrusive restoration of the stable version is prohibited in the Wikipedia.
• In conclusion, we both made mistakes. I hope we both learn from this discussion to prevent similar mistakes in the future. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfounded reasoning and misuse of power for redirection of a page

I have spent countless hours creating page "McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences" using properly cited information and/or common knowledge. I write for a living. However, User @Onel5969 has redirected the page, twice, to the School's parent institution, the McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Onel5969's reasoning for redirecting the page is unfounded, claiming copyright violation when in fact all of my sources for information were correctly cited. This is a misuse of administrative power. The McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences is an entirely separate organization to that of its parent institution. The School has enough significant history, activity, and information to deem a unique Wikipedia page necessary. Furthermore, McGill University, Montreal, has many other schools and departments listed on Wikipedia that have not been redirected to their parent institutions, some even with more blatant copyright violations. Your help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinhandgregory (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. It's better to discuss such things on the article talk page(s). CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The administrator in question is being unreasonable. Therefore, using the article's talk page is useless. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The article cites McGill twice, and no other sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If I was given more time, I would have ADDED more sources. However, I woke up to the page no longer existant. Therefore, I could no longer work on adding more external sources. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's advisable that you draft the article first, or create it in your sandbox. That way you can insert all of the sources you need to avoid situations like this. — Czello 16:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, that reasoning is completely absurd because the organization would know the most about their own history. Therefore, the information is of a primary source. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under no obligation to change core policies just because you find them 'absurd'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Justinhandgregory, are you compensated in any way for your work on this article? EEng 16:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  And see WP:BRANCH. Normally, information about units of an organization should be described in the organization’s page. And pointing to other units that have their own pages is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree. The unit has enough significant history for a unique Wikipedia page to be valid. One of the department's of the School discovered the cancer biomarker. Additionally, many other universities have separate pages for their constituent units. See > Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, etc. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  You haven't cited any of that. The way we know that history is significant is that sources independent of the organization think it is important enough to write about. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I could gladly provide a plethora of sources independent of the organization. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  No. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Justinhandgregory, your accusation here of "misuse of power" is off base. @Onel5969 is not an administrator, they are a regular editor here. And as far as I can see they have redirected your article only once, and explained their perfectly valid reasoning in an edit summary. What you should do is (1) create this as a draft, not a full article, so that you have time to add the necessary external Reliable Sources and otherwise make it worthy of article status, (striking this suggestion; you should not be writing the article at all) and (2) answer this question: since you say you write for a living, are you being paid to write this article? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Upldate: I see from this that you are an employee of the university. In that case you have an conflict of interest and should not be writing this article at all. Please see WP:COI and WP:PE. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Update: Now I see why you say it was redirected twice by Onel5969. You created this article twice under different names: once as McGill School of Biomedical Sciences and once as McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences. One of them was full of copyright violations, which had to be removed and hidden from view per Wikipedia's legal requirements, and both contained only primary souces. Both are now redirects to McGill University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not being paid to write this article. The COI page, that you referred me to, says that COI is "strongly discouraged" but, it does not say that it is against policy. I have attempted to write this article twice and it was redirected twice. The article serves purely as a piece for public information with common knowledge. It was not written in a biased tone, nor was it written as an advertisement. I have written a few Wikipedia pages and this has never occurred before. Justinhandgregory (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs here. If you're being paid to market the university in general, that means you're a paid editor in this circumstance, even if you don't have an employment contract that specifically says 'make Wikipedia edits'. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

TAV College and Abraham Boyarsky are also the product of undisclosed paid editing, I have tagged them as such. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the point in Wikipedia if writers who publish factual information are being penalized for their contributions? Regardless of affiliation, if the content is written in a purely objectively, what is the problem? Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that editors with a conflict of interest are usually incapable of judging their own work. Also, you have been violating Wikipedia's terms of service. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. However, I disagree. You consistently use speculation in your sentences and reasonings. Additionally, the notice you added says that "it may require cleanup" not does. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It clearly does, it reads like an advertisement. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

And you're just about the last person who should be removing these maintenance templates MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

By way of an extra opinion, the TAV page does need cleanup. I was looking at it to see if I could help and saw that it needs a lot of work and if I tagged it with the issues at the top I could be accused of tagbombing. It has issues with NPOV (specifically advertising), use of primary sources, needing additional references for support, MOS issues and more. Gusfriend (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not being paid to "market the university in general." I am acting as a member of the general public, writing this page on my own volition due to the School's significant contributions to society and to medicine. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are employed by them, correct? And it is for some form of communications or marketing? MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• '...properly cited information and/or common knowledge': Justinhandgregory you may be a writer, many of us here on Wikipedia are, but that does not provide us with a free pass to ignore Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTABILITY. Primary sources may corroborate some of the content, but notability is a totally different concept. Stuartyeates also tagged the article, and I would have done so too had I seen it first. Despite being sourced, one paragraph is distinctly promotional and conflicts with WP:NPOV, a policy which is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Your article is not lost, it's all there in the redirect's history, but it will not reach mainspace until notability is asserted. You might find this explanation about universities and their constituent units helpful. Wikipedia is extraodinarily open to submissions of new articles by anyone, but the onus is on the article creators to follow the rules even if Wikipedia does not make them sufficiently explicit to newcomers, but that is the fault of the organisation that owns the encyclopedia, not of us, its volunteer editors and quality controllers. We are nevertheless here to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am an advocate for notability and citation when it comes to writing. However, the policies, volunteer editors, and quality controllers make it nearly impossible to contribute to Wikipedia due to the sheer amount of rules and lack of information of can and cannot. Justinhandgregory (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sadly, a significant proportion of the rules are there solely because contributors tend to be poor judges of 'objectivity' when it comes to their own edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I beg to differ, Justinhandgregory I have written over 100 long, perfectly notable and sourced articles, and correctly formatted - right from joining Wikipedia. Other editors have written thousands of articles - why would you find it so particularly 'impossible'? If an encyclopedia is to be regarded as a reliable collection of information, it has to have rules - it's not a magazine article, a text for a promotional website, a publicity blurb, or a newspaper opinion column; it naturally follows that it needs rules. It even has a comprehensive Manual of Style. But as I said, we're here to help - and we do. See Your first article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Justinhandgregory: I'd like to point out that what you are doing in this discussion is WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Bludgeoning. Neither helps your cause, and in fact harm it. You need to take a step back, calm yourself, and listen to what you're being told, which is totally correct and would be helpful to you if you plan on sticking around and contributing here. You may well be a professional writer, but at this time you are not a veteran Wikipedia editor, and the people who are responding to you are. Rather than fighting them, you really should be taking their advice to heart and trying to understand that writing for Wikipedia has specific rules and policies which must be followed, which you are not. Instead you are fighting them, which amounts to tilting at windmills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm rather late to this issue due to timezone issues. I was the editor who first found tagged that article while I was on new page patrol (shepherding new articles and new editors). I 100% support User:Onel5969's edits that followed mine. @Justinhandgregory: if you honestly believe that there are independent secondary sources covering the School of Biomedical Sciences in depth I would invite you to create an article at Draft:McGill University School of Biomedical Sciences; in the Draft: namespace there is considerable leeway and you can submit your article for feedback on issues of style, content and sourcing. I work in AfC too (moving articles from Draft to article namespace) and you're welcome to ping me for feedback. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I note that the OP has been partially blocked from Article space, and the apparently CU data is involved, per the block notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Not CU data, just off-wiki information that was emailed to the paid editing queue. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, thanks for the correction, and the block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly the state of sourcing at Draft:TAV College makes this an open-and-shut case of COI, which is particularly galling in light of Justinhandgregory's disavowals of the same. I support a block without even needing to look at the off-wiki evidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ASTRO Clifford adding unsourced info to large number of articles

ASTRO Clifford has been adding unsourced, highly dubious information to numerous articles en masse. They've been given 4 warnings by 3 different editors on their talk page, with no reaction, and they're still going at it after the last warnings ([77], [78]). R Prazeres (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've asked on their talk page where they are getting their GDP data. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: They're back at it again, without having replied to your inquiry. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reported the editor at AIV in hope of getting some admin interest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Spencer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone with expertise in demographics should probably take a look at the multiple 'List of countries by population in XXXX' articles ASTRO Clifford has created and/or edited. From a quick look, much of the date looks very poorly sourced and/or lacking a clear citation, if not outright fictitious. For example, List of countries by population in 1250 contains entirely unsourced data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There are 8 such articles, a list of which can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The articles seem to be entirely WP:SYNTHESIS, mixing and matching data from disparate sources, which presumably used different methods of approximation, and using them as if they are compatible with each other. The articles should probably all be deleted on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As it happens, I do have expertise in medieval demographics, and those articles are garbage. So much of the field involves educated guesses, scholarship revises all the time, contemporaneous national surveys didn't exist (Domesday, for example, was the only such in England up until the 19th century), and the more honest medieval demographers and historians acknowledge how often they're just throwing darts at a board. Really, one could write an essay on all the ways such a table would be deeply suspect. Hell, the most commonly applied source in the List of countries by population in 1250 article admits "... applying this approach systematically results in historical outcomes that are not consistent with current insights by economic historians." Ravenswing 05:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess, then, if my PRODS are removed, they'll have to go to AfD as a package, where you can provide that evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to do so, along with some more tidbits: looking at the "subdivisions" of one of the articles, there are a great many question marks, and some howling anachronisms -- for instance, the "Trucial sheikdoms" entry from List of countries by population in 1500, not only NOT a contemporaneously acknowledged state, but carrying the flag icon from the 1968 Trucial States Council!! Ravenswing 05:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to the above, take a look at these recent edits to List of countries by population in 500 BC diff. The percentage figures add up to more than 100%, some of the figures are ridiculously precise, and the data given for China for example isn't remotely supported by the source given. I see no reason to assume that anything ASTRO Clifford has added to Wikipedia can be trusted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm going to PROD them all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Lists of countries by population by year needs checking for poor sourcing etc. This isn't an issue confined to a single contributors poor editing, it is endemic: take a look at List of countries by population in 2000 for example. Most of the data seems to have come from an UN report, but figures have been tossed in from elsewhere, with no obvious explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The first reference in List of countries by population in 1900 is used for 38 of the 59 countries listed, which is somewhat surprising as the reference title is Population of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1800 to 2020. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• 209.6.246.218 started adding GDP data to some article as the same time as "ASTRO Clifford" (they could be related). This appears to be the source that they're using. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Clear and unambiguous block evasion. And utter incompetence, given the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree (I reported them to AIV). M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears ASTRO Clifford has been citing his own 'compilations' and 'estimates'. Pure WP:OR. [79] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This contributor needs to be blocked indefinitely, on competence grounds

After some discussion at User talk:ASTRO Clifford it has become obvious that this contributor is incapable of actually understanding Wikipedia policy on original research, never mind complying with it. See in particular the latter part of this thread [80], discussing an edit relating to the population of China in 500 BC, where ASTRO Clifford attempts to defend 'interpolating' two data points over a period of 680 years or so, to arrive at an exact figure for an intermediate date (34,182,989 for 500 BC). Given that being able to understand simple policy requirements regarding sourcing (and on not pulling numbers out of one's nether regions) is fundamental to being able to usefully contribute here, I formally ask that this contributor be blocked indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. I don't think there's much hope for this editor at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support I’m surprised an indefinite block wasn’t done earlier to prevent further harm. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom - Competence is absent. DoubleCross (‡) 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Five Races Under One Union page vandalism

• User:Karl Krafft
• Made suspect edits on Five Races Under One Union page on October 26 & 27, erased 'Uyghur' in favor of 'Hui' without citation, openly supports CCP, flagrantly politically motivated editing, especially given the other recent pro-CCP genocide-denial-inspired edits that replaced Uyghur with Hui, lack of discernable edit history otherwise may be a sockpuppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as a note, Drake Hammer, you have to notify users you report to ANI. I've done so in this edit, but please remember to do so going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Also, are you referring to this series of edits from last year? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the information. And yes, those are the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 07:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
      • So, on a matter of substance the editor appears to be correct with respect to the group represented by the white stripe based on my survey of reliable sources, but if you disagree I'd be more than happy to chat on the article's talk page. Additionally, to echo Cullen328's reply below, I don't think that there is anything akin to an urgent incident going on here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

        I mean you're the Admin here, I'll trust you & CUllen's ruling here, as I told Cullen328. If you're saying that no rules have been violated, and that there's no reason to suspect political motive for the change, then that's that. I sounded the alarm because of the subject of the edits & prior-acts of vandalism related to it in the past, but if the Admins are confident that the edit was made in good faith by Krafft I'll defer to the ruling. Drake Hammer (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Drake Hammer, an editor is not going to be sanctioned for a handful of bold edits made nearly a year ago, nor for their political beliefs. The edits were not vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. If you say an editor may be a sockpuppet, you are expected to provide evidence. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I never suggest removal, but rather I am bringing attention to potential suspicious behavior due to editing patterns consistent with prior politically-motivated vandalism edits revolving around the subject. The fact that the editor in question also has tags openly supporting the CCP and made such an edit, yet appears to have little history edits relevant to subjects outside of pages where conflicts over CCP-related subjects are common, speaks to the possibility of what would constitute a dummy account on other sites. Therefore, I am reporting the account & its related edits to the Admins, so that said edits & account can be reviewed and/or dealt with. I can't say for sure if this is a sockpuppet, but I felt the suspicious behavior in conjunction the political banners mirrored a pattern similar to prior incidents of political vandalism, and therefore warranted a report to the proper authorities of the site (i.e. the Admins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake Hammer (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • • Drake Hammer, I am an administrator and so I will be a bit more clear: Do not accuse other editors of vandalism without providing persuasive evidence. Do not accuse editors of sockpuppetry without providing convincing evidence. But any experienced editor could tell you the same thing. Personally, I am in complete disagreement with the CCP, but supporters of that party can edit Wikipedia if they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. The same requirement applies to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

        First of all I would I would like to clarify that I was not attacking your credentials as an administrator, I examined your profile before I made my response and was aware of such. Rather I was trying to detail my rationale & course of action in regards to making the report. I did this because in your first response asserted that I was pushing for removal, when rather I was alerting the admins

        Secondly, I made my report in the vein of reports regarding suspicious editing activity earlier on this very page. If your could explain to me how my report in particular warrants rebuke as opposed to the to the others, & fails to meet the criteria of either 'persuasive' or 'convincing'. I ask because not only are those terms hypersubjective in implication, but because they are vague in direction. I am trying comply with reporting parameters, but as an ASD person I am finding my to reading into your meaning confusing. Are you requesting more links to pages demonstrating offending behavior from the User to make the justification more concrete? If you care to elaborate I will try to comply.

        Thirdly, I never suggested that the 'rules didn't apply to me'? This is the second time you have inferred & then suggested motive ulterior in my purpose of making the report, even after I tried to clarify myself, and this time we are broaching aspersive territory. I fail to understand how this is warranted, especially as once again I am only reporting suspicious behavior, as others on this page have done without rebuke. I have not challenged your authority, I detailed my rationale, and as I said in the earlier am reporting in the vein of similar reports, yet with this barb of yours you seem to taking this discourse into personal combative territory.

        Fourthly, what exactly are you asking of me here? This is the second time in our engagement that you are telling me things not to do, but failing to clarifying what it is that you want me to do. Do you want me to recant my report? If so, why not just say so from the beginning? Better yet, why not just remove my report with a note explaining why it wasn't valid? We could have both spared ourselves the apparent miscommunication & definite distraction.

        Throughout this discourse you have been repetitive, combative & obfuscative regarding what you want from me beyond me making a report that satisfies your parameters for evidence (which again, you did not explain what exactly would be convincing or persuasive), and that I needed to follow the rules, of which none I have broken thus far. None of this has been constructive to outlining how to proceed, and neither would my devolving into retaliatory remarks.

        Therefore, In the spirit of clarification and hopefully averting further miscommunication- Are you asking me to remove the report, and if so how, how specifically was my evidence not warranting of a report regarding suspicious activity, compared to preceding ones? If not, then what are you asking of me, beyond meeting your unspecified (in the vein that you did not elaborate how the evidence would convincing) criteria for a report & reminder to follow the rules of editing? Because if you are not asking me to recant the report, that makes half of our discourse irrelevant to the subject.

        As you are an Admin I will readily comply with a request to remove the report, because counter to your assertion earlier I am trying my best to follow the rules, and was only trying to report activity that may have violated them. I'm not here to suborn said rules or your authority. Drake Hammer (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by BrownHairedGirl

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

---

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
U:BHG has slid back into pouring gasoline on fires. She is under a community edit restriction regarding incivility, but seems to have no qualms but to make uncivil comments. Here she attacks Wbm1058. Here she attacks me on Wbm1058's page. Here she previously attacked me on my page. Of note also is her behavior through the whole of the move request on 40 "Death and state funeral of X" articles. While my close of the aforementioned RM was not stellar, that doesn't justify her behavior. When I stated I do not wish to engage with her she doubled down in engaging. UtherSRG (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It's my bedtime now, and having just finished feeding Citation bot with yet another huge batch of bare URLs, I am tired and winding down.

I don't have the energy now to write a long reply to this malicious complaint from an admin whose competence is in question and who appears to reject WP:ADMINACCT.

So just a few bullet points, without a many diffs as I would like:

1. I complained to UtherSRG about a bad close, but dropped it, because we seemed to be going nowhere. I reckoned that the next step would be move review, but was not sure I had the energy for that
2. Separately, other editors made complaints about UtherSRG's closes. What I had thought was a one-off error by UtherSRG was clearly part of a pattern of seriously sub-standard closes.
3. So I asked UtherSRG to revert their close, and leave another admin to close the discussion. They did.
4. I thanked UtherSRG for their reverts on 19:45, 5 October 2022, and thought that was the end of our engagement.
5. Note that at this point UtherSRG had raised with me no concerns about my conduct.
6. However, two days later, on 14:45, 7 October 2022, UtherSRG posted at User talk:Wbm1058 to ask a bout applying sanctions to me.
7. UtherSRG subsequently closed the RM discussion.
8. I posted[81] at User:Wbm1058 to query the close, and to challenge Wbm1058's criticism of me.
9. I then noticed a section above, where UtherSRG had asked Wbm1058 for advice sanctioning me. Not that UtherSRG had not notified me of any concerns about me, and that neither UtherSRG nor Wbm1058 notified me of that discussion.
10. I regard that as nasty, sneaky conduct unbecoming of an admin, so I posted[82] at User talk:Wbm1058 to note that concern.

This is a misuse of ANI. UtherSRG is objecting to well-founded complaints about their closes, and describing those complaints as an attack. Similarly, UtherSRG misuses the label "attack" to smear my response to Wbm1058's close. And they smear as an attack my complaint about their thoroughly sneaky and underhand efforts to get me sanctioned for a issue where they had expressed no concern to me.

I am particularly appalled by UtherSRG' complaint that When I stated I do not wish to engage with her she doubled down in engaging.

I had disengaged from UtherSRG on 5 October. It was UtherSRG who chose to re-engage, by sneakily calling for sanctions against me. My post noting that[83] was removed by Wbm1058.

I remain shocked that any admin would act as sneakily as UtherSRG has acted here, and am appalled that they choose to falsely claim that I was the one who chose to re-engage. When another editor has challenged your admin actions, thanked you for the remedies and disengaged ... it takes a remarkable level of chuztpah to sneakily try to get that editor sanctioned and then claim "disengage" when challenged.

If UtherSRG does not want to use admin powers transparently and to be accountable for their actions, they should reconsider their adminship. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Will someone tell me why we as a community tolerate habitual and intentional incivility from BHG that seemingly any other editor would long ago have been indeffed for? I know I'm not exactly known for being the nicest person on Wikipedia but good grief I've never gone nearly this far. Now will you please self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM? Or do we have to take it to WP:Move review for a week of high-profile focus on your lack of competence? - this alone is a pretty clear breach of BHG's edit restriction, let alone all the other examples one can gather from the provided diffs. Can we add another editing restriction about endless wikilawyering and indignant polemics, too? Or maybe we can realize that editing restrictions have clearly failed and try something different.
  I was in the middle of typing this up when I saw BHG's reply here. Wow. I think BHG just made UtherSRG's case better than anyone else could have. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: UtherSRG made a series of bad closes, as reported by others. In what way is it "uncivil" to note this series of failures as a lack of competence and to ask for a self-revert?
  Note that reason I put it so directly was to try to avoid the situation of a much more high-profile discussion at move review, which would have drawn much wider attention to the fact that a) UtherSRG had been making lots of bad closes, and b) in discussion showed no awareness of why those closes were bad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I make no claim that his closes were good. They may have been the worst closes in the history of Wikipedia for all I'm aware. Your attitude towards other users here still leaves much to be desired. It is perfectly possible for both 1: the closes were subpar and 2: you were uncivil, to both be true. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  That does not answer my question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that question of UtherSRG's competence was first raised by @Horse Eye's Back on 3 October, when they wrote[84] about UtherSRG:

  I must note that within their last 2,000 edits I was able to put together a clear noticeboard case for a ban from closing discussions with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  UtherSRG lacks the competence to be a modern admin (honestly they might lack the competence of a modern editor as well but thats not really for this discussion and they've made it clear that they have a desire to learn), but we should still be civil. That being said while you were maybe on the line civility wise none of the diffs provided so far are really over the line, perhaps there stronger diffs which have not yet been shared. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is very hard to competently perform all the duties of "a modern admin". I see often see administrative incompetence, for example failure to move an article's talk page with the article. A significant part of my time is spent cleaning up after administrators and pseudo-administrators (e.g. page movers). None of us are perfect, and I acknowledge below a less-than-ideal administrative action on my part. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

BHG is easily provoked, but is not frivolous in raising objections to actions by others. I agree that this kerfuffle does not rise to the level of ANI. BD2412 T 02:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry but I can't see a WP:CIVIL problem in the first three links. Is the claim that a (I think single) use of "your lack of competence" in the context of the discussion at User talk:UtherSRG#An advice is worth a trip to ANI? That linked discussion seems to be drifting towards a conclusion that certain move closes were sub-optimum and BHG politely requested that the closure be self-reverted to avoid a need for a review. BHG should not have included a claim about competence but in context it's something that should be taken on board with the realization that some people are more blunt than others. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I was pinged to Uther's talk page and I participated in several of the RFCs and recommended overturning the close on review. I think BHG's concerns are reasonably well-founded and I don't think her bluntness rises to the level of a civility violation. Maybe a bit snippy but not an outright personal attack. I think Uther should be given a cursory slap on the wrist for trying to litigate criticism, and this thread should be closed. Andre🚐 02:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Second cursory slap with a small fish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Something does need to be done here. Not only has she bludgeoned the entire discussion at the state funeral RM, bludgeoned the first closer into reopening it (whether it should have been reopened or not, that was not the way to go about it) then, after being warned about bludgeoning by wbm1058 when they closed it, she straight away goes to their talk page to leave another 6kb wall of text[85] that, among other things, accuses them of anti-intellectual bullying. This is exactly the sort of behaviour which led to both her desysop by arbcom and the community restriction. How many more final warnings does she get? Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have blocked BHG for 12 hours as community sanction enforcement, under her civility probation. If we impose sanctions like that, and then don't enforce them when the person continues to act uncivil, they become worthless. And "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It is often inflammatory to question another's competence, but is it automatically uncivil? And was it urgent to block? John (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  The restriction explicitly allows blocking at any administrator's discretion, and Tamzin cites at least three instances of clear civility breaches, so the block is clearly justified. Questioning another editors competence can be done civilly, but BHG did not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  The competence questioning I identified was only one instance of incivility from BHG. The diffs linked in the original filing here show repeated and intentional incivility on BHG's part. Which of course she refuses to even acknowledge in favor of arguing about how she's right and everyone else is wrong. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I used to have problems with BHG but came to realize they are a fundamentally good-faith editor who does really difficult time consuming work (bare links) and well if you just ignore the occasional rants then you get the desert. And we need a bull like BHG to do that work as sometimes there are roadblocks that need clearing it's not for the feint of heart. Now, there is no question BHG will automatically turn on "bad-faith mode" whenever confronted with a disagreement and often goes too far in turning around what was a work disagreement into a personal one. On the other hand BHG can be quite supportive in a personal way when working with editors which is not that common. Maybe the trick for BHG on Wikipedia is focus on the issue not the person when dealing with criticism because the consequences of being right, clever or devastating to the other side are not worth it if it becomes personal, rather becomes a dumpster fire. -- GreenC 15:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think this is a wonderful description of BHG's strengths and weaknesses. However, your last comments, which imply that BHG can change their behavior, are unrealistic. BHG has been around for a very long time and, despite repeated problems, has been unable to change their behavior, so the possibility of a change now seems remote. As for Tamzin's very short block, I endorse it. I don't see why BHG's good work should excuse her bad behavior. She needs to know that there are consequences.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I stopped interacting with u:BrownHairedGirl over their behaviour, attitude, and conduct over Signatures. They tend to be stubborn, dictatorial, and blinkered. I hope they're on the way to reform their behaviour. doktorb _words^deeds 15:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment One instance in isolation may not be automatically uncivil, but during this move discussion there are multiple instances of BHG being uncivil to both specific editors and groups of editors. Regarding specific editors, I use myself as an example: In discussion with me, BHG said I made 'false' and 'hostile' claims, and I explained that I didn't intend to be hostile and [86]. They subsequently accused me of a serious breach of conduct, citing the specific wording I had apologised for [87], and refused to retract the accusation after I noted that this felt over the line given I had apologised. Not only that, they continued to attack me[88] [89]. As well as the refusal to retract the serious accusation, it was also upsetting to be accused of 'ignoring policy' and called 'timewasting and distracting' just because my interpretation of policy differed from theirs. I found it contradictionary that BHG refused to abide by my request that they don't WP:BLUDGEON me any further yet also asked me to stay off her talk page. The effect was that while I did intend to take further part in the discussion, I ended up not doing so because I was fearful of being torn apart by BHG again. Regarding whole classes of editors: in this edit[90], BHG says “Why is this discussion getting so many posts from editors who now absolutely nothing about the relevant policies? Is there some on- or off-wiki canvassing?” This ignores the fact that one of the nominated articles was one of the most popular on Wikipedia at the time, it being still less than a week since the state funeral of Elizabeth II, and it unfairly brings the competence of editors into question before they have even posted. I do wonder how many people were put off from participating because they worried they might be jumped on. I understand that editors can be blunt, that misunderstandings can happen. But there’s a line where bluntness crosses over into uncivility. To quote WP:UNCIVIL, “Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict.” I think there’s been more than enough evidence of BHG having made disrespectful comments and alienated editors (in at least one case, an editor who supported the move.[91]) H. Carver (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's sad to see this at ANI again. There are some misconceptions, mentioned by editors above, that I want to address.

- Incivility is not justified if the other user's argument in a move discussion isn't as good as BHG's.

- Incivility is not justified if BHG is a net positive to the project.

- BHG is well aware of the civility policy, more than almost any other active editor, from years of ANI discussions and an ArbCom case about this. She has evidently not adjusted her behavior to fit within the civility policy.

- The idea that a block needs to be preventing some sort of "urgent" disruption is incorrect, when we are discussing a well-informed user with years of difficulties regulating their conduct, including clear consensus in previous ANI threads and an ArbCom case for those threads to have been the final warning.

This continuation of battleground-style uncivil behavior is very concerning, including her description of another editor as "jesuitical", which is reminiscent of her use of the term "portalistas" (derived from Sandinistas) from a few years ago. I hope this can be finally resolved soon. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vermont: With respect to the term "jesuitical", BHG seems to be characterizing a particular claim made in an argument Your claim... seems to be at best jesuitical, rather than describing a particular editor as such. And the use of the word "Jesuitical" to describe arguments that engage in equivocation is a well-established use of the term; this isn't an instance in which a user has created their own term as in the case of "portalistas".

Additionally the notion that "portalistas" must be somehow derived from Sandinistas strikes me a bit odd as a Spanish speaker; there are of course the Peronistas (who predate the Sandinistas by several decades) and other political groups, but the "-ista(s)" suffix is also extremely commonplace with words that describe professions, such as periodistas, futbolistas, and artistas. Why do you explicitly point to the Sandinistas as the group that BHG is unambiguously alluding to in coining that phrase; is there a diff that suggests that this was her intent, or was this mere guesswork? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably because the "-ista" form was not very widely used in English, and the first time it came into popular cognizance was with "Sandanista". One rarely heard the "ista" form before that (if ever), and terms such as "fashionista" all come into popular use only after it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Barista Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary wikt:-ista notes the etymology is from Sandanista and also that Words formed using this suffix usually have more of a pejorative connotation than related words formed using -ist. Historically, this connotation tended to be associated with socialism (in reference to Sandinistas), but may also connote a general connection to Latin America or apolitical pejorativeness. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. González 1995 explains that the -ista suffix is actually derived from Ancient Greek istes, and is not necessarily associated with the left specifically, such as the use of franquista in relation to Francoist Spain. The paper describes the negative connotation being stronger depending on the personal association attached to the word, i.e. a fidelesta (Fidel Castro) is going to have much more negative connotations than something such as barista. Apolitical terms with the istas suffix aren't generally considered negative. X-750 _{List of articles I have screwed over} 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My goal when closing that requested move was to stop further escalation of drama, and I regret that I failed. It was a mistake on my part to use the exception I found as policy justification for my close. The paragraph below that about the community's de facto naming convention was sufficient rationale, and I shouldn't have piled the exception on top of that, which BHG characterized as "intellectual bullying" "jesuitical". Sorry. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

[edit] I think I mixed up terms. wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• This probably doesn't need to be said at this point, but for the record: this whole saga started when UtherSRG observed this nasty personal attack by BHG against Bearcat (among a large number of less glaring ones) following his re-opening of the RM. He asked me for my thoughts, and I told him that although it was a violation, he shouldn't block her himself because he was involved and should instead raise the issue elsewhere. (I had suggested ANI; he instead asked another admin, which IMO was also appropriate.) wbm1058 said he would overlook the incivility if she calmed down once the discussion was closed, and UtherSRG expressed contentment with that; I'm not sure how BHG construed this as an attempt by UtherSRG to punish her for challenging him on the merits of his closure. It strikes me as paranoid, which I find concerning. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I did not overlook the incivility, though I did perceive that some would not see it, which, from some of the comments above, was a correct perception. I did warn threaten her regarding incivility, which I regret. Had I not done that, we might not be here, and drama would have been avoided. That was my goal. She has already been warned; no further warning is necessary nor helpful. I've yet to block an extended-confirmed editor, but this experience has given me more confidence to expand my administrative skill-set and competence into that area. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: By "overlook," I meant not block her as called for by her sanction. A warning was generous as it was; refusing to do even that much would have been neglectful of the community's clear desire that her civility failures be firmly and consistently addressed. BHG's vicious reaction to that was neither appropriate nor warranted and underscores why she needed to be sanctioned. Honestly, I think you handled it as best you could have, but if you regret anything, it should be for not having blocked her to begin with, not for having called out her inappropriate behavior (though FWIW, it might also have helped to mention the personal attacks and not just the bludgeoning). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: that allegation of paranoia is unfounded.

  I had no contact with UtherSRG after they had completed their revert of their close of the RM. The next I saw from them were post on Wbm1058's talk, which mentioned no other issues. So far as I was aware, this went directly from mutual-agreed reversion of the closure to complaint.

  If there was some other factor involved, then UtherSRG should have disclosed that when they approached Wbm1058, and disclosed it to me notified me that they were seeking sanctions. However, UtherSRG chose to operate without transparency and without notification, so I formed a judgement on the info available to me. I stand by that judgement as a reasonable assessment of the info available. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• BrownHairedGirl is doing an amazing job at keeping Wikipedia afloat. She's basically singlehandly handling the reduction of the backlog of bare refs. Without her work and expertise, its highly likely the bare refs will never reduce. I agree with BD2412 in saying this doesn't not merit an ANI dicussion, rather a talk page discussion over what did and din't happen, and how anything bad that could have happened can be prevented from happening again. Lets push the breaks. Rlink2 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Doing an amazing job does not excuse incivility. I've lost count of the number of editors I've seen described as indispensable in some way over the years who left (for whatever reason) and turned out not to be indispensable after all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  The wiki could technically go on without anyone, and BHG has even stated this fact a while ago. Using the football analogy, The Patriots without Tom Brady are still a team, aren't they? But they are a different team. This is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point.

  Doing an amazing job does not excuse incivility I 100% agree. What I am trying to say is that the conflict should be able to be resolved amicably on their talk pages. It is important that each side is heard and understood. Nothing creates distrust and incivility faster than misunderstandings and a refusal to consider another viewpoint. A side adopting a WP:IDHT mindset is only bound to cause problems. Rlink2 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  This entire thing would have been avoided if BHG hadn't bludgeoned the RM and attacked Bearcat. I don't know why you think that this matter could have been resolved amicably at a talk page. I doubt if I have ever felt less heard than on those occasions when I tried to discuss a disagreement with BHG. Nobody is denying that BHG does a great deal of invaluable work, but she went way overboard here. There's no need to minimize it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: that's claim that I attacked Bearcat is a good example of the sort of conduct that I find very troubling on Wikipedia. Not just personally unsettling, but very troubling for our ability to have the rigorous, critical debates needed to build an encyclopedia.

  Bearcat asserted (and emphasised as an always-true fact) something which it took me about 20 minutes to prove was very definitely not always true. Bearcat claimed that state funerals always contained a unique feature, the lying in state; but in 20 minutes, I found numerous exceptions to that claim: lots of lying-in-state without a state funeral, and lots of state funerals without a lying-in-state.

  I dunno why Bearcat did that. Did Bearcat knowingly assert a falsehood? Did he assume without checking? Did he not care? I can't possibly know his state of mind, but I can say with absolute certainty than a competent editor of an encyclopdia would have made through checks before making such an absolute assertion ... and Bearcat clearly did not do those checks.

  Having been falsely accused by Bearcat of misconduct, I was annoyed. I was very much more annoyed to have to spend 20 minutes of my time deconstructing a completely bogus claim by an admin, and I expressed that annoyance because I have experienced the same problem many times before with Bearcat.

  So far as I can see from the discussion here, there is absolutely no community concern that the admin Bearcat made false allegations of misconduct against me, and no community concern that the admin Bearcat tried to sway a consensus-forming discussions by making assertions of fact which they stressed were always true, but are in fact false. And AFAICS there is absolutely no community concern that the admin Bearcat made no effort to withdraw or apologise for those bogus assertions.

  How on earth can we build an encyclopedia when a disregard for truth is not seen as any problem at all, but a harsh exposure of untruth is so unacceptable that a mob descends on the exposer of the untruth?

  Yet again, Wikipedia's core purpose is being placed as a very weak second to the desire of some parts of the editor base to make an absolute priority out of not risking any possible offence or hurt to editors or admins who blatantly fail to strive for the scholarly rigour which an encyclopedia demands. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's 388 words, spread out across 7 paragraphs, in response to two words from my comment. Rlink2, this is exactly why a talk page discussion would have been fruitless. BHG, I'm not going to debate this with you. I'm just going to point out that all of this drama over the word 'state' in the title of articles about state funerals is one of the most pointless dramafests I have ever seen on this site. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: your comment is a good illustration of the problem with these discussions.

  You make a criticism of me in two words. Inevitably, my reply takes a lot more than two words. But instead of thanking me for taking the time to respond, and without showing any sign at all that you have even read my reply, you dismiss it as too long and refuse to engage.

  I cannot know your intent, but the effect of this approach amounts to a form of baiting, in which the fact that I make any attempt to defend my actions is simply taken as further evidence of guilt.

  If you are not wiling to debate this, why are you posting here? And if all this drama troubles you, which are you engaging in it and stoking it?

  For the record, I actually agree that the issue in dispute is trivial. What is not trivial, to my mind, is the apparent inability of most of the editors who !voted in that RM to apply long-standing and stable policy to a simple issue, and the community's lack of concern that the admin Bearcat tried to sway consensus by false assertions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  There is no need for you to defend yourself. There is no reason for me to debate you. You did, in fact, attack Bearcat. The comment has been quoted below for anyone who wants to read it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Wow! There is no need for you to defend yourself. Just wow.

  That is the logic of the Stalinist show trials described so vividly by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago. In the trials, guilt was not open to dispute or question. The role of the defence team was to assist the state in uncovering the full extent of the criminality of the accused.

  Naively, I thought that approach had been terminated with the end of Stalinism.

  Instead, it seems to be alive and well here o Wikipedia, where the fact of being accused is sufficient evidence of guilt, and making a case for one's defence is evidence of aggravated guilt. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. My point was that there is no need to defend yourself against valid criticism. In this particular case, my two-word description of your conduct was accurate. You may not agree, but I suspect that most neutral third-parties would characterize your comment as a personal attack. Again, I am not going to debate that description with you because I know it would be a fruitless endeavor, as evidenced by the fact that you are already giving my words a meaning that they never had.

  To be clear, I am not advocating for a system that denies you the ability to make a defense. If you had read my words carefully instead of jumping to the most unfavorable interpretation possible, you would have seen that I never said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. My point is simply that it would be better to take valid criticism to heart instead of trying to rebut it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You should go write op-eds, BHG. The needless hyperbole and whining would be great there, but here it just shows you treat everything as a battle to be won and have little interest in working collaboratively. If you just stuck to your usual practice of tagging articles with 500 references with giant maintenance tags because they contain one bare URL pdf, you wouldn't be getting so much criticism. But you can't help yourself, you have to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything. Everyone has to be out to get you, it always has to be a giant conspiracy, and everyone who dares disagree with you must be subjected to giant indignant rants about how they have wronged you and they're literally Hitler/Stalin/insert other dictator here. There's no defense to be made because you objectively made multiple personal attacks. That you see nothing wrong with your actions shows you should have been blocked indefinitely, not just for 12 hours. You are a net negative every time you interact with others because you're incapable of not being rude and making personal attacks. You whine about civility when you're one of the worst offenders when it comes to violating civility. You always argue in bad faith, cherry pick things out of context, and refuse to accept any criticism in favor of an "attack the attacker" strategy. This behavior led to your desysop, led to your current restrictions, and will lead to your downfall. The community is finally getting fed up with your antics, and I foresee a community ban in your near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You wrote, and I quote: Bearcat prefers to make rigid, no-exception assertions, with bolding and italicisation, and reacts with indignant hostility to evidence which disproves his neat absolutes. I expect another round of angry indignation for daring to demonstrate the falsity of yet more of Bearcat's unresearched absolutes. Do you truly not understand why we’re calling that a personal attack? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: I do understand that if someone places a low value on the fact of an admin attacking me and asserting falsehoods both about my conduct and about the matter under discussion, then they may choose to take my reply out of context and treat it as attack rather than as a response to a attack.

  I find it very troubling that someone would take my words out of context. That is not a civil way to respond to another editor. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Unblock request

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

---

BrownHairedGirl has appealed their 12 hour block, but due to the community placed restriction the block is only over-turnable on community consensus. As such copying to here.

This kompletely Kafkaesque.
Tamzin's comment[92] at ANI "nasty", "sneaky", and "anti-intellectual bullying" are all uncivil makes it clear that she is punishing me for describing the bad actions of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's right for the community to be able to comment on this, but personally I would oppose any unblock. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Considering that the block will automatically expire in a few hours (making an unblock request moot) and that my assessment is that this is relatively WP:SNOW, might I suggest this be closed before the block expires? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  If extending the block is on the table, then please leave this open. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I fully agree with Tamzin's block here, and similarly to Dreamy Jazz oppose an unblock at this time. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I will respond briefly to say what I hope should be obvious: The block was for the way in which the criticisms were made, not for the fact of having spoken critically. (I express no opinion on the merits of those criticisms.) Criticism is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for incivility—and at the same time, incivility is not an integral part of criticism. BHG could have leveled the exact same criticisms without saying anything uncivil. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose I was involved in the state funerals discussion and subject to her bludgeoning in that discussion. She’s been uncivil to several editors in that discussion, myself included, and also two admins who closed that discussion one of whom she is arguing the toss with as we speak under the ban discussion on her talk page. Do I think she’ll learn after a ban of just 12 hours? Sadly not. Do I think the ban was justified? Absolutely! Davethorp (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - BHG was not blocked for making criticisms, but for the uncivil language used while doing so. firefly ( t · c ) 15:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG's descriptions "nasty" and "sneaky" are both familiar to those of us who were frequent participants in the scores of MfDs during the great portal purge. In edit summary, here is an example comment using "sneaky" repeated dozens of times when reverting edits by one admin who was trying to improve the portals prior to any potential MfD. I have learned since then to appreciate BHG for her industry and competence, but I wish she could refrain from undue characterization of others' actions. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I appreciate all the work she puts into the project, she needs to come to terms that the manner in which she engages with other editors is, at times, too acerbic. The bludgeoning of the RM discussion was also not helpful. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A potentially constructive editor in need of a time out, from my observations and looking at this thread. No need to pause restrictions yet again in case of 'Boy cries wolf' doktorb _words^deeds 17:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - BHG has certainly contributed to the project, but her incivility towards other editors cannot be ignored at this point. While I personally hope she can return at a later point and contribute more civilly, I'm concerned that a premature unblock would just make the problem worse. Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously -- the block was exceptionally well-founded, and similar comments from BHG should be policed aggressively going forward. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. Solid block. It's time for BHG to learn to engage with others without casting aspersions. ArbcomThe community didn't put down a civility restriction for no reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Accidentally attributed the civility restriction to arbcom; it was ANI. My bad. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Her latest talk page post indicates that she clearly does not understand why she was blocked. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose BHG repeatedly mistakes indignant vehemence for persuasiveness. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose incredibly strongly. Linked in Giraffer's comment above, her latest comment is a continuation of her years-long claim that being right in a policy discussion entitles her to be uncivil. This is embodied in her argument that this is some sort of victimization campaign...there would be no problem whatsoever if she raised concerns about the admin's closes, if those concerns were written in a civil manner. It's not hard: just stop insulting people, and there will never be an ANI thread ever again. Unfortunately, there is zero indication whatsoever that this pattern of abuse will stop, and strong indication that it will continue. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose good to see the community realizing all should comply with civility restrictions. Moxy- 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Noting for awareness that I have revoked talk page access following an extensive diatribe that, in my opinion, constituted inappropriate use of a talk page as activity not substantially related to her unblock request. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, endorse block, endorse revocation of talk-page access. Two previous incivility blocks were quickly reverted; I trust we're not going to see that again here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Not likely. There are specific conditions for being unblocked on BHG's editing restrictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Justlettersandnumbers Assuming that's the wrong link? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Duh, indeed it most certainly is, thanks, Indagate. Her block log is here. Blocks on 17 November 2019 and 9 August 2021 were fairly promptly reversed, no comment on whether those reversals were right or wrong, but sure that a similar overturn would be mistaken this time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Legitimate block in line with previous behaviour. Although it does beg the question, BHG has made it very very clear from their rants (both pre and post block) they are not going to comply with the current restrictions in the long run. So what's the plus side in unblocking at all just to run through the motions of escalating blocks? This seems like the prime point to keep the block in place until they agree to comply. Does the existing sanction mean they are effectively immune from any indefinite incivility block until it runs its course? That seems like process for the sake of process, with some future random editors in the firing line until its worked through. Granted if BHG had kept their mouth shut it could at least be argued they might change, but does anyone reading their recent comments think thats going to happen? Similar to the JPL issue at AN, if we know the problem *is* going to re-occur, dont we have greater obligation to prevent it, rather than letting it happen and punishing afterwards? Thats not really going to sound very community-minded to the editors who end up in BHG's sights. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Seriously, appealing a twelve-hour block? Talk about frivolous. Given that she's doubling down instead of cooling off, she probably needs a longer one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Firefly. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose If anything her response further proves the block was necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The block should be extended until such time that her TPA has been restored and she commits to adhering to her Civility restrictions. Otherwise this isn’t going to end. The nature of these blocks are preventative. She’s shown no willingness to improve her behavior. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:DC6A:5060:1AA7:D5B5 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. And I would support extending it until BHG shows some understanding of why her behaviour was unacceptable too. The restriction only allows the first block to be 12 hours, but any admin would have my support for imposing a normal block after this one expires. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent genre warring

2001:8003:9018:1700:90D6:E2ED:E32A:78D4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In Flames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Amorphis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP range has been being very disruptive to the point of edit warring/genre warring over two articles with two editors including myself reverting him. This has actually been going on for a long time since late August. The IP range should be blocked. FireCrystal 06:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Range: 2001:8003:9018:1700::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – 79 out of 128 edits (~2/3) on that range [93] have been revereted. – Archer1234 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• /64 blocked for two months. Resumed genre warring after coming off a one month block for the same. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Jakubik.v

Jakubik.v (talk · contribs) is continuously being very disruptive on the Bebe Rexha discography article by reverting and removing well-sourced content without any apparent justification. In spite of my repeated efforts, he refuses to discuss constructively on the talk page, as he wrote that he "will keep reverting [my] edits". Iaof2017 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave you several justified reasons and you are still editing it. For Example adding no longer existing charts, certification of non selected countries, adding things like "no certifications" in certification column etc. Your edits are without sense as many people told you before, not only on Bebe's page. You are keep ignoring it and you should be the one who should get the block. Jakubik.v (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptions and useless comments [94][95] by Jakubik.v are proceeding on Rita Ora discography article, which is currently being reviewed to pass featured list nomination. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Accused of anti-Azerbaijani censorship

Savalanni (talk · contribs) is adamant on including the ethnicity of the subject of the article Death of Hadis Najafi. I have objected to this on the grounds of whether it is actually relevant and on the grounds that the source used is subpar and does not fulfill WP:RS. The discussion on the talk page did not lead to much; no further reliable sources were given, Savalanni has continued to reinstate the edit (without changing any sources), and I (and Wikipedia as a whole) have been accused of anti-Turkic and anti-Azerbaijani censorship. I am looking for anyone to help clear up what's acceptable or not; am I in the wrong for asking for the information to be supported by reliable sources? Are the sources provided reliable (did I make the wrong call)?

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know. Beodizia (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Beodizia (talk · contribs) I have never claimed that you are ani Azerbaijani or anti Turkic, please read them carefully again: They may be sign of such things, but hopefully not! Read them again. I have given sources like TRT and GunazTV about her Azerbaijani ethnic background, there are many such sources. They are valid sources from my point of view. Why you have deleted them initially whitout any discussion? But after my reverting and asking you to go to talk page you have written in talk page. But the discussion was ongoing there you have again deleted the source content, why? Why you are not waiting for Admins reaction and decition? Savalanni (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Savalanni: Since the content in dispute was added by you I reverted the article to how it looked before the addition of that content. I don't have much experience with conflict resolution on Wikipedia so it is possible I acted wrongly in this regard. I also reverted because I'm trying to keep all the sources used reliable. You did accuse me of being anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkic: "Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background", "do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia", "The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how". TRT is not an acceptable or reliable source - the article on TRT on Wikipedia states that it "has received criticism for failing to meet accepted journalism ethics and standards for independence and objectivity". I can find very little on GunazTV so I also doubt that it fulfills WP:RS; hopefully someone else can weigh in on that one. The other two sources you added do not mention any ethnicity. I still do not see the relevance of having the ethnicity in the article at all, especially since the majority of the available sources do not mention it. Still feel that it is in poor taste to argue about this so hopefully someone comes along and sorts this out. Beodizia (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: It was just one question, nothing more. You must please remain positivist and interprete my comments positively. Please read them again and try to see them from positive point of view. About TRT: based on one sentence in TRT wikipedia article (nobody knows who has written that there and why) you say TRT is not relible source! I could also find many such claims against BBC, CNN and VOA and claim these are not valid sources and so delete 80% of Wikipedia articles content! About GunazTV: The fact that you could not find much about it is not important. Because you are not the criterion in Wikipedia. From my point of view this is a valid source specially regarding such discussions related to Iran. There is also only one source about other details of Hadis Najafis life (from Radio Zamaneh); you but agree to keept them in spite of this fact that most of other sources never included such details. But in case of her ethnic background you refuse to accept the given source, saying most sourced have not included it! It is clearly a big paradox in your thinking way and argumentation. There are many such logical problems in your argumentations here. I have answered already about your other claims in the talk page of Hadis Najafi, please refer to that discussion. Savalanni (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm just reiterating the same responses and clarifications over and over and I am not really interested in being attacked further so I'm not going to bother keep discussing this until an admin or other outside party weighs in. To those outside parties my concerns are 1) I feel like Savalanni went a little over the top in arguing with me, 2) is information concerning her ethnicity relevant in the first place? and 3) are the sources used to support the information Savalanni wants to add (TRT and Gunaz TV) reliable? I have for the record also asked about Gunaz TV at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gunaz TV. I already assume TRT is not reliable based on what is said in its Wikipedia article. Beodizia (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

very helpful. You have not read at all what I have written here. You repeat your groundless argumentation full of paradoxes here and in talk page. Please read them and then answer. Savalanni (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Savalanni: What's the point? I point out how you accused me of essentially racist censorship - you claim that I read those passages wrong (how could they be read any other way?); I point out that Wikipedia does not appear to consider TRT a reliable source - you don't care; I question the reliability of Gulnaz TV - you say that it is reliable in your opinion. I think ethnicity is far less relevant than details of a person's personal life - you clearly disagree. It seems to me that your fixation on the importance of ethnicity trumps the importance of ensuring that the sources used are reliable. Someone else will weigh in on this issue here and on the reliability of Gulnaz TV on the other page eventually, it's pointless to continue this argument until then. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Beodizia: I agree, it is fruitless to argue with you. Savalanni (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am still being accused of censorship and "fear about people getting information" (1) and of having some anti-Turk agenda (2). I think this flies in the face of WP:AGF. Savalanni: As I have made clear several times, my concern is not to keep information out of the article - my concern is to keep the information that is in the article well-sourced and ensure that it is relevant. You don't, as you claim, have many reasons and soureces to prove them - you have a TRT source (not reliable) for the songs and the Gunaz TV source (awaiting someone to comment on) for ethnicity. Please stop insulting my character and insinuating that I have some weird agenda. As a response to There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?: I have been on Wikipedia for four months; I mainly write articles on women and was horrified by what is happening in Iran. I wished to ensure that the articles on these victims were cited as reliably as possible and only contained verified information. I've only worked on quite a limited amount of articles. Beodizia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Those words were not against you, they were about the current Wikipedia's policy (or mainstrem EN Wikipedia users) in regard of Turkic related articles. Mentioning you was one simple example to understand the topic. You may have just followed these negative trends in Wikipedia. And about Source: Who says TRT is not reliable at all? I need the reason for it. Savalanni (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the behavior, but only on the content.

If one considers TRT unreliable, they should definitely consider Gunaz TV unrelible too, because the latter is just a joke compared to the former.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus about the relibality of TRT World: Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.

But the Turkic identity issue is not a miscellaneous one, in my opinion, considering the policy of Panturkism widely-adopted by the Turkish governments.

Please also note that TRT World is the International and English language version of TRT. The local language versions (such as the Azeri one used for this article) are of much less professional standards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources we clearly see that "TRT World" is considered to be reliable for topics like death of a woman in protests in another country based on the following sentence (where no interest of the government of Turkey could ever be existed if we have no illusion): For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.. see also [96] Savalanni (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• As I have written earlier there are many sources which mention the ethnic backgrund of Hadis Najafi, it is not only GunazTV or AZnewsTV. Please as an exmaple refer to: The Caspian Post [97].Savalanni (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Savalanni, now that the discussion is returning to the content of the article and a discussion about sources, it seems more clear that some of the earlier comments have distracted from a productive discussion about the article, e.g.
  • 13:12, 9 October 2022 [...] Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background? Hopefully not. [...] Why you do not accept the reality? Why you try to censor the reality? Is it not a sign of anti-Turkish thoughts? Hopefully not. [...] Hopefully Wikipedia Admins see my wrtings here and do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia
  • 13:32, 9 October 2022 [...] Why in the similiar article Death of Mahsa Amini and thousands other article the ethnicity is relevant but in Death of Hadis Najafi it is not? The answer is simple: because she was of Azerbaijani Turkic decent and this is considered to be a big problem in Wikipedia.
  • 13:47, 9 October 2022 [...] The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how.
  • 20:39, 9 October 2022 (directed to Beodizia) [...] I think there is one senibility about what is related to "Turk". There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?

I appreciate that after I asked you [98] to focus on the content, not editors, you stopped making comments to Beodizia that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as a personal attack, and had caused the discussion to shift away from the article and the quality of the sources. From my view, ad hominem statements about editors can make it more difficult for editors to work together, and can be damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, but I am hopeful we can all work together productively in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr I thank you very much for your very good and professional way and manner of working in Wikipedia. I think you are one of the rare users in EN Wikipedia who behaves logically and soft. I and many other users had and have very bad experience here in EN Wikipedia against the users who want to edit Turkic related articles. They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supporters in a very bad way ... . I and many Turkic rights activists can give you thousands of examples for discrimination againgt Turkic people in this "free encyclopedia". I know one could say Wikipedia works based on rules, there is no systematic discrimantion against no body, and blah blah blah ... . But I and many other know that these claims are not true. We have one analogy in the real world: US had and have very advanced law system and Judiciary with very good rules and laws. But we know that Black people were and partly are under extreme pressure, discrimination and attack in that system of laws!

But about the topic and article: I have written in some other occasions that these sentences were not against a specific person. They were towards the EN Wikipedia in regard of Turkic related articles as whole and towards the typical "you" in EN wikipedia. The discussion were not initially about the validity of sources, it was about whether writing the Azerbaijani ethnicity of Hadis Najafi in the article is relevant or not. Please refer to that discussion [99]. Savalanni (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, just wow: They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supportes in very bad way ... And you are directing those words towards the contributors of the English Wikipedia. These are definitely against WP:NPA. We may be free to harshly criticize the Iranian/Turkish/Azerbaijani/US governments here at Wikipedia, but not the contributors of the English Wikipedia even collectively using generic pronouns (though not necessarily the contributors to other language editions of Wikipedia or other WMF projects). Please keep this in your mind. I personally won't tolerate more abusive behavior on your part. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Savalanni, when I added the standard discretionary sanctions notice to your Talk page at 20:18, 9 October 2022, I had hoped you might review the linked Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom decision, because it includes principles that are also guidance for navigating challenging topic areas. At this point, four editors in this discussion have expressed concerns about your conduct, and while you have explained that you did not intend to make personal attacks, this discussion has identified ways that some of your communication can be disruptive even if it is not aimed at a specific editor. I think at minimum, this discussion and all of the links to the conduct policies and guidelines in the various comments should serve as a warning about how to edit here collaboratively and productively. Beccaynr (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr thank you for emphasizing this again. I have actually read that content and found out at least that it is not really relevant in my case, because I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. The aim of the links and the descriptions in that case were not fully clear. But I shall read them again to understand the sense of it, I am sure I shall find helpful content there. And regarding this topic: I have identified one clear discrimination issue in Wikipedia, I try to communicate this with responsibles here. I think there is not a working mechanism in Wikipedia (at least unknown for me) to protest against discriminations in Wikipedia, if you know please let me know how to proceed in that in best way. But real worlds experience from e.g. USA (having one of the most modern judiciary systems in the world) history shows us that there is no clear method to avoid system-based discriminations other than to protest against them, see e.g. Discrimination against Black people and their protests and reactions to it. Wikipedia is become a paradise for Pan-Iranists. They are fully satisfied with the content in Wikpedia. Even extremists among the Pan-Iranists are fully satisfied with the content of Wikipedia, because the articles have been written according to their wishes and ideals and Wikipedia reflects only their point of view and their perspective. On the other side we see extreme censorship against Turkic culture and heritage. Wikipedia should find and select an optimal way in between, not so that it satisfies Pan-Iranists and discriminizes the Turkic people. And at the end: being alone here does not necessarily mean that I am not right. I think one person may be alone in a discussion and his/her oppnents may be many, but nevertheless he/she can have right! See the history, you find plentyful of examples for this interesting fact! Savalanni (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Savalanni, the template on your Talk page refers to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, and the linked ArbCom decision states: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. Wikipedia has a variety of options for dispute resolution, including the NPOV Noticeboard, and there is advice in the one against many essay, but I encourage you to start with the guidance for editors from ArbCom for topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions.

There are several concerns about your conduct discussed in the section below, and from my view, broadly asking if you are WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. You did stop making comments directed at Beodizia when asked, and you stopped edit warring after I restored the status quo to the article, but some of your ongoing comments about broad groups of editors seem to suggest an WP:USTHEM and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is not constructive. If you are willing to adjust how you communicate, so your concerns are raised with evidence and in the proper forums on Wikipedia, without personal attacks against individual editors or groups of editors, this may help address the concerns raised by multiple editors about your conduct. We all make mistakes, and learning from our mistakes is part of being here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beccaynr, thank you very much again for your helping me to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner. Very helpful links and articles to read and learn with very helpful writing manner. Really thank you. I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring against Turkic related materials here. If I compare the quality and effectiveness of the discussions above of "Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni" and below it, I find miles of distance and difference beween them. Really I have started to search in your contributions list to find and read your other comments and the texts written by you in other occasions. They are written in fantastic way and are solution oriented whithout traces of violence, full of kindness. Hopefully other users including myself look at them and try to learn how to treat other users. Have a nice time. Savalanni (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni

• Comment There are no excuses for Savalannis WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS comments, which they won't even apologize for nor admit. These comments (especially the one made at 19:03) makes me suspect that they may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I stand by with I said, and would also like to add in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS. Why you ask? Well take a look at Savalannis first two comments here [100]. Somehow they see a section named "Solidarity with Iran" as a place to spew their ethnic-related POV. Not only is this completely off-topic, but also very distasteful, have some respect for the people protesting and risking their lives. Not only do they use the term "Pan-Persianists" (whatever that is) the fact that they in that very thread fabricate that Persians make up less than 40% of Iran and refers "Persia" as "Farsistan" (whatever that is) makes me suspect that he is ironically the one that has something against other groups, namely Persians. I have been around long enough to know that this is a WP:NOTHERE user. A indef block or at the very least a topic ban would be the right thing imo, let's not waste more time on these kind of users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

About your claim againt me about WiR comment: Please refer to that discussion there again and please remain positivist and view them from positive point of view. It was just a pre-cuation: I can not understand that a Kurdish Woman named Mahsa Amini, an Azerbaijani Woman named Hadis Najafi and many people from other ethnicities are died in Iran protests, but I am wondering why we should consider all of them as Persian? Iran is a multi-ethnic country. Who sees Iran only as land of Persians, he/she ignores 50 Million other ethnic peoples like Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluches, Lurs, Arabs, Turkmens, ... . It would be a clear disrimination to do so. My discussion in that page was about this rightful fact. Please read this reliable source Iran Is More Than Persia. Most of what I have written here you can find in this and in similiar sources. Savalanni (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The title of that logo has nothing to do with ethnicities. That woman is from the Qajar period when the whole country was called Persia. Iran is a relatively new name in English. The Iranian government asked the international community to call it "Iran" in 1935. That woman predates it and that's why that logo has been named such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, also it's clear that Savalanni still doesn't get that the topic was about soldarity with Iran, not a platform for to spew their ethnic-related rants. And thus perhaps a lack of WP:COMP as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think HistryofVIran has not fully understood my reasoning way: it is solidarity with Iran and it must remain as such, it should not be changed to soldarity with Persia! It is the point. As you may know I am not really your opponent, I am sure you are also not mine. We better solve our issues with logic and kindeness. I have looked at your page, you come from Rasht. I love your hometown Rasht, it is one of the best cities in Iran with friendly and open minded people, I was many times there. It was for me really a pleasure to stay at night in that fantastic city. Specially if I recall my memories at road going towards that fantastic city and if I recall the traffic shield of "reduc your speed" near that beautiful city, I feel me really satisfied. Really perfect city with good memories. I think we are allowed also to speak a little bit about our common ground not always about our differences. Hopefully it is allowed in Wikipedia to speak about such things some times besides the main discussion topic, if not, please inform me. Savalanni (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Pleae consider this fact that the user: HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

9 times actually. And so what? That doesn't make your conduct less disruptive. Interesting, first you called me a pan-Iranist/pan-Persian/pan-whatever, then you tried to sweet talk me by praising my city of origins, and now this? Can you make up your mind? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per my nomination. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I can also simply create a topic named: Indef or topic-ban proposal: HistoryofIran, and nominate you for blocking. I am sure I can find more material than you to nominate you for blocking from Wikipedia forevr. I have checked your contributions, unfortuanly full of struggle with editors of Turkic related articles, not a good sign. Savalanni (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure you can, but there are various diffs here that support my argumentations / proves my point, including this comment right here and the one below. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your account HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. But m ine never been blocked in English Wikipedia. I think no body shall block me in Wikipedia uopn the request of a user who itself is blocked 5 times. Savalanni (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a palce to try to limit other thoughts than your own one with fabrications and with personal attcks againgt others who think different than you. What I has written have reliable sources, see as an example this one: Iran is more than Persia. Savalanni (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately. They started their Wikicareer with canvassing in order to keep a specific article (Death of Hadis Najafi). Just after the article was kept, they started pushing their ethnicity-related edits on the article using poor/unreliable sources. They attacked the entire community of the English Wikipedia multiple times calling it Pan-Iranist, Pan-Persianist(?), anti-Turk, anti-Azerbaijani, racist, etc. They seem to have a battleground mentality: Just look how they behaved in a thread about WiR and turned that irrelevant topic into an ethnic battlefield! I think their account is a single-purpose account used mainly for editing the Hadis Najafi article and will most probably be de-activated after a while, but in the meantime, wastes a lot of good-faith contributors' time. The sooner they be shown the door, the better for the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia. Please see how a small user group destroy the face of Wikipedia with censoring Turkic related topics. I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it. Savalanni (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Indef The above comment, accusing the entire English Wikipedia of discrimination, tells all — to users with an nationalist agenda, everyone else looks like a bigot. But, if this user is not blocked, would they be topic-banned from Iran and Turkic peoples? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: This user, Savalanni, has unfortunately been trying to make edits only for his desire and not to help wikipedia. H2KL (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) striking sock of a blocked user per recent SPI — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The account user: H2KL is a Sockpuppet of user: Khabat4545 and is blocked [101] short after writing this comment. Savalanni (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - based on Savalanni's comment above [102], there is clearly expressed interest in reviewing policies and guidelines "to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner". This discussion can serve as a warning about conduct that can be disruptive and potentially lead to sanctions, including blocks or topic bans, to both deter and prevent future disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

In the very comment he says "I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring againg Turkic related materials here." Which just goes to show they aren't going to change anytime soon, which goes without saying. It was literally just yesterday they called us a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" and whatnot. WP:NOTHERE indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I agree that referring to a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is an unacceptable and unhelpful way to communicate concerns. The sanctions proposed here also emphasize what may happen if disruptive conduct continues. There is a lot to read and understand about Wikipedia, and I favor providing some time to a new user who says they want to learn. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support either a topic ban from Turkic and Iran topics or an indef block, which are probably the same thing for this user. WP:NOTHERE applies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef the vast majority of edits registered at "user:Savalanni"[103] were made at Death of Hadis Najafi, were they seemingly instignated an edit war[104] and have been solely concerned at ethnicizing an ongoing protest movement against an authoritarian regime, in violation of WP:RS and WP:DUE. In addition, they are also insisting at spreading allegations about a so-called "conspiracy" (??) by "pan-Iranists" (??) on Wikipedia against "Turkic people" (??). That is an egregious violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS. As can also be seen above, they have also used pro-Turkish government propaganda sources such as TRT and pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" during their ongoing campaign, with the former even being listed at WP:RSN for parotting the stances of the Turkish government. Looking at the compelling evidence, it becomes apparent that they are not here to build this encyclopaedia, are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for conspiracy theories and WP:SOAPBOX, and are therefore wasting the communities' time. Take a look at the hundreds of drive-by editors who have appeared on Wikipedia over the past few years pursuing the same sort of WP:NOTHERE throughout various topic area's and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Some more examples of user:Savalanni's egregious conduct:

1. "@ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia."
2. "I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it."

I wonder who the head of this "pan-Iranist and pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is?! Who are its members? Could you tell us? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you are coincidentally here in this page to improve merely the quality of Wikipedia and practically your comments here can not be biased at all! You have no connection at all to the user HistoryovIran (who has been blocked 5 times in Wikpedia bacause of disruptive behaviour!). Look here [105]. User talk statistics: number one: your own talk page, number two: User talk:HistoryofIran. Top articles statistics: Iran, Persian, History of Iran, Iranian peoples, Azerbaijani, ... (all directly related to Iran or Persians or to the other side)

From your new comments here I can understand your love of Turks and Azerbaijanis (including me): pro-Turkish government propaganda, pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" , ... . Savalanni (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sparkle1

Sparkle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I gave Sparkle1 a warning because I did not think their edit was constructive, they then call me a "bad faith wally" (1). I explain on their talk page why I gave them the warning and they then call me "inflammatory and a hypocrite" (2).

They were involved in a previous discussion here. Their talk page has a lot of warnings (they have removed some which can be seen in the history of the page). Sahaib (talk)

Pinging editors from previous discussions @Czello:, @M2Ys4U:, @Levi OP:, @Levivich: Sahaib (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a patently absurd complaint, the user complaining, is complaining because I have asked them not to interact with me on my talk page. They complained about me making 'unconstructive edits' which were patently designed to be inflammatory when I am clearly not a new user. The user in question then removed the same information that I had removed from the article in question. This can simply be resolved by an interaction ban preventing Sahaib from interacting with me on my talk page. If they had simply not engaged in inflammatory hypocrisy by treating me like a complete idiot, and had instead said nothing or made comment on the article discussion page none of this would have occurred. Rudeness 101 aimed at other users and infantilism 101 aimed at other users have been undertaken by Sahaib and they need to learn not to behave in the way they have done as they have made the situation in the first place, made it worse, and then blown it out of all proportions. This complaint is vexatious and the user who made it should be warned to not waste other users' time in this fashion. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The pinging of users from a previous discussion is a naked attempt designed to try and 'call in voices' i.e. a form of canvassing which I view is an attempt at trying to 'win' and 'create a battle ground' and a 'pile on' for this discussion to be given more attention than it warrants. These actions by Sahaib are in no way helpful to users of Wikipedia or Wikipedia as a whole. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had run ins with Sparkle before. They delete talk page comments. They insult. They ignore warnings. They side-step issues. I've tried to bring them to account in the past and they're very rude, uncooperative, and belligerent. This warning can't come soon enough. I hope they learn to be better. doktorb _words^deeds 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The complaint doktorb made was vexatious and they were told as much by those who interacted with the relevant discussion. Talk pages are treated differently to other parts of Wikipedia and both users should know that. Doktorb was told that in the discussion they bought and were told was without merit. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

In the last discussion I pointed out how this user has a habit of making aggressive comments/edit summaries and generally struggles to adhere to WP:CIVIL. They were warned by Johnuniq but a glance at his contributions shows they still occasionally have a battleground mentality[106][107][108]. Rather absurdly, they also threatened OP for informing them of this discussion, even though OP is obligated to do so. — Czello 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous complaint and this complaint are vexatious...there seems to be an ignoring of the uncivil interactions to start with and the flogging of a dead horse in this and the previous complaint. Users are more than allowed to remove anything from their User talk page. This would never have occurred if the very uncivil comments were made by Sahaib in the first place. Their comments were very rude and infantilising. Treating me like I knew not what I was doing. I then looked at the page they complained about my edits about, and they had removed the exact information they had complained I had removed. This is a complete farce of a complaint and vexatious as all giddy up. When a person is rude to me they should not be getting away scot-free and need to learn not to create such a situation in the first place. If Sahaib had simply seen me remove their comments and then stopped interacting, or better yet not interacted in the first place. If so then this waste of time would not be happening. They should be warned about their conduct. The interactions from User:Czello show the pinging of users by Sahaib was clear canvassing to encourage a pile on to stack this discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if Sahaib was rude to you (I'm not sure I'm seeing it, but whatever) that doesn't justify you being uncivil back - especially when you have a history of it. When a person is rude to me they should not be getting away scot-free and need to learn not to create such a situation in the first place. - this is entirely the wrong attitude and sounds like you're blaming Sahaib for your own incivility. — Czello 15:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The above comments are thinner than water finding pavement cracks. The quote you make of my previous post, while you think shows me in some bad light is simply evoking WP:Boomerang. User talk pages are treated differently. Don't let the complainant here off the hook, because they have made a complaint. Look at their actions as well. Not doing so is simply absurd. I do not take kindly to being treated like an infant, and I take even less kindly to having comments about my editing ridiculed only to find the complainer has done an identical edit. They should not have interacted in the first place with me. Making this complaint here is a form of bullying and battleground so they can feel like they have won. I asked them to stop interacting with me but they have persisted. Now you are furthering this absurdity. Don't think I don't see you complaining about my comments, I do, but I will not stand by and be treated like some idiot unable to tell people who are being rude to me to go away, stop being wallies, and that they are being hypocritical. You would, I imagine, having interacted with you before, not be too pleased if someone came along complaining of you making 'unconstructive edits' only to find out that they had done identical editing to you. Let's drop this dog and pony show and let's get back to what Wikipedia is and this is clearly not it. User:Sahaib is not new around here and should not be making such comments on any established user talk page about unconstructive editing. It was not vandalism, it was not anything of the source. They should be more than familiar with WP:BRD, not WP:wikilawyer...then do the same edit. This is a farce and is vexatious. The complainant is not immune because they are the complainant and vexatious complaints like this need stamping out.

What User:Sahaib has got their knickers in a twist over is this edit. They then do this edit and then this, which removes the superfluous cruft infobox from the George Osborne article. There was ZERO need for the interactions on my talk page in the first place, especially as both they and I removed the infobox from the article. Context is key here. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Linking my explanation of what happened 1. Sahaib (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sahaib, you clearly have been around these parts long enough to know that user talk pages can have anything removed from them by the relevant user. You clearly also must have known commenting on my talk page in the way you did was inflammatory. How exactly was it 'unconstructive', especially in light of your removing the same information? Why exactly did you post on my talk page in the first place? What benefit was derived and was it really constructive and in good faith? Sparkle1 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking about the comment he just linked, I cannot for the life of me see how that was "inflammatory". It was a perfectly reasonable explanation of his reasoning. Your response, however, was inflammatory. — Czello 16:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

By their edit summaries shall they be known. doktorb _words^deeds 16:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I do though think this] it though inflammatory as they then removed the same information from the article, and treated me like an idiot knowing nothing about how Wikipedia works...they really should be asking should I post this in the first place? Context is key and so is the whole picture.

For a summary which seems absurd here is a timeline:

1. this edit was made by myself at 22:01 removing the infobox;
2. Then this edit was made by Sahaib at 23:42 reverting;
3. Then this was posted by Sahaib] at 23:43 complaining on my talk page;
4. Then this was done by Sahaib] at 23:50 removing the infobox in the form of an article split.

Hardly the most constructive carry-on by Sahaib, particularly as they took to jumping all over me like I did not know what I was doing and throwing round 'unconstructive' and pointing me to the sandbox. All the while removing the same infobox from the article. This is an absurdity and the hangers-on and showing this to be a circus of a storm in a teacup. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, FYI User:Czello don't assume He/Him/His pronouns. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He literally has a userbox on his page saying he's male. — Czello 17:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to this They were warned by Johnuniq but a glance at his contributions shows they still occasionally have a battleground mentality In relation to me. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you notice that sentence refers to you using two singular they's and one male pr onoun? Usually when people assume male pronouns, they don't use singular they. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:::This may be the case but they still used male pronouns....Sparkle1 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• So, Sahaib, when someone tells you to stay off their user talk, you need to stay off their user talk except to leave appropriate templates. Sparkle1, stop the battleground interactions and personal attacks; consider this an official warning. Calling someone a "bad faith wally" and a hypocrite is a no-go; talk about edits, not editors. The next instance of battleground behavior, personal attacks, or assuming bad faith will result in a block. And for heaven's sake learn to write shorter. Valereee (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  From what I can see, Sahaib hasn't posted on Sparkle1's talk page since Sparkle1 requested he stay off, except to notify them of this discussion (which he's obligated to do). — Czello 08:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would also say that Sparkle1 should also take care when marking edits as minor as that has a specific meaning and should be considerate of other users and consistently use the edit summary.Gusfriend (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki Multiple accounts same user

• Lamaindor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Your concise reason (Vandalised past 4th warning). Multiple accounts but same UserAutemps (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  OK, you are saying User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki are the same user, presumably because one created the Draft:Juno7 and the other submitted it for review. The page was deleted as 'unambiguous advertising or promotion' (it read like a press release). Is there anything else? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• The IP adresses and users: 190.80.164.166, 190.167.207.91, 190.80.164.110, User:Lamaindor and User:Pimpwiki all belong to a single user named Massenat James Emmanuel who systematically creates spam on all wikis. He himself wrote an article on his blog, see the link: https://topmagworld.com/et-si-on-parlait-de-juno7/ . User abusively using multiple accounts. Please check this before it’s too late and even worse. -- Autemps (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Anne Ogborn

Hi! This is my first time reporting something here, not sure if it's noteworthy. On September 26th, the user Justajanitor started editing on Wikipedia, and the only thing they did was heavily complaining about the Anne Ogborn article on its talk page. It feels like something weird is going on here, because the subject is a transgender activist. I want to emphasise that I don't have a COI, as I already did on the talk page. They said to me "It seems rushed that you come in here out of nowhere", while it seems they did that themselves. I just happen to browse Wikipedia and have over 5k edits all over the place. Thanks for looking into it in advance. In case I am wrong somewhere, let me know as well. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They've made a few edits directly to the article, most of their edits have been on its talk page to point out sourcing problems that they perceive. I don't see anything wrong with their edits. (Please note that you are required to notify an editor on their talk page when you open an issue about them here, and you have not notified Justajanitor. Please do so.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Thanks for your reply, I'll do that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

More block evasion by Verone66 using Texas IPs

• 2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The same children's TV topics of interest to User:Verone66 have been targeted by multiple Texas IPs, most recently Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B7F:86C0:0:0:0:0/64. They have been edit-warring to restore preferred text.[109][110][111]

This person has been at it a long time. Five years ago they were using the Texas IP Special:Contributions/107.77.169.7 which was blocked multiple times. The Verone66 username is from four years ago. Three years ago, the Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2601:2C5:280:5680:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked because of Verone66. In 2021, they were blocked as Special:Contributions/50.249.76.130 and Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:BD40:0:0:0:0/64, and they used the IP Special:Contributions/2600:387:F:B35:0:0:0:1 earlier this year, now part of a larger blocked range. In March 2022 they jumped on the range Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:4B81:1110:0:0:0:0/64. Sometimes their disruption comes from nearby Oklahoma: Special:Contributions/167.160.226.206 and Special:Contributions/69.12.115.54.

Thanks for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

AnubisIbizu

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

---

AnubisIbizu (talk · contribs) has shown persistent lack of assuming good faith and increased personal attacks against me in my attempts to engage in discussion at Talk:Sandra_Day_O'Connor#Military_spouse which has moved into a personal attack on my talk page after I made a similar revert (and notified them in good faith). Would appreciate someone checking on this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Note, AnubisIbizu removed this thread, which I put back into place. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. I notified zimzalabim several times that his edits appeared to be tainted by discriminatory animus. He continued to defend them, and I continued to let him know that the sort of edits that he was suggesting coincided with known racist bigotry groups. Then he reported me. AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not okay to refer to the actions of good-faith editors as "trolling" or "bigoted", to make unfounded accusations of "anti-military bias", or to suggest that they belong with the Proud Boys. These are all personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Or to use an edit summary to say " ZimZalaBim has been removing military factoids from Wikipedia. Please ignore his boogied edits. He has been doing the same trolling to Sandra Day O'Connor's page."[112] Doug Weller talk 09:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern of possible POV-pushing, as the same concern has been raised at Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[113] --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping cooler heads might emerge after some time away, but bad faith edits/summaries continue: [114]. And FWIW, I did start a discussion thread after my removal of that content: Talk:Veteran#US_Supreme_Court. I will now walk away from these articles, but I suspect AnubisIbizu will continue to edit war. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am new to this process. I apologize for assuming that Jim was the same editor if that is not true. But this user has been specifically targeting my edits for days now and removing them with no rationale other than that they are not noteworthy to him specifically. Meanwhile, I have been providing multiple articles to support my edits in every regard. Her either has a personal judge against me or has a personal distaste for military sevicemembers or veterans. That is the only reasonable inference to draw at this point.

He has repeatedly engaged in bad faith reversions. And he has done it on multiple pages for the same edit, thus violating the Three Reversion Rule.

He continues to target military-specific edits and try to remove the military from Wikipedia. Indeed, yhisour only substantive comment on any such edit has been that you he doesn't find military service noteworthy.

For example, 1, 2, 3.

I am not pushing any point of view. I have simply been adding a long-missing section of some pages about the military service of justices of the United States Supreme Court. There are numerous articles written about how that service impacts their perspective and jurisprudence, yet this Zim user continues to try to erase these additions specifically

AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Accusing editors of having a "personal distaste for military service members" is unacceptable bad faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe he just dislikes me and that is the reason he is specifically targeting military pages? What other inference is there to draw? I am assuming good faith here, but am coming up at a loss. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no substantive basis for his removals, that is my point. Draw whatever you want from that, but my point is that he is not editing in good faith, and I am. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If you were "assuming good faith", you wouldn't assume "maybe he just dislikes me" and would assume that there's a problem with the content you're adding. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are news articles talking about the justices' military service and how it affects the Court. 1, 2, 3, 4. Even the Supreme Court's own website discusses how military service affects their jurisprudence. And two peer-reviewed articles have discussed it. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1602 (2006); Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010).

I am trying to tell you that this Sim user is just trolling my edits, and if you read the talk pages you will see that he haas trying to remove the military from wiki pages. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Having read the talk pages you linked to, it is by no means clear to me that ZimZalaBim is "just trolling [your] edits". It is clear to me that your claim that "there is no substantive basis for his removals" is not true. They explain in this edit and this edit and this edit the reason for their objections, and it is up to you to gain consensus on the talk pages now the discussion is opened, not dismiss their apparently good faith concerns as "trolling" or "no substantive basis". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Having engaged AnubisIbizu in the discussion, I immediately find that they are unable to separate their opinion on trivial matters from sourced (and therefore includeable) fact. Moreover, they are aggressive and accusatory in pursuing the inclusion of such trivia, and do not hesitate to edit war. An editing sanction is necessary here. BD2412 T 18:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: an apparent WP:SPA has commented on each of the talk pages: Traynreck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you reported this at WP:SPI? This is either blatant socking or a Joe Job. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:8BC:8C48:62A5:C5B (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim

ZimZalaBim has reported me on this page because he was following my edits, specifically on Sandra Day O'Connor and Veterans and repeatedly removing additions I made to pages related to Supreme Court justice that were in the military were military spouses. He repeatedly trolled me and demanded more and more citations to relevant articles. I explained how his comments and edits were akin to bigotry, and he played victim and has since reported me on this page. I engaged in good faith discussion, and he was not satisfied with being defeated in substantive chats. Thus, he is tagging my page and this page to smear me because he is upset. AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am new to this process. I apologize for assuming that Jim was the same editor if that is not true. But this user has been specifically targeting my edits for days now and removing them with no rationale other than that they are not noteworthy to him specifically. Meanwhile, I have been providing multiple articles to support my edits in every regard. Her either has a personal judge against me or has a personal distaste for military sevicemembers or veterans. That is the only reasonable inference to draw at this point.

He has repeatedly engaged in bad faith reversions. And he has done it on multiple pages for the same edit, thus violating the Three Reversion Rule.

He continues to target military-specific edits and try to remove the military from Wikipedia. Indeed, yhisour only substantive comment on any such edit has been that you he doesn't find military service noteworthy.

For example, 1, 2, 3.

I am not pushing any point of view. I have simply been adding a long-missing section of some pages about the military service of justices of the United States Supreme Court. There are numerous articles written about how that service impacts their perspective and jurisprudence, yet this Zim user continues to try to erase these additions specifically. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For example, here are news articles talking about the justices' military service and how it affects the Court. 1, 2, 3, 4. Even the Supreme Court's own website discusses how military service affects their jurisprudence. And two peer-reviewed articles have discussed it. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1602 (2006); Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010).

I am trying to tell you that this Zim user is just trolling my edits, and if you read the talk pages you will see that he haas trying to remove the military from wiki pages. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This was started as a separate thread but I have added it to the other for clarity. Nythar^T.C 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

​ Pinging ZimZalaBim to notify them. Nythar^T.C 03:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I had an encounter with this editor earlier today where they accused me of "following" them. I see their behavior has not improved through the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and here AnubisIbiszu is saying ZZB is using an IP to edit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Day_O%27Connor&diff=prev&oldid=1115167964]. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to Checkuser. That wasn't me. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Checkusers won't connect an account to a specific IP address, so that's not going to happen – but you are hardly the only editor to have challenged AnubisIbizu on this particular point, and the IP also twice edited Fred Smoot, an article which you have never edited in a subject you have apparently no interest in, so there doesn't appear to be any particular reason to believe the claim that you were socking here. On the other hand, claiming that an editor is socking is a serious accusation, so AnubisIbizu should probably come up with some evidence for that claim or retract it. If they want to be taken seriously, they should also come up with some diffs which support their claims madde above rather than just vague handwaving about trolling and playing the victim – otherwise this all looks simply retaliatory and meritless. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is a red herring; moreover, statements by AnubisIbizu that ZimZalaBim's "comments and edits were akin to bigotry, and he played victim" are exemplary of the problematic nature of AnubisIbizu's conduct. Characterizing the exclusion of trivia from an article as bigotry is highly problematic. BD2412 T 18:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Indefblocked for obvious sockpuppetry

I have now indef WP:DUCK-blocked User:AnubisIbizu and their obvious sockpuppet User:Traynreck, who appeared within the past few hours to make the obviously false claim that they were an "ex-administrator taking it easy", and to weigh in on AnubisIbizu's discussions to agree with AnubisIbizu, using AnubisIbizu's writing style and cadence. I have no doubt they will be back in a different guise. BD2412 T 20:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to be a DUCK. An "ex-administrator" on a brand new account, who just happens to go back up Anubis at every discussion within minutes? Nah dawg. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Long-term subtle vandalism from Brooklyn IP at US House race articles

67.83.135.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A user has been making subtle changes to the 2022 US House race articles, mostly in New York, since July. To illustrate why thus is a chronic issue, here are the 5 most recent edits to the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections:

• [115] (changed a prediction for TX-28, which failed verification)
• [116] (changed a prediction for IL-17, which failed verification)
• [117] (changed a stat for NY-8 which already failed verification, without providing a new source)
• [118] (for the Democratic candidate in NY-21, listed their affiliation as "Moderate Party")
• [119] (undid another user who had just corrected a prediction for NY-19)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:67.83.135.146#Block. El_C 15:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tiredhistory

• Tiredhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been repeatedly warned by another editor about their unsourced changes to the article Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, changing the subject's nationality from Egyptian to Kurdish, in direct contradiction of the reliable sources cited. Most recent example [120], with the misleading edit summary "fixed typo". Their only other edits are similar unsourced changes to nationality at these two articles: [121] and [122]. Storchy (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I am unfamiliar with the topic or the discussion, but a quick Google search of this fellow's name + "Kurdish" brings up several hits, some old enough to make sure they're not Wikipedia copycats or Wiki-based sources. Of course, I have no idea how reputable these can be, and in any case there are probably better sources in Arabic or Kurdish. But I think what lies at the core of this dispute is the interpretation of the term "nationality", which we must usually associate with citizenship or allegiance to a country, but that in some languages or places is more likely to be associated with ethnicity (in Russian the term национальность [natsionalnost] is mostly used to denote your belonging to one of the ethnic groups of the Russian Federation/USSR). The fact that he apparently isn't removing Egyptian as much as adding Kurdish seems to point in this direction. I can't be sure of this of course, but it could all be in good faith and if his Kurdish ancestry can be confirmed (and there's no language barrier between the users) I think this could be solved quite easily and integrated into the article. Ostalgia (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

User:2A00:23C5:980:B601:9DC:6E1:DC90:F945/64 has been changing content without changing the sources for a while now. They are particularly active on pages regarding economy subjects ([123], [124], [125], and many others). They are also editing military-equipment-related pages, with the same modus operandi ([126], [127], [128], [129], [130]). On these pages, they also like to classify equipment by generation, with no sources as always ([131], [132], [133]). This has lasted for more than four months already, and the editor has already been warned several times, so I think it's time to put an end to this behaviour. BilletsMauves^€500 18:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Adam Levine Alleged Affairs

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

---

Andy the Grump keeps on edit warring and undoing the changes of editors who have included the alleged Adam Levine's affairs, reported widely by verifiable sources. May you please take action against this user and ban him, because the editorial consensus is that the information is worth reporting in the articles and his reversing of people's edits is causing issues Kala7992 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Kala7992 repeatedly violating WP:BLP policy

Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new contributor making repeated violations of WP:BLP policy in the Adam Levine article, [134] after calling on other contributors to " start an edit war" on the talk page. [135] Note that the source cited doesn't support much of what is claimed, and that there has already been a discussion of the broader issue at WP:BLPN, where consensus was clear. [136] See also the repeated personal attacks on Talk:Adam Levine. This contributor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no violation, editors at the talk page of the Adam Levin article have refuted your claims that there was a violation and have provided numerous sources where the affairs were committed. You aere simply trying to suppress any mention of the info despite many editors' complaints Kala7992 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have already noted, it can clearly be seen that the source cited in no way supports the illiterate content you have been inserting into the article. This is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. As are edit warring, and calling on other contributors to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors User:Spiderwinebottle and User: Invisiboy42293 have disputed your claims, so your claims that "the consensus was clear" at [457] are simply factually incorrect Kala7992 (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Kala7992, discussions are not conducted through a majority vote, but by WP:CONSENSUS guided and supported with Wikipedia policy and logical arguments. Calling for edit warring was a bad move. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but User: AndyTheGrump keeps undoing changes of editors and removing any trace of Adam Levine's alleged affairs despite their impact, and falsely claims that there was a violation of WP:BLP policy when in fact there is none, and other editors have argued that there was no violation as well Kala7992 (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

also id argue that AndyTheGrump started edit warring by constantly undoing and removing the contribution of editors who added info about the recent alleged affairs of Adam Levine Kala7992 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I would highly advise you to withdraw/disavow calls to edit war. Removing BLP violations is a stated exception. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

i dont know how to remove it from the view history section. Also its important to remember that Andy The Grump started the edit war by undoing people's changes on a repeated basis Kala7992 (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't, simply state that you withdraw the call to edit war. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to edit-war this clear and unambiguous WP:BLP violation into the article are ongoing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You started the edit-war not me by repeatedly undoing all edits involving the reported affairs, and I havent violated WP:BLP Kala7992 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can read your edit, and the source cited. The source cited does not support the content. Per Wikipedia policy, WP:BLP violations must be removed. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, calls for others to edit war, and personal attacks. This is a very bad look, and you should keep it on the talk page where BLP articles are concerned. — Czello 11:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The talk page has been unproductive, withe editors providing sources for claims only for Andy to reverse those changes and decalre there is a "consensus" when there is one. Kala7992 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly stated, the consensus was reached at WP:BLPN, after input from multiple experienced contributors familiar with relevant policy. Clearly we can add an inability to read to the many other reasons why Kala7992 should not be permitted to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have parblocked Kala7992 from the Adam Levine article for edit warring for this edit. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Special:Diff/1115220775, Kala makes several claims. The public was made aware on September 20, 2022, which is arguably cited since the citation is from September 20. That the alleged messages were of a sexual nature. This is not cited (the citation only claims "flirtatious manner", which is very different) and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. That Levine's marriage is "in suspense", which is hard to understand but which, in any case, does not appear in the citation and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. The diff makes a claim that's hard to understand about a yoga teacher, which does not appear in the citation. That there's a lawsuit, which does not appear in the citation and would appear to be a WP:BLP violation. I want to be clear, all of the claims may be true (I don't know and, frankly, don't care about Levine), but would require citations for these claims. These claims do not appear in the CNN article and on that basis, I think AndyTheGrump is correct to remove this information under the WP:BLP exception to edit-warring. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but I don't consider a partial block in any way sufficient. Not after repeated insertions (I count 10) of biographical content unsupported by the source cited, calling on others to edit war, and a complete refusal to take the slightest notice of what other people have been saying. It seems highly unlikely to me that this new contributor (if indeed new) will ever be able to contribute productively, and I certainly shouldn't be expected to put up with the sort of nonsense (e.g. "Fuck this guy, he needs to be banned"[137]) I've had to put up with on the Levine talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I only made the block to halt the edit warring, and only based it on that- it is not a judgement by me on any further action. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting for the record that Kala stated on their user talk that they are "done" with editing the Levine article. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I know this is over, but I just find it funny that you AND Kala both posted here at exactly 6:40 AM (my time). Crazy. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 03:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by Iaof2017

Iaof2017 (talk · contribs) is creating edits that are against the policy. I reverted some of this user edits and he reported me, but I think his edits are absolutely unsubstantiated and make the page even worse. FOr example Bebe Rexha and Rita Ora's discography pages. This user is adding "useless" source to all song which have their own linked pages with very reliable sources, next thing is adding more then allowed number of selected countries , changing selected countries without any reasons. Another thing at Rita's featured artist list...down from 10 countries to 7, again, without any legitimate reason etc...I saw many users were complaining about this users behaviour and edits but he keeps ignoring it and reporting the rest of us. Thank you. Jakubik.v (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide us with Wp:DIFFS of these edits, and point out which policies they are violating. You are the one reporting the other editor, we're volunteers and don't have time to do your homework for you. Additionally as per the notice when you edit this page, you need to notify the editor in question of this conversation. I have done so for you but please follow the instructions to save other people work. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally needless, there's an ongoing discussion related to his disruptive behaviour [138]. Iaof2017 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

77.234.70.47

Please check on user 77.234.70.47 at the page of Kevin Magnussen he called me You transphobic cunt! You're worse than Hitler! After I undo some unsourced edits.Lobo151 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, reverted and edit summary revdeled. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response and action taken!Lobo151 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem, that kind of comment will get squashed instantly no ifs or buts. Canterbury Tail talk 12:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by borsoka in Substrate in Romanian

User borsoka (talk · contribs) repeatedly engages in disruptive behavior on article Substrate in Romanian; adds tags to an article when the content tagged is sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable, does not engage in consensus building, repeatedly disregards explanations, and claims his understanding of the topic is above that of other editors and cited authors.

During attempts at conversation, topic Felecan&Felecan, the user has ignored requests to contribute with sources and phrasings that might help alleviate what he describes as "original research" and (in fact cited lines from books written by members of the Romanian Academy and University language professors). Further attempts to mend the situation have not been met with good faith assumption. --Aristeus01 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Warned. Look, borsoka, you need to do better. Your tone and tenor often falls short, so please avoid talking down to other contributors (it never helps), and also avoid edit warring, especially with terse edit summaries such as "fringe," per se. I have no idea who here might be advancing a novel theory, but I suggest that both of you work towards bringing more expertise to this dispute. The top of the talk page lists multiple Wikiprojects that you could post a neutral message to seeking assistance. As well, there are dispute resolution requests, like WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN (WP:DRN not recommended) which you could make use of to solicit further outside input. Good luck. El_C 16:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your mediation! Aristeus01 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C:. Look a fringe theory is a fringe theory. Can you refer to any academic works stating that Sanksrit or Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the lands now forming Romania or that Romanian speakers came from India to Romania? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, you're asking me? El_C 02:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you stated that the edit summary "fringe" should be avoided. I assumed you have read a reliable academic source verifying the statement that Sanksrit is one of the (!) substrate languages of Romanian. 02:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I said. If you're unwilling or unable to read a warning from an admin closely enough so as to absorb the crux of its message, then maybe this collaborative project isn't really for you. That said, if you have any reasonable questions, by all means, ask away. El_C 02:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You were stating that I improperly used the term "fringe". If my understanding is correct you cannot prove that it was improperly used. It is quite obvious that you have not noticed that the reporting editor makes unilateral merges ([139]) and adds content based on books published more than a hundred years ago, ignoring modern Romanian academic consensus ([140]). Should I state that this collaborative project is not really for administrators who fail to study the issue before making judgement? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem I noted in my original warning to you, Borsoka. You are combative and adversarial, and I'll add to that you fail to read closely. What I said, in part, was that that a terse edit summary which only said the word "fringe" fell short. That was just a minor part of my warning message to you, which for some reason you've latched on to and have gone to distort. But doing so reflects poorly on your approach to collaboration. And I assure you that it works against your own interests in this matter.

Now, the crux of my warning to you was simple: to dial it back with the patronizing, bad faith tone. There are only a few hundreds active admins on the English Wikipedia and only a few tens truly active at any given time. If you think you could rely on finding expertise from any one of them on whatever topic, especially non-English ones, you are operating with unrealistic expectations. As I had said: I have no idea who here might be advancing a novel theory, but I suggest that both of you work towards bringing more expertise to this dispute. Then, I explained how to go about that.

At the event, not only is it not my role to engage this content dispute with you, I am prohibited by policy from doing so. Regardless, you are now verging on tendentious editing, which is sanctionable. So, again, please read my original warning closely. I'm not gonna go around in circles with you like this indefinitely, so you should take this as a final warning. El_C 03:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The crux of my above message was that you have not studied the issue (but without mentioning the content dispute I can hardly prove it). For instance, the edit summary "fringe" was followed by extensive reasoning both in the Talk page and in template messages. Please understand that administrators who do not do their homework before making judgement do not contribute to the project's success. Nevertheless, if you want to sanction me, do it. I stop discussing this issue because it is quite obvious that you do not understand what is my problem with your action. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka blocked one week: User_talk:Borsoka#Block. El_C 04:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject ratings changer IP vandal

There is a certain IP vandal that is changing importance ratings of numerous Indian history related articles which goes contrary to the set guidelines. I reported this at AIV yesterday but the report went stale and bot removed it. Copied from there:

• 2405:201:800B:684F:4186:DD72:ADCD:8690 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Changing WikiProject importance ratings at India-related articles against project guidance. Possible sock of Special:Contribs/2405:201:800B:6C09:7C64:885E:DCCA:BAFF (blocked per CIR). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, the vandal knows a lot more than WikiProject ratings, the kind of which I don't usually expect from IPs. Some excerpts from edit summary of the /64 range, possibly to mislead talk page watchers: "WP template fixes using AWB", "Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD"; but IPs can't use AWB, and there has been no such TfD. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't pursue it then because I though it stopped but today Talk:Khudiram Bose popped up again on my watchlist, with the edit summary "reply" but in reality it is a rating change. When fighting against it at Talk:Mamata Banerjee (that eventually led to its semi-protection), I was told that this is a LTA by @User:Venkat TL at my talk page. What should be the next steps here? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It's block evasion by Special:Contributions/2405:201:800B:6C09:0:0:0:0/65. I'll figure out a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom Thank you for raising this again. Three months ago I had raised this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Long term IP Vandalism with AWB in Edit Summary @Praxidicae linked an SPI but no solution was suggested. couple of days back this IP was edit warring on talk pages. Reporting on AIV is futile, admins dont block at AIV saying insufficient warning. Talk pages dont get protected so RFPP is futile. The only option left for me is to keep reverting when you see. @NinjaRobotPirate what do you suggest we should do. I am sick of this vandal. Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that's vandalism. But it is block evasion. The earliest edits I've see on this IP range seem to be on a /52, so I'll soft block that for a month. I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, but I don't think I ever looked into it any further than I have now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone making a rating change once or twice may be acting in good faith. They may not know about the assessment criteria, but when someone does this tens of time on every talk page, even when they've been given enough reasons, I think they're actively trying to disrupt the project. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom @NinjaRobotPirate I am not giving diffs as they are hard to search from IP users but this guy is certainly a covert vandal with misleading edit summaries. I have seen him making blatant vandalism under the guise of harmless edit summaries like clean up using AWB. Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these are not good faith changes when the edit summaries are actively deceptive. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Caste vandal

TheWanderer9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is a Nair caste vandal who promotes Nair caste and vandalize other caste pages. See his vandalim on Chekavar page here , removed sourced content and pushed his POV [141]. This same user promotes Nair caste in Nair pages [142].151.200.244.189

IP, that is WP:NOTVANDALISM. It might be disruptive editing, of which vandalism is one subset of, but the only edit to this user's talk page has been a notice of this ANI complaint. It's generally expected for there to be at least an attempt to communicate with this new user beyond that (something, anything). El_C 09:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Partial block on IP brings out registered user

• PieceOfMind83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2804:D41:B00:7626:D5BA:6397:B0B5:73DD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.192.17.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 177.148.216.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An edit war has been underway for some time at the album article Blizzard of Ozz. Two Brazil IPs have been insisting on one release date against many other editors citing BPI's very reliable website. IP 177.192.17.84 was partially blocked from editing the article,[143] and less than an hour later, Brazil IP 2804:D41:B00:7626:D5BA:6397:B0B5:73DD arrived to continue the edit war, saying "okay, but...". This was a violation of WP:MULTIPLE, an obvious partial block evasion. Five hours after that, the article was put into semi-protection, and registered User:PieceOfMind83 appeared to continue the edit war. I must conclude that PieceOfMind83 is the same person as the Brazil IPs, and that PieceOfMind83 was both violating WP:MULTIPLE and evading the partial block on IP 177.192.17.84. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@PieceOfMind83: Can you please explain your understanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERGENERATED ? Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked PieceOfMind83 (and two other accounts) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PieceOfMind83. I make  No comment with respect to IP address(es), and would welcome another admin to review the behavioural evidence and block if warranted — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and the blocks.

I will be watching the Brazil IPs for subsequent activity, which I will view as block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Brazil IP 177.192.17.84 kept editing after PieceOfMind83 was blocked, for instance continuing the edit war at another Ozzy album. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato

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

---

• ArbCom case open. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Athaenara LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So, Athaenara decided to oppose Isabelle Belato's adminship in the worst way possible. As a trans woman myself, this blatant WP:NPA violation shouldn't fly under the radar, much less from an administrator. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So an admin opposes, doesn't care, then posts? Clearly No personal attacks violation. But why from an admin? Sarrail (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a lot of company on wondering why. There's nothing that would even suggest that would happen. I don't get it either. We've dealt with issues for years with WP:BITE, and while the nominee is certainly not a newbie in anyway, this is definitely a fantastic way to drive away editors. The irony is their user page has the "This project is here to build an encyclopedia. Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." That's pretty good at violating that process to the goal. Really disgusting behavior. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That's definitely not okay. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty egregious breach of WP:NPA and WP:ADMINCOND. I hope Athaenara has one hell of an apology ready, or that this is a compromised account issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I intend to block indefinitely for hate speech. If someone objects, they better explain why really, really soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Quick query, while I support the action, can't admins just unblock themselves? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  If memory serves, admins can only block the person who blocked them (intended for stopping a compromised account) while blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  No. The most they can do is block the person who blocked them. Change happened a couple years ago after the rash of admin compromises. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Barkeep and GN. Tried to clarify that question to "policy aside can't admins..." but kept getting edit conflicts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  (This may be obvious by now, but your question was correctly interpreted and answered in the desired technical way, so no worries about that.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear this isn't a policy thing (which was already true per arbcom rulings), this is built into mediawiki. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam I'm going to do Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship at ARBCOM EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Those aren't mutually exclusive. An indef could be lifted rather quickly under policy but an examination of the admin privileges could still be called for. If I were not INOLVED, I'd be inclined to trigger a WP:LEVEL2. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  As someone who once had his admin privileges removed on emergency due to self-harm, it is the right thing to go to ArbCom to make sure it's all in writing. But Athenaera basically dug their own grave. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 I can't figure out the proper forum for this request... is it enforcement? A new case? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir I would launch it as a new request at WP:ARC. Obviously I am speaking only as an editor familiar with arbitration procedures because, as noted in my last reply, I am clearly INVOLVED and thus will need to recuse on any formal decision by the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I'm working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree with indeffing Athaenara, but considering the user is an administrator, we might have to get some bureaucrat involvement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Athenaera...what the hell? I recognize that what you said is a personal belief (heck, one that I held once upon a time, so I think I understand better than most) and nobody here is going to talk you out of it. Directing a comment like that at anybody, however, is grossly inappropriate and conduct unbecoming an administrator. Nobody forced you to show up to RfA and vote, your actions undermine your cause, and your choice of forum just made you look petty. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked Athaenara for "hate speech or compromised account". Assuming Athaenara is not an idiot, she must have known what was coming, so I'm assuming/hoping/rooting for compromised account. The question of a desysop is apparently going to show up at ArbCom soon, although it might be good if a Checkuser investigated whether this was a compromised account first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's a couple of CUs in this discussion already. Given the circumstances, could one of you do a check to confirm if this is or is not a compromised account? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Technical data does not suggest compromise, and that is a check that I was very uncomfortable making. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing the check, and I'm sorry that you were put in the position of having to do it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• posted. Sarrail (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Arbcom case request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Desysop_of_Athaenara EvergreenFir (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I find this episode bewildering. I don't know Athaenara either, but they have never crossed my radar in a negative way. As there is no "male" or "female" representation in adminship, the objection is just bizarre, attacking an adminship candidate for a characteristic that has literally nothing to do with adminship. That said, I don't know that an indef block is warranted. This is potentially a teachable moment. BD2412 T 01:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

With respect, if you don't, you are asking for more transphobia and what does that tell anyone who is trans on this site? I've had gender dysphoria issues myself. A teachable moment is an indef because it means we have no tolerance for that kind of baloney. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So just because they disagree with an indef automatically means they're "asking for more transphobia"? This was 1 comment made by a 16 year veteran editor an admin. 1 comment--a mistake--shouldn't ruin this person's run on Wikipedia. Although it absolutely should not have been made, respectfully, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you. It isn't prudent for anyone to make assumptions on others' beliefs. I'm not convinced the account wasn't compromised to be honest. Even if CheckUser supports the contrary, I'm skeptical. It's too weird. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You in this case can represent everyone. What does it say to other editors if we're going to let raging transphobia slide? Why would any trans person feel they are safe? Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If this were a repeated pattern of conduct, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. If there were efforts to compromise with the editor and essentially request they cease and desist and those efforts failed, I would again agree with you. Hell, even with vandals that post the most insane, disgusting, and flagrant things on articles, we give them warnings--2, 3, sometimes even more--before initiating a block. And blocks in those cases oftentimes aren't even permanent. They're like 31 hours. And the editor can come back in 48 hours with no issues. I am in favor of chances. As a person who's made mistakes so many times in life and even hurt family by hurting myself, I was met with love and allowed to dust myself off and start anew. I think you or I would want that courtesy extended to us. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has proven that it's not an isolated incident. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

She's done it more than once and honestly, we let it slide, what is there to stop her from doing this on every single one like that a la Kurt Weber and "prima facie evidence of power hunger"? We need to nip this in the bud now.Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So finding out that it is not a compromised account and not the first time this has happened, desysopping is most likely needed, as per the ARBCOM request. Sarrail (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This is somewhat beyond a mistake. It was an egregious personal attack on another editor. It fell far short of our policies on WP:NPA and WP:ADMINCOND, and the new Universal Code of Conduct. Were Athaenara to hold those views purely in her personal life that would be one thing, but expressing them on Wikipedia and directing that expression against another editor is not acceptable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a longstanding philosophy of warn-then-block, which applies to personal attacks as it does to anything else. I agree with a speedy desyssop here, and with a block until that process is resolved (and perhaps for some additional length of time), but I feel like we're missing a step if we go straight to an indef-block without some intermediate opportunity for rehabilitation. BD2412 T 02:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hate speech purposely directed at somebody should result in an indef. And I have nothing but the fondest memories of Athaenara over the last decade plus, but this drops my jaw. I can even understand feeling that way, I can even understand publicly expressing the view as a belief, but directing it at somebody is hateful and hurtful and intentionally so. nableezy - 02:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We warn to make sure people understand something is against policy. Athaenara made it extremely clear that she knew it was against policy when she said it. No warning was necessary, any more than we warn obvious vandalism-only accounts. And this wasn't a run of the mill "you're stupid" personal attack, nor even (beating someone to the punch) an isolated "fuck you". It was a hate-filled attack on a fundamental part of another human being, equivalent to misogyny or racism. She doesn't get one free shot. And she knew it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been my stance as well. If we're going to warn even in cases of the most egregious of vandalism/defamation/inappropriate behavior, which we do all the time, this case shouldn't be any more special. We are about fostering understanding here. A rash judgement like this doesn't reflect well at all on Wikipedia or on its editors. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, allowing an administrator who is openly transphobic to continue spewing vitriol would reflect much more poorly than a “rash” block. It’s indefinite, not permanent. I hope she can learn and grow as so many of us have regarding this topic, but the trust needed to be an admin has been obliterated. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:6DC9:660D:A031:FF35 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold the policies and pillars of Wikipedia and lead by example. Voicing blatant transphobia against another user is definitely grounds for desysopping. Quoting LilianaUWU: I don't feel safe having an administrator so openly pushing transphobic views such as this one. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 03:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Except we don't do that. I have made plenty of zero-warning blocks for everything you mentioned, as have many other admins. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I had a user once literally attack me, calling me a barrage of names, swearing at me, and reverting my edits needlessly. You couldn't get more personalized than that. They received multiple warnings on the same day afterwards and were subsequently temp blocked for a few months. So, yes, we do do that. Admins have done it before and certainly done what you say before. It's not uniform. But that's neither here nor there, I guess. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 03:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Admins are help to a higher standard of conduct than others. I'm not sure I agree with the indef, but desysop seems warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR or other minute dispute. This is blatant transphobia that violates every policy on this site. I'm a raging socialist, but if I said some the views I have on the site, I'd expect to be banned too. Sometimes we have to just to use IAR and discuss it later. Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 02:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If this isn't a compromised account, then they can do their learning from inside an unblock template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam It’s challenging to believe the account hasn’t been compromised. Such a bizarre conduct all of the sudden. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: The conduct wasn't so sudden. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This kind of administrator self-destruction makes me ineffably sad. I happen to be a 70 year old thoroughly straight (cis) white male. I also happen to have met a trangender person way back in 1969, when I was only 17 years old. That person described the contempt and the hate and the intense discrimination they faced every single day, in quite poignant terms. I responded with compassion and will never forget that interaction 53 years ago. I find it difficult to understand the reasoning or the moral posture of those who respond with utter contempt for transgender people. Their cruel detetmination to torment them bewilders me. As for the notion that a warning is required first, there is no such requirement. Editors who engage in overt hate speech are routinely blocked without advance warning. I do it all the time. though not often for long time editors. Like I said, the situation is so sad that it is hard to select the proper words to describe it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should have been warned before the block—they have been blocked—but that making that an indef-block should require a more dialectic approach. That said, the editor's response to their block on their talk page is not promising. BD2412 T 06:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"This kind of administrator self-destruction makes me ineffably sad." This sums up 90% of this affair. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Good block. Hate is disruptive. A warning would be pointless busywork since it is blatantly obvious from the comment itself (Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.) that Athaenara knew that what she said was unacceptable. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Good block. A good friend of mine is a trans woman and while I refuse to reveal things that we have discussed in private, I want to tell Athaenara that I found their comments crass and highly offensive. In terms of policy violations, WP:WIAPA tells us "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on ... gender identity, ... directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a ... gender identity ... is not a legitimate excuse." while WP:ADMINCOND says "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility ... is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools." I would have been prepared to unblock Athaenara had they posted an apologetic unblock request explaining what they did was wrong and how an egregious personal attack from an administrator is completely unacceptable - but they didn't. If this was in an unblock request, I would decline it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I think Athaenara was the first person I looked up to as a role-model on this site when I was starting out. I really want to just throw my hands up and say "But of course this is a compromised account, why would it be her, she's one of the kindest people on this site". But both the CheckUser evidence and the past instances of transphobia indicate that this is very likely not a compromised account. Like damn it, why would she throw it all away for no reason after 15 years just like that. I don't get it. Curbon7 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Good block/desysop: I would have expected such an edit from a banned editor like Zhoban, but a career administrator? We are entitled to personal beliefs and many of them may be incongruent with societal norms, which is why we keep them private. It just so happens that not only does this administrator have a very incongruent one, but they are harming others and wielding it as a battle standard. Unless we find out this is a compromised account, (which Floquenbeam's research is indicating it isn't), this is a chapter that needs to come to a grinding halt. BOTTO _(T•C) 13:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you Floquenbeam for the prompt action in blocking this account. I suggest this thread be closed, now that there is an ArbCom case request in process. A prompt desysop is the logical next step, and we cannot do that here at AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• Apologies if it's out of my place to ask (smells like the ban was justified and things are running on the correct course already), but what did Athaenara write? The comment has been revdel'd, so I can't see it. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Read EvergreenFir's statement at the case request. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The comment is on the ARBCOM decision. Sarrail (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I see... Yikes. Endwise (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  With all the comments and user's opinions expressed... yes, definitely yikes. Sarrail (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• What's most baffling to me is not so much the opinion expressed, but the people coming to Athaenara's defense on her talk page. There is nothing to defend about that remark.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

I don't mean to restart the discussion here, but I do want to point out that it appears ArbCom was punting a bit to here at AN/I, and now we're closing the above thread and punting it to ArbCom. At the RFAR, WTT says "We cannot leave an admin remain blocked indefinitely. - so if the community agrees the block should remain in place, we should remove the admin bit procedurally. I don't think we've decided in the above that the block should remain in place, but rather that the block was good. This strikes me as a need to consider a community ban, which (if it achieves consensus) would then lead to a desysop by ArbCom on procedural grounds. Those who might feel that going from zero to community ban seems extreme should consider that Floq found evidence of the same stance back in 2019. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest we not have a c-ban discussion now. Athaenara has not requested an unblock. While I cannot imagine anything she could say that would prevent a desysop, I can imagine something she could say that would result in an unblock. My personal suggestion, for whatever that is worth, is to leave this closed (it is no longer going to provide ArbCom with new information), ArbCom votes on a desysop by motion, and we address any possible unblock (or possible c-ban) when and if Athaenara requests an unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand the irony of ANI and ARC pointing towards each other, but only ArbCom has the option to decide between a ban and a desysop. All we can do at ANI at this point is community banning or not community banning. That's not the discussion we should be having, so the closure is fine. It's now ArbCom's task to perform a desysop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That might be imprecise. The community does have the power to ban someone, per WP:CBAN. If such a CBAN were put in place, ArbCom very likely would act to desysop the person if requested. A CBAN doesn't have much weight without it. (Note: I'm not suggesting a CBAN or not, nor am I suggesting I would support or oppose a cban) --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: May we reopen this discussion for the aforementioned reason outlined by ArbCom? BOTTO _(T•C) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I would softly oppose this action. The discussion was closed at a time I was typing out a request to close specifically because the discussion had ceased constructive progression. There were no pushes for a CBAN, and the discussion had mostly reduced to finger wagging and repeating sentiments of 'Their behavior is unacceptable' in so many words. Without anyone in mind, it began to feel like gravedancing on a still living person, if that makes any sense. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I'm not entirely understanding how you figure that the community [hasn't] decided in the above that the block should remain in place. Block ≠ Ban, so I would not interpret your quoting of Arbcom as probing for a community ban. EDIT: I believe they merely wanted to not have one plate spinning on two poles, and wanted to ensure that ANI wouldn't swing back around mid-arbitration. There was a strong consensus that the block was good, and unless I missed something I saw NO calls for an unblock. While I know it would be a fallacy to state that this automatically means the consensus is the block should stay, I do think that given the severity of the incident (and reactions) that most people wouldn't consider explicitly staying the block should stay, especially given the lack of calls to remove it. If I am missing something please elaborate and/or trout me as necessary. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling a block a good block is one thing. Affirming it as indefinite would be equivalent to a CBAN. That hasn't happened. It's not a ban...yet. There is a big difference. Right now, the block was done by one admin. That can be undone a lot easier than a CBAN could be undone. I think we need to be clear on that, and ArbCom needs to act with that in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Sock puppetry and canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahsa Amini

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

---

Please block socks at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahsa Amini

• User:حمیدنوذری: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی
• User:Dyakozaman: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی
• User:Rezaalavi023: CU blocked at fawiki: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست بازرسی کاربر/Khabat4545/بایگانی

They all have voted keep. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: As a heads up, I've opened up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabat4545 to request that an EnWiki checkuser take a look at this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that I just closed that AfD. El_C 03:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by User:Ifuvuebeifhsuchd

The editor Ifuvuebeifhsuchd has vandalised the article Kateri Amman a total of four times, POV pushing, and altering details by changing words and removing cited content, without offering any citations. The user was warned a total of four times as well, thrice by me, and did not desist over a span of weeks. I request some action to be taken against him editing this article. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, which has a specific meaning, see WP:VANDAL. Calling it that can be a personal attack for which you could be sanctioned. It's a content dispute and they may be being disruptive or edit-warring, however. Also, there's a big red sign at the top of this page that says when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I've done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary rudeness by DrKay

• I made a change to one of the lead sentences in Charles III (diff). (history of page). Shortly afterwards, another user, S C Cheese came along and made three edits to other parts of the lead, introducing some mild grammatical errors. (diff for the last of these).
• DrKay, who edits Charles III regularly, decided to revert these edits with the edit summary "ce". His edit also swept up and reverted my grammatically sound change; I believe this was entirely unintentional, but they haven't confirmed that so I can't say for sure. (diff).
• I got the notification that someone had reverted one of my edits, and on seeing the 'ce' edit summary, was confused, since a reversion of my change was not a type of copyediting. I therefore reverted DrKay's edit back, with the edit summary "If you're going to revert please say why, a revert is not a copyedit." This also unintentionally re-introduced the grammatical errors; at the time I had no idea (diff). Whereupon DrKay reverted the whole thing again, removing both the grammatical errors and my original change. (diff).
• At this point the mistake we had each made (including too much material in a revert) could have been easily resolved, but instead DrKay decided to come to my talk page and be rude to me, writing "Learn English: Are you really so ignorant that you think changing 'in 1958' to 'on 1958' is an improvement? Learn English before trying to 'improve' it.." (diff) (talk page link).

The reversion mixup has now been fixed, but DrKay has neither acknowledged that they made an error to start the whole mess, nor apologized or retracted their rudeness. This is poor behavior from an admin, to make a mistake and then personally attack an editor affected by it. Even if I had been the editor who actually introduced the grammatical errors, this would have been an uncivil overreaction from DrKay. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that DrKay's edits make the article better, and the patronising comment left on Ganesha811's talk page is not acceptable conduct from an administrator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

So are they going to be warned? Badgering someone and telling them to "learn English" is what's ignorant. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a response from DrKay first before doing anything else. I do note they were reported for incivility about a year ago and mildly admonished, although the other party behaved far worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have read this report and having considered it, find the opening comment fair and accurate. I am less impressed by the subsequent comments, which appear more inciteful than insightful. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I am less than impressed with this response. — Czello 19:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Well, there's your response. Womp womp. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"I am less impressed by the subsequent comments, which appear more inciteful than insightful." I don't understand what is meant by this. All I mean to say is when you revert someone, don't personally attack them over it, even if you're right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't read to me as an apology. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because it's not. At best, it's an acknowledgement that I was correct to say they didn't mean to revert my original edit but instead accidentally picked it up while reverting S C Cheese's grammatical error. But even that is not obvious. DrKay also states in their edit summary that "it is very difficult for me to edit this page | my computer has already crashed twice in an attempt to do so, therefore further commentary from me [at least at this page] is unlikely." That's understandable (this page is currently huge), so let me just say that if DrKay simply struck out and/or removed their rudeness on my talk page, I would regard it as an apology and we could all move on to bigger and better things. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd also consider that a satisfactory resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: DrKay has now struck out the comment on my talk page, so I think unless the community has something else useful to add, I regard this issue as settled. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

While he did strike out the comment, which was the proper thing to do, I still think there should be some type of documented warning about this before it is officially closed. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This ANI thread in the archives is enough warning/evidence, should any similar instance occur in the future. GiantSnowman 21:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, DrKay's comment was accompanied by the following edit summary: it is very difficult for me to edit this page | my computer has already crashed twice in an attempt to do so, therefore further commentary from me [at least at this page] is unlikely -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

IP editor disregarding MOS

Special:Contributions/2600:1702:CC4:20F0:346F:8017:60CD:DA07 has been disregarding the MOS, particularly MOS:JOBTITLES, since they began editing a couple of months ago. I have left four warnings on their talk page, pointing them to the relevant guideline and explaining how it applies to their edits. After I left a final warning just an hour ago, they made another edit against JOBTITLES. They don't seem to be a mobile editor, so they must be receiving these notices, but have persisted in introducing nonstandard styles. This looks like disruptive editing to me, so a block might get their attention. Wallnot (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

See also this diff subsequent to final warning, along the same lines. Wallnot (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

another diff along same lines. Wallnot (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this. Would appreciate help from an administrator. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (non-admin comment) I think they may be correct with the [first edit you list. And I'm not convinced about the second edit. The third edit seems that Associate Justice shouldn't be capitalized. Some (most?) other edits they've done seem reasonable. I don't think it's disruptive editing per se. And I don't see any attempt to revert back what someone had fixed. Nfitz (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User:80.208.69.192

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

---

User has received 3 warnings including a Final Warning and continued to edit disruptively, Strictly on Mario Kart related pages. I request a temporary ip block on this user, or a login-only block. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Reported them to WP:AIV. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Multiple problems at Kim Waltrip

Article is vanity spam, replete with copyright violations tagged in March but never resolved. Additionally, Kimwaltrip (talk · contribs) has been the primary editor for a decade. Requesting user sanctions and either deletion of the article or reverting to an acceptable version, though I couldn't find one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've reverted the disputed content [144]. Again, more eyes will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it funny how no one noticed that Kim Waltrip was apparently editing his own page for the last 9-10 years. Definitely slipped through the cracks big time, lol. Reported to WP:UAA. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 21:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Her, not his. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

She's been warned on her talk page. The user name doesn't need to change if indeed it is her, but I'll also post a note linking to WP:COIREQ for future edits. I found and added a couple of sources for two somewhat notable films she produced, but don't have time to go through the whole list of films that was just removed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A partial block, to prevent them from editing this and related articles, may be appropriate. At their talk page, her associate claims to be using the account [145]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. Had the male version of "Kim" in my mind for whatever reason. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 00:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what article is in violation? This is very confusing. Kimwaltrip (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Transphobic attack (not the high-profile case everyone is talking about)

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

---

Centrum99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This screed against "wacko commies" by Centrum99 was quickly and properly reverted by LokiTheLiar. Centrum99 responded by posting on Loki's talk page: My note to the leftist wackos from English-speaking countries disappeared within a single minute! How many genders do you have? And what is your favourite drug? The bits about wackos and drugs are just boilerplate personal attacks, but the part about multiple genders is beyond the pale, as the current case before ArbCom makes clear. This kind of attack is certainly unacceptable at RfA, and I'd argue it's equally unacceptable here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to Cullen328 for taking care of this immediately. Nothing more to see here. Cheers all, Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have indefinitely blocked this editor for the worst type of personal attacks, plus they are writing racist screeds. Cullen328 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

They sure were. I didn't mention the racism angle because in my experience folks can get away with that sort of comment here. Even if they're demonstrably wrong on the facts, we typically give people a lot of latitude to express what they claim are legitimately held beliefs about science, even discredited racial science. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 23.84.19.247 constantly blanking their talk page

I was browsing the Recent Changes page and noticed that User talk:23.84.19.247 was being blanked. Investigation showed that the IP was being accused of harassing other users, and blanking things including warnings about the behavior without a resolution. I am new to the wiki so I am not sure what the procedure is in this case, but I think it might warrant admin intervention. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV, for what it's worth. It's not the first time this user has done that, it seems like. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blanking a page is not a crime. I am entitled to do that.

Sequence of events:

1) unsolicitated communication from C.Fred: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115125274

2) My response: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115525654

3) Same response but posted on his talk page as notification of request: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&oldid=1115526189

4) liliana gets involved for some reason even no nothing about what I wrote was harassing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:23.84.19.247&oldid=1115526813

What I want: I do not want to talk to C.Fred. And I want him to stay off my talk page. This is a simple request, politely delivered, and yet I find myself here on this report page for communications that I did NOT initiate. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify. Blanking my personal talk page is not a crime. That is what I blanked. My personal talk page. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blanking the page is not the issue, it's that you do it while also harassing others in your edit summaries RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not harassing anyone in that edit. Please identify the individual I harassed in that summary. Mods is a pretty vague and broad group. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that you should be allowed to blank your talk page. Our problem is how you do so, with edit summaries that border on harrassment. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you at least understand how from my perspective this feels like persecution? I feel as though people are literally out to get me by zapping every little minor intransigence that occurs. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=1115532631

You wrote in that edit summary that I was "whining" and then simply deleted everything I wrote in my defense. That is totally unfair because then people will only see the complaint but not what I wrote in my defense. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Users (and IPs) are allowed to blank their own talk pages; see WP:OWNTALK. The only thing they can't remove are declined unblock appeals while blocked, which is not the case here.

That being said, edit summaries like this are certainly an issue. SkyWarrior 23:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you can permit me a small, practically hidden unless you are actively looking for it, vent of frustration against what I felt was unfair actions towards myself. I did not single out any specific person at all in that summary. Mods is a pretty vague and broad group. Also, it was on MY talk page. The one page I am actually allowed to control. This is not a crime. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that edit was nonspecific, but this edit is not good. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

That edit was a log so that I could easily identify it in case I need to refer to it when mounting a defense like I am doing now. There is nothing there that is harassment. Read it clearly and entirely because that is exactly what I wrote there. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to say that nothing will happen, but I suggest that everyone henceforth just calms down and goes about their day. IP user: please do something else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The blanking is less of an issue than are the baseless accusations of harassment and cyber-stalking. This IP has already been blocked for personal attacks once, they clearly haven't learned better. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I can bring some balance to this conversation. I have experienced interactions with 23.84.19.247 that were frustrating to say the least, where I felt somewhat harassed and attacked. I did not participate in the discussions leading to the 3-day block because I felt it was aptly handled without any contribution on my part. Now I think the discourse is getting too far from the point of being useful, and everyone should probably take a step back. 23.84.19.247, not everyone is against you. I can see why you might think there is a vendetta against you, but please stop seeing this as you versus the world, it makes it far harder to come to a calm solution.

As for other editors in this discussion, who should surely recognize that this user seems affected by all this drama, perhaps some compassion is in order. I bring up the fact that 23.84.19.247 has not made any further disruptive edits on the main space since their block was reversed, and that most of the claims of further issues are based on edit summaries on their own talk page, some of which might be tinged with frustration, but none of which feels truly malicious. I propose that no further action be taken here for now, let's all just chill out and move on. If 23.84.19.247 would like to positively contribute to the Wiki, great. If that contribution devolves into any sort of disruptive behavior or harassment in the future, their past actions have been logged, and then action should be sought, but I think this is a premature effort to seek further punishment when the 3-day block that already occurred should hopefully be enough to encourage 23.84.19.247 to try and work in good faith with fellow editors going forward. Criticalus (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

COI, copyright infringement, and sockpuppetry at Arthur J. Williams Jr.

Arthurjwilliamsjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive and policy-violating COI edits at Arthur J. Williams Jr.. This includes a mass copy paste of copyrighted material in this edit from this Gizmodo article. The edit also includes other bizarre items such as including too many photos for the length of the article along with adding the honorific "The Most Illustrious" to the infobox. The writings that he added that aren't copyright infringement (as far as I can tell) here are completely unsourced and are of an unencyclopedic nature.

The user continued the problematic editing after my initial COI notice on his talk page. I warned him again and asked him to stop, and he claimed in this response that he was a biographer with a local news entity. I then warned him once more to stop. Shortly after, he engaged in sockpuppetry with the account Dominicn123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to add back the same problematic content to the page (see here).

The user and his sockpuppet should be indefinitely blocked and the copyright infringing revisions should be deleted per the revdel notice on the page. Uhai (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Uhai: Blocked the master and sock accounts with an offer to undo the former block if certain conditions are met. Have revdelled the versions with text copied from the Gizmodo article. Please let me know if you find that the editor's earlier contributions to the page were copyvio too (I didn't find an obvious source on a quick search) or if new socks appear. Abecedare (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Persistent IP-range vandalism on page Mitchell Englander

I have seen a pattern of weird removals of sourced material relating to the corruption conviction of politician Mitchell Englander. Every 2 months or so, a new IP in this range: [146] comes around and removes sourced content relating to the corruption conviction of said politician.

Bringing it up here because I'm not sure how to proceed, or what the best action is, given that this behavior is persistent, but the IP is never the same. Edits are only on that page. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Range p-blocked from Mitchell Englander for 6 months. Looks like he was released from federal prison in early Feb. El_C 09:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Admin accountability and WP:SOCKLEGIT use by Geraldo Perez

I recently got into a run-of-the-mill disagreement with a Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) where I think he misunderstands an aspect of WP:NOR - not really that big of a deal in context, disagreements on interpretation of policy happen all the time between well-intended editors including experienced ones.

However, this is different. It turns out that this is an admin using a supposed WP:SOCKLEGIT and they refuse to disclose their admin account's identity to non-admins. That seems to fly in the face of WP:ADMINACCT. WP:ADMINACCT is pretty clear in that admins who breach basic policies or repeatedly exhibit repeated poor judgment are to be held accountable. It seems that WP:SOCKLEGIT is being used to put an artificial wall between this editor's admin conduct and non-admin conduct that flies in the face of the accountability required of an admin.

To be clear, I have no indication that this user has misused their advanced privileges and I'm NOT saying they did, but it would seem like the secrecy is preventing non-admins from examining the user's combined behavior and this artificial WP:SOCKLEGIT wall for an admin is inappropriate and inconsistent with our basic tenets of accountability.

I've discussed this on Geraldo's talk page and via email and it seems like we agree that this should go to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to disclose the account links to any admin who requests it, hopefully for reasons beyond curiosity. The arbitration committee has been notified and I have added a notice to my user pages about all this. I have a separate accounts for personal privacy reasons and I wish the link to remain private so I am very wary of giving out this info to anyone who asks. I believe my willingness to disclose the info to admins will be sufficient if there is concern about my actions on either account. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is that you've self-selected a subset of the community that can examine your actions. WP:ADMINACCT includes all of administrators' Wikipedia-related conduct and doesn't let admins specify who they are accountable to. Admins are accountable to the community - period.

This type of secret separation of edits among multiple accounts is exactly what WP:SCRUTINY says is inappropriate.

If you have such a need for secrecy then you shouldn't be an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a need for privacy, that does not impact my having an admin account. And yes, I trust the well-trusted subset of the community who passed the selection process to become an admin. I believe if there is legitimate concern about my behavior an admin will be notified and be involved in investigating and in placing sanctions if needed. I believe this maintains my privacy and allows sufficient scrutiny. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Also not publicly linking my two accounts falls under WP:VALIDALT-Privacy. I have followed the procedures at WP:ALTACCN including notifying the Arbitration Committee. I have maintained the required separation between my two accounts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reading this as an outsider, my concern is that while WP:VALIDALT#Privacy allows for an alt for ...editing an article that is highly controversial..., it's not clear from your replies here whether you are limiting the use of the alt to some such subset of the article space, or whether you are using it for all/majority of your general non-admin editing. Not asking you to out yourself here in any way, but some statement along these lines would be useful for gauging what is going on here. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm missing something. Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) is not an admin but has "I also have an admin account that I seldom use" on their user page which I assume is the reason for this report. The user page, and the comments above, give a very plausible explanation for the situation. I see no reason to believe an admin account has been used inappropriately, nor any reason to doubt that Arbcom has been notified about the alternate account. Give that, I don't see a problem regarding admin accountability or SOCKLEGIT. I don't see why there is a need for "some statement along these lines"—you can't get much clearer than what the user page and the comments above say. If an admin turns up at Atticus Mitchell and starts editing or commenting in support of Geraldo Perez, there might be a reason to make this report, but I think that has not happened. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) My confusion stems from how the various WP:VALIDALT instructions are combined in this case. By my reading, VALIDALT#Privacy is intended for limited editing of some (personally) controversial topic. In other cases (except clean start, I suppose) the instructions are to be very transparent about the link between the accounts. Claiming VALIDALT#Privacy as covering all non-admin actions would rather defeat the purpose of said transparency requirements. Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Geraldo Perez's user page says that I do not use that account for normal editing due to security concerns, for privacy reasons and also to prevent any possibility of my using admin tools inappropriately on articles in which I may be considered to be involved. Both "security" and "privacy" are legitimate reasons for an alt account per WP:VALIDALT, but VALIDALT#Security says that a securityalt "should be publicly connected to the main account", whereas VALIDALT#Privacy is limited to a particular highly controversial topic. A privacy alt is specifically not for general editing, and though disclosure of security alts is only a "should" rather than "must" or "shall", I would expect admins to be held to a stricter standard on this sort of thing. Admins have extra powers and responsibilities, and with that they should be accountable to the community – as it stands, if Geraldo Perez were to improperly use their admin powers against an editor they had been in a dispute with, it would be very difficult to hold them to account.

  I also think the idea that separating their identity as an admin to that as an editor might "prevent ... my using admin tools inappropriately on articles which I may be considered involved" is nonsense. It might prevent people noticing that they are using their admin tools improperly, but there is absoltely no way that I can concieve that having an alternate account could prevent such improper use.

  If Geraldo Perez wants both a security alt and a privacy alt, they should have two seperate alt accounts – one clearly tied to their main account, used for general editing for security reasons, and the other used as a privacy alt for whatever specific contentious topic they need a privacy alt for. They shouldn't conflate the two, not because I think they have acted improperly but to avoid any appearance of acting improperly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, @Johnuniq:, you are missing something. As I wrote, I have no indication that Geraldo has misused admin tools. But this admin is Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split their editing history so that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in their contributions - the literal definition of WP:SCRUTINY and one of the explicitly Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. It is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing their contributions. Toddst1 (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems unacceptable to me. For example, we have no way to check whether they have used their admin tools in disputes where they were involved in. The reasons for the lack of disclosure also don't seem to make sense. If your use of the admin account would have an impact on "security concerns, for privacy reasons", then perhaps you shouldn't have an admin account? This situation comes acress as an attempt to avoid scrutiny while at the same time wearing the badge of being an admin (I mean, they could just have stated that they have another account which is disclosed to arbs and admins, without adding that that account is an admin surely?). Fram (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because you cannot doesn't mean that it can't be found out if there is a suspicion. That's the point of private secondary accounts. Those kind of accounts are allowed and admins are not explicitly exempted from that allowance. If ArbCom or other functionaries know about the multiple accounts, and if you suspect Geraldo Perez is using the accounts inappropriately, feel free to present that evidence to ArbCom or those other functionaries and ask them to investigate. Baseless suspicion based only on the existence of the private accounts is not sufficient evidence that anyone is doing anything inappropriate. WP:AGF applies here as well. I see nothing wrong with what Geraldo has done, and unless and until someone produces some evidence beyond the existence of such accounts, which Geraldo has already disclosed as existing, then there's nothing to be done here. We assume good faith unless we have specific evidence that someone is acting in bad faith. Having disclosed-but-unidentified accounts is allowed and is not a basis for assuming bad faith. --Jayron32 12:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to respond to my post, actually. They are preventing scrutiny for no apparent good reason. Obviously, if I had evidence of actual wrongdoing, I would present it, but that is not the subject of this section nor of my post. "Individuals operating undisclosed alternative accounts do so at their own risk and against the recommended operating processes of this project." Security: "You may register an alternative account for use when accessing Wikipedia through a public computer, connecting to an unsecured network, or other scenarios when there's a risk of your account being compromised." Having ad admin who apparently risks having their account compromised is not acceptable. "Privacy: A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. " It is unclear whether the "privacy" reasons apply to the Geraldo Perez account or to the admin account. The GP account edits constantly, across many articles, so the privacy aspect doesn't seem to apply to this one. This would mean that the privacy concerns are around the admin account, which is weird. It doesn't look as if the Geraldo Perez edits, if made from an admin account, would pose any privacy issues. So the reasons for the lack of disclosure are either bogus or (if it is for security) concerning. Fram (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, feel free to contact one of the people that does know, and they can look into the matter. The point of privacy and security is that we don't need to know the reason for the privacy. If the reason for security and/or privacy were made known, it wouldn't be secure or private. --Jayron32 12:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's one hell of a double-standard there @Jayron32:. That makes this admin accountable only to other admins. That's not ok. It may be currently allowed as you say but that would be a fundamental flaw in our accountability if it is and should be changed. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What double standard? It's the same standard as I would hold every properly maintained alternate account that was following the same rules as every alternate account. A double standard would be to demand that admins somehow had less rights than non-admin users. --Jayron32 12:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not convincing at all. The point of admin accountability is that you are accountable to each and all, not that only a subset of people can check for things like "involved" violations. There's of course also the question why they would hang on to an admin account that was already tagged as retired 11 years ago, which they only use "seldom", and which apparently causes them security and privacy concerns. It's a bizarre combination of "I"m afraid to link it, I rarely use it anyway, but I still feel the need to proclaim it on my user page because..." well, who knows, because they want to impress people? Some argument from authority?" Fram (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez should publicly disclose the other account and update their user page(s) to confirm this - if they do not then they should be indeffed until they do and sent to ArbCom to desysop. GiantSnowman 12:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is, really, ridiculous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrible idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask why? GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No problems here. Perfectly allowed sock. Can we stop making adminship so miserable for people who volunteer to do it, please? If you get the community's trust as an admin but worry about privacy, yes you can use a legitsock. As Geraldo has done, it should be disclosed to arbcom to make sure you aren't misusing your tools, but that's the end of it. Others are not entitled to connect the two accounts just because you want to scrutinize someone. Yikes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how the worry about privacy would play here? There's nothing in the Geraldo Perez account that matches the reasons given for an acceptable privacy concerns account, so I suppose these concerns stem from the admin account. How would the privacy concerns of the admin account be made worse if the GP edits were made from that account? I don't see a plausible scenario, but are open to having it spoonfed to me. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, are you asking which part of the "privacy" bulletpoint of WP:LEGITSOCK applies? I don't read that bulletpoint as outlining the only valid privacy concerns, but rather providing an explanation of why privacy can be a concern. I mean, right at the top of the section is another (or at least differently framed) privacy issue that isn't included in the privacy bulletpoint: For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated. Perhaps Geraldo is their real name and they don't want the baggage of people being able to connect bans, blocks, and deletions to their real name? I have no trouble affording a lot of leeway to people's privacy requests. The connection has been disclosed to arbcom, and as long as they're not abusing the tools it's none of our business. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I know you don't pretend that that is the actual reason, which you probably don't know (no problem with that). But it wouldn't work as an explanation in any case: if Geraldo Perez is their real name, then they could, er, not have created that account for provacy reasons? Your scenarion might work if the admin account uses or discloses their real name, but even then the vast majority of GPs edits (I obviously haven't looked at all of them) are not edits you would need your real to be disassociated from. "as long as they're not abusing the tools it's none of our business. ", bit hard to know if they do or not of course, and ArbCom is not a body which actively checks all admins to see if they abuse the tools. Fram (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

which you probably don't know - correct. And if a legit sock is doing its job, that's a good thing. if Geraldo Perez is their real name, then they could, er, not have created that account for provacy reasons? Two responses to this. First, Geraldo could be the original account. You can have other accounts when you go for RfA as long as you disclose them to e.g. ArbCom. Second, I see no reason not to interpret the policy protecting the privacy of admins as applying to someone who doesn't mind disclosing their real name for everything else or otherwise would prefer to separate the controversy from the rest of their editing. Admin actions are frequently controversial and draw the ire of vandals, long-term abusers, etc., such that IMO it is more useful to be anonymous as an admin in many cases. Hell, not having protected my own anonymity is one of the main reasons I won't do an RfA myself, so I'm sympathetic to those who do and take measures (even measures that seem strange and some might not understand, as long as there's no evidence of abuse) to maintain a comfortable level of security/privacy. bit hard to know if they do or not of course - So ask someone who does. That it doesn't allow for fishing expeditions isn't a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) copyedit to be clearer — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Geraldo account was only created when they were already an admin, not the other way around. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

And they disclosed the connection to ARBCOM, which is sufficient. The whole point of privacy is that not everyone gets to know. Private information is private, and unless you have evidence of wrongdoing, then there is nothing to discuss here. If you want to know more, contact ARBCOM. They know what you need to know. They'll tell you if they are obeying the rules as expected. --Jayron32 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I'd missed that. So that leaves the second reason above (which I had updated since I didn't word it clearly, but edit conflicted). The amount of latitude we provide people to separate their activities is a fine thing to debate, of course, but I feel strongly we should be erring on the side of preserving people's privacy preferences (bonus alliteration). "But I can't go through all of their edits myself to try to find things they've done wrong" is not IMO a good enough reason to eliminate that discretion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not the reason I gave, your "but I can´t" is either a wrong quote or an inaccurate paraphrase. The issue (or one of the issues) is that we can´t find evidence of e.g an involved block or page protection without knowing both accounts. Fram (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you regularly spend time combing through arbitrary admins contribs pages looking for evidence of involved blocks or page protections, without any prior reason to suspect that is happening? --Jayron32 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY is pretty clear. Admins should not be allowed to avoid scrutiny by the community with some potentially dodgy claim of privacy.

What GP is claiming amounts to him only being subject to scrutiny by Arbcom. If that is policy, the policy is broken and must be changed. As an admin, the entire community has a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

If that claim is not policy, one of 3 things should happen:

1. GP should link the accounts
2. GP should give up the mop
3. WP:ARC should be inititated.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what WP:SCRUTINY says. If it did, WP:LEGITSOCK would be pointless. Thankfully, it has an explicit carve-out for LEGITSOCK and emphasizes alternative accounts to confuse or deceive. What is your evidence of that intent? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY says it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. We don't need probable cause to examine editors' (especially admins') behavior. The community has a legitimate interest in examining admin behavior.

The point may be that WP:SCRUTINY and WP:LEGITSOCK conflict in this case - which is my point that the policy might be broken. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that they're in conflict, but don't think it's crazy that you do, either. I disagree with We don't need probable cause to examine editors' (especially admins') behavior.. WP:AGF and all. But let's say for a moment that this was the most unambiguous LEGITSOCK: an admin who uses their real name and wants to edit articles in a controversial topic area that they don't want linked to their real name. In that scenario, you would likewise have no ability to examine connections between the accounts. Why is it more of a problem if the admin edits uncontroversial topics? The extent to which you cannot scrutinize them is the same, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Toddst1: Where is your evidence that the alternative accounts were created "to confuse or deceive editors"? Again, AGF. WP:LEGITSOCK explains that there are such reasons. Insofar as such reasons do exist, and AGF is policy, unless you have evidence of intent "to confuse or deceive editors", then you should assume they have an acceptable reason to maintain such accounts. --Jayron32 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can see both sides to this. I can imagine a situation where this might be desirable for privacy reasons, and I can understand Toddst1 believes the non-admin account is violating WP:SYNTH, and wants to be able to check the person's other edits to see if it is a pattern. Two legitimate desires colliding, as they often do in the messy real world. While sub-optimal, if both User:Toddst1 and User:Geraldo Perez agree, I can ask GP for the name of the admin account and take a look for other SYNTH-related stuff myself. If I find nothing, maybe that semi-satisfies Toddst1 for now? And if I find something, since I won't reveal the name publically, I could ask ArbCom what to do? (fwiw, I'm not sure it's a SYNTH problem, so much as a subpar source problem...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have provided the info by mail to User:Floquenbeam as I have committed to providing this to any admin who asks - basically people I trust to maintain confidentiality. Feel free to look through my contributions on that account. As for the SYNTH issue that is an interpretation of policy issue that could easily have been resolved with discussion. I did explain my reasoning when asked. Also I agree one of the sources was a bit weak so I changed the article to not use that source for that data. It was not reasonable to remove everything as was done. I think the discussion on my page about the issue should be considered for context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it likely won't satisfy everyone, but for what it's worth:

1. The admin account is almost exclusively used for recent changes/vandalism patrol, so there are no SYNTH/NOR/similar issues with the admin account (I'm not implying the SYNTH concern with the GP acct is legit or not legit; it's just outside what I'm looking into).
2. Looking back for the last year, I can only find a handful of pages where they have edited with both accounts, and in all of those cases, it's been unrelated vandalism reversion or reverting unsourced additions. In all but one case, there's also been a separation of a month or more. For the one exception, the editor being reverted and the content being reverted were different. I think it's safe to say this one case is a coincidence.

I understand there are bigger, more general issue at play, so I'm not claiming it makes the general question moot. But at least it should put the specific smaller instigating question to rest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Some comments here. First, I believe this is the second or third time that Toddst1 has hauled Geraldo P. to ANI about this, after an edit or reversion that Geraldo made that Toddst1 didn't like. This looks to me to be bordering on WP:HOUNDING. (Luckily, I don't think their paths cross often, or we could have seen even more of this.) Second, I know what Geraldo's Admin account is (I figured it out – I guess I am smarter that the average bear; and, no – I do not intend to share the knowledge with anyone...), and I can confirm what Floquenbeam is saying: Geraldo P's admin account is 1) almost never used, and 2) has never crossed the WP:INVOLVED line that I have ever witnessed. Can we now get a pledge from Toddst1 to drop that ANI filings after seeing an edit from Geraldo that Toddst1 doesn't like? Hmmm?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

if the admin account is "almost never used', why is it needed? if it is not involved insofar as you have witnessed, what about scrutiny from the rest of the community? GiantSnowman 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"if the admin account is "almost never used'"..." – You well know that that is a completely different issue. The policy is what the policy is now, and admins can keep accounts they almost never use, as long as the "rules" are followed. If you want that changed, ANI is absolutely not the place to do it. The second point is covered by ARBCOM – let them deal with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

IJBall, re-read the thread. As Floq said, there are bigger, more general issue at play and your answer shows a lack of understanding even the basics here. Hounding GMAFB. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that you've now singled out Geraldo more than once at ANI. And ANI is absolutely not the forum to hash out bigger issues like this. If you were actually interested in the issues, rather than tar-and-feathering Geraldo, you would have taken the broader discussion point to WP:AN, not ANI (which is totally not the forum for "deep thoughts"). Again, I personally would appreciate a public pledge that you will stop going to ANI on Geraldo (and about the broader policy issue). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Floquenbeam:. Thanks for acknowledging there are bigger, more general issue at play. This is indeed complicated and I understand why it's confusing folks.

I'm glad that you can confirm that things look good with GP's behavior in his other account and as I tried to make clear, the trivial issue we disagreed on regarding SYNTH is not why I've brought this here. It appears that one or both of these two questions remain:

1. Is there a conflict between WP:SCRUTINY and WP:SOCKLEGIT that we should sort that out for admins as a policy?
2. If not, then is GP avoiding WP:SCRUTINY that many of us feel an admin should have whether or not there is a problem so far?

Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I agree with Toddst1 here. That's not how "legit" socks work. You can have one account that, for example, writes articles and gets into content disputes etc around the Arab-Israeli conflict but doesn't edit the project space and a separate account that goes nowhere near that topic area. You can't have two accounts that participate in the community as though they were different people, even if they never cross paths. That's black-letter policy and even has its own shortcut, WP:PROJSOCK: "Undisclosed alternative accounts generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project". While I'm sure there's no nefarious intent, Geraldo Perez is unambiguously on the wrong side of policy and needs to either publicly link the two accounts or give one of them up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2021 discussion at Undisclosed alternate accounts seems to have consensus for some amount of project space edits that are not related to making policy. Wouldn't make much sense to prevent reports to admins, project discussions, and interactions such as this one here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18 edit warring

User:Keystone18 has a long history - see here and here, among others - of tendentious editing in the topic of Geography of Eastern Pennsylvania and Northern New Jersey of marking edits minor that are not. Just a few minutes ago, I noticed that he made this edit erroneously changing the location of my alma-mater West Chester University from Chester County, Pennsylvania to West Chester, Pennsylvania. According to the Campuspus section of the WCU page, the university is located in West Chester, West Goshen and East Bradford township in Chester County. The edit had a -55 character difference and he marked it minor. I reverted it and posted a level 1 Incorrect information warning template on his talk page. Almost immediately, Keystone18 undid my reversion and removed the warning template from his talkspace. No attempt to justify the change he insists on making or to discuss the reasons for the reversion. I undid the undoing of the reversion here and posted a second warning on his page. He immediately reverted it again without justifying it and uundid the level 2 warning template on his talkspace. And now we appear to be a stalemate.

His archive page is full of similar warnings and now that I've checked the history of his talkspace and found that he has hid many more warnings and comments made in good faith by reverting them in similar ways here.

There is no point in me discussing anything else with the other party if he's just going to summarily undo anything I post on in this matter so I am asking for an administrator to try to discuss it with him and to seek a consensus about what location should be in the lead on West Chester University. If the campus is in three different municipalities than to say that it is in only one in the lead is knowingly false. Kire1975 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kire1975: Something might have gone wrong with the above post: where are the "here and here" links. Also, I see an edit at West Chester, Pennsylvania marked minor but it removed 28 bytes, not 55 ([147]). If it's some other page, please link it. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Johnuniq:. I copied it from the visual editor in my sandbox but it didn't copy here since visual editing appears to be disabled.

I do now see that Keystone18 has added a source with the mailing address of the dorms on campus. That's a little better but but the edit is just arbitrary really, plus there are already so many unnecessary links cluttering up the lead (MOS:LEADCITE), I just don't know why Keystone18 wants to go to war over this except that he feels like he is the WP:OWNER of the topic. Kire1975 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, there was no effort to initiate a discussion, just an abrupt reversion of my addition of the location for the primary campus and administrative location of West Chester University as being West Chester, Pennsylvania along with an inaccurate/inflammatory allegation that it was somehow vandalistic. It's not uncommon, of course, for universities to maintain satellite campuses, and I left untouched an entire section that explains those locations and facilities in detail later in the article. I also added this supporting reference in support of the West Chester location as its location (of which there are many) from the university itself: ([148]) I'm more than happy to discuss the intro on the talk page if there is some reason we should not use the location used by the university itself and by independent sources, but that would be an atypical intro for a university page. The current intro is very consistent with that used for university pages with a primary administrative location and additional off-site campuses and other facilities. Here is the opening sentence from the "Location of the university" section from the university's own website: "West Chester University is located in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a town that has been the seat of government in Chester County since 1786." ([149]) Here's Encyclopedia Brittanica: "West Chester University of Pennsylvania, public, coeducational institution of higher learning in West Chester, Pennsylvania, U.S." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/West-Chester-University-of-Pennsylvania) Here is Times Higer Education on its location: "It is situated in West Chester, 25 miles west of Philadelphia, by far the state’s largest city." (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/west-chester-university) Keystone18 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I put the warnings on your talk page and you made it disappear immediately. Twice. Don't say "there was no effort to initiate a discussion."

My reason for the reversion was given in the edit summary: the campus is in three municipalities in chester county. Your quick reversion of the reversion says to "list the location, not the county" ignoring that your change ignores the fact that the campus is in three different municipalities in that county. You also ignored the warning about marking edits that are not minor with an m, as you did with your edits here and here in this very noticeboard. Surely you're not going to ask me to pretend you WP:DONTGETIT and again demand that I point out why these are significant edits as you did here, here and here. Many, many attempts to discuss things with you have been made but it's never not like pulling teeth.

Again, those examples are better than not explaining the reasons but it is still arbitrary. This is not the first time this week you have been accused of bulldozing through a Wikipedia page. I hope it was worth it. Kire1975 (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18 has apologized on his talk page in a way that is satisfactory to me. Thank you for providing a space to discuss this frustrating experience. Feel free to close the discussion. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes

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

---

Although the original block stood, both for the reason given in the block log and by consensus at the above thread, Lourdes has decided to unblock Athaenara without discussion, nor even an explanatory comment. Given how much of a controversial topic this block and the events leading to it are, this absolutely should have called for discussion with the blocking administrator (Floquenbeam) first, as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Administrators#Reversing another administrator's action. As to not wheel war, I am seeking consensus to reinstate the block. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. Athaenara's statements were way too harmful for a random admin to unblock without discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - There is consensus above that the block was properly placed. If needed, Athaenera can make statements through their talk page.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support - Per above. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Lourdes' unblock reason cited:

The case is in Arbcom to assess whether this is hate speech or not.

That does not preclude individual administrators from undertaking such assessments. No rule that I know of bars other admins (and the community) from probing into on-wiki activities of other administrators. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait. The ball is in her court. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The community had a consensus that she should remain blocked. With such statements as calling trans women "males masquerading as females", how is the ball in her court, SmokeyJoe? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A user_talk apology perhaps. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. Also, Lourdes why did you unblock Athaenara? I don't think that was a good idea, and it's concerning given how little you've been editing. @TrangaBellam:, you deleted your comment, but I don't think she's compromised because she has been active in blocking problematic users (although, normally blocking admins leave a message, so I don't really know). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In answer to why Lourdes unblocked her, just in case you missed the edit summary for the unblock: Not compromised account. The case is in Arbcom to assess whether this is hate speech or not. In my opinion, this is absolute hate speech and there is no place like this on Wikipedia or anywhere. At the same time, you need to allow the case to have representation from Ath... Unblocking likewise. — Czello 08:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That reasoning is debatable but, unsurprisingly, Athaenara has immediately restarted general editing elsewhere on the encyclopaedia. — Trey Maturin has spoken 08:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. This is very disappointing... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Very, very bad unblock that could be viewed as an attempt to throw petrol on the fire. Please reverse yourself, Lourdes. — Trey Maturin has spoken 08:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstating the block. It's unacceptable that after a block by community consensus someone is able to just go back to editing as if nothing has happened[150] before the issue at hand is resolved. Mike1901 (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Reinstate. The unblok isn't even being used to participate in the case request (not that it'd be needed for that either) but for normal editing as if nothing happened. Madeline (part of me) 08:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstalling the block. There was a clear consensus for a community based ban in addition to what is happening at Arbcom.Gusfriend (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- TheresNoTime has reinstated the block. (Thank you!) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block — there is already emerging consensus above in the 30+ minutes this thread has been open, and the unblock made a mockery of our due process. Per policy, if anyone feels this is wheel warring, I invite you to open a WP:RFAR — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the right thing to do in view of the overwhelming outpouring of support for the reinstatement of the block. This would not preclude Athaenara from making "representations" to the ArbCom, as they could simply ask others to post their comments at the desired place, thus also addressing Lourdes' concerns at the same time. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Support reinstatement of block. Not a good decision to unblock without discussion, in the circumstances. I would also support a permanent community ban. The Land (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Athaenara's comment was vile and I don't want to see her get a second chance, as it was about bigotry and not politics. However, I think Arbcom needs to run its course first. BOTTO _(T•C) 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Its not like they can't be heard at arbcom by email or getting her messages transferred from their talk page. The block only stops the use of admin tools (and general editing). Terasail^[✉️] 10:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support reinstating the block, for which there was clear consensus. The unblock was not in-line with community consensus. However, Athaenara should be allowed talk page and/or email access, to respond to ArbCom. GiantSnowman 10:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Stop. This page is not called votes for blocking. It’s unseemly. ArbCom will deal with the matter. Please don’t start a wheel war. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Uh, the block was a community decision from this page, which is why the matter came back here. ArbCom will deal with the desysopping question. Having said that, I think this discussion has run its course as the block has, quite rightly, been reinstated. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Range block required for roving IP disruption

A range of IPs beginning with "2A04:4A43:4D..." have all edit warred with @NEDOCHAN at Michael Bisping about the subject's ethnicity, while also making frequently disruptive edits at other pages. These IPs including [151], [152], [153], [154] and [155]. The second and fourth IP also overlap at Islamic holy books, which sees another two "2A04:4A43:4D" IPs, [156] and [157], making disruptive edits. It seems very likely that this is not the full picture. Overall, major coincidence, major disruption. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I missed [158], common with the fifth IP at Graeco-Arabic translation movement, and there may be others: [159],[160]. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This is Loverofediting/Whodatttt (SPI). Loverofediting was blocked for a month for disruptive editing back in February [161] and Whodatttt was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing in June [162] (ANI AN3). This also goes further than mere disruptive editing: admins should probably look at this revdelled edit to see what they are capable of. The Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D4F:CBDB::/40 range used by them was also independently blocked a few times [163]. Characteristic is that they push an Islamist POV on several pages, Fraxinetum being a pet peeve. I think that a longer range block on the /40 is warranted. Pinging Girth Summit, who has looked into this before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Jkaharper and BLP/recently deceased people

I have serious concerns about Jkaharper (talk · contribs). Back in April 2022 they were given a final warning by @Toddst1: for BLP violations, on the basis they had been blocked twice before for such conduct.

Concerns about lack of referencing were raised recently by @Pigsonthewing:, to which Jkaharper replied "I’ve been on here 16 years and I know the score". However, they clearly do not, as today they have edited to say a BLP had died without providing a reference - and when I raised this with them, they first cited another Wikipedia page, and then just removed my post. GiantSnowman 13:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, @GiantSnowman:, you're not presenting the whole picture. I DID add a reference (which easily passes WP:RS) to the Deaths in 2022 here, so their death was referenced. Whilst I accept that I should have added it to the individual page of the subject itself as well, I think you're overreacting somewhat. I provided a source for the death so it wasn't as if I was adding anything potentially libellous or in violation to WP:BLP. There are thousands of users and IPs on here who add listings to the Deaths in 2022 page with sources, then edit the actual page itself with death details without copying the source over. I honestly don't know why you're singling me out, particularly considering you have edited constructively with me in the past, and you know that I make valuable contributions on here. On a final point, with regards to this, I didn't respond to the editor because I honestly had no idea what they were talking about. For a start, contrary to what their message says, I have never been banned on here before. Secondly, their gripe was that I supposedly didn't add a source for the birth date of Alexander Jefferson. I ask you to take a look at the edit history of that page, because I did. The editor in question scrubbed information from that page without an explanation to their edit summary, so I restored it then an edit war started. They then claimed it was because the birth date wasn't sourced in the article. Now, it was already sourced in the article (check the edit history), though the reference wasn't in the correct place, so I moved it. That was all. Essentially, an oversight on their part and a misunderstanding. With regards to your original point, in future I am going to ensure that I add a reference for the death to BOTH the recent deaths page and the individual bio, as I agree with you it's in line with standards. Why you've pulled me up on this in particular, and not the thousands of others doing it however, is beyond me. It doesn't seem fair at all given how much I've contributed over the years and I don't think pulling up a previous non-related dispute is the best approach. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I pull people up on adding unsourced content all the time - and 'others do it who why can't I?' is not the smoking gun argument you think it is. You seem to have a habit of not adding sources to the articles of recently deceased people, see this from today as well. GiantSnowman 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PS if you had properly responded to my concerns, this would not be at ANI... GiantSnowman 17:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block log (and these are blocks; no-one said you had been banned) reads, as anyone can see:

• 18:28, 13 December 2009 Canadian Paul talk contribs unblocked Jkaharper talk contribs (Condition for unblocking met)
• 15:18, 13 December 2009 Canadian Paul talk contribs blocked Jkaharper talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: See details on user talk page)
• 19:13, 3 March 2008 Jayron32 talk contribs blocked Jkaharper talk contribs with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (BLP violations re: Gay Marriage)

Your edit summary in this reverting diff was Still unexplained. DOB is sourced. Where in that version of the article is the DoB sourced? Also, the edit you were edit warring against was explained, first time, with the edits summary WP:DOB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My misunderstanding on the first point, I thought they were suggesting that I had once been banned. With respect, these blocks were 13 and 14 years ago. I don't think I really knew what I was doing back then. We all have to start somewhere. I've collaborated with Canadian Paul a number of times on here and I'm sure he'd vouch for me. On your second point, here is the revision that you are referring to, and reference #1, the History Makers (here) gives his DOB. It was referenced at the end of the first paragraph in the section "Early life". --Jkaharper (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph - and, indeed, an article section - that does not include the DoB. Nowhere in the article at that point is the DoB accompanied by a citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitic remarks at Talk:Stepan Bandera

Could an uninvolved admin have a look at Talk:Stepan Bandera#Neutrality is broken, article needs rework and see whether remarks of the IP in that section go beyond what we normally consider acceptable on Wikipedia. Courtesy pinging @GizzyCatBella:. I am myself involved. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. IP blocked, feel free to redact as you see fit (I don't want to end up whacking out the formatting or similar). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion and disruptive editing by Ytzesza

Ytzesza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sooners01alt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When I first ran into them, it was regarding an edit warring dispute over on the article Patient Number 9, in which they persistently wanted to keep it as upcoming instead of having the article as released where it was the day of the album's release - as well as adding a source that was not WP:NOTRSMUSIC. It did settle down and they did apologize to me, though I have a feeling that they either might have trouble understanding that there are secondary sources and that an online retailer like Apple Music isn't reliable. Despite being given and sharing the guidelines with them, they have continued to disrupt, as well as bringing back articles that were redirected, with the excuses of being because "They like it" or asking them to contact them on their talk page before redirecting which I suspect is violation of WP:OWN with statement 4 as evidence. They were blocked for a week on October 9 for disruptive editing, but it is clear that they have not been willing to listen to the guidelines on sources. They have now resorted to block evasion, under the name Sooners01alt, and are repeating the same thing they've done with familiar edit summaries on both users. Other evidence is them denying having ever done disruptive editing despite multiple warnings on Ytzesza's talk page, as well as making edits to revert redirects while logged out. The Mob Rules and The Devil Cried are examples of them reverting redirects while logged out. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Sooners01alt" looks like a new user. Who's alt they might be? I suggest you to file WP:SPI for better results. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Site ban for Athaenara

• Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level II desysop of Athaenara
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Athaenara
• § Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato
• § Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes

Procedural preamble that was mooted by desysop while I was drafting this.

Preamble: I am aware that the thread above about Athaenara has been closed pending action from ArbCom. However, current comments at WP:A/R/C seem to indicate that ArbCom is unlikely to impose a sanction in excess of a desysop (and may lack jurisdiction to do so), and no arb comments, as I read it, actually ask the community to hold off on reviewing sanctions of our own. As the community lacks the power to desysop an admin, there is no issue with parallel proceedings—one regarding a desysop, one regarding community sanctions. As such, I submit the following for the community's consideration:

As currently stands, Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam per § Transphobia from User:Athaenara on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato for hate speech or compromised account. A number of issues have been identified with her conduct regarding trans and nonbinary editors, and editors who could be perceived as such based on requested pronouns (henceforth T/NB(?) editors). To recapitulate the evidence I have presented at A/R/C:

• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (Feb. 2019), in defending an essay widely perceived as mocking nonbinary pronouns, Athaenara wrote Another funny part of this to me is that I recall years ago checking the preferences thing about gender, because I'm a woman and don't care who knows it, and now find myself wondering if because of this some users will assume I'm really a guy pretending to be female because hormone issues, neurotic confusion, whatever, and it's just down a rabbit hole again. For the record: I'm not pretending to be anything.
• From March 2019 to present, to my knowledge 9 users have RfA'd or RfB'd who are T/NB(?).
  • Athaenara has voted at 7 of those 9 RfXs (78%, including 2⁄2 RfBs), while voting at only 24 of the other 63 RfXs (38%, including 0⁄5 RfBs).
  • At the 7 RfAs, she has voted oppose all 7 times (100%). At the other 24 RfAs, she has only voted oppose 8 times (33%). At the 2 RfBs, she opposed both.
  • Her opposes here were largely at odds with the rest of the community: 6 of the 8 concluded RfXs (75%) passed (with a 7th still pending but at 189/0/0 at time of writing, so likely 78% soon). Only 1 of the 6—mine—went to a 'crat chat. In three cases, five or fewer other editors opposed. Meanwhile of the 8 other RfAs she opposed, 4 were unsuccessful and 4 passed after 'crat chats.
  • Her rationales against T/NB(?) candidates have often been weak, and in some cases inconsistent with her stated values. See, for instance, her support defending Ashleyyoursmile only having 18 months' experience versus her oppose of theleekycauldron partly on grounds of only 18 months' experience.
• And of course, the comment about Isabelle Belato that led to this block, which I will let speak for itself:

  Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

There is of course a risk in reading too much into RfX voting patterns, but here no speculation is needed. Athaenara has told us, in no uncertain terms, where she stands on editors she perceives as trans or nonbinary. There is no reason to assume good faith here. She has engaged in a level of disruption regarding trans users, both subtly and very unsubtly, that has served to discourage editing by any members of our community who know or fear that they do not meet her definition of an acceptable gender identity. A standard indefblock, reversible by standard unblock request, does not suffice to restore that safe editing atmosphere, nor would any topic ban.

I propose the following community sanction: For repeatedly targeting other editors on the basis of their gender identity, transgender status, or requested pronouns, including in the form of an egregious personal attack, Athaenara is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

References

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(As a point of order, the desysop has now happened by motion per [164]) but in any case, I'm in strong Support of a community ban. We need to be clear as a community that this sort of conduct isn't acceptable. Mike1901 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ah. Collapsed that part, thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Notifications sent to Athenaera, Floquenbeam, and TheresNoTime. As Isabelle has said they are sitting out any discussion of the matter, I have not notified them, although I did wind up pinging them by accident anyways. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose a site ban and I think Athaenara should be unblocked immediately. Put the pitchforks away and go find something productive to do. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  You think the responses to egregious personal attacks directed at an RfA candidate because of their gender identity were akin to what, exactly? Put the pitchforks away isn't really something you should be saying to members of minority groups who are frequently persecuted or under attack. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  So you think that WP:NPA should no longer be a policy? I'd consider ensuring people who attack others get blocked a very productive activity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Seems unnecessary, she isnt getting unblocked without a discussion and a consensus for it, and its going to take I dont even know what to get that far. And any unilateral unblock at this point would definitely be a wheel violation (though even if the re-block was correct on the merits, the blocker was not the person to make it imo given the comments on Athaenara's talk page and being the one to request reinstatement here). Just seems like an unnecessary amount of drama for us to spend another 24 hours on this here. nableezy - 19:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  And to be very clear, the comment was hateful and hurtful and harmful and an indef block is the correct response. I just see this proposal as essentially being a distinction without a difference from the status quo, and I think the community (and the ArbCom for that matter) have already been very clear that it is not acceptable to attack a person in such a way, and that is why she is indef blocked. I just dont think the drama of the next 24 hours on ANI is going to do anything positive. nableezy - 19:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  And also, for anybody per nableezying, Im not actually opposed. I suppose there is a certain respect for the work of the years past that makes me not really want to have that name "community banned", and I share the hope that 28bytes spoke of below, but I dont think you can express contempt for the existence of other editors and be part of a collaborative project with those editors either. But I also dont think that going to happen anyway. nableezy - 21:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nableezy. She paid the price for what she said and will likely never return. This is political headhunting. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I regard this as essentially procedural, the issues having already been discussed fairly extensively in various fora. I would add that Athaenara's doubling down on her culture wars comments following the initial block was especially concerning for me, in terms of any hope of future participation on Wikipaedia. This doesn't seem like a community member who is prepares to accept community norms of conduct (which demand some respect for the basic dignity of other editors). Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) whilst the ArbCom deliberations are ongoing. Having multiple discussions and multiple groups of people trying to implement/considering further sanctions of some kind is ridiculous. If ArbCom don't take on the case, then we can come back to ANI and the community can decide what further action (if any) is needed. GiantSnowman 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. She is indefinitely blocked already. Not liking someone's RfA vote pattern is not a reason to ban anyone, even someone with as bad an argument as the one given. It's drama-mongering at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, but unapologetic attacks on editors because they are part of a minority group are, indeed, grounds for a community ban, and saying so isn't drama-mongering. If the comments in question had pointed in the direction of having too many Jews rather than too many trans people, I can't believe you would be minimizing the issue in this way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: Reducing this to "Not liking someone's RfA vote pattern" is such a trivialization of what happened here that it borders on a new insult to Isabelle. Someone said she doesn't want trans/nonbinary/etc. admins, having voted in a way consistent with that for years, and you're calling it drama-mongering to want a clear statement from the community that she is no longer welcome here? I did not think it was possible in the span of three sentences to make me lose all respect I had ever built for a person over the course of a decade working alongside them... well, short of remarks like the ones at issue here. Although at least Athaenara had the guts to clearly say what she believes. That merits some respect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's an argument of IDONTLIKEIT based on a thin RfA record. I share the exact same thoughts as Ealdgyth below—this is some ad hoc attempt to find smoking guns in a bunch of mist to justify a ban far beyond the existing misconduct, which has already been sanctioned. It would never stand up in an ArbCom case, so I'm not sure why it's valid here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  What are you saying would never stand up in an ArbCom case, and why do you think the community should only consider the same factors as ArbCom, anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  That must be one of the most tone deaf comments I have seen for a long time. And from an ex-Arb, as well ... at least some of the comments above are from editors who have form for such things. We've found out a lot over the last few days. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Personally, I would have preferred to only have this conversation if Athaenara requested an unblock, but I suppose we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I don't think this is necessary to demonstrate the community's intolerance of this kind of behavior. I'll admit this is easier for me to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy, Troutman, Fuchs et al. She lost the mop which is as it should be. Let's not dance on her grave. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Mu, for now. Unless and until Athanaera either makes an unblock request or engages with ArbCom as she's been requested to do, this seems premature. I desperately hope to be proven wrong, but this looks more like an Eyrian-style situation where an admin egregiously violated policy, got blocked, and is effectively banned until such time as they can defend their behaviour. I would rather see if ArbCom will issue the ban first (again, there is precedent for this), since that would be the only realistic outcome of the case request (since ArbCom cannot de jure force policy). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Athaenara had multiple opportunities to apologize, accept responsibility, and handle this in some semblance like an adult. She has failed to do any of these things. I remain astonished at her behavior, but we have no choice here. This conduct is unbecoming not merely of an administrator, but of any user. Athaenara clearly wants to go out with a Suicide by cop, so I guess we should grant her final wish. I am not persuaded by those whining about "political headhunting" and whatever else. Last I checked, being a giant dick is not a political view. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - This is a very clear-cut case of "hate is disruptive". Tamzin has done a great job here of surmising the key points, showing that Athaenara has been both overtly (comments at Isabelle's RfA, comments at Signpost) and covertly (opposing all open trans or non-binary RfAs) disruptive. While one could argue that we cannot definitively prove the covert disruption, given the overt disruption I believe the covert disruption clearly meets the duck test. For those saying that Athaenara won't be unblocked without community approval, I defer to Red-tailed hawk's excellent reply at RFAR. Athaenara is not currently subject to a CBAN, because the requirements to impose one have not yet been fulfilled, as no single discussion at ANI has been open long enough (72 hours) to meet the criteria. As such, Athaenara is currently subject to an ordinary admin block, and could make a regular unblock request. While such a request would be very likely to fail in the short term, that may not be true in 12+ months. The level of disruption demonstrated by Athaenara quite clearly, to me at least, meets the threshold where a CBAN is more appropriate than an indef block, and any attempt at requesting an unblock/unban should also be required to meet the higher threshold required by a CBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: If blatant hate and personal attacks are not sufficient reason for the community to show someone the door, I struggle to find what is. I think would be it wise to make it clear as can be that Athaenara's conduct is unwelcome and unacceptable to the community, and only the community – not the Arbitration Committee, not an individual administrator – should have the power to reverse that action. I also echo Sideswipe9th's peer into the matter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• A deliberate hate speech attack on an innocent third-party during the most stressful thing we put our editors through is enough for a CBAN. That it was clearly done as a breaching experiment just makes it even worse. 16 years of good editing absolutely flushed in order to pwn a member of a minority. Actions have consequences, and a line must be drawn somewhere. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support – formalizing the ban certainly won't do any harm, and takes away any confusion about how she could be unblocked. The RFA pattern is concerning but I'm supporting this based solely on her behaviour yesterday and today. If Athaenara wants to come back, she can appeal the ban as usual. Madeline (part of me) 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support topic bans on RFA and GENSEX as proposed by Mellohi!, either on top of a siteban, or instead of it in case a siteban fails to gain consensus. Madeline (part of me) 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Cban: "Political headhunting?" Is that some manner of sick joke? Expressing a general opinion is a far different thing than weaponizing it into a crude, vicious personal attack on another editor, or a demonstrated pattern of opposing RfAs where the candidates are known to be gender-noncomforming. (And what the pluperfect hell: be your views ever so anti-trans extremist, what could there possibly be about being trans that disqualifies someone from being an admin??) We would siteban a newbie twenty times over for behavior half as egregious, and no one would dare defend the newbie. Athaenara knew what she was doing, has expressed no remorse over it, declined to apologize for it, and dared us to do something about it. Suicide by ANI or not, she does not belong on Wikipedia in any capacity whatsoever. We are not "dancing on her grave" here. We're making sure this mess is decently interred, and stays that way. Ravenswing 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:CBAN says the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. There needs to be separate involved/uninvolved sections. 46.97.168.199 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The only people involved in the underlying dispute are Athaenara and possibly Isabelle who has already said they would not be engaging. nableezy - 19:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The text at CBAN suggests use of a template that distinguishes between involved and uninvolved, but does not appear to mandate it: Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response.

  The only concern I would have when it came to refactoring this would be, how widely do you determine involved in this case? Obviously Athaenara is involved, as is I think Floq due to issuing the initial block. You could argue that TNT and Lourdes are also involved due to the events earlier today, though I would disagree with such. Are the 78 editors who contributed to the arbitration request involved? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• People can change, and my sincere hope is that someday Athaenara will do some reflecting and come to understand that you just can’t treat people like that. But her recent comments suggest that’s not yet happened, so in the meantime it makes sense to ask her to leave until she’s ready to take that step. 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Fully support site ban. These kind of actions from an ip or a new account are expected and dealt with swiftly but I could never have thought of an admin doing such horrendous things to an innocent user. As a transwoman and a human all together I am repulsed that this even needs to be created considering that she has sixteen years on this platform. Td^she/her 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Thedefender35 you've posted this as a reply to 28bytes's comment; I assume that was a mistake? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  yes I mistakenly did this Td^she/her 19:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per GRuban and those GRuban cites, especially Fuchs. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would also strongly agree with Jeppiz's comment below. Athaenara's comments were indefensible. But the reaction is becoming mob-like and quite disturbing in itself. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support - she discriminated against an editor based on their gender identity by voting oppose in their RFA. She expressed transphobic views ("men masquerading as women", etc.). It's not the first time she's done this (eg the 2019 MFD), and she showed no indications of changing/retracting/etc. in her post-block posts. These are multiple violations of our policies and TOS. I'd say "no one would unblock her" except we've already had one "cowboy admin" unblock by an inactive admin who came back just for this (and this is why I support tighter admin activity requirements). A site ban will prevent any other cowboy admin unblocks. And if we don't site ban for discrimination, what the hell else would we ever siteban an editor for? This is a no-brainer. We need to be a lot better about throwing out toxic editors like this. Do we want this to be a welcoming and inclusive editing environment? By showing her the door, we show that we take this sort of thing seriously. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Ravenswing. I'll add that this behavior is worse coming from a long-tenured, active admin who should really know better than from some random internet troll. ansh.666 19:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose on a full site ban as the only proferred option at this time. I think a more tailored response is feasible, along the lines of a block for some number of months followed by an indefinite topic ban from anything gender-related, and from participating in RfA and other discussions relating to user status. BD2412 T 19:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - @Tamzin: I’m just curious, how did you find that one 2019 comment? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 19:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: I believe credit would go to Floquenbeam, who first uncovered the diff in this edit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I found it, and mentioned it in the RFAR. This was after I had made the block for "hate speech or compromised account". At the time, I was somewhat confident this was going to be a compromised account, so to limit the damage to her reputation, I went looking for comments she had made at other gender-related controversies I could remember, to show it was an aberration. Instead, I found that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to all the people who oppose a site ban stating that she "lost her mop" if we are to let an Admin of a sixteen year old account get away with blatant disrespect towards not only the user but to the rules they are meant to uphold and enforce how are we to assume that other users won't see this as a gateway to attack others based on their own opinions?Td^she/her 19:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  She is indefinitely blocked, and any unblock at this point would be a blatant wheel violation that would likely result in another desysop. Nobody is getting away with anything. nableezy - 19:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Having followed this for the past 24 hours, it is starting to look increasingly like a witch hunt. I don't defend the comment in any way, and an admin opposing a user over their identity is particularly problematic - but the comment in question is nowhere near that 50 worst NPA violations I've seen. Over the years, I've seen lots of comments attacking different users over their religions (attacks against Christians, Muslims and Jews being the most common), their nationality and so on. Most of those attacks have not even lead to a block at all, and those who did only lead to short blocks. This already seems to be by far the strongest action taken, and the reasons for doing so are not clear to me. I repeat that I consider the comment entirely wrong and nothing of this is meant to defend it. Ideally, I should be judged in line with similar comments. Or, at the very least, those who feel that this comment requires a much stronger response than all the similar comments would need to make the case for that much stronger response here. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Jeppiz: I mean, I think Athaenara knew exactly what she was doing when she left this comment – not on some obscure article talk page, not on a content dispute – but in full view of the community on a sailing RfA, as a tenured and well-respected user with sysop privileges. That strikes me intentionally calculated for maximum disruption. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I have to agree. This isn't a witch hunt. This was very intentional. She literally said, in an RfA oppose, "Go ahead. Cancel me." Which clearly indicates she knew exactly how drama-inducing this would be. This was intentional disruption in about as public a place as one could choose. I cannot off the top of my head come up with a manner in which an opinion expressed on WP was more likely to generate major drama. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The witch-hunt, in my opinion, is the dreging of her voting history to dig up a supposed smoking gun. I agree with the concerns expressed by Elmidae and Ealdgyth below. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  From what I have read and seen on the users talk page and the info given via the links she has doubled down on her opinion and said she sees nothing wrong with what she said or who she said it to. The issue here isn't mainly what she said but how long she has been hinting at this style of thinking and how she said it to directly attack a user. Td^she/her 20:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  By contrast, I have seen several editors indeff-blocked for the equivalent of referring to trans women as males masquerading as females, and would expect nothing else, just as I would expect the same result if similarly disparaging remarks were directed at Jewish people or any racialized group. The reason a community ban, rather than simply an indef-block, is mandated here is that we are dealing with an editor who had exercised admin functions, with the responsibility that comes with the role. Under such circumstances, a regular indef seems insufficient. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• What does a site ban actually mean, compared to the current community-endorsed block? As far as I understand: a) Preventing quick unblock declines by individual administrators. Hm. b) Strictly requiring community consensus before the block can be removed. Well, a community-endorsed block practically does the same. c) Opening WP:AN (where we should ideally be having this type of discussions instead) or ANI as new mandatory venues for bad excuses and attempts to justify the behavior, instead of keeping them restricted to the blocked user's talk page. Hm. d) Having yet another discussion about whether the behavior was unacceptable enough to justify an indefinite block, allowing those who don't properly see the issue to heat up the discussion with their trivializations yet again. In conclusion, while of course I prefer a site ban to a "site ban request unsuccessful" result, the actual best situation would be if this ban discussion had not been started at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Because the discussion was never allowed to go even a full 24 hours, there does not seem to be a valid community-endorsed block in place. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  For obvious reasons, it's probably unwise to let someone who has an admin bit and is facing an indef to have 24 hours during which time they could wreak havoc (not that Athaenara would, just a general point). Also, there was still the possibility that this was a compromised account, which we always block straight away. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion could have been kept open for longer after the block, resulting in a proper consensus for the sanction, making it harder to remove. Newimpartial does thus have a point. And per Barkeep49 below, as redundant as having this discussion feels, I should probably explicitly mention that I support both an indefinite block and an indefinite site-wide community ban per the proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban, Support indefinite block This is in line with actions taken against others who’ve had similar behavior. As with any indefinite block, return is conditioned upon an appropriate appeal and with a short leash. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me, at all, that the community has already made this a CBAN by endorsing the block at ANI. In fact I think the community hasn't done so. From WP:CBAN A third-party block review that results in a normal administrator block being endorsed is not converted into a community ban. That's what we had here. Not to mention we have certain procedural safeguards around CBANs (at least 24 hours, normally at least 72 hours) that were not met here. So if Athaenara were to post an actual unblock request that this could be handled by a single administrator under normal procedure. Accepting such an appeal without some community discussion strikes me as unwise (to put it mildly) but permissible. If the community wants to ensure the block isn't undone without its consent it should support this CBAN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think the reblock section precludes any future unilateral unblock. But I do not think a CBAN has happened as a result of it either, that I agree with. nableezy - 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a distinction without meaningful difference (if pressed I could name some of them but they're not ultimately meaningful). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ping @ToBeFree as I wrote this at the same time but is my answer to the questions posed in their comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per NPA and Tamzin's RFA analysis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose while Arbcom is still sorting itself out She's been desysopped and indeffed (both well deserved IMO), which makes a suitable holding pattern while the arbs have a look at the matter. I'm also very uncomfortable with employing this kind of speculative voting analysis as an argument for a siteban - I'm aware Tamzin believes she has uncovered something, but to me this looks like data-dredging to come to a preferred conclusion. If a siteban is on the books here, we can arrive at that finding without creating what I would consider a troubling precedent of re-interpreting formerly innocuous actions post fall from grace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is a TOS violation and as blatant as it can be. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not going to opine on the ban or not, but I have some concerns with the use of voting stats to argue for a ban. I went and looked at my votes rfa/rfbs since March 2019 - and of the 9 singled out - i opposed (3) or did not vote (6) on all of them. Am I going to be next? I mean, if someone doesn't agree with my reasoning for opposing, am I going to have my reasoning brushed aside and it argued that I'm against T/NB persons? I just feel like that sort of thing is a very slippery slope - stick to the inarguably bad attack vote against Isabelle and things are much firmer without risking issues with slippery slopes. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • So, just to clarify two things here: My analysis treats non-votes as tending against a conclusion of bigotry, not for. We have no way to know why someone doesn't vote for someone. So, if I were to subject your voting to the same analysis as Athaenara's, I would say that only voting in 3 out of 9 suggests you are probably not voting based on bigotry; and then a 3⁄3 oppose rate is a very small sample to infer anything from. More importantly, though, you have not said anything (to my knowledge) to suggest that you want to prevent trans/nonbinary/etc. users from becoming admins. Athaenara has. We would definitely not be having this conversation if all there was was the voting pattern. Athaenara's oppose rate is unlikely to be a coincidence (naïvely, a 1⁄2187 approx. 0.05% chance), but WP:AGF would compel us to consider other explanations for the pattern. I know I would oppose a ban (or even desysop) based on purely statistical evidence—both because of the possibility of AGF explanations, and because of the slippery slope of sanctioning people when they have not engaged in overt disruption. But she's said how she feels, and it is thus reasonable to assume that that motivates this statistically improbably result.
    Which goes as well to Elmidae's point: The key distinction between this and some Texas sharpshooter scenario is that there was a clear reason going in to analyze this voting pattern. If I had, say, gone through every voter at these nine RfXs and picked out the one who opposed the highest percentage, that would be an essentially meaningless conclusion, because across hundreds of voters, some will fall on the far ends of the bell curve. But there was a specific question here—does Athaenara's stated opposition to a (presumed) trans admin correlate with a past history of opposing trans admins?—and I followed the data from there. I actually did not have any particular expectation as to what the data would be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Evidently, Athaenara is unfit for this collaborative project. I really don't see any valid reason to second-guess this proposal. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that a more measured response like what BD2412 proposed is more appropriate. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Seems pretty clear cut to me: this is the most cold, cruel and bigoted direct personal attack I've ever seen on this site (drive-by vandals notwithstanding). Even without the circumstantial evidence mentioned above, it seems to me that a CBAN here is absolutely justified. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'd also like to propose two topic bans from a) discussing gender or sexuality, and b) requests for adminship, which would directly address her two most inflammatory issues. These may stack on top of the community ban if it passes. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Tbans Regardless of the discussion on a site-ban, which I think is a little too far without prior warning, I would support a topic ban from RFA and gender/sexuality, broadly construed, because I am not aware of disruption extending to any other areas of Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support full siteban, basically in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS. An openly transpohobic editor who wields their bigotry against other editors is not fit to remain in a collaborative project. As an admin or as a mere editor. Zaathras (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support in order to make sure that the community has a say in any restoration process, basically per Barkeep49's comments. But I also find the opposes that dismiss the value of the voting analysis to be unconvincing. No one here is saying "if a person has a particular pattern of voting then they should be site banned solely for that reason". Lots of people are saying some version of "given new information that provokes competing interpretations of events, reassessing relevant data we already have helps us choose the more probable interpretation". Reinterpreting probabilities in light of new information is good, actually. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instead of this unseemly pile-on, we should be concentrating on how we might retain an outstanding editor and (former) admin who has made one (1) bizarre, clearly misplaced and – to me at least – totally inexplicable comment. For those who like Seabiscuit: "You don’t throw away a whole life just because it’s banged up a little". Is it too much to ask for a little humanity here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  If an editor has clearly expressed their unwillingness to change, why should the community take seriously the possibility they they'll change? The comment in question might seem inexplicable, but it was quite clearly premeditated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure it was premeditated, hence why it is inexplicable. While many on this website are excited my rapid social change, some feel threatened. I can only imagine how women might feel surrounded by those who don't fit the traditional definition. Of course, you folks aren't interested in humanity, are you? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxing again from Pittsburgh IP range

• 2601:989:4303:20:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Pennsylvania has been disrupting the wiki for more than a year as Special:Contributions/2601:989:4303:20:0:0:0:0/64 which has been blocked three times. The most recent block expired today, and the hoaxing repeated itself with the restoration of Draft:PBS Kids Sprout Awards 2001 and Draft:PBS Kids Sprout Awards, both of which were previously deleted after having been created by this person, as may be seen through warnings issued to User talk:2601:989:4303:20:B490:8346:CB74:5ECA.

Can we get a longer rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Was just about to block; @Ponyo: beat me to it. 1 year is exactly what I was going to do! GiantSnowman 21:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Great minds, yada yada yada...-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Networkonfusion (2)

Kinda lost myself at WP:RFPP/I#Juno_Temple (permalink). And now I'm scared. El_C 21:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)