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

Aggressive behavior of User:Hotwiki towards other editors

I think admins should take a look on User:Hotwiki's editing behavior, especially towards other editors. I stumbled upon their edit-war with User:FrostFleece regarding GMA Network shows supposed airing of their shows in 4k format and in 5.1 surround sound. Since the Philippines had yet to broadcast in full digital and most of the major TV stations are still airing in analog, FrostFleece's edits are valid. Even the programs that the network upload in their official YouTube channel are not in 4k format or 5.1 surround sound. Hotwiki reverted back FrostFleece's edits (see here, here and here) and posted a fourth level warning on FrostFleece's talk page. When ForstFleece replied on Hotwiki's talk page explaining their edits, Hotwiki replied aggressively and even threaten FrostFleece that they will report them to administrators (see Picture and audio format of LIVE broadcasts on GMA Network).

I myself have encountered Hotwiki's behavior whenever I edit the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. They may also have violated WP:OWN on these articles since whenever other editors add content on the mentioned articles, they will revert them immediately and tag them "unreferenced". -WayKurat (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Replying to reinforce this topic regarding User:Hotwiki who only greeted me with unfriendly remarks and a shower of warnings.

This all began when I started editing on the Eat Bulaga! article as I noticed the particular detail standing out. Just recently, a reversion of User:Blakegripling_ph's revision on the Eat Bulaga! article reveals User:Hotwiki's intent on maintaining their edit with their summary highlighted here:

"According to who? GMA shows are in Netflix and Netflix are required to be in 4K resolution. Again you have no proof that there are NO 4K cameras being usedwhen GMA Network already stated in their pressrelease many years ago about going 4k. Go look it up before you revert 1 more time"

It stems from this article here (which is frequently cited by User:Hotwiki) describing how GMA Network is investing to upgrade their programs to full 4K format. However, this user is greatly misinformed since it doesn't state here which shows are produced in 4K; nowhere in the article also mentions anything about 5.1 surround sound. This user also cannot provide additional references and clearly made assumptions from the said news article.

Furthermore to refute their claim, TAPE Inc.(Eat Bulaga! producer) is a separate entity and a long-time blocktimer on GMA Network (see news article) and does not produce the show for Netflix; similar to the aforementioned news programs: 24 Oras and Saksi.

I would also like to share that this issue is also spread out across most GMA drama series articles with User:Hotwiki behind changing the parameters of multiple shows also without references. Any efforts on improving these pages are considered futile due to this user's aggressive and persistent revision. FrostFleece (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hotwiki also display ownership on other pages such Twice singles discography insisting that The Feels is not a single of Formula of Love: O+T=＜3 over the objections of other editors. Hotwiki needs to respect consensus when it does not go their way. See [1] and [2]. Lightoil (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil: The issue with Twice was discussed in the talk page of Twice singles discography. The evidence is there and I responded in a very civil way. You could have expressed your opinion in that talk page and you didn't. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also this was written in my talk page "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly. Your talk page shows it all". How is that not a personal attack? I did discuss to User:FrostFleece in a civil way, about posting a reference, which he/she failed to do so. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@WayKurat: yes, I do revert unreferenced edits immediately as those articles are in my watchlist. Is there a problem with that? Seeing your edit history, you do the same, though most of your reverts are unexplained which are seen in your contributions page[3]. User:FrostFleece made changes to at least five Wikipedia articles without posting a reference, and I checked the user's edit history, the user did not post any reference to all of his/her edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Expounding that statement:

1. "You are full of threats instead of discussing things civilly." - I simply described your frequent threats to block me from editing as seen on my talk page.
2. "Your talk page shows it all." - describing your disposition when dealing with other editors.

Taking offense is not the same as a personal attack and I am sorry if those statements did offend you, but let it be known I have never meant it in any way a form as an attack on you.

It's simple. Provide and present references that proves the GMA content are in 4K and 5.1 sound. Please stop relying on that godforsaken article that does not back your claim at all.

I admit, it is tough finding a source that specifically details the show or channel specifications, but that information is readily available publicly since GMA Network is broadcasted across the country. I have no place to lie about it here on Wikipedia.

Please also do your due diligence instead of keeping on harassing editors for a reference you so much crave about.

Do your part too, @Hotwiki. FrostFleece (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Yes, I revert edits, but the edits I revert are mostly obvious vandalism. FrostFleece already provided an explanation on why they did the revisions, and still you acted aggressive towards them. I also didn't saw any personal attacks against you on their reply.

Also, have you watched GMA Network's over-the-air broadcasts or even watch their shows on YouTube? The signal is obviously not in HD, let alone, in 4k. It's only on 16:9 480p. The source that you keep on bringing up only mentions that GMA is capable of producing shows in 4k. Only a few stations in Metro Manila airs content in HD. -WayKurat (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

GMA Network only started broadcasting their shows in widescreen in broadcast television, this year, but their shows have been filmed with wide-screen ratio since 2014 and this is evident from online videos (YouTube/Netflix/Viu) that they uploaded throughout the years. Recent shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon, First Lady and First Lady are indeed filmed with 4K cameras, as 4K resolution is a standard requirement for content being streamed in Netflix[4] and GMA shows are available for streaming in Netflix. Shows being streamed in Netflix also uses 5.1 surround sound, not stereo. A 2019 article from GMA Network which was posted in Saksi, Eat Bulaga and several articles backed up the 4k claim. So please, provide a reliable source when you make an edit and claim that GMA doesn't use 4k cameras and 5.1 stereo for their shows. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say they are not using 4k capable cameras. I'm telling you that they are NOT broadcasting in 4k and in 5.1 surround sound. Just because some of their shows are on Netflix does not mean that ALL of their shows are recorded on what format you are claiming. Heck, Eat Bulaga, Saksi and 24 Oras are not even in Netflix. You are just assuming them. I'm throwing the question back to you. Do you have a primary source that says that all of their shows are being shown over-the-air in 4k 5.1 surround sound? -WayKurat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your source @WayKurat:? If we are gonna drastically change audio format and picture format for 5 shows, we should able to back up that with a reliable source which @FrostFleece: failed to do so.TheHotwiki (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop asking me and other editors on our sources. It's obvious that you only based your assumptions on that GMA article and you won't let anyone remove it unless they provide their "sources". That's the problem on your editing behavior, you remove or revert back the edits of other editors if they edit your work but when questioned on this, you keep on asking "where is your source?". This is borderline WP:OWN. -WayKurat (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Changing content without adding a reliable source is a valid reason to revert someone's edit. Now since you and @FrostFleece: failed to provide a reference, how about you both just let it go? TheHotwiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the attitude, @Hotwiki, after all these replies.

We are going around in circles and instead of trying to help finding common ground, you are simply telling us to let it go? Do you mean let it go and let you keep your edits? Sure, but please provide correct sources too if you are all about the references.

@WayKurat and I have provided and explained in sheer detail but you choose to stick with your logic and fail to see our point. We are not wasting our time and efforts here for no reason. So please, don't tell us to just "let it go." Would you like it if I were to tell you the same?

I invite you to please reread our counter-arguments once more and you are very much welcome to do so. This would be my final response until someone steps in to help resolve this issue. Adios for now and all the best for this discussion. FrostFleece (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not just gonna let this slide one bit this time. This attitude of yours has been going on for years now. Look what have you done to the 24 Oras and Saksi articles. For comparison, look at this version of the Saksi article from 2017 and from today. You removed most of the content there that the show's history section now has gaps in it, compared to TV Patrol's article. And the references used in the "anchors" section are just clips from YouTube when the anchor appeared in that newscast. Maybe you should stop owning articles and let other editors edit them. -WayKurat (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You are over-generalizing these information! I have a phone right now that can also shoot in 4K but that doesn't mean everything I shoot is 4K. Your NETFLIX logic is flawed.

We are not contesting the fact that GMA can shoot 4K format right now. The problem is that not all shows are released in 4K and 5.1. The keyword here is released. Just because Netflix requires 4K cameras, it doesn't mean all GMA shows are released in 4K. If you go to Netflix right now, you'll be surprised to see that the specifications for shows like I Left My Heart in Sorsogon is still in 1080p, and in Stereo! (linked here) Technically, no 4K or 5.1 release yet, unless you provide hardcore references.

Yes, GMA Network does have 4K cameras (see article here) and can produce in 5.1 surround sound format (see Voltes V Legacy cinematic version plans here,) but you are assuming that for all shows. FrostFleece (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Hotwiki: You too need references. In the absence of any reliable source showing what format the program is in (which is different from what format the producer is capable of making) we should not specify any format. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: There is a reference for the 4k resolution claim which was already added to this article Saksi. Looking at the access date of the reference, its been in the article since 2021. As for surround sound, FrostFleece (talk · contribs) just posted a link above that shows of GMA Network utilizes 5.1 surround sound.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is precisely a link that shows that the producer is capable of making programs in this format, not that any particular show utilises this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's 3 more articles that says the network in discussion uses 4K cameras.[5][6][7] The first link is for the network's Public Affairs department. The second link specifically mentioned a 2020 drama series. These articles are from 2020. I just don't understand the need to cherry pick which shows are using "4k resolution camera/4k picture format", when these articles exists. Meanwhile there are still no reference, that certain shows are only in lower resolution.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what sources might say about the network's capabilities when they don't say that these capabilities are being used for particular programs. And we don't need a reference to simply leave out the format when there is no such source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's more likely that these shows aren't broadcasting in 4k at all, but mainly in 1080i or 1080p. Hotwiki, you would easily be able to find out what format a show broadcasts through a technical tool which would show its true format, and the only regular 4k broadcasts are usually special events, not a Filipino lunchtime variety show being broadcast every weekday (and often to an audience that has absolutely no need for 4k). Also, just because it's being recorded on 4k equipment doesn't mean it goes out in 4k; more likely it's being downscaled to a regular 1080i/p system for graphics and network output like we do in the United States for sports broadcasts). Netflix doesn't have a 4k requirement, and you need sourcing to show it, which just doesn't exist. So it's time to stop, now. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:Hotwiki is showing their WP:OWN tendencies again. I just re-added the content they removed from the Saksi article that were removed in 2020 but they keep on removing them because according to them, it's unreferenced and "trivial". The removed content were mostly the show's history between 2002 and 2011 and if you read the overview section before I re-added the history section, it's missing a significant chunk of the newscast's history. This thread also mentions a couple of instances when Hotwiki violated WP:OWN. Can someone please review the article first and issue warnings to Hotwiki for edit warring? -WayKurat (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Chiming in again after some statements.

  @WayKurat, I'm afraid I have to back @Hotwiki on this one upon review of the diffs but I think there are some information worth reviewing. I agree that some parts are way too trivial but I believe can be rewritten to be deemed an acceptable entry. The article has a talk page and I invite all of us concerned to discuss further from there.

  But still, @Hotwiki, though I appreciate and respect your contributions and your incredibly proactive editing, we need to always have a healthy discussion instead of swooping in with the reverts and dealing with us and other editors in an unfriendly manner. What's the use of citation needed or other tags and discussion pages if you always take matters on your hands? It's good to be bold to delete some information, as said in the article, but not overly bold that discourages other contributors from providing insights. FrostFleece (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  @WayKurat: you are using this opportunity as a way to revert back a version of Saksi (an article that used to have plenty of unreferenced claims and trivial stuff), that has been removed years ago. How is "graphics change" important to the article? Trivial uncited information like Catchphrases is unnecessary. Myself removing uncited and trivial content IS NOT me owning the article as if its my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

  An IP user with 6 edits, reverted an old version from 2020 in this article, Saksi.[8] No one is still adding sources to the reverted back uncited claims. Could the administrators look into this? The article is now (once again) full of uncited and trivial claims because @WayKurat: claimed that the article used to be a mess when the uncited and trivial claims were removed, yet for years it was removed just fine. TheHotwiki (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you should try looking into the TV Patrol article. It contains uncited and trivial claims similar on what you have removed in the Saksi article. Instead of helping out in finding sources in the History/Overview section, you just removed a lot of content, some of them were written way back in 2007, skipping the show's history from 2004 to 2011. You also added that "Interim anchors" section, which only uses video clips from GMA News' official YouTube channel as primary source. The videos are not even about the subject being cited, it's just news clips when the interim anchor delivers the news. How can you call that a proper source? Also, with comments like this to other editors, no wonder no one bothers to revert your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  In other news, I discovered something. @Hotwiki, you have plenty of edits on the page of The Wall Philippines but you haven't questioned once regarding the audio format of the show nor asked for references. You did not even try to change it. Why, @Hotwiki?

  I was surprised that the show was stated in its actual audio format, although yes, it is "unreferenced" as you would love to put it; though, I am not debating the credibility of the parameter but instead the seemingly bias approach towards other articles and editors. Although you might say you have missed it, sure; but I highly doubt it since you are pretty much eagle-eyed and active on GMA-related articles. FrostFleece (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm seeing way too much edit warring (across multiple articles) and way too little talk page discussion in general, although by now it appears to have all subsided. If Hotwiki, WayKurat, and FrostFleece can find an article talk page or content noticeboard to settle the format dispute (or alternatively WP:DROPTHESTICK), I think this could be closed with warnings to Hotwiki to WP:AGF and avoid edit warring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  User:Rosguill, Hotwiki has been warned several times about edit warring and this behavior since at least 2017 (I checked their User talk Archives 11 and 12). I'm not sure adding any warnings above that would solve anything. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  They were blocked for the 2017 incident but I'm not seeing any problems since then--the warning from 2018 seems to have been posted tendentiously. oh wait there are other warnings from that year too. Hm. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here's their block log. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you check their user talk page, there are instances that other users are complaining User:Hotwiki for owning articles. Maybe admins can check this as well as this has been going on since 2017. It just really escalated with this incident involving User:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think part of my initial reluctance to impose a block is due to the fact that I find WayKurat's edit-warring and WP:POINT-y reversion to a diff from 2020 at Saksi to be equally sanction worthy (and yes, they have a similar history of 5+-year-old blocks for edit warring). In the absence of an ongoing edit war, I don't think blocking WayKurat will accomplish anything, but am loathe to reward brinksmanship at ANI. I think that the separate concern of Hotwiki veering into OR (vis-a-vis video formats) is more singularly sanctionable, but I'd like to see a response from Hotwiki regarding that charge and what they would intend to do moving forward before taking action as an admin . That having been said, failure to address this concern (specifically addressing the points made in Nate's comment and Phil Bridger's last comment) is problematic, so a sanction will be warranted if Hotwiki does not respond to it. Pinging Hotwiki, per that last sentence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Rosguill: I already stopped edit warring/arguing about 4K once Phil Bridger/Nate both commented about the picture format. And you can see in the history page of the articles,that I didn't restore it to 4K, as I already dropped this issue right after their comment. I blanked the audio format per the suggestion of Phil Bridger. I can work well with other editors as I have never resorted to personal attacks especially in this issue. This issue escalated due to my reluctance of the articles being backed up with references (when there was none when things were being changed/removed). I'm sorry for all the inconvenience I made. TheHotwiki (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  WIth all due respect to Hotwiki and their contributions, It is unlikely that this editor is will be open to settle matters in talk pages or even recognize insights from other editors. I am also unsure how I (or other editors) can arrive at a conclusion with Hotwiki independently in the future without the intervention of administrators.

  To summarize again this user's actions:

  - Misuse of WP:PRIMARY across multiple articles, (where plenty are still left unedited due to their behavior.)

  - Exhibiting WP:OWN and high-maintenance behaviors.

  - Engaging in WP:DE for WP:POINT.

  - Lack of WP:AGF, (ex. presenting a barrage of warnings on my talk page.)

  As a newcomer, I apologize for my oversight on the guidelines on edit-warring on which I ceased from the moment this case was discussed and eventually raised here. All I wanted was a civil discussion from the start.

  Once again, this will be my final response, simply finalizing my points to help the admins concerned and to also help avoid prolonging this any further.

  With thanks, FrostFleece (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  • • I already dropped this issue the other day. The audio format for the Tv show articles were blanked and @FrostFleece: thanked my edits for it, as seen in my notifications. I didn't know I am up for a "block", when I already stopped edit warring days ago.TheHotwiki (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Disrupting editing of filmographies, films, actors

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 (edits since Feb 26)

Persistent addition of unsourced claims focused primarily on adding films to filmography tables for future projects that have not yet begun filming, but also changing release dates, adding cast members, changing budget/gross. WP:FILMOGRAPHY says Do not add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source.

Diffs and talk page links

Examples of unsourced/poorly sourced additions: adding future projects to filmography tables: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] changing budget/gross: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] changing release date: [26] changing release date and cast members: [27] changing release date, budget and gross (for an unreleased film?) [28] malformed edits: [29] unexplained reference removal: [30] Talk pages are littered with warnings: User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:B44D:F0A7:46E:4D06 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:F46F:3F6C:2D86:1205 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:1D4B:15C0:A9EC:AFD0 User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:3440:541B:D660:915E User talk:2A00:F29:280:BD93:6C05:15AA:6115:EEB6

Note: this appears to be the same editor who was on this range:

• Special:Contributions/2A00:F29:2B0:2D1:0:0:0:0/64 (edits from Feb 3 to Feb 25, 2023)

Select examples: [31] [32] [33] [34]

I think they need a timeout.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They have resumed their chronic disruptive editing at:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:3440:541B:D660:915E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• unsourced change to the date of a film's release: [35] and [36]

• 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C:4C6B:972C:AA6E:D98D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Unsourced change to a film's gross receipts that breaks existing ref URLs [37]

Both 2A00:F29:280:BD93:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A00:F29:2B0:5D6C::/64 need blocks, or you might consider widening the block to 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

More unsourced edits [38] [39] [40] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:7C73:22C7:463:3B9D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 12:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Continuing unsourced edits contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY: [41] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:F464:2B6B:B9C6:D6E1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

How about a short-term block on 2A00:F29:280:0:0:0:0:0/42 ?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

More from today [42] [43] from:

• 2A00:F29:280:BD93:947E:8D44:FE21:A173 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dronebogus and involved NAC closures

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

---

Unfortunately, even after User:Dronebogus had made a promise to me he would not make this mistake again, today he has closed a formal process in which he has already !voted. He has an unfortunate habit of closing discussions in which he has already made assertions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). He sometimes clerks various discussions, even when such clerking is not necessary and is quite unwelcome (9, 10). After today's transgression I have lost my willingness to look the other way.

There's an existing thread on this page where he says: "You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience." I wish he would heed his own advice more, and offer it to others less. Dronebogus and I often disagree on the merits, but he seems to ignore this sort of feedback, or at least not keep his own pledges. I'd appreciate other editors looking over my shoulder here, because he and I DO frequently disagree. If I were not involved, I would have already blocked him from Wikipedia space and asked for an XfD ban from the community. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I am highly involved here, so assume that my testimony comes from a position of bias and not of objectivity.

Second, I can attest to Dronebogus's behavior at WP:MFD among other venues being a combination of overzealous, offputting, and at times just downright combative. Beyond the six closures that BusterD mentioned, he has a high tendency to editorialize during discussions and closures. I've also been disturbed at his tendency to trawl through long-dead userspace looking for items to delete, effectively pillorying users who have long since been blocked for years, declaring such items useless or stupid, then quickly retracting if consensus heads in the other direction. Some argue that he has been doing Wikipedia a service, but to me, it creates a chilling atmosphere at WP:MFD. He also has not followed WP:BEFORE when initiating MFD's, in one notable example he dropped a welcome template on a user's talk page and then nominated their user page for deletion a day afterward.

I cannot ask for them to be blocked, because I know that at times I have been acting as an opposing force. But I find the behavior nonetheless to be as intolerable as BusterD does, and I think something needs to be done. This is getting to be a recurring issue. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues with Dronebogus' conduct, especially in deletion discussions.

A lot of their speedy closures are full of insults and not done in accordance with policy. Here [44] for example they speedy close a discussion on the basis that the creator is a "probable sockpuppet" (not that they've been blocked as a sockpuppet, but on the basis that dronebogus is accusing them of being a sockpuppet), and that it was a "frivolous renomination" (regarding a discussion from three years ago, that closed as no consensus). Here [45] they speedy keep an article on the basis that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and is therefore presumed notable. A presumption of notability does not mean a topic is 100% guaranteed to get an article, and a closer does not get to just declare something notable.

Their responses to discussions are often filled with over-the-top, aggressive language which does nothing to further the discussion and just inflames tensions and insults the people who created the articles, e.g. "this useless article" [46] "We really need to gut Wikipedia of these" [47] "Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia" [48] "failed draft" [49].

There are a lot of comments that don't align with policy "list that should be a category" [50] (WP:NOTDUP). Articles shouldn't exist even if the topic is notable if they could be redirected elsewhere [51]? What on earth is an "obvious article" and how does that tie into content or deletion policies [52]? Claiming that a page used for a rewrite (and therefore required for attribution) should be speedy deleted under a non-existent speedy deletion criteria [53]?

Their interactions with other editors are often uncivil, containing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. "Don’t bother arguing with DF, they vote “keep” on almost every deletion discussion they participate in, especially useless lists." [54], "Not an argument" [55]. Here they claim that notifying people who participated in a previous discussion would be "borderline canvassing" because they claim the previou discussion was "vote-bombed into oblivion by generic “support per above”" comments by people who just happened to disagree with Dronebogus [56].

I agree with the points made WaltClipper about Dronebogus' unfortunate focus on "cleaning up userspace" by nominating pages that no-one is realistically going to come across for deletion, which often turns into a massive time sink/drama fest. I also think that their nominations of other peoples sandboxes and userpages for deletion as Fancruft [57] or Webhosting [58] [59] is extremely hypocritical, given that >20% of dronebogus's edits have been spent making stuff in their own userspace like User:Dronebogus/True facts about Wikipe-tan, User:Dronebogus/Wikimedia Hall of Dubious Fame and User:Dronebogus/Basement. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have an amazing amount of knowledge of microscopic details of my editing history for an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. You are also digging up things from the beginning of last year I would never say now and making ad hominem attacks. Also, how is “not an argument” a personal attack? Deletion discussions are not votes! Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You see, this is the central issue, and why I proposed a limited duration ban on all XfD. I believe User:Dronebogus can learn to assume good faith, but so far he's resisting. He goes right for casting aspersions against an IP editor who shows up with diffs. Instead of working with the evidence, he goes straight for the personal attack. With a possible community ban under discussion. Not the smartest card to play just now. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict after edit conflict after edit conflictfor an IP with I have never interacted with less than 600 edits. Dronebogus, when you find you've dug yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Going after the messenger will not help your case. This is the sort of behavior that is leading to your imminent sanctions. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But don’t you find it even a little bit odd that some random user, with barely any history, shows up with a small essay’s worth of intricate information? Dronebogus (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No. There are plenty of IP lurkers on Wikipedia. The IP contributor from Germany comes to mind. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 01:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate Dronebogus making my case for me. A self-inflicted wikibreak might be wise. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That comment is just kind of passive aggressive and not helpful. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, he turns this away from his responsibility and towards mine. I'm losing my good faith here, so I'm signing off for a while. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: The problem is that Dronebogus is right. That comment wasn't constructive and was passive aggressive at best, and at worst poking a bear so you can complain when it swipes at you. This is a formal discussion about a user's conduct, elbow nudges to someone else saying Get a load of this guy amirite? are unhelpful and fairly rude. I'm curious what response, if any, you wanted from DB when you made that comment. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

BusterD, I understand your perspective here, and it's very frustrating when someone else like Dronebogus isn't heeding your advice. But your comment really was unconstructive. Advice like when to take a wikibreak may be true, but it almost always will be ignored if coming from someone the user has clashed with before. Better to let the facts show themselves and have either someone who often agrees with the user, or is entirely uninvolved, provide that advice. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

1) This was certainly an unusually reactive response coming from me. I myself immediately stepped back from keyboard after I made the comment. Without prompting. 2) User:Dronebogus's edits have drawn my close attention before. A further reading of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned will show it's Dronebogus's frequent incivility and WP:Ragpicking which first drew my (and other editors') attention. The involved closings are just the most obvious policy violations I demonstrated in my evidence above (still unrefuted). Involved closings demonstrate battleground and failure to understand or adhere to deletion policy. In my OP, I did not expect a broad discussion about every breach of protocol and decorum which I have seen from Dronebogus. I intentionally kept the scope narrow. 3) I was not myself a regular contributor to MfD until comparatively recently, when I noticed the frequent ragpicking for which Dronebogus was warned in the past and continues to a leading nominator and commenter. 4) In this very process Dronebogus demonstrates his bad habit to personalize the discussion, pointing fingers everywhere but at themselves, ignoring the issues, the policy, the behavior. His immediately commenting on the editor (not the edits) is what set me off. BusterD (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

5) Dronebogus's response to my evidence is "...I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this..." This is an unimpressive response from a user with exactly one talk archive page. An administrator noticed repeated bad behavior, interacted with them on the subject quite a bit, extracted a pledge not to let it happen again, then noticed the breach of policy again three months later. What is an admin supposed to do? "I forgot" is ridiculous. So far no admission of responsibility for their repeated violation of policy even after multiple warnings, only anger, denial, bargaining and depression. Still waiting on acceptance. And that, I'll concede, is absolutely infuriating to the admin. So I said something sub-optimal, then adjusted my behavior and took a break. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve violated policy, okay? I admit it. I fully, completely, sincerely admit it and would like you to leave me alone now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: It took BusterD starting this ANI for you to finally understand that, since you weren't showing signs of understanding or recollection on your talk page (and if you had, the ANI almost certainly wouldn't have begun), so if you frame his words on this page as him disturbing your peace—if he had not done that, you would not have been in position to finally understand and say "I've violated policy"... so... BusterD is good, no? Forest, trees... BusterD is doing his best to deal with something that you are originally responsible for, in order to make the situation bearable for everybody. He doesn't have to WP:SATISFY you in the process, measuring every word perfectly, just like you were not required to act perfectly. Note here that the MfD that is the most proximate background thing to this ANI has now been reclosed by an (especially experienced) uninvolved administrator as 'keep', when you who had !voted delete closed it as 'no consensus' (nearer to your position); the discussion hadn't changed in the meantime. Would you notice how incredibly tolerantly and mildly editors expressed their concerns to you on your talk page: (1) avoiding disagreement regarding the merits by not even telling you that the close is basically wrong (when I'm positive that they knew, just like I knew when I saw your close, that it's not the best reading of consensus, and not just bad as an involved close), (2) not demanding that you yourself undo it, (3) not threatening deletion review if you don't—at least not directly. Almost nothing was asked from you but simply to engage in the conversation. And you responded with Please do not use my talk page as a general discussion page. No one asked you to be perfect, so don't ask BusterD to be perfect. The most critical element here, the real point of failure, is your talk page. I'm saying this as a friend ...and someone with some very relevant experience in this area. I felt a need to tell you this. I hope you'll think about it. Cheers. —Alalch E. 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That wall of text doesn’t justify that BusterD is essentially being given a “two wrongs make a right (especially if the second one is from an admin)” pass here. Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As an administrator of English Wikipedia, my actions are always subject to community review and I encourage others to offer me direct feedback, including those with whom I disagree. Community trust is my only armor. If Dronebogus wants to start a separate thread on this page or at AN, I welcome the chance to see critique of my actions. This thread is about Dronebogus's behavior and conduct. BusterD (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted with you before in deletion discussions, but I'm on a dynamic IP range shared by a lot of people. I don't see the ad homien attacks here? “not an argument” isn't a personal attack, but I think it is an uncivil way of interacting with a newbie in their first ever deletion discussion after they had put a lot of effort into improving the article - you could have spent some time explaining what the issue with their comment actually was, rather than just dismissing it off hand as worthless.

My fundamental issue with your contributions to deletion discussions (and honestly discussions more generally) is that rather than explaining things politely in terms of policy you leave rather unpleasant comments full of rude language. Rather than focusing on "these templates are unused and for a constructed language that isn't widely used" why do you need to insult the people who made the templates and who speak the language "no-one needs to know you can communicate in a conlang nobody’s heard of." [60]. Why was leaving a comment like that nessasary? What did it add to the conversation? 192.76.8.84 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s technically an ad hominem to bring up my edit count, but I’ll drop that since I was just frustrated and not really thinking whether it made a useful point. As for the comments issue, I guess I really did not think my tone was crossing the line into “rude”. When I think of incivility, I think pure insults like “you are an ass hat”, not harsh language like “this is useless”. In fact I’m usually at the brunt of such language from established users who are angry with me so I’m just assuming it’s normal. Dronebogus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not an ad honimem (technically or in any other sense) to point out that you have content in your own userspace that resembles the type of content you have nominated for deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Then that was an honest mistake. Dronebogus (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be a pedant, that's exactly what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is any argument that tries to derive a conclusion based on traits of the speaker. There's even a name for this type of ad hominem: tu quoque. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tu quoque attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by pointing out behavior or statements that are contradictory to what they are arguing. That isn't applicable here because Dronebogus is not arguing right now that there needs to be tighter standards on userspace or Wikispace content, which is an argument which may have some merit independent of this discussion, nor is the discussion about the validity of that argument. The discussion is about his behavior and his conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Community ban of User:Dronebogus from XfD

I believe that Dronebogus can be a useful contributor, but he continues to act as if a trusted servant while not earning the responsibility. I recommend a lengthy community ban from XfD procedures.

• Support as proposer. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Dronebogus engaging and admitting their part in this. For my part I am concerned about any clerking-type behaviors from this user, like hattings and closings of any kind (which have previously and may next be seen by others as attempting to "win" discussions). I'm happy with whatever remedy the community decides. I suggest the community establish a duration, not a permaban. For the record and Dronebogus: this the first time in my 17+ year wikicareer I've proposed a ban of any kind. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Should I just retire? I seem to be a net negative to the project and my only constructive edits are just gnoming somebody else can pick up. Dronebogus (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    I ask myself the same question every day. Seriously. And then I log in and start to work. Willingness is our only useful contribution. Everything else is just work anyone could do. BusterD (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Find something of interest to contribute by building. Improving Wikipedia by going through other peoples work desks and calling attention to what they shouldn’t be doing (ie MfD) requires more delicacy and less enthusiasm than seems to be your style. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Try diversifying. There are many types of activities. You don't know what you could be good at, and start enjoying, until you try. —Alalch E. 01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Do you really think threatening a ragequit -- as opposed to, y'know, conceding that the presenters here have a point, and that you resolve to do better -- is going to help you here? Ravenswing 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    You know I already feel absolutely horrible and you don’t need to keep pointing it out. Dronebogus (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    @Dronebogus: it's ok, this is just Wikipedia. I have a little experience with you, and you seem to be a good editor. This will likely result in a topic ban that will have quite a limited impact on your contributions overall. But, I can't blame you for retiring if you do. This isn't always a fun place to be, but I hope you don't retire because of this discussion because I believe you are a net positive here. :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you, I genuinely appreciate that Dronebogus (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from Dronebogus I genuinely forgot the details of the discussion not to do this and would like to apologize sincerely. As most of the inappropriate closures have been in MfD I would like to request an MfD topic ban in exchange for being allowed to still participate in AfD on the condition that I do not close any discussion I have already participated in or any discussion that has not run for at least 7 days. I enjoy AfD a lot but MfD has mostly lead to endless clashing with other users. Dronebogus (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose complete XfD ban, Support MfD ban and a ban from closing any XfD. I suggest it's better to go some time not closing anything, Dronebogus, and then perhaps appeal that part at a suitable future time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Works for me. Dronebogus (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Concur with Boing (reasoning is just the clearcut evidence by OP) - that is, a full TBAN from MfD, and another TBAN from closing any XfD - with a clear note that if it ends up having to be enforced by a full namespace ban, it will be. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing, but broadly construed I'd also be on board with an MfD ban broadly construed (including talk pages and so forth), and a ban from XfD closures as BSZ suggested. I think that would address the immediate issue. I agree too with BSZ that a CBAN isn't necessary. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose cban as excessive, Support Xfd tban, an Mfd ban would just allow the problem to spread elsewhere.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with Boing - the idea being that the smallest ban that works is the best ban that works. casualdejekyll 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Per Boing, with the clarification that the MfD topic ban should be from the entire topic of MfD, not just participating in individual MfDs. Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096 § Proposal: Dronebogus warned. It's been 11 months and we're still seeing similar issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Involved closures are a big no-no. My first choice would be a complete ban from closing discussions (not just XFDs), appealable after 12 months; second choice is Boing's remedy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as outlined by BusterD. I don't think the issues here are restricted just to MFD or closures, there's an extreme amount of battleground mentality, a lack of civility, a sometimes sketchy understanding of policy and procedure and a tendency to resort to insulting or belittling language that doesn't usefully contribute to the discussion. My experience has been that rather than plainly explaining "this should be deleted because it clearly doesn't meet WP:FOO" Dronebogus will instead go on a snarky rant about how terrible and awful something is. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• 12 month ban from closing discussions. Dronebogus is an over-eager closer, often making mistakes such as involved closes. His closes are not a net positive contribution, due to them needing careful review and possible rectification. I haven’t seen or considered evidence that normal XfD participation is a problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban as proposed by BusterD. I was prepared to support Boing's limited tban until I saw the list of diffs compiled by the IP. The problems go beyond MFD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 12-month ban from closing (anything, not just XFDs). For me, this is essentially about the closes. The nominations and general XfD participation are not something that needs this type of response. —Alalch E. 01:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Concur with SmokeyJoe with the caveat that the ban is indefinite and can be appealed in 12 months. I've seen the diffs by IP. There is a problem with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and uncivil language that Dronebogus frequently uses, but I prefer that Dronebogus given a second chance and eventually improve. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - this user has shown they can't use adequate judgment on closing a discussion in which they are involved (that should rarely be done anyway). That's why I'm supporting a indefinite ban from closing involved ones. Furthermore, there seems to be a specific issue with XfD's, which is why I'm supporting a time limited tban on closing those; it hasn't really been proven that they can't close uninvolved discussions. I don't think it's appropriate to ban them from participating in XfD's in general, I would oppose such a ban. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion - Isn't that something people aren't supposed to do in the first place? --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip: See Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Wikipedia:Closing discussions and the note ("In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. ..."). There are discussions that may need closing, which are pretty weakly addressed by the NAC essay, because use of administrative tools is generally not required in those processes. Furthermore, WP:MERGECLOSE expressly allows for involved closures of merger discussions. NAC doesn't interact with that page in a particularly relevant manner, for example. —Alalch E. 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. That seems like semi-contradictory wording to me, but it at least makes sense now. Thanks. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any complete participation bans, but Support closing ban for now. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose full MfD topic ban or WP namespace block as excessive punishment. The only problem I can see is involved closing, so Support closing ban (maybe temporary). IMHO, Dronebogus performs very useful function on MfD by bringing here some old forgotten trash, litter and shit. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 05:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it useful? If everyone has forgotten about those pages anyway, then taking them to MfD serves very little useful purpose. It's merely a diversion from more important things such as improving pages that people actually look at. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's useful because Wikipedia is not a webhost, so this old forgotten garbage has no right to lie in userspace for ages. Also, since most (if not all) pages discussed at MfD aren't pages that readers actually look at, what's the difference what to discuss here? MfD is already not about improving articles, with Dronebogus's noms or without. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, one might argue that much of what goes on at MFD is not all that important and that digging through what you so delicately term the old forgotten garbage is essentially a waste of time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I really think calls to simply block from closing discussions miss the point that has been made by the above posted diffs. This is not an issue that is limited just to closing MfDs, this is a general behavioral issue that permeates his interactions on XfD as a whole. There's a recurring pattern here of jumping into an over-the-top response to an item he deems undesirable, then quickly retracting when challenged on it, without actually preventing those future aggressive responses that are causing issues in the first place. The fact that people feel some of the items deserved to be deleted anyway doesn't and shouldn't excuse combative behavior. Moreover, it's not punitive because the effort is to reduce further disruption in those areas. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t believe I’ve actually been adequately warned that my behavior at AfD is unacceptable. The IP is dredging up WikiDrama from ages ago, and most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable. (I.e. they don’t dump on anyone). Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that any quantity of warnings would be adequate given that you tend to repeat the same problematic behaviors after being warned. Moreover, the diffs from the IP are hardly ancient history. Yes, people can change over the space of a couple years, but there's no evidence that you have changed. As for your final point, most of my inappropriate closes at afd are pretty reasonable, all I can do is shake my head. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  That last part was bad phrasing. I meant something like “less unreasonable”. But my point still stands: can you point to any specific warning I was given about AfD? Dronebogus (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to dig through all the diffs again to see whether or not there was a formal warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  But I don’t get the benefit of the doubt if I don’t remember certain things? Dronebogus (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  If by certain things you mean making INVOLVED closes, then no, you should not expect to still be getting the benefit of the doubt about that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, I meant the bit about not recalling the exact details of the above warning above, which was summarily dismissed as invalid. Dronebogus (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  How about the part where Dronebogus was warned by the community last year at ANI, yet later continued to do the exact things they were warned about? Does he get the benefit of the doubt for forgetting he was warned? How about my warning in December he was violating deletion policy? Does he get any benefit for forgetting that? We're not required to keep every promise we make, but we are still responsible when we continue to violate policy after multiple warnings (as he's so confessed here in this thread). Not recalling the exact details doesn't get one off the hook for making the mistakes which were already pointed out multiple times. I'm not seeing any real admission of responsibility from Dronebogus (though I do see them continuing to personalize replies in this thread). I see no pledge he'll improve his ways in the slightest. I'm going to leave one more diff, a quite recent edit by Dronebogus in which he reverts my good faith comment in a formal procedure because he just doesn't like my edit summary. This is a much larger problem than closings, it's really about his poor memory, his poor judgement, IDONTHEARYOU and IAR. He just doesn't think there are consequences to bad action. Perhaps he's right. BusterD (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Goodness gracious, that diff is such an awful bit of dreadful clerking. I'm becoming convinced that even an XfD tban will be woefully inadequate because this editor simply does not get it. So much evidence of completely abysmal behavior, but the community keeps trying to water down the sanctions as if we won't be back here in a few months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  The reason they’re “watering down” sanctions is because they understand sanctions are not meant to be punitive. All the complaints have been about XfD (mostly MfD) and improper thread closures, therefore all the recommended sanctions are about trying to prevent misbehavior in those areas. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  BusterD, I literally said “I violated policy”. I’m completely convinced literally nothing I say will ever satisfy you. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I even literally asked to be sanctioned, and agreed with a proposed sanction that was stricter than my own. I never want to touch MfD again and while I’d obviously prefer a more lenient topic ban I’ll accept anything (within sanity) that the community agrees upon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support MfD ban as their excessive WP:RAGPICKING and general combative attitude has been a problem at MfD for some time. Also support ban on closing discussions. I do not think a full ban on participation in any XfD is yet necessary however.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban on closing XfDs, which seems to be where the primary issue lies. Oppose any broader XfD ban at this time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from closing XfDs and from initiating MfDs, which seem to cover the actual issues. We do not need to waste time forming a consensus about a deleted page no one remembered. Participation in XfD welcome as that doesn't seem to be an issue. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose broad participation ban The breadth of a proposed ban from XfD procedures is murky and unclear to me so excuse me if this wasn't actually on the table. I can't speak to the minutiae of specific restrictions on closing or initiating of specific deletion discussions but I don't see a good justification for banning Dronebogus from all participation. It seems that the closings are the brunt of the problems here, so let's address that, right? GabberFlasted (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• No comment on XfDs, but oppose any restriction on closing or hatting talk page sections, where Dronebogus has done valuable work keeping things on track. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XFD ban. A Dronebogus close is generally not a net gain, and as demonstrated by the above discussions and diffs, there's a general lack of evidence-based reasoning versus editorializing, which is the last thing deletion processes need more of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support XfD ban as first choice, second choice would be ban from MfD and closing discussions anywhere. The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, and lack of accepting responsibility are too much. Forgetting that you promised not to continue doing something you already know is against policy is an unconvincing excuse. I'm also at a loss as to why anybody would go hunting through Zordrac's userspace for ancient relics to try to wipe away, or well regarded essays like WP:BLUESKY and picking through random peoples' userboxen for offensive or even just pointless things (while having a ridiculous number of useless ones on their own page). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven’t provided a reason why I need to be banned from AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I did, you just don't want to accept it (part of the problem). Incivility,[61][62] inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, etc. This one you closed after 3 days [63], these after just two hours.[64][65] for reasons that were completely invalid. Even if they were valid, that's not a good NAC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Diff 185 is not incivility, unless topics have to be treated with respect now. Dronebogus (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The frequent incivility, making inappropriate and out-of-process NAC closures, creating disruptive MfDs and then withdrawing them, bullying other editors, ragpicking, Is this not a sufficient reason? Also, the Wordsmith said XfD, then specifically MfD. There is no mention of AfD. An XfD ban would include AfD anyway. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose XFD ban and MFD ban - Support ban on closing XFD discussions. The narrowest possible ban is usually the best, and from what I can see above, most of the ire and concern here is about dronebogus closing things out of turn or in ways others find disagreeable. Why would that not be the obvious choice to ban? Bans are preventative, not punitive. I have seen valuable closes from this user in other namespaces, and have not yet seen any evidence of problems in their conduct in other namespaces, so I wouldn't support any broader sanctions. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that someone who shouldn't be closing XfDs shouldn't be closing anything. Of all the kinds of things that need closing, XfD is the easiest, because XfD closers are choosing from a menu of options and have lots of precedent to work with. It's arguable that RM is also easy but I wouldn't say it's as easy as XfD. Talk page disputes can be treacherous, if they get as far as needing a formal close; they need to be read with care, close attention and a decent knowledge of policy and procedure. And to my eye, DRVs, MRs and RfCs are clearly far more advanced than XfDs.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Strongly agree with this. That's exactly why I also recommended "closing anything". —Alalch E. 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Arguably hatting a thread that has become unconstructive is quite a different skillset from closing an XfD. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD/closure ban Overzealous closing/deleting seems to be a recurring issue with this editor, especially the combative tendency to "tell off" editors with the hat summary. Admittedly I'm INVOLVED with a CoI, given my interactions with them, and I'll grant that my talk-page brainstorming in that case was excessive. However, it's not just me, it's consistent across the board, even where there's far less of a rationale. Policing of userspace & RAGPICKING also seems to be problematic; there are cases where deletion is appropriate, but controversial/irrelevant content that takes up little server space is usually not worth the time & effort to deal with. Overall, there's an attitude of "if I disagree with this, close/delete it" which is an abuse of process. You're supposed to let editors operate naturally, and only intervene when it becomes necessary, not as a first response. That's why a ban in this area is justified, not necessarily infinite, but I'll let the admins decide. Xcalibur (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  You are already under scrutiny for threads where multiple users agree my hatting/deletion was actually justified. I’d warn about WP:BOOMERANGS but you are already here a few threads up. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD closure ban as first choice (and probably best to include a hatting ban to sort issues there too). Indefinitely applied, which means it’s at least 6 months until an request to lift. After that it’s a complete ban if the problems resurface. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support MfD and closing bans, per Pawnkingthree. Community members who don't respect the community need to be helped along the correct path; this seems to be the way. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – Perhaps there is a certain irony that this case, in which one of the main issues is poor judgment or inappropriate actions in closing discussions, will be difficult to close, because of the compound responses, some of which start with Oppose because they oppose the most restrictive of sanctions, but when they are read, they are seen to support some lesser sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban on all closes of discussions, indefinitely. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a topic-ban on nominations at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – If I haven't referred to some other sanction, I am neither supporting nor opposing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support 6-12 month ban on closing XfD's, indefinite ban on closing any involved discussion. Closing discussions requires the right temperament and there's enough evidence presented here to justify a ban. Dronebogus can channel that energy elsewhere. - Nemov (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support ban on closing discussions in any namespace (i.e. even including things like hatting talk page discussions, not just XFDs), but do not support a general XfD ban (although would strongly urge Dronebogus to reassess their conduct). Put bluntly, the user's temperament is not good for closing discussions. Even when the result is uncontroversial, Dronebogus cannot resist the urge to kick sand in the "wrong" side and talk about just how wrong / stupid / biased they are. Even when this is correct, this isn't generally a helpful way to close matters, and should only be invoked when relevant. (Hell, even if it's a troll, see WP:DFTT, insulting them is just what they want.) I mentioned this on his talk page where there was an AFD he closed as by "WP:SNOW" when this was wholly unnecessary and there was notable good-faith opposition - again, the close was fine, but it was just a normal close, not a SNOW-close. This message was ignored (as has others complaining about Dronebogus's closes), so perhaps a sanction is required to get the message across. SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the messages is really the part that gets me, because while he's quick to declare that he violated policy now that he's been brought to ANI, he was certainly not willing to do so previously when the warnings were coming in piecemeal. Collaboration involves working with individuals, not just bowing only to the process when it gets to that point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support ban on closing discussions - The main problem seems to be with discussion closures, so this remedy seems best suited for the job. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment - I am willing to relent from my previous call to have DB topic-banned from MfD. Those who have examined my contribution history versus his would probably be able to see the partisanship between our two positions, and so it doesn't seem right for me to remove his voice from the picture entirely. Furthermore, it seems to be a major escalation when the collaborative philosophy of Wikipedia encourages de-escalation. So here's my compromise proposal:

Dronebogus is to accept a mandatory ban from MfD or XfD closures, as indicated by the above consensus, appealable after 6 months time. He also should accept a voluntary/self-imposed restriction on uncivil and combative behavior. This relies heavily on him exercising careful judgment on what statements he makes in reference to content put up for MfD, as well as his responses to other users who are examining his behavior. Lastly, he should also be encouraged - but not obligated - to dial back on "finding trash" for MfD. I'm not obliging this because it's clear he has a particular viewpoint on the matter, and there are others do agree with him. But it is a hot topic, and I feel there are other areas of Wikipedia where he can add value.

My proposal, by the way, is my suggestion alone, and in offering it, I do not bind other users impacted by DB to follow my lead. But it is, I think, a gesture to steer clear of adding further drama. I also hope it's a step towards reconciling our differences. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with not closing any MfDs or AfDs again, with a very narrow exception for patent nonsense rationales or similar blatantly invalid rationales like “I hate this” that can be procedurally speedy kept. Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Or, if it's patent nonsense or blatantly invalid, you could also hold back and allow an editor whose judgment the community trusts to put the hat on it. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with S Marshall. There are plenty of administrators who cycle through MfD (ScottyWong and Salvio giuliano are among those) and your focus should be on attempting to rehabilitate yourself first prior to diving back into closures, since it is evident that your closures - however much they may have seemed appropriate - are the source of many of the grievances brought against you. It is only fair to make it a total restriction for now. Wikipedia can press on without your closures for the time being. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant mostly AfDs with rationales like “ummm”. I think that’s un controversial enough to insta-close by anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already stated my position clearly; it is a retreat from the total ban that I advocated for previously. Under these circumstances, the closure ban is not negotiable. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Righting all of the Wikipedia's wrongs doesn't rest on your shoulders. If there is a bad afd out there, then someone will get to it. ValarianB (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No exceptions. Very few XfDs need rapid closing, and where they do an administrator is likely needed to respond to the disruptive editing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Same here. No tangible benefit from an arcanely specific exception. —Alalch E. 15:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Elbrusoid1507

• Elbrusoid1507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Elbrusoid1507 keeps on removing sources and the sourced text in Vladikavkaz: [66][67][68][69][70]. It's good to mention that the user insulted me based on my ethnicity, calling me "Ingush vandalist" and sort of threatened that he will call admins:[71]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that Elbrusoid1507 has counter-filed against WikiEditor1234567123 below; these two discussions are concerning the same page and the same two editors, and should both be had here. I have notified Elbrusoid1507 of WP:CTOP and intend to intervene if either editor makes any further disruptive edits (n.b., Elbrusoid1507 has yet to provide any substantive evidence of WikiEdtor engaging in disruption at this page). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill I added 3 sources for the translation of Vladikavkaz in Ingush (which were removed by Elbrusoid1507) which the Russian page Vladikavkaz also contains. Nobody has an issue with Russian page containing Ingush translation for except Elbrusoid1507 who removed text and sources there too. It also looks like Elbrusoid1507 hasn't been able to provide any substantive evidence of me engaging in disruption at the page. I will be waiting for your response to this conflict as Elbrusoid1507 is now adding ossetian translation of city Nazran in Nazran which doesn't have any basis for it and is quite same as me adding Ingush translation of Chicago or Madrid. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Prior to this comment, I already issued a topic-ban against Elbrusoid1507 from ethnic minorities of Russia and the former USSR for the edit-warring at Nazran that you are identifying here, so this issue has been resolved. N.b., Elbrusoid's Ossetian translations, both at Nazran and at Caucasus appear to contradict the spellings used on Ossetian Wikipedia (although the reason for the sanction is strictly the edit warring to reinstate content without a source, it is possible that Ossetian Wikipedia is wrong or that this is a dialect difference). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I only saw the topic-ban after I made the comment so I didn't know. I'm not familiar with the Ossetian translations so I can't really say anything about Elbrusoid1507's Ossetian translation of Nazran. Nevertheless thank you for resolving the issue. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I would like to point out that you didn't alert the user about CT for the first time using {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template since the user didn't ever receive CT or DS alert before that, neither used logged warning before you sanctioned the user, based on the user's talk page history. If you aren't aware of the new CT procedures, different from the old DS system, the CT awareness policy requires user to be first alerted with that template before using {{Contentious topics/alert}} on any subsequent alerts. --Stylez995 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that subtlety in the new alerts and had assumed that there was still the single alert notification that was used under the DS system. Logged warnings, meanwhile, are not required as a precursor to sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stylez995: Well, that is good to know and makes more sense. Thanks. I needed the info -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Admins makes mistakes, like everyone else, including me. I know logged warnings isn't required prior to sanctioning. @Rosguill: Since the user didn't receive any prior CT or DS alerts, straight {{Contentious topics/alert}} to the user could be considered invalid, and thus your sanction could be considered invalid since the user isn't considered aware of the CT. Once {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} has been placed on any topic area on the user's talk page, then that alert becomes valid, and subsequent alerts using {{Contentious topics/alert}} template will be valid. I would advise you to retract your sanction to avoid having trouble with the ArbCom, and place {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} instead. --Stylez995 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this would make a bureaucratic mountain out of a molehill, and believe that the sanction is appropriate (alternatively, I could block them as NOTHERE as a regular admin action, which would have been my recourse to prevent disruption in the alternate universe where CTOP/DS doesn't exist). If ARBCOM sees it necessary to vacate the sanction due to procedural problems, I have no problem with them doing so. But absent a request from ARBCOM, I think that either rescinding the sanction without action or rescinding the sanction and imposing a block would be more deleterious to the encyclopedia than the status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see your sanction is otherwise appropriate to prevent their continued disruptive behaviour on encyclopedia, given their contribution history. --Stylez995 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Less than 20 edits, all problematic. Including blanking a suer page not their own. Cut the Gordian Knot of bureaucracy and just indef. We're better off without this person coming back. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Long term talk page disruption by User:Karagory

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

For the last few years, most of Karagory's activity has been centered around removing a description of former Trump administration trade advisor Peter Navarro's economic views as fringe. That is quite well sourced, so they have not met with any success, and most people don't bother to respond to their points on the talk page any more - most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro or his views.[72][73] Karagory seems to be unable to understand that these articles are irrelevant, though it has been explained to them several times.[74][75]

They have also taken to edit warring to prevent the archiving of these talk page sections (which have not been commented on in years) because Karagory claims that they are all active discussions.[76][77][78][79][80] Karagory's refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK has been disruptive for some time, but this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me.

It is my belief that Karagory is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is either unable (WP:CIR) or unwilling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to understand that consensus has long been against them. I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here, but I believe that something needs to be done. - MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This “incident” is not urgent. Will the editor please explain how this “incident” is urgent?

The editor did not attempt to use Dispute Resolution. Will the editor please explain why Dispute Resolution was not tried?

The editor claims that “most of Karagory’s activity”; what does the editor mean by “most”? My activity has included all kinds of articles. The editor is falsely trying to portray my motives as being something other than positive.

The editor claims "so they have not met with any success"; that is not accurate. My discussion has added two references to the claim of "fringe". Why does the editor not mention that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor claims “most of which consist of adding quotes and links to news articles about trade policy that don't even mention Navarro”; again, what does the editor mean by “most”? They have included articles mentioning Mr. Navarro and the editor summarily deletes them. I think this would be better handle by Dispute Resolution.

I have added to the discussion new/updated references of February 13, 2023, May 20, 2022, October, 2022, and multiple others that the editor has archived.

The editor claims "which have not been commented on in years"; this is not accurate. Why does the editor claim falsehoods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karagory (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor claims “this rejection of talk page archiving seems over the top to me”; the editor never discussed, only archived without discussing. Will the editor please explain why discussion did not take place first? Or now?

The editor claims “They have also taken to edit warring“; this is not the case. If editor believed that Edit Warring was taking place, why did not the editor bring that up in discussion?

If the editor claims “I'm not sure if a block or a topic ban from politics is needed here”; then why does the editor suggest it here?

I believe the healthy discussion that I added to the lead of the article that ended with better and more accurate referencing, was a big positive to the article.

In conclusion, I am bringing up recent, and I believe relevant, references for discussion. I do not understand why the editor wants this to stop, and archive anything that the editor disagrees with? Karagory (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Since I am being accused of lying here, I will simply note that Karagory's response here illustrates demonstrates the comprehension issues quite well. I encourage everyone reviewing this to take a brief look at Talk:Peter_Navarro, that talk page's history, and Talk:Peter Navarro/Archive 2. I know it looks long, but I doubt you'll have to read more than a little to see that my summary is accurate. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging a few people who participated in some of the discussions in question: @Soibangla:, @Thenightaway:, @Volunteer Marek: - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I did NOT and do NOT accuse the editor of lying. Karagory (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Karagory, your remarks above, including the editor is falsely trying to portray my motives, Why does the editor claim falsehoods?, and this is not the case, can all be reasonably interpreted as you accusing MrOllie of lying. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That certainly was not my intention. I apologize to MrOllie. I do not wish to speak to the editor's motives. I only wish to ensure that my intentions are not inaccurately portrayed. Again, I am sorry for misspeaking. Karagory (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor's remarks do not specifically refute my claims. The editor only speaks in lofty prose and does not give details. Again, the editor is refusing to engage meaningful discussion. How about agreeing to archive everything but the last one or two calendar years of discussion? Karagory (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

90 days is the generally accepted timeframe for archiving. I cannot fathom a 2-year limit on archiving for this page. If discussions have ended, they do not need to remain on the talk page. Just drop the stick, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Can you please reference your claim with a reliable source? Karagory (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source for... how long WP should wait before archiving talk page discussion that has gone inactive? That's not going to exist. And since you are aware of the contentious topics procedure, I am going to hereby ban you from the page of Peter Navarro, the associated talk page, and from making any edits about Navarro anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This restriction is indefinite, but may be lifted by any uninvolved administrator in one year. The direct reason for this sanction is the clear inability to drop the stick, as well as a two year history of attempted ownership of the article. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Racist editing

Good evening,
I would like to inform the Administrators noticeboard about recurring incidents regarding deeply racist edits of an IP-range to the wikipedia pages of belgian airports.

Latest edits, which made me come to the ANI, include the following:
- Brussels Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023
Edit summary: "Can the Romanians stay out of Belgium please? It will increase theft and vandalism by those gangsters and it is better without them. Romanians, go home now!!"
Page difference: User removed content stating the opening of new scheduled routes between Brussels and Brasov and Bucharest (both in Romania), respectively.

- Brussels South Charleroi Airport, IP: 94.109.73.126, date: 14.03.2023
Edit summary: None
Page difference: User added "(Couscous Airlines)" next to TuiFly Belgium in the airlines and destinations table, drawing a connection to the destinations TuiFly Belgium serves from Charleroi Airport, which are all in Tunesia or Algeria, therefore targeting Ethno-passengers and immigrants.

Further example:
Edit summary: "Romania ends collaboration with Brussels; Romanians can steal in their own country", IP: 2a02:1811:b731:a200:64f0:c65b:e91d:3f53, old page id: 1119046188

The following has been the most extreme edit and respective edit summary, though.

Edit summary: "If Romanians are raping my people, they do not deserve my country. Romanians are uneducated and here to overpopulate our country. And no Kebab, Turks are motherfucka"

This is severely uncivilistic behaviour, and the grossest you can do to break WP:NORACISTS, insulting multiple people. A talk page note was afterwards added by another user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.109.235.89

In September of 2022, these racist edits peaked, with there being multiple per week. Therefore I was even more surprised to see that the racist vandal now has returned, with me having hoped that he would have stopped forever.

Latest Ip has been warned on respective talk page.

I will be pleasantly surprised if you can have a look and take countermeasures.

Thanks and brgds,
Der HON (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Der HON. I have blocked the first two IPs you mentioned. Please provide a link to any other article where disruptive edit summaries have been left. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cullen; I found a few more:

• 2A02:1811:B731:A200:64F0:C65B:E91D:3F53 (diff)
• 94.109.2.120 (diff)
• 94.109.169.200 (diff)
• 94.109.77.46 (diff1 diff2)
• 94.109.126.212 (diff)
• 2a02:a03f:e0f7:a700:38ad:3bcf:b6bd:3698 (diff)

All are a few months old though; but something to look out for if this persists. DFlhb (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Good evening Cullen328, DFlhb,

The racist editor seems to be belgian or more precisely from Brussels as the only pages he keeps targeting are the ones of the two major Brussels Airports, namely Zaventem and Charleroi.

DFlhb has already done a great job finding all the other IPs from over the time, I've got nothing to add.

Will notify you if there'll be new appearances, hoping that it won't be needed anymore.

Brgds,
Der HON (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User: Lard Almighty

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

Both myself and Lard Almighty have been editing the this page Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Originally, Lard Almighty had reverted an edit and allowed a BLP disputed name to stay [here], which was undone in [this edit].

After this, there have been several issues that have happened involving Lard and their subsequent edits.

After their edit was removed, the subsequent user who added it received the following message on their talk page Darrencdm1988 [user page

"Please note that we are not naming the suspect per WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)"

This would appear to go against a fair consensus building, since edits to a page should be addressed on the talk page itself, not on a members user page. Also, this would appear to be an issue with WP:OWN, since it doesn't mention trying to obtain consensus or the like.

Lard created a talk page [here], with the first post being

Please do not add the name of the recently arrested suspect to the article or talk page. See WP:BLPCRIME and the BLP Noticeboard. Thank you.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On a prior BLP discussion [located here], Lard had stated the following.

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service.
— User: Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

However, in the talk page discussion, this is contradictory to the following quote

Read WP:BLPCRIME. We need to err on the side of caution when it comes to naming people who are not in the public eye who have been accused of a crime, no matter that they are named in RS.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I started [a discussion] on the Dispute Resolution board to try to see if maybe I was misunderstanding consensus being made, and Lard said

The reason we need to be cautious here is because it involves paedophilia. There have been countless examples of innocent people with the same name as a suspect being attacked and even murdered when they are misidentified as paedophiles because they share the same name as a suspect in a case. This suspect has a relatively common name (there are almost 100 listed in the white pages in Indiana alone). Exercising caution here means not putting these people at potential risk. Wikipedia is the most read website in the world, so people are far more likely to read the name here than anywhere else if we include it. I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

, but this is contradictory to the statement on [this edit where they say that sexual assault was not the cause of death.

When I noted that it didn't involve paedophilia since it has never been stated in a single RS, this was the reply

It involves the murder of children (likely with a sexual motive) which is also highly emotive. These are precisely the types of case where we need to take the suggestion in BLPCRIME about being cautious seriously. Not including the name does not detract from the article, while including it could prove problematic. When non-inclusion does not detract from the article, it is best to err on the side of caution in cases involving child victims.
— User:Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert comment, that is somewhat correct, but I believe it's skewed by the fact that the original talk page statement says not to name the suspect as the very first comment, which most people would more than likely read the first post and assume it's what should be followed without second guessing it. The name has been added 28 times, 13 of those being Anonymous edits, with 14 being registered users. One of those additions is mine, and three are the same user adding it. There have also been 29 removals, 13 of which were by Lard, and 22 of the 29 mention to see the talk page or make mention of the consensus needing to be reached. I listed the ones mentioning the talk page below.

Lard, See Talk

deleted by Lard, PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE. WE ARE NOT NAMING THE SUSPECT.

deleted by Lard, See talk page.

deleted by Some1, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk Page.

deleted by NtheP, talk page.

deleted by Lard, Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page. There is no consensus on adding the suspect's name.

deleted by Lard, Added hat note to see talk page.

deleted by Lard, See hat note and talk page.

deleted by Nthep, See Talk page

deleted by Kashmiri, see talk page

deleted by Lard, see 'various discussions'.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk Page.

deleted by General Ization, See Talk page.

deleted by S0091, See Talk page.

deleted by Lard, See Talk Page.

deleted by Lard, Talk Page. No consensus to add the name yet.

removed by Beccavnr, 'per hidden text, and article text page.'

removed by Dumuzid, 'get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs

I personally think that several policies have been involved - - WP:STONEWALL by ignoring the concerns presented by others, and seemingly cherrypicking which arguments they would counter with brief dismissals, and nothing substantial in terms of rebuttals. - WP:TALKPOV by not staying objective, or remaining neutral. - WP:TALKDONTREVERT by reverting every mention of the name, regardless of what the consensus seems to be at the time. - WP:NOTUNAMITY by ignoring the arguments, and essentially creating a filibuster by removing every addition regardless of what the talk page has stated.

I just want to be able to have a fair consensus, which had appeared to be reached prior but I am not sure of that, and if I am wrong in any of the above statements regarding anything, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as possible, and while I have used Wikipedia for several years, I only recently made an account, so I'm more than likely going to make mistakes.

Awshort (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, not a user agreement. As a policy it cannot be overridden by a consensus on an individual talk page it would need to be altered at the Wikipedia policy level. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what this is doing here. There are lots of people adding the name and lots of people removing it. That points to a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. What happened to your referral to WP:DRN? And why are you eager to include the accused's name in the article? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail - I understand about the policy, but I would further like to point out that that said policy states that "editors must seriously consider not including material" (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which was the issue being discussed on the talk page since it does appear elsewhere when it comes to arrests in connection with murders and higher profile crimes. It should be noted as well that the policy does not outright say that it cannot be done, and it seems to be up for discussion as it currently stands. Several high profile crimes have had their suspects named without convictions, which is the issue I was trying to address. The recent Idaho college murders come to mind, as well as the Pike County murders that were updated with the arrest of the suspects who later were charged, and convicted of the murders.

@Rsjaffe - I put this here because it involves user behavior and what I feel is issues that are hindering consensus, which was the instructions from Wikipedia:Consensus "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:Biographies of living persons) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process.". The reason for listing the additions was to show that other people had wanted the info inserted, in counter to the argument of "I would also point out that the last few reverts of the name prior to today were by other editors, which indicates that there is no consensus to include." (I cannot use tqb quoting on my reply, however it's one of the comments quoted in the original post}, which as stated above I felt was not capable of being met based on user behavior. As for the referral, I haven't been able to follow up to the discussion there yet regarding the content issue due to not having a lot of time around schooling, and figured i would address the user issue here. In regards to your last question about why I am 'eager' to add it,it has been an unsolved murder for several years with no arrests. When the arrest happened and the suspect was publicly named, several people tried to add it (which I understand is WP:NOTNEWS, and should probably have been avoided as being sensationalism). The fact that it was almost continually removed by the same user, and the general consensus on the talk page was ignored as stated in the reasons of my original post brought me here since I felt it was damaging to the consensus process.

Awshort (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved this back from the archive since it wasn't closed previously.

I would also like to state that the user is still participating in behavior that seems to violate WP:OWN by almost instantly reverting any removal of, ironically enough, their statement directing people on what to do in the article before editing as being a WP:OWN issue, rather than allowing said users to edit first and discuss after revert.. [81][82] Awshort (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of copy and pasting an old discussion here, what I would do instead is write a new discussion, with a link to the old discussion, with any new info that you want to add in it. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was going from the advice of Wikipedia:Teahouse#Unarchiving a page from Administrators Noticeboard Incidents which said to just copy it back over. I was worried about having multiple articles for the same thing/user, so I wasn't sure proper practice. Awshort (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That makes sense. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to address everything that was commented all at once, but I can't figure out how to strike text - is it not possible when a post is on the ANI?

Im currently using Chrome mobile on my phone, but I seemed to have the same problem on my PC.

Thanks in advance, for any input on this, but also for all of the input above.

Awshort (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. I checked out the talk page, and I can’t see any sanctionable behaviour from Lard Almighty. In particular, edit-warring over a comment that explains a consensus on the talk page is probably not a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

May i ask for clarification on a few points?

Namely, how is it not stonewalling, when whatever points are brought up in the talk page are ignored and the main article seems more geared towards what one user wants? Maybe I am completely misreading the WP:STONEWALL article, but I felt this seemed to be in conflict with that, as well as WP:OWN by only allowing what they deem necessary on the page. Also, does it not involve WP:FRINGE views with stating that information can't be included due to something that has never been published in any reliable sources, and prevent a NPOV?

I'm not being disrespectful by asking, I am just trying to understand Wikipedia better. I registered an account years ago, made one or two edits and have otherwise been an inactive editor (active visitor, though).

Thanks for your time &/or reply.

Awshort (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

On the article's talk page, I see the following comment in one section, "Let's leave it at this, as it's pretty obvious that there's no consensus on adding the current suspect's name to the article." and in another section I see agreement. I see Lard Almighty telling you that court transcriptions are not suitable as sources in articles about living or recently deceased people, which is correct per policy (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and also says "BLPCRIME exists to protect innocent people, not just those who are suspected or even charged with crimes. We need to consider the impact the naming of a suspect my have just not on that individual's life but also on the lives of others", which is a perfectly reasonable point to make. I can't see anything being ignored.

All I can see is people disagreeing with you and you keep asking them to reconsider. Everyone else on the talk page appears to have accepted that consensus might not go their way. Sometimes you've got to accept that you're not going to get the result you want - collaborative editing is about teamwork and compromise, not pushing a dispute when everyone else has got bored and lost interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't this been repeatedly brought up at WP:BLPN? (See archives 343 and 346) It's well past time to drop the stick. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This post was in regards to if a users behavior violated any policies, as it was suggested in one of the many guideline pages to post here for certain issues. This is not about the content of the article.

One of the BLP posts was mine, which suggested a RfC, so I'm not sure how me asking about if someone is stonewalling or anything similar is me beating a dead horse when one is content based and one is not. Awshort (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the first post at BLPN was all that was needed, BLPCRIME applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Something I'd like to point out that no one's quite said: yes, we like to encourage a collegial environment here, where people talk things over reasonably in order to obtain a consensus. With that, no one is under any compunction to change their mind on your behalf. You can be as eloquent as you please, your arguments may make perfect sense to you, and they might still gain no traction. (Why would I advocate something in the first place, after all, with which I disagreed?) You seem to have mistaken "stonewalling" for failure to agree with your arguments. But that happens here, as in every walk of life; I doubt I could estimate within the nearest hundred the number of eloquent arguments I've made in my time on Wikipedia that didn't budge the needle an inch. Ravenswing 21:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm just wondering how many more noticeboards the OP will bother in order to try and get this suspect's name back in the article. At the last count, I think we're on

• WP:DRN ([83])
• WP:BLP/N ([84])
• WP:ELN ([85])
• WP:CR ([86])
• ...and now WP:ANI.

• Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like that's quite enough, especially for an account with only 66 edits in total. I would suggest a pblock from Wikipedia space, personally. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have posted on noticeboards that are directly related to the topics at hand, as instructed to do on the policies and guidelines pages. And out of the 5 you listed above,  I don't see how these were asking for the suspects name to be added back.  I'm not exactly sure how using the noticeboards for their intended use would be 'a bother'.

  DRN - asking if consensus had been reached, was told to address at BLP.

  BLPN - asking for clarification on wording and if something is allowable, since BLP itself is vague on what was allowed.

  ELN - Asking if links containing a name are a BLP issue, since it had not been addressed before and needed clarification for future editors of any topic that may run into similar issues, and had been mentioned in the talk page.

  CR - If a consensus is not agreeable, or clear,  it is recommended to go to CR and have a neutral party look and see if consensus has been met and rule on it. Considering that it seems to not be clear, by several other editors aside from the two people involved in this post, I followed the steps it said to take.

  ANI - I have previously went over my reasons for addressing this here, and they didn't involve content, but the user.

  My amount of edits shouldn't have a huge impact on being respected as an editor or person.

  ~~~~ Awshort (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't an issue of lack of respect, but of you forum shopping to get a result that you want. You cannot just throw this at every potentially relevant notice board, in the hopes someone will agree with you.

  At this point, WP:BLPCRIME has been explained to you, and no one seems to agree with your interpretation. Please take that to heart and move on to a different topic of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the respectful reply and link. I honestly hadn't thought it could be Forum shopping, so I'll check that out.

  As for the explanation, yes it has been explained to me, but my confusion was in the fact that other pages with similar content exist with no BLPCrime issues, and BLPCrime states 'must seriously consider', not outright that something is not allowed..

  Again, thank you for being respectful in explaining stuff to me. I don't know if you can close this topic or not, but I get your point.

  Awshort (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Pervezmusk. (talk · contribs)

This user has been edit warring on Golden Horde and Ilkhanate articles on the infobox. For example, here [87] we agreed on a settled date (and sourced), while he reverted back to his revision without any summary. Previous edits on Ilkhanate [88], [89]. Similarly on Golden Horde. [90] [91] [92], and today reverted back to his revision, while two other editors also disagreed with him. He barely joins the talk page. Very problematic editor. Beshogur (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols,. Beshogur (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR of LightProof1995

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

---

LightProof1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am bringing this to ANI as I'm WP:INVOLVED and it would be improper for me to use any admin tools.

This relates mostly to tendentious editing at the article Picts. Some background information is necessary as it may be difficult for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand why consensus is so resolutely against the subject of this filing. Picts gets a lot of attention from novice editors who find the Hollywood depiction of hairy, tattooed, Scottish barbarians running around the hills naked appealing (whatever floats your boat...). The trouble is the Picts were a real people that have only really been understood in the last couple of decades in which a wealth of peer-reviewed material and scholarly works have appeared. I have edited the page for the past 14 years or so and, while certainly not a professional, I'm reasonably familiar with the current academic literature.

Most of these novice editors with romantic notions are unproblematic. They make a few edits about long-debunked origin myths and, when they realise they are out of their depth, go away again. Some stay and learn. Some turn into valuable long-term editors. A small minority are problematic.

LightProof1995 (talk · contribs) found the article in February 2023 and proceeded to add large amounts of text, mostly copied and pasted from other articles, mostly irrelevant, and most definitely against WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY [93]. These edits were correctly reverted by a long time page watcher, Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs). LightProof1995 then engaged in an edit war [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] while WP:BLUDGEONing their position on Talk:Picts. This earned them a partial block [99]. After the block expired, LightProof1995 immediately reverted the article to their preferred version [100].

Having failed to get the consensus they wanted, LightProof1995 then took their case to WP:DRN in an attempt to bypass consensus, apparently misunderstanding the nature of dispute resolution. This failed as moderated discussion was never going to achieve the result they wanted. LightProof1995 has now taken their case to WP:NORN and has attempted to canvas an admin, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs), whom they believe is sympathetic to their cause, attempting to frame Mutt Lunker for supposed hidden insults made against Salvio.

In addition to the issues outlined above, LightProof1995 has problems in identifying reliable sources. They also appear to copy and paste references they haven't read to support their position in the apparent hope that nobody will check them. [101] is one example... I can dig out more if it is deemed necessary. They are unable to understand why anachronistic sources are inappropriate [102]. They are unable to understand that translations of Latin texts from two thousand years ago are sometimes only approximate, and that you need to use a reliable secondary source (for subjects like this, if it's not in a current, university-level textbook, forget it). I view this as a definite case of WP:CIR. It gets tiring arguing subtleties of academic consensus with editors who are coming from a position like this [103].

Having gone through their editing history only today, I am concerned that this is a problem that is going to just keep on keeping on. LightProof1995 has been editing for a year. They mostly trouble themselves with vital article categorisation which is reasonably harmless. They have, however, been brought here before for their attempts to insert conspiracy theories relating to reincarnation and transgenderism [104] into articles. They've filed here themselves, which is definitely worth a read [105]

My proposal is for at least an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed, on Picts. I worry that this is not enough and that past editing behaviour indicates that an indefinite site ban will be necessary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So many things here are hyperbole.

For one thing, I copied text from only one article, the woad article to Picts, because I wanted to WP:ATTRIBUTE it.

It was all relevant to the Picts; you can still go read it and see why.

For another, I didn't do this because I have some "Hollywood" idea of the Picts; I simply saw the information about the Picts on the woad article and felt it should also be on the Picts article.

My edits were called contentious, even vandalism, even when they clearly weren't, as admitted by Salvio on Mutt's talk page.

I wasn't "attempting to frame" Mutt. Mutt's comments to Salvio speak for themselves.

I went to WP:DRN because that's where we are supposed to go with disputes.

I went to WP:ORN because that failed, even though from the beginning I've insisted on talking about the content, both there and on the Talk:Picts page.

I am disappointed you did this, Catfish Jim. I thought we were actually getting somewhere.

I don't have $101 to buy the Fraser book source, nor do I have a car to go to my local library, unfortunately. Thank you for clarifying exactly what he says about Caesar, as I was unable to verify.

My work on the vitals lists, such as the Earth science list or the Plants list, I hope would be enough to show I absolutely don't deserve an indefinite site ban, like omg.

Here's a couple of other edits I'm particularly proud of:

and here's some draft articles I've created by identfying issues on the Vitals lists:

How is this translation from the University of Chicago library not a reliable source/translation?

"Carved with iron" clearly has nothing to do with paint; I'm sorry.

The ANI I filed last year was against @Tgeorgescu, who as you can see on my Talk page, has now called me a friend. The ANI was withdrawn, with no consequence, because I was inexperienced. The reincarnation and transgender stuff has nothing to do with the Picts, and to bring it up to me just seems like you're digging for personal reasons to have me blocked, forever.

This is not kind nor civil.

I didn't open a case here because I thought we could work it out at WP:ORN but apparently not...

My past experience with ANI showed me the administrators here have actual issues to deal with, e.g. actual vandals and trolls. Neither of which apply to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Pretty clear based off of what you have brought forward that a TBAN is in order, especially now that the user is saying that this clearly civil response is not civil. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

References

I tried to mediate the dispute about the Picts at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will comment briefly. LightProof95 said that he wanted to discuss article content, which is the purpose of DRN, but his posts also complained about conduct by other editors. In particular, he continues to complain that he was templated for vandalism by another editor, but that editor was already rebuked for using an inappropriate template. He also seems to be trying to stir up a feud between two users over what he sees as hidden insults, that are sufficiently well hidden that I can't find them. Trying to stir up quarrels between two other editors is not here to improve the encyclopedia. When I asked for a summary, he made a statement that was too long. He also tied together multiple academic sources to reach his own conclusion, which is synthesis amounting to original research, a subtle violation of the original research policy, but a violation nonetheless. When all of the other editors said that the DRN thread could be closed, he asked to leave it open, so that all of the editors could discuss article content. I still don't know why User:LightProof1995 asked me to leave a thread open when the other editors had said to close it. This is an editor who means well, but doesn't understand multiple Wikipedia policies including synthesis. Unfortunately, I think some sanction is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to mediate our dispute. Why would you comment here on my comments about other editors’ conduct, but not their comments about mine? Especially when you already admitted there I was the one who focused on content the most?

Also, why would you complain about the length of my statements, when those of the editors were almost twice as long? And none of us hit the word count limit?

Salvio agreed Mutt’s statements toward them were insults, and I point out they were hidden well, but still visible. It just irked me to think they possibly went by unnoticed. Salvio said they noticed, but they also have thick skin, so they walked away. That was all I needed from Salvio; as long as Salvio is fine with leaving that conversation as it is, I am too. I never asked for Mutt to be sanctioned or anything like that; I only asked for advice on where I should go next, since WP:DRN failed.

I stated my reasoning for wanting to leave the dispute open because I was hoping you’d comment on the content; it was very disheartening to put all this effort into it just to hear you say our statements were too long. I also stated I wanted it left open because I wasn’t sure where to go next; you advised WP:ORN and WP:RfC, so thank you for that. This was my first WP:DRN and it makes me sad it ended in failure when it was where I was supposed to go? LightProof1995 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that User:Ceoil was also involved at DRN. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they were involved to a minor extent at the Talk page and made a single comment at the DRN case. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those times it's useful to invoke the old chestnut WP:WINARS. The Woad article is not great. Yes, it's in the popular imagination that ancient Britons painted themselves with woad and, through some circular reasoning (via Pliny and best guesses), some old sources mistranslate Julius Caesar as having said it was used. Pliny also does not name woad, but rather describes a plant that is similar to plantago. The two species are in no way similar. I am a professional plant scientist IRL specialising in various species including plantago... Plant taxonomy has come on a bit in the intervening two thousand years or so, but this is not a mistake Pliny would have made. At some point in the early modern era, some amateur historian must have made the link with woad based on its use in the dye industry, but I digress... this is an excellent example of original research, one reason I don't edit much in my professional subject.

(As an aside there has been some "experimental archaeology" that has demonstrated woad's unsuitability as a tattoo ink. LightProof1995 inadvertently included reference to this work (which is not from an RS) but clearly changed their mind as it did not support their position [106])

Yes, academic books are expensive. One reason I suspected you were using references that you hadn't read was that you used one from a far more expensive book (one that I put off buying for several years due to the cost) to back up a position that was in direct opposition from what the author is talking about. It is a rule of thumb (one so obvious that we probably don't have a written policy on it) that you absolutely should not use references you have never seen, no matter how sure you are that it must say what you want it to say. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No no no. I didn’t inadvertently include that reference; I included it on purpose!! I’m well aware woad doesn’t work great with tattooing and that’s why I added it. Pliny only said it looks like a plantago; I think they were talking about the leaves, since those are what is used from woad to make indigo dye. I only removed that reference because Mutt said I’d added too much stuff that “wasn’t relevant”; to argue that it should’ve been left to make my case only shows why I added it in the first place. (Thank you for finally delving into what I said though. Now maybe we’re actually getting somewhere!! :) ) LightProof1995 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Jim’s and Robert’s assessments and my impression was also that this is largely a CIR issue.

That it is this alone is somewhat strained by Lightproof’s venture into an unwarranted interpretation of a fairly straightforward dialogue between myself and Salvio. (In summary, this was my agreement that my choice of a vandalism warning to Lightproof was not appropriate but that I felt, rightly or wrongly, that Salvio’s characterisation of my own edit, as disruptive and potentially worthy of a block, was harsh.) Lightproof’s purported uncovering of some hidden insult therein and a novel interpretation of their subsequent dialogue with Salvio, to claim the latter's agreement that there was such a covert insult, seems to surpass a mere competence issue. A retraction would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that your comments were not insults and do not think I implied they were when discussing them with Lightproof.
Other than that, as I told him on my talk page, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic matter and can't tell whether he's pushing some sort of crankery or not, but in reading this discussion, my feeling is that this is one of those cases where consensus is firmly against him. Lightproof, my advice would be to let it go and walk away from this topic area, while you can still do it voluntarily... Because the way this discussion is trending, at the moment you are very likely to end up with some restriction. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with Mutt’s assessment of their comments to Salvio, i.e. that they accused Salvio of being too harsh toward them. I suppose I found Mutt’s tone potentially insulting, but tone is difficult to read over text, so I can understand saying that’s an insult is a mischaracterization and retract that statement, and apologize for the mischaracterization. I hope this doesn’t affect the Picts ORN because to me it seems the consensus against me is only from editors who have worked on that page for years and may be feeling I’m trying to put forward some “Hollywood” interpretation of the Picts as potentially others have in the past, when in reality I’m just trying to put accurate and relevant information on the Picts page. LightProof1995 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, likely sanctions would be an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. This means banned not just from editing Picts, but from all involvement in any article or discussion relating to the subject. See WP:TBAN. Yes, this would affect the ORN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well then obviously we should wait for the ORN to resolve, or just go ahead and do a RfC, unless I'm not being banned, which I assume is still on the table, since no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything. You can't just make exaggerated claims against editors you disagree with, dig for personal reasons to have them blocked, and expect that to make the content dispute go away -- even if they do get banned. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The ORN thread isn't going to resolve anything, as it stands. It lacks any clear statement as to what the proposed content actually is, and instead seems to expect people to read through past discussions to find out what this is all about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Do you think I should edit it, or should we go with RfC? The proposed content are the statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts". Maybe putting that short statement/summary of a sentence would help? LightProof1995 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the short sentence summarizing the paragraph at the ORN :) LightProof1995 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are suggesting that Wikipedia uses statements by Caesar and Pliny about Celtic Britons painting themselves, as a possible explanation of the etymology of the word "Picts"? If that isn't WP:OR, then nothing is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I respectfully disagree about it being OR. Even Britannica's entry on the Picts states the etymology of Picts may be due to them painting themselves.[107] LightProof1995 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Britannica says nothing whatsoever about Caesar or Pliny. Instead, it states that "The Picts were first noticed in AD 297..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a short entry. And yes, the term Picts came about 100-200 years after Caesar and Pliny. However, I don't want to say that Caesar and Pliny were talking about the Picts. I want to say they were talking about the Celtic Britons they encountered (who were painted), and this may be the reason for why, eventually, northern inhabitants of the British Isles the Romans were unable to conquer were termed "Picts" by the Romans. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the above responses, it appears that LightProof1995 is entirely incapable of understanding elementary Wikipedia policy regarding original research. Under these circumstances, a topic ban would seem inadequate, and merely move the issue elsewhere. I'm thus inclined to agree with Catfish Jim that in indefinite block may be necessary, per WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say. I can’t believe anyone would consider to block me from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, over this or anything else I’ve done. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote. Regardless of what sources may or may not say on this specific topic, this level of inability to engage in rational dialogue (i.e. giving a straight answer to a simple question when asked, rather than three posts later) is incompatible with contributing to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is insanely harsh and will obviously appeal any blocks toward me. My edits over the past year (please view the edits I said I'm particularly proud of, above) stand for themselves. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "simple question... three posts later". From your Talk page, it seems you are quite combative with everyone and everything, possibly because you want to live up to your username, which is fine, but leave me alone. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The two edits you've cited as ones you're particularly proud of consist of [108] a poorly-written violation of WP:SYNTH and [109] moving sentences around in a section. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In what universe is the Steps section of Art WP:SYNTH? The order of the sentences at Arabia before made no sense; I made it so much better. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait the steps section of Art is entirely synth, and not only is it synth, it isn't accurate. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I use only one primary source for the section. By definition, that's not synth at all... LightProof1995 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are using one source to account for the creation of all art. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what the source is doing. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the source references numerous other studies as well as notes that "The sample was composed of 28 students in the second year of a visual graphic arts school." so I don't think it is reflective of all artists everywhere. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, a sample of art students' opinions on which steps constitute the creative process, is better than the opinion of one person? It's a start? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I cite a couple of sources, Gillian and Van Der Veen, at ORN that say what I say Which part of "what you say", exactly, is supported by these sources? I can't see that Gillian says anything about Picts painting their bodies, and nothing about the etymology, but as I have read the article pretty quickly and on a tablet, I may have missed it. Could you provide a page number? The same applies to Van der Veen et al, who afaict don't mention the Picts. Are you certain that you aren't assuming that when they talk about "Britons", you interpret that as "Picts"? That would be a textbook example of original reseach. --bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply :) Van Der Veen cites Caesar and painting. Gillian cites a source, Chadwick, on page 279, titled "The name Pict" (1958), as applying to "people of Britain, and especially north Britain, make use of a plant... which they inserted into their wounds... producing an indelibly dyed scar". Gillian also cites Caesar, Pliny, and Claudian on this same page. I list more sources than just these two at ORN, so I wasn't relying on these two alone for my claims, I just said them here as a couple of examples of reliable sources. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A reliable source that says nothing directly relevant to the topic is not a useful source. And extrapolating from the title of an article used as a reference is almost a new level of original research. Have you in fact read Chadwick's article? If so, what does she actually say? Gillian says nothing about the etymology of the name "pict", and it's already been explained, repeatedly, that what Pliny and G I Cæsar wrote can't be used since they never wrote about the Picts. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I use more than just these two sources at ORN. I only listed these two here because of time. I was kinda proud I was able to use just these two to back my statements by using the name of a source, but I digress... Also, I'll state again, Pliny and Caesar's comments were about Celtic Britons, but Picts are Celtic Britons. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Picts were not the only Celtic Britons. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said they were. Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts." LightProof1995 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

keyword there is "I believe" suggesting again that you are engaging in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the phrase. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok so can you provide a source that says 'Pliny's statement would apply to all Celtic Britons, including the northern tribes that came to be known as "Picts."' or is that just your belief and hence not appropriate for wikipedia? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can I find a source that says Picts are Celtic Britons? I'm sure I can. I have a job though, I can't be sitting here discussing this dispute all day. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you would need a source saying that Pliny was specifically referring or including Picts in his comments. This is why I have serious WP:CIR concerns. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is where I disagree. There is no source from Pliny where he says "Picts" because the term arose after his time. However, as background information on the etymology of "Picts", Pliny's comments about Celtic Britons are sensible, maybe even necessary, to include. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, do you have a reliable source saying that Pliny's comments contributed to the etymology of the term? What you are doing is synthesizing information from various sources to conduct original research. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If I bother to find a source for you (did you see the Keys source at ORN?), are you going to change your vote about blocking me...? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source stating what you claim, that would likely resolve the whole issue, so yes, at least in regards to the Pict topic area. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool :) Here you go: Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Counihan is more of an alternative historian, they're a physicist by training I believe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So what? That just means they are intelligent. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Expertise in one field doesn't necessarily mean expertise in an unrelated field. See for example William Shockley. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

True, although he's clearly an expert in regards to this. Also here, it says his expertise extends to "early European history and language." LightProof1995 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be misrepresenting the source, the source text is "Now an independent researcher and writer, he is working on gravitation and cosmology and on topics in early European history and language." Working on =/= expertise extends to, in fact "independent researcher and writer" speaks against that expertise being recognized. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

He's totally bonkers and I retract using this source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That source does not state your claim. The only mention of Pliny is "According to the first-century Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder, the plant was called glastum in Gaul. This name corresponds to the Old Irish adjective glas, meaning ‘blue’ or ‘green’. The word comes from a Proto-Indo-European root with the meaning of ‘bright’, or ‘shining’, and is ultimately cognate with English words such as ‘glass’, ‘glisten’ and ‘galaxy’. The woad-plant itself was called glasen in Old Irish." - and apparently this source isn't from a historian, it is from a physicist, suggesting it is not reliable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

He's a historian too. He discusses the etymology of "Picts" before the comments on Pliny, not after. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, he's bonkers. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

no admins from this noticeboard are saying I should be banned from anything.

You might want to check your sources. I would also suggest you avoid trying to portray this as some sort of personal vendetta on my part.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I was wrong to take your attempt at having me blocked from Wikipedia forever as personal. My apologies :) I'm not sure which admin you're referring to. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've struck out all instances where I've said "insult" :) Sorry I found your tone condescending at first; surely my interpretation only stemmed from our content dispute. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I requested a retraction of the accusation, not a weirder rewording of it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol. I only replaced with other words so the sentences still made sense, but I guess I can just have it be struck out, if that would be an olive branch for you :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the "weirder" words :) LightProof1995 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on picts, broadly defined. I'm afraid LP1995's responses in this thread don't inspire any confidence in their ability to understand what original research is and why we can't add it to Wikipedia articles. It looks like they have been doing similar things in articles on transgender topics and on reincarnation but perhaps not quite to the level that calls for a topic ban. --bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Picts as well as GENSEX topics, for reasons noted by @Bonadea. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. Don't bring the sex stuff into this please. I don't even edit articles in regards to those. I just don't stand for transphobia and have tried my best to reduce transphobia, even though it is such a sensitive topic. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You literally believe that people experiencing gender dysphoria are reincarnations of people of other genders in a past life. I do not think you can get much more fringe than that. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh for sure, I even state it is WP:FRINGE on my user page. But that has nothing to do with this case. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe it raises questions regarding WP:CIR. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, minority views are just as important as majority views. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A minority view is different than a fringe view. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A fringe view is a minority view. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one that is prohibited under WP:FRINGE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't say it is prohibited. We just have to make sure we are using reliable sources still, and not giving fringe theories WP:UNDUE weight. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Picts and the GENSEX topic area. The editor should be aware that any disruptive editing about reincarnation will likely result in a sitewide indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  @ජපස and I already got the reincarnation page to what I consider an acceptable state, compared to what it was before. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't you think to call my statements OR given the Gillian and Van Der Veen sources, is a bit on-the-nose? Especially when I have more sources at ORN? For complete non-OR, I can agree we should view the Chadwick source, and we also need consensus on whether or not the Keys source is reliable. I thought, since it is in the Wikipedia Library, that makes it a reliable source. Is that inaccurate? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It's Carr. Her name is Gilly Carr and it is usual to use a surname for an academic author. Your use of her paper is WP:SYNTH as you're combining a statement made by her that does not mention picts with the title of a cited article (that I believe you haven't read) to support this statement: the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Carr then. Honestly at this point, given the responses here, I feel one can call any edit WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's like no number of reliable sources is good enough. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No number of sources is good enough to support things that the individual sources don't state directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why we need to verify the Chadwick source, instead of blocking me? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You haven't read it but thought to use it? Whatever Chadwick says, it is a very old paper and would not be usable in this instance per WP:RSAGE. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a 1958 paper is too old for content about a group of people that lived 2nd-7th centuries A.D.? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question, why did you put something in an article which you hadn't verified? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Chadwick source is embedded within the Carr source. Since Carr verified it, and I verified Carr, doesn't it follow the information I added is sourced? It was already on the woad page. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(multiple ec) argh. I made the same error re Carr's name. That is embarrassing! LightProof1995, Carr and Van der Veen do not support your claim re the origin of the term "pict". Your statements are absolutely OR.

It is a basic principle that we don't go searching for sources that say what we believe is true. Another basic principle is that a reliable source isn't automatically relevant. And it should be blindingly obvious that you can't cite sources you haven't read. Chadwick's essay doesn't support your claim, btw. --bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How about Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020? How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. Also, surely Chadwick's essay says something about the etymology of "Picts", since the name of the source is "The name Pict". Could you kindly provide what they say? Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean a url? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's go for a full citation... helps us assess the source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see you provided a url. No, that's not a reliable source. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

He has 96 publications and a Doctor in Philosophy. Of course this is a reliable source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All his academic work (and presumably his doctorate) is in particle physics. He appears to be a retired physicist who has taken up writing about early Europe as a hobby. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

He is bonkers and we shouldn't use this source. I didn't realize at first. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what I thought Martin Counihan, Who the Picts were, 2020 was, plus the url I'm not sure what else I could do to point this source to you? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a self-published essay by someone who is not a historian. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are proposing we use a source which claims that the Picts were from Ireland? Wouldn't that require a drastic rewrite of the entire article? [110] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dang, wait a second, you're right, I didn't catch that... Okay, he's obviously bonkers and we shouldn't use this source. I am sad. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How are we supposed to provide sources without looking for them, lol. We are supposed to look for the most reliable sources and report what they say. What you look very much like you are doing is deciding what you want to say, and looking for the sources which are closest to supporting that. This distinction is very basic and fundamental to the way that Wikipedia works. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with this since the 2020 source ended up being completely idiotic. Of course, if y'all ban me forever, teaching me this now solves nothing... LightProof1995 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a 1958 paper is too old for content about a group of people that lived 2nd-7th centuries A.D.? Because new research studies arrive at new conclusions. Catfish Jim addressed this in the very first post in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if the 2020 source I just found went against the 1958 source, I would agree let's just use the 2020 source. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Support site ban. I also have strong CIR concerns about LightProof, after having interacted with him through the Vital Articles project. These CIR issues extend to both conduct and content.

Example: in October 2022, we (WikiProject Vital Articles) tried to bring Land to GA-class, and LP1995 joined us. We reached a point where people kept changing headers and moving material around, which made it hard to keep track of anything and make any progress, so I changed the headings to be closer to both the pre-edit-war status quo, and to a similar featured article, Sea. LightProof's next edit? Changing the headings again, with a nonsensical justification based on "rules" which were a misinterpretation of what I'd previously said on the talk page (and which I'd never stated as "rules" anyway); when he should have used the talk page to propose further changes. After that, I decided to stop editing that article altogether and took it off my watchlist since I'd rather edit articles alone than deal with CIR (sorry CactiStaccingCrane, that was the real reason why, not lack of time/motivation).

I said CIR also extends into content issues, so here's an example of that: Talk:Land/Archive_1#Climate here, LightProof argues that “Climate” refers to the air and is not physical science. As stated in the section, it can be considered a layer of land. This is nonsense, and is based on a massive misinterpretation of the UN source, which talks about land as an ecosystem. And physical science obviously includes the Earth sciences. This is obviously far from the only instance of misinterpretation of sources, but as you can tell, no diff I could provide would be "damning" on its own.

But the diffs provided in the OP are IMO more damning, since they show that LP1995 doesn't understand WP:BRD (at DNR, LP1995 even said that WP:BRD is completely optional, which is... wow), tried to push changes through, and then presented arguments for inclusion which did not address counterarguments, effectively arguing "past" all others. It's interesting that at DNR, Ceoil also mentions taking an article off their watchlist due to LP1995... And yes, it is "disruptive" to edit war to keep SYNTH in an article.

I don't think a topic ban would be enough, and it feels very bizarre to react to CIR with a TBAN. CIR, by definition, affects everything. DFlhb (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What??? Eventually we decided on the Talk page "Climate" could go under "Physical science". I only felt it wouldn't because climate is air, and is not tangible, although I realized later it can still fall under the "Physical sciences" as part of the "Earth sciences". BRD says it is optional. I'm sorry you felt you couldn't edit with me, I did not know. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It is optional in the sense that there are plenty of alternatives, including WP:Bold-refine, or simply skipping the "BR" part and trying to obtain consensus before making an edit, if one knows it'll be controversial. It's not optional in the sense that would allow edit warring to add stuff to an article. All our policies are against that. DFlhb (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Bold-refine is what I was using, along with Talk Pages. Sorry again you didn't feel you could work with me. I made a discussion on the Talk:Land page about the headers when we did this; I thought that was what we are supposed to do. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on ancient British history, broadly construed, and GENSEX. Maybe also art, broadly construed. The many above exchanges convince me that LightProof1995 is not capable of basing their edits on competent use of reliable sources in these areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite site ban proposal

Proposal Indefinite full site ban. Interaction in this filing has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of WP policy, a disregard for consensus and collaborative editing and a lack of understanding of how to identify and use reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban based on LightProof1995's endless failure-to-get-it responses here. The latest (as of now...) being to cite a source (evidently not the first), which LightProof1995 quite obviously hadn't read (see 'bonkers' comments above). A monumental time sink, and one we can manage well enough without. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I only didn't read it entirely because there was pressure here to find a source quickly. By admitting it's wrong, isn't that progress? LightProof1995 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• @LightProof1995: You wrote on your user page:

My main goal is to get the Reincarnation page to Vital-3 and to discuss/cite this source:

Pehlivanova, M., Janke, M. J., Lee, J., & Tucker, J. B. (2018). Childhood Gender Nonconformity and Children’s Past-Life Memories. International Journal of Sexual Health, 30(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1523266 because I believe this would save the lives of trans people and make the world a better place.

If you are a Wikipedian, you are aware of the fact that you are intelligent.

This means you have the capacity to understand that reincarnation is real, as scientifically proven by Dr. Ian Stevenson and others.

The source I list above simply states that the past-life memories of children with gender dysphoria tend to be of the opposite sex. When I read that, I was floored at just how well that explains stories of gender dysphoria in children.

Yes, this is WP:FRINGE, but that just means it isn't accepted by the majority. It doesn't mean it's wrong.

Even if reincarnation is real, I have no idea how you think actual physical memories (memories exist and are accessible only through the brain) would transfer from one body to another. Even if I stretch my imagination, I can only imagine a person's consciousness travelling at best, because technically we don't loose our consciousnesses even if our brain cells are replaced, so one could argue that consciousness has the capability of travelling from one place to another. However, no memories would be carried with it because memories exist physically within our brains. The idea you're trying to insert is simply much too fringe. I don't think you should make it a "goal" to insert these ideas into articles. Nythar (💬-❄️) 19:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If I explain the science to you, do you promise not to ban me? Also, goal is probably not the right word. This is just something I wanted to see the most, along with improving Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m honestly curious about what they had to say here, but they’re (rightfully) blocked so… Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Reincarnation has been scientifically proven to be real? I'm sorry I missed that... David10244 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This whole thread is an enormous waste of time amply demonstrating the LightProof simply does not get it. When topic bans are being proposed for areas as broad and diverse as British history, GENSEX, and art, that's a sign that the disruption is not going to be limited to a single topic area which can be effectively addressed by a topic ban – and frankly, nothing about their contribution history suggests that the benefit to Wikipedia of a complicated set of topic bans outweighs the cost. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you except for your comment about my contribution history. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This thread, that at DRN and at the Picts talk page serve only to demonstrate that this editor rebuffs, as a matter of routine, the succession of careful explanations from a troupe of other editors as to how their latest killer source patently does not support their latest assertion/unfounded but deeply-held belief. It’s plain that they are impervious to appreciation of OR or SYNTH, whether that is inability to or disdain for. Everyone, and that has been everyone, is wrong and they are right and in most cases, everyone is mean, even though you might need to read between the lines to spot it. This editor can not be trusted to use sources competently to contribute material, as much outside of this topic as within it. Sources are to be used to provide a gloss to what they just "know". Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral as to a site ban. I really don't like the idea of banning an editor for eccentric views. I really don't like the idea of banning an editor in part for their religious views, and beliefs about the nature of the human soul and life after death are very much the area of religion. However, this seems to be an editor whose eccentric views result in their taking interpretations of Wikipedia policy, in particular as to what is original research, that are inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, so that the editor is a time sink, and tried to start a quarrel between two other editors over a hidden insult that might not have existed. I don't like the editor of banning an editor for eccentric views, but I can't justify allowing the continued disruption. I am not sure what the editor's views are about art, but topic-bans on ancient British history, reincarnation, and transgender is all over the map. I don't like any possible result. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have apologized for the mischaracterization of Mutt's comments to Salvio, and stated surely my interpretation stemmed from our content dispute, and how Mutt had treated me. Even now, I've given Mutt an olive branch and retracted my statements, they still came in here to diss me as much as possible. Thank you for this neutral vote and your opinion :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban (I may be talking with my emotions instead of my logic here, be mindful of that). No, I'm not the reincarnation of a dead woman. This is a viewpoint that, while not transphobic, is incredibly ignorant, and the multiple attempts to push that point of view show LightProof1995 is not here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban If you will need at least 3 topic bans to edit here, that's a sign you're not really a net positive to the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban after first wanting to just TBan more digging into this user has convinced me that they lack the understanding of the reliable source policy, as well as the ability to actually check sources. Hence, I don't think they can constructively contribute to WP.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban WP:CIR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support site ban WP:Nothere. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to vent about their favorite obsessions. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC).
• Support. The competence issues already in question could potentially be reduced through increased familiarity with Wikipedia norms, but the WP:NOTHERE on display in the statements below seals it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support I believe I’ve interacted with this user in the aforementioned trans reincarnation area and just want to emphasize my support for this ban for completely obvious reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The user also participate in Wikipedia:Vital articles project a lot, almost to the point of obsession. I don't find that their mindset helps a ton in the improvement of Vital articles given they only care about the list, not the articles themselves. To others, it might be helpful to see LightProof's activity in the project to make your own judgement. I have no comment on LightProof themselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you don’t see any essential work being done then anything productive they do there is outweighed by their massive disruption elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Final statement

Clearly it does not matter how many reliable, verified, and academic sources that say what I say I find. Everyone here is keen to argue with me because bandwagoning and arguing are fun and easy, while being a voice of reason is difficult and not as fun. Go ahead and block me. I will appeal it when all of our heads are cooled. I'm confident anyone who comes back to this in a month or so will be shocked at just how argumentative everyone was towards me, especially the unjust accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR for apparently all edits I've ever made, even when I provided plenty of reliable sources justifying my claims completely in regards to this dispute (not the Counihan one). LightProof1995 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I counted, I think, around 13 editors all basically sayiing the same thing to you. No one has said they share your view. Doesn't that tell you something? To put it down to bandwaagoning and arguing are fun and easy really does shout out that you shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll retract this final statement. Forgive me for being so upset, please try to see why I would be. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I see. You need to think through what all these people are saying to you. As to why they are saying it...Occam's razor: probably because they are right. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It feels like they are saying I'm just difficult to work with, even when I follow policies such as Talk Pages and DRN. It feels like even though I've been editing for a year, there are still some things I don't understand about editing Wikipedia, e.g. best practices for searching and using reliable sources. I'm not disagreeing with regards to this and am willing to work on being a better editor, although that's obviously not going to matter since it seems I'm about to be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. Your viewpoint matters to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You've spent this thread fighting tooth and nail claiming the opposite: that you understand policy and that you're edits comply with policy and everyon else has got it wrong. That's why you're heading for an indef. You need to convince everyone that you understand you got it wrong...and you're not saying it just to avoid the indef. Btw, being indeffed may not be such a bad thing for you. You can come back from an indef (and people often do). It doesn't mean gone for good. It can give you time to understand what people have said and understand policy more throughly. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yes, I agree. I don't mind the indef, even if it's a site ban, because I know you're right, it doesn't have to be forever. And even if it was forever I wouldn't mind. I for sure made a lot of edits that made Wikipedia a better source of information this past year, and that is enough to console me. My edits with jps on Reincarnation were the most important, and occurred a long time ago.

If y'all decide to only do a partial ban on Picts and GENSEX (not that I feel GENSEX ban is necessary), I will only work on the Vitals lists and my draft articles. I won't even edit Art even though I don't see any issues with the Steps section I added.

If I'm banned across the entire site, I have a life to live, I can go live it :)

When I'm gone, I'd still like to know on my Talk Page about the Chadwick source, and if the Keys source is good as a secondary source that makes synthesis for my Picts claims.

I'd also like to say one more time, I did mostly join Wikipedia because I felt had to, to save lives. If the viewpoint of "Oh, a majority of trans people were just the opposite sex in a past life" was more common, who knows how many lives would be saved? Both suicide-wise from trans people who felt they didn't understand themselves otherwise, but also by potentially preventing hate crimes against them? By getting rid of the "Criticism" section on Reincarnation, and putting this viewpoint out there and being banned for it, I've felt I've done my part :) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, you're here in Wikipedia to advance the belief that trans people are reincarnations of dead people of the opposite sex? DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

To advance it as much as I could without violating Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE, yes, along with improving Wikipedia in general as an encyclopedia. That's why they are recommending a GENSEX ban too, even though this was about the Picts. LightProof1995 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So you've just admitted to having an agenda? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It is secondary to creating an encyclopedia. Besides, I've already fulfilled it. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think you fulfilled it? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I will explain my thoughts because you’re being kind and I have nothing to lose. When it’s up to you to save lives, it’s like a weight is placed upon you until you do so. This led me to create my account even though it felt more bonkers than Counihan. Of course, I stayed at Wikipedia because I enjoyed building an encyclopedia, and there is a lot of work to do, a lot of misinformation out there. Did that lift the weight? Not quite. I was able to get consensus for a header at Reincarnation called “Reincarnation and science”. Before it said “Criticism” so this was a huge win for us. I tried to include the Childhood gender nonconformity source, but of course it was reverted. I was told to try the Childhood gender nonconformity page, this also failed. That pretty much lifted the weight, because there wasn’t more I could do. By writing what I did on my User page two days ago, that was even more putting this out there. Do I want to cuss out Mutt for treating me like shite the entire time they’ve known me? Sure, but maybe it was all meant to be, maybe since I’m getting attention here and my User Page is getting attention, maybe that was what needed to happen so someone who needed to see it would see it here. By blocking me for it, it will lift the weight completely, forever :) (right?) LightProof1995 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:UPNOT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you're telling me that your only reason for editing Wikipedia is to enhance an agenda, obviously waving it to the crowd on your userpage, and doubling down on it? If you thought this would help your CIR case, then I have to tell you that it is not helping at all, my friend. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely per the above WP:NOTHERE statement of intent to draw attention to their case through bludgeoning here. This does not supersede the ongoing community discussion of topic- and/or site bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have offered mentorship to LightProof1995. I have no idea if I can correct all issues that were displayed here but I'm up for a challenge. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think your wasting your time (having been burned like this before and eventually getting dragged into an arbcom leading to their siteban). Most mentorships work, but in some cases there is no point. I doubt LP1995 has any interest in Wikipedia except pushing their own fringe theories. They clearly have no interest in the spirit of our policies, except in understanding how to circumvent them. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Second that. This user was… well, kind of out there to say the least. They literally stated that they were WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to right WP:GREATWRONGS by pushing incredibly strange WP:FRINGE theories about transgender reincarnation in hopes that it would stop hate crimes by appealing to religious people who believe in that stuff. In summary: What. Dronebogus (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

tf :) Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to everything, that agenda is, unfortunately, theologically confused. The supposedly religious people who commit hate crimes against transgender people are nominally Christians. Christians don't believe in reincarnation. Christians, including those who corrupt the faith by being hateful, believe that we only go around once in life, and then we go on to the judgment of God. The real difference between Christian beliefs and Buddhist beliefs is not in ethics, but about the soul. So the whole thing is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not even wrong. Dronebogus (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Trigarta

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

In a incredibly short time Trigarta has disrupted Kambojas in various ways, in which I had to step in various times. They have spammed the article with loads of non-WP:RS (and sometimes WP:VER and misquoting sourced material too, and even plagiarism) citations into the article, which I had to revert [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. I asked them VARIOUS times to look into our guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:SPS and whatnot, to no avail however. I even had to take it to WP:RSN [120], because they simply didn't want to listen. There, they gave me the impression that they cared more about "winning" the argument than actually improving our Wiki articles, by first trying to dismiss my argument by claiming the publisher of the source is in fact academic [121], and when I demonstrated that it wasn't [122], they contradicted themselves by basically saying the equivalent of "why does it matter anyways" [123]

Now they have started pushing their own personal opinion into the article [124]. Here they treat a theory by a historian (Etienne Lamotte) as a fact, that the Kambojas are in fact the same as the Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani.

They do this by adding more information about the Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani from a UNESCO source which simply quotes the ancient historians Arrian and Quintus Curtius Rufus, however, neither of those two historians actually mention the Kambojas, they mention the Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani, who in the UNESCO source are ironically treated as a separate people than the Kambojas, who appear later in the source. In other words, Trigarta went on to treat a theory as a fact, and by using a source which is literally against that theory a that. Heck, the vast majority of WP:RS doesn't mention that the Kambojas and Aśvaka/Aśvaka/Assakenoi/Assacani were one people (including the latest major work about them [125], i.e. it is WP:UNDUE), but that's another story. My issue here is that Trigarta heavily lacks WP:CIR, being unable/refusing again and again to learn of our guidelines.

Mind you, they are not that new here either, they have been heavily editing articles such as History of Punjab, Punjab, Yaudheya since January, all articles which I suspect have received the same (if not worse treatment) as the Kambojas, and thus I think those should be reverted back as well.

TLDR: Trigarta has in a short time violated multiple guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:SYNTH, WP:VER and clearly lacks WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

All of my edits have been made in good faith to help improve the Kamboja page, nothing bad has been done on purpose.

---------

They themslves have been the one making disruptive edits and doesn't follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and doesnt provide their own source whilst giving all sides their Wikipedia:Due weight. For example the most recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kambojas&oldid=1144962407 where he removes my edit for no reason even though I had provided a valid reason to include it, 'Undone due to relevence of prev mention to Assaknois being related to the Kambojas, also rewritten a quoted phrase as requested on talk. Retain WP:Neutral Point of View and provide your sources which describe the Assaknois as not being Kambojas whilst following WP:Verifiability'.

They state that there is no mention of the Kambojas being related to the Assakanois in the source however that was not my intention as the text previously describes the possible relation and this was simply for historical purposes and not to support the theory. (They still have not provided their sources and due weight to show they were not related, which i have asked for previously).

------------

They simply remove my edits e.g. under the connotation of implications from resources that they were not Kambojas, for example on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoryofIran#Recent_removal_of_edit. He states here 'if a book talks about the Kambojas, and don't mention the events of Alexander (or vice versa), then they obviously do not consider the Kambojas and Assakenoi to be the same' which goes against wikiepedias rule on Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that 'Its content is determined by previous published information rather than editors beliefs, opinions or experiences', in their case the belief and opinion that no mention = doesn't believe the theory/idea.

------------

Most if not all of my sources have been added under the assumption that they have been Wikipedia:Reliable sources and most have been created by a historian that is Subject-matter expert (except from my addition of Paul Crystal who I had assumed was) which is what they are referring to by 'I even had to take it to WP:RSN', in which in the thread my reasonings for him being reliable were listed and wasnt just a blind addition. Trigarta (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to Trigarta that's not a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which he literally quotes yet still doesn't understand? I'm tired of this persistent WP:CIR behaviour. Not even gonna bother adressing the rest of the nonsense. I sincerely hope an admin will take a look at this, I feel like many of my ANI reports in this year or two have been left in the dark, including my two other ones. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Trigarta has now resorted to disrupting another article; Gandhara, first removing around 13,856 bytes [126] [127] and now 21,000 bytes [128] justifying it as "clean up" despite the fact that they can barely write something without heavily close paragraphing, can't differentiate between what is WP:RS and what isn't, includes their pov in their additions, and so on. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

They are still altering sourced info [129], this time more blatantly than before [130]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

1) Not point of view pushing. Folllowing a zoroastrianism practice doesn't mean they outright followed zoroastriansm. Your own source says 'connects' and from this possible connections it has been drawn. Your source doesn't outright say they followed zoroastrianism. Read it again 2) Your sources mention that they are mentioned in sanskrit and pali texts so there is no issue there. 3)The Indian lands would be the Indo-aryan lands, doesn't need to be a 1:1 replica as that would be plagiarism.

There was nothing inherently wrong with my edits on Gandhara, the page was extremely, cluttered, unorganised and unsourced/poorly sourced and I simply started undoing this. You're reaching to find anything now which is pathetic. They only requested that the edits be made in small chunks since it was a big edit, they didn't have an issue with what I removed. Trigarta (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, your edits at Gandhara were so obviously good that they got reverted by two other users. It's far from a 1:1 replica and you're the last one who should lecture people on plagiarism. It literally says that scholarship acknowledges that they were Zoroastrians, how more literal do you want it? Never once do they state that it's a speculation of any kind, as you have made it out to be. For that and the rest of your nonsensical claims, everyone can view the quotes here to see that you are clearly wrong and WP:POVushing [131]. This is starting to look like WP:NOTHERE behaviour, can an admin please step in before they do more damage? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

'Scholars have long (see, e.g., Kuhn; Charpentier, pp. 145f.; etc.) connected this practice with the Avestan Vīdēvdād. 14.5f. (and with Herodotus 1.140.3, where the same is said about the mágoi), and the conclusion has been drawn that the Kambojas were Mazdayasnians.'

No where here does it say certainly that they were zoroastrians. It bases its conclusion on a 'connection' to 'avestan videvdad' and 'the killing of animals' which doesn't mean they followed the religion, just a certain act. The phrasing doesn't indicate definiteness and it states 'scholarS' but only names Ernst kuhn? Confidence of a theory doesn't = definiteness of a theory. Trigarta (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm speechless, if this is not a demonstration of WP:POV and/or WP:CIR then I don't know what is. You literally (unknowingly?) admitted to adding your own words into the article, even trying to justify it. For some reason Trigarta didn't quote the other citation either, probably because they couldn't make stuff up about it like the other; "This alone suffices to show that they were Zoroastrians, acting in accord with precepts formulated in Vd. XIV.5-6." --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

coming from the same person that that wasnt following Wikipedia:Verifiability and completely made up an assumption from absolutely nothing. This is not Wikipedia:POV, what POV am I pushing? I'm simply making sure you're folllowing Wikipedia:Verifiability. This text shows their iranian affinities but it doesn't show they practiced zoroastrianism. Its like saying fasting in Ramadan and only doing that is enough to be a Muslim when that isn't the case. The text bases its conclusion on a mere 'connection' your source POV pushes, especially how it shuts down the indo-aryan linguistic affinities of the Kambojas as a simple 'complication in the matter' and fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Trigarta (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

So those scholarly sources are pov pushing because they don't support your personal feelings...? That is literal the epitome of WP:POV. At this rate I think not only your edits across those afromentioned articles should be reverted, but that you also should be blocked. And learn what Wikipedia:Verifiability means, please. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, has nothing to do with my feelings, I'm simply identifying that your source doesn't provide Fair weight, many scholars have suggested indo-aryan affinities of the Kambojas linguistics however your source doesn't mainting a neutral point of view and shuts it down as simply a complicated matter in this argument and nothing else. Youre the one Pov pushing. Espcially with how you removed the full edit rather than leaving the sanskrit, pali and indo aryan additions. If I were to be blocked, you should to Trigarta (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

So because the two sources doesnt suggest those fictional Indo-Aryan affinities which you have provided no WP:RS of, let alone demonstrated that it's WP:DUE (it's not, surprise [132]), their statement about the Kambojas being Zoroastrian (which is a religion, i.e. nothing to do with ethnicity nor language) is not valid and gives you the green light to include your personal words into it? This is some next level mental mental gymnastics, just like the rest of your claims. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Your source literally does mention it but shuts it down due to and I quote '... shows the influence of some middle-indo-aryan language, is an unnecessary complication..'. Your ignorance and Wikipedia:POVPUSHING is remarkable and has been displayed throughout including most recently. It would be unfair for me to be punished (in which I haven't done anything wrong and my edits have been made in good faith) and especially only me as history of Iran breaks multiple guidelines Trigarta (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That made zero sense, but sure. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Request admin action and closure

This is clearly going nowhere. It's impossible to discuss with this user due to the zealous amount of mental gymnastics they are making, which I consider no different than a heavy lack of WP:CIR. This is by no means meant as an attack, the comments and edits speak for themselves, and anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. The fact they keep doubling down on their WP:POV and their ignorance of our guidelines and sourced material is not a good sign. I have been here long enough to know that these type of users always end up getting indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

CrashLandingNew

The User:CrashLandingNew started a series of disruptive edits on various article by mass deleting sourced material, which he insisted that it was "pseudo-history", all while without bothering to check the references.

• Deleting sourced content on Jat Muslim page:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. Afterwards, he turned to personal attacks [136]Removing all the ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a sock

• On other pages he kept removing properly cited material all while claiming source does not mention that

1. On Hyder Ali; [137], removing citations while saying it to be unsourced[138], again calling a sock [139]

Afterwards, he breached WP:3RR, [140] while calling me vandal,[141] and [142], all while adding material for which cited references don't corroborate or are repeated afterwards.Sutyarashi (talk)

I would like to draw the attention of the admins towards the history of all the pages mentioned here by the the User. They all have been recently re-written recently by him/her with a clear bias to push one POV. What we are seeing is a pushing of complete pseudo history with selective citation of sources to suit one's agenda. He wants to push Jat origin of many Subcontinent based Muslim dynasties and has even tried to push offbeat narrative about origins of some famous historical figures. I repeat, just check the history of these pages and see how unchecked rewriting of history was tried. CrashLandingNew (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That is no excuse for deleting sourced content... why not discuss the bias of the sources in the talk pages before blanking huge sections of the article? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If a user adds something on a page using selective sources without discussing, which completely changes article's existing narrative, shouldn't that be deleted until a consensus is reached? Plz go through the history of all these pages. He has completely changed what was written on them. There are these historical figures with different origin theories and he comes out of nowhere to push the ones he prefers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Both of these editors have been edit warring over at least 3 different articles. All without either of them using an article talk page. Perhaps the admins should block them both. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea, at least a temporary TBAN. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any war here. Plz go through the history of these pages. I even adjusted his changes only to keep what was written originally. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It does appear that User:Sutyarashi has made significant changes to a number of articles, and then when those changes were reverted, instead of doing the correct thing per WP:BRD and starting a discussion on the various talk pages, has reverted again. I have no idea who is "right" here, but continued reverting is not a good idea, and I would suggest that the articles be restored to the status quo before the major changes started, and a discussion started about each one. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I did requested him multiple times to use talkpage[143][144][145] a d then even started discussion on respective pages, but he keeps repeating that this was pseudo history, without mentioning that whether there was even problem with cited sources.Sutyarashi (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As observed above you have made significant changes to a number of articles without discussing. You can't add something to a page without discussing and then expect it not to be removed without discussion when you didn't use the 'Talk page' option yourself in the first place. You have been engaged on all the talk pages where you initiated the communication and discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Curse words, hate

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stroupoutsa Please protect my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη#Σε_ξεπάτωσαν ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη: It's moot now that Stroupoutsa (talk · contribs) has been blocked, but you failed to notify them of this ANI report, as the red notice on the top of this page clearly requires. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh

Freoh (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor, from August of last year. Since then, a pattern of disruptive/gaslighting editing has become obvious. The most recent is at Rayleigh–Jeans law, an article which they never really edited and suddenly got involved into a debate without understanding the basics of it, mostly about whether or not it should be included in the category Category:Obsolete theories in physics. From the article, it should be patently obvious that it is (and certainly is obvious to any physicist). The Rayleigh–Jeans law was an attempt to characterize radiation emitted by black bodies, and it was known since its inception that the law was inadequate. This was called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe.

Some other editor removed the longstanding category, I reverted since this is known obsolete since its very inception in 1900s. Then the insanity starts where Freoh tags the category as uncited. This is patently false, Ref 1 explicitly states RJ is obsolete

When physicists tried to apply classical ideas of radiation, they could not derive blackbody spectra that agreed with the experimental results. The classical calculations yielded an intensity I(ν,T) given by

$I(\nu ,T)=2KT\nu ^{2}/c^{2}$

This is known as the Rayleigh–Jeans Law. [...] The Rayleigh–Jeans Law agrees with experimental results at low frequencies (long wavelenghts), but disagrees at high frequencies. [...] (The classical prediction of arbitrarily large energies at high frequencies was sometimes referred to as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. ) [...] In 1900, Max Planck, a German physicist produced an empirical formula that accurately describes the experimental blackbody spectra:

$I(\nu ,T)={\frac {2h\nu ^{3}/c^{2}}{e^{\frac {h\nu }{kT}}-1}}$

Emphasis mine. RJ was obsolete back in 1900. This was not good enough for Freoh, who keeps demanding sources and writes.

Headbomb stated that "this is cited" in the article, but I do not see where. I am not taking a side here on whether or not it is obsolete, just ensuring that the information in this article is verifiable.

On the talk page, the following additional source was provided, after Ref 1 was (again) pointed out

We remember the Rayleigh–Jeans law as an incorrect hypothesis superseded by that of Planck.

Freoh then writes:

XOR'easter, that looks like a good source to me. I would not be opposed to re-adding Category:Obsolete theories in physics along with a cited sentence to this effect

Emphasis mine.

Thinking we have finally reached agreement, I reinstate the category, which Freoh reverts again demanding a source, and then warning me about their disappointment of me supposedly refusing to provide a source. A source which they already agreed exists, was provided, and supports that category, and which they themselves deemed good and sufficient to re-add the category.

This is gaslighting WP:NOTHERE behaviour of the highest order. Similar behaviour was also seen at Talk:Science, Talk:Constitution of the United States and many other places as evidenced by User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023, User talk:Freoh#January 2023 and User talk:Freoh#NPOV debates.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm very new to all of this, but here are some facts relevant to what I've observed. I think it would be worth it if everyone concerned just paused and looked at some facts. I would hope these are easily agreed by all:

• approximations are used in physics and science all the time
• when a new discovery in science supersedes a previous one, it is often the case that the previous one continues to be used as a useful approximation
  • For example, Newton's laws of motion even after they have been superseded by Quantum mechanics, Special relativity, and General relativity
• the word "obsolete" means no longer used. Something that is actively used is therefore not obsolete

What I have observed unfortunately is @Headbomb refusing to acknowledge any of the above. This baffles me. @Freoh and others had a good-faith, honest debate about the topic. The difference is clear, and is recorded in the talk page. Dllahr (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete means out of date, not "no longer used as an approximation". RJ was never, even at the time it was proposed, ever in agreement with reality. It was known to be wrong even at the time of proposal. The attempts to salvage it involves invoking the luminiferous aether. XOR'easter explains why further on the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @XOR'easter, Ancheta Wis, Thebiguglyalien, Andrew Lancaster as others who had similar run-ins with Freoh recently for their opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I'm surprised that this has made its way to ANI. What I've seen is entirely consistent with what Headbomb has described, and I've tried to explain this on Freoh's talk page. Headbomb did not mention what I think is the largest issue in these discussions though, which is that Freoh often refuses to drop the WP:STICK. All of the discussions and RfCs opened by Freoh follow a cycle of proposing fundamental changes about the approach of the article, multiple editors explaining why it's not viable, and a subsequent back-and-forth.

In addition to what Headbomb mentioned at Talk:Rayleigh–Jeans law, Talk:Science, and Talk:Constitution of the United States (where according to Xtools, Freoh has written 87,455 bytes, almost entirely on a single WP:1AM issue over the last four months), this has also happened at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of Rayleigh-Jeans law, all of these also have a strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS component to them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

1. His project is WP:countering systemic bias, according to a participant list.
2. The encyclopedia is so big that it can harbor editor groups with all these points of view. So he doesn't have to "poke the bear", he can "live and let live" / ... Sorry that it got to be too much.
3. I think we handled Talk:science by getting to a meaningful dialog on his talk page that we could agree on, and he stopped. --

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh isn't doing anything that couldn't simply be ignored by editors who don't want to engage with them. Headbomb gave them a warning for edit warring on Rayleigh-Jeans law, but they only have one single revert in the history for that page, and two edits total spaced out over a week. Their insistence on documentation for that category could be a little nitpicky, but could also be seen as an attempt to facilitate an agreement between Headbomb and the other editor. There's no behaviour here that requires intervention. Larataguera (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera: we sadly can't ignore it, because this behaviour occurs across the board on Science, on Raileigh Jeans Law, and elsewhere. That "only" two reverts happened on that page is immaterial. What matters is that discussion is impossible with them because they read words differently than everyone else, then revert consensus when they've agreed to it. And that's on top of the other behaviour highlighted like accusing people of espousing white supremacist views when they say the ancient Greeks has an important role to play in the history of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not eager to dip my toe into the ANI waters, but... I'm a bit baffled as to why the text already in the article didn't count as cited sentence[s] to this effect, and why Freoh reverted the re-addition of the category while pointing to a guideline that says the correct course of action is to add the {{unreferenced category}} template. I'm significantly more baffled by the remarks from earlier this month to the effect that it's racist/white supremacist to say that the ancient Greeks were important for the history of science [146]. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here, and like User:Ancheta Wis I was part of some awkward, and needlessly long, discussions involving the history of science. I can not speak for other articles but the descriptions sound familiar. Sometimes Freoh seems to refuse to get the points being made by others on talk pages. On the other hand, I am not sure why this level of talk page awkwardness by a new editor would deserve an ANI discussion? If it is just for collecting feedback to help Freoh get perspective then I am OK with that. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the very long discussion at Talk:Science. And it does seem like it took Freoh way too long to finally "drop the stick". But as long as the behaviour is confined to talk pages, other editors (as pointed out by Larataguera above) can simply choose to not engage. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that this is a misunderstanding, Headbomb, and I wish that you would assume good faith and try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring and taking this to WP:AN/I and WP:RFPP. I do not think that the text currently in the article supports the idea that this law is obsolete, only that Planck's law is more accurate. (As Dllahr pointed out, these are not the same thing.) I do not understand why you are so opposed to clarifying this point, and you might benefit from reading the advice for hotheads.      — Freoh 18:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"this is a misunderstanding"

Then please to explain why you reverted the addition of the category because it was 'unsourced' after you explicitly agreed that XOR'easter's source was appropriate and that you would not object to the category being restored.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have previously explained at the article talk page and my talk page, a citation in the talk page is insufficient for verifiability, and I said that I would not object to the category being restored along with a cited sentence.      — Freoh 20:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh tagging a category as needing a citation is a little odd. Categories can be wrong but category discussions need to be approached a different way. Decisions about how we structure and make Wikipedia itself are not subject to those rules in any simple way. Please do take notice of the concerns being raised. The line you could cross here would be if these types of interventions start to make it literally difficult for other editors to keep editing. It is important that in your interactions with other editors you should show that you are trying to understand them and work with them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not just add whatever sentence you wanted yourself? I'd like to understand, but I'm at a loss here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps, we might "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"— This is an invitation for some of us to go to the problem page to perhaps work things out? OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:CATV Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. It is entirely sufficient to establish things on the talk page, so long as the article gives an indication as to why a category might be there. The article clearly explains that RJ was supplanted by Planck in 1900s, which is plenty sufficient to support the addition of the category (on top of the existing refs which support the same). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

At the time, I chose to tag and remove the unsupported content because I thought that it would have taken more of my time to figure out where and how to describe the obsolescence. In retrospect, it would have taken less time to just write the material.      — Freoh 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The list of users who are arguably involved in some way with the Freoh situation, as Thebiguglyalien points out, spans far more individuals and articles than have been included and notified here, and with that in mind I think this ANI report may be premature and of too limited scope. Of respected editors, Doug_Weller immediately comes to mind and commented on this on Headbomb's talk page.

I find Freoh to be quite confrontational (e.g. with the spamming of veiled links to WP:DISRUPT against everyone they disagree with) and to themselves be a situation of probably something along the lines of WP:PUSH. The user, to be honest, seems to openly have contempt for anything to do with "white men" and feels like merely using that label is a sound argument against inclusion (e.g. the ancient greeks were white men, so their contributions to science should ipso facto be downplayed).

That said, it would be very easy to say that Freoh is bringing needed balance to articles that do suffer from institutional bias. It's the approach that's the problem. Freoh seems to be very WP:IDHT and WP:STICK and to continue plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others. Even when I partially agree with them, and offer some middle ground compromises, they do not seem to understand how to take advantage of that or collaborate.

I think Freoh is more of a wait and see situation, and where one should compile a list over time of examples of behavioral problems for a single comprehensive ANI report that covers all these articles and behaviors. Maybe Freoh will learn how to be a good wikipedian, or maybe their personality and approach are just unfit for this place, but I think it is too early to say - or at any rate, it would need much more thorough documentation and wider input than this report is going to get, which is actually counterproductive in getting Freoh dealt with. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• After reading Freoh's talk page I'm starting to wonder if this is an editor we can work with. That's not the talk page of someone who's here to work together in a collaborative environment. It's the talk page of someone who knows Wikipedia is wrong and is here to fix the great wrongs. Someone who has a lot of confidence in their own judgment and not much in anyone else's. They're attracted to fraught topic areas and they want to make big changes. Collaborating with this one is going to be a challenging and time consuming exercise.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  @DIYeditor@S Marshall Agreed. As I said at Headbomb's talk page, there's clearly a problem that I doubt will go away soon. It looks as though this will need a more comprehensive report than this. I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that as I'm trying to devote my time now mainly to writing. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: I hope you are paying attention to all this, especially to what DIYeditor and S Marshall are saying. I think you are intelligent, knowledgeable, and well-meaning, and so have the potential to make a significant contribution to the encyclopedia. But not the way you are going about it now. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain why you characterize my behavior as plowing ahead without substantial response or reaction to others? I have listened to the concerns of other editors and made plenty of compromises. Looking just at the conversation in Talk:Constitution of the United States about how to discuss the People:

• I listened to Allreet when they opposed my use of footnotes to clarify who the People were, so I made a new proposal that avoided footnotes.
• I listened to ONUnicorn when they pointed out that I was blurring the lines between the people who wrote the Constitution, the people who ratified it, and the people who voted for delegates, so I made a new proposal that was less ambiguous.
• I listened to Dhtwiki when they complained about my attempts to address length concerns within an RfC with a different focus, so I made a new proposal that I thought was in the spirit of their proposal while addressing ONUnicorn's concerns.
• I listened to you, DIYeditor, when you recommended that I include an in-text attribution for a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the support for constitutional ratification, so I edited the proposal to include an in-text attribution.
• I listened to you again when you suggested that I expand my in-text attribution to name one of the historians who has made that estimate, so I made a new proposal that named Forrest McDonald in particular.
• I listened to BogLogs when they argued that it would be misleading to cite the percentage in favor of ratification without citing the percentage opposed, so I made another proposal that cited instead the total percentage.
• I listened to Gwillhickers when he argued against making a vague reference to the people as a whole, so I made an edit that avoided the issue by cutting out the disputed content.
• I listened to Randy Kryn when he wanted the Preamble section to mention Gouverneur Morris, so I made another edit that kept the reference to Morris while again removing the disputed content.

This conversation has gone on so long because of my substantial response or reaction to others, and I feel like I am one of the few people who is trying to compromise rather than status quo stonewalling. I know that I am in a minority among editors, but I have been taking the opinions of others into consideration when trying to reach a consensus, and I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong.      — Freoh 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you lost all of those discussions, there was no need for any deletions, and yet you keep going and going and going into thousands of words of discussions not realizing that editors are volunteers and not paid to be here or bots. You've been told this many times by many editors on many talk pages, that you seem to have no idea when to stop beating the horse. You removed most of the Preamble section, I reverted, and then you removed it again and someone else reverted - at that point WP:LETTINGITBE probably works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I honestly do not know what I have been doing wrong. Yes, I can see that. My main advice to you is to go a lot slower and be a lot more succinct. And absolutely do not go within 100 miles of anything touching on post-1932 US politics under any circumstances whatsoever, but I'd say that to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please, hopefully nobody requests an indef ban, or even a topic ban just yet, this editor is going to be a very good one once he stops beating the dead horses into submission and maybe stops bragging on his use page about negative reactions to his disruptions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Since I received a ping from Freoh I'll respond. To get a definitive idea of the nature of Freoh's on going involvements all one need do is look at the the failed RfC on the U.S. Constitution Talk page which he initiated, starting on 2 February 2023 and continuing to 11 March 2023. During that RfC he introduced three other proposals on top of the one initiated under discussion, and in the process some 42 browser pages of talk ensued in an apparent attempt to obscure the discussion, and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. I would not be surprised if some sort of block was imposed, but he should at least get a stiff warning, that is, if he promises to stop flooding the discussions with endless argumentative talk first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Pinged to comment here by Randy Kryn. After reading through the last six months of Freoh's edits, then there appear to be some comments to make. Freoh seems to have made a hobby of Quantum computing, which is a timely subject, and sysops editors have apparently been pleased to have him edit the Quantum computers articles and to give him something like a 'pass' for his tag bombing and multiple reverts on other pages not dealing with Quantum computing as a type of courtesy. A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself into a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions. One example which literally went on for weeks and weeks was his interaction with Dhtwiki on the Talk page for James Madison where Freoh was tag bombing the article and making revert edits against several editors, which Freoh was making against BRD on the James Madison page. At the end of weeks and weeks of interaction with Dhtwiki, the peer review nomination which was in progress for Madison at that time was fully derailed and failed. And Freoh as SJW was able to prevail over Dhtwiki for his own purposes, with regards to edits unrelated to his hobby in Quantum computers. Supporting Randy Kryn on his report here regarding Freoh's edit conduct issues made above. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppeting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasindu Kumara

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

---

I came across the recent edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasindu Kumara (this one and prior), and it appears that one network is masquerading as several users (Mike Douglas, Don Omar, unsigned comments). As I'm not absolutely certain, I have not taken action of any kind, but I felt I should bring this up somewhere and felt this was likely the most appropriate place because multiple accounts are not involved. Any advice would be appreciated! Jguglielmin (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The "vote" by "Don Omar", whose username is linked to Hulk~enwiki, an account that hasn't edited in 17 years, was posted by 112.134.167.220 (talk · contribs). Another IP, 112.134.165.104 (talk · contribs) added this post that links to User:Mike. More disruption can be seen in the edit history of that AfD. Obvious bad-faith editing; those two IPs need blocking. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Or a block of the IP range, since they're on the same network, but yeah, that's what I was leaning toward as well. Jguglielmin (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's possible that these sock IPs belong to the creator of that article, පසිඳු කාවින්ද. Why? Minutes after the article was nominated at AfD, IP 112.134.166.186 (talk · contribs) showed up and was clearly opposed to the AfD. I'm guessing the only way they could show up at the AfD with that speed is if they received a notification or are tracking the page they recently created. The other two IPs I mentioned above geolocate to the exact same location as the first IP, and I have lots of suspicions. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Now User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද reverted my clean up of that AfD, their first edit to the AfD since the article was nominated, only minutes after IP was editing. Can an administrator please block the three IPs and User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

They're inserting content added by one of the IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have checked the discussion and found that all comments made by those IP's are vaild, can you advise me the reason for revert? Only registered user can contribute to wikipedia or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The IPs were impersonating multiple editors. You consider that to be valid? And why are the three IPs and yourself editing together so conveniently? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a wikipedia user for more than 10 years and created more than 500 articles for Sinhala wikipeida and made over 50,000 edits. In Sri Lanka, there are lot of people who are not registered but contributed to Sinhala wikipedia. You are saying that IP's are allowed read but not allowed to edit or comment for good reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry? 500 articles and 50,000 edits? You've only created 98 articles on si.wiki and you have a total of only 7,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects. Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Exaclty, are you not including edits made before registering with IP's? And see below for other contributions:

https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Project_talk:Rally-2012-08#translatewiki.net_August_2012_Translation_Rally_results_26349

I was the top 1st contributor. Here says: පසිඳු කාවින්ද has made the most qualified contributions during the rally — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

More than 20,0000 translations for translatewiki donating my time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's worth blocking me now, go ahead and do so. I have done many good things for wikimedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Using three IPs to impersonate other users and sway the result of a discussion is a blockable offense. This has nothing to do with your other contributions. Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

May an administrator please review this case of sockpuppetry? Thank you. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, පසිඳු කාවින්ද has created the sockpuppet Proudsrilankan to !vote keep at the AfD. Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reported it at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/පසිඳු කාවින්ද Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted Pasindu Kumara CSD G11, WP:G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk · contribs) blocked for sockpuppetry, along with Proudsrilankan (talk · contribs) Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

D. Scot Miller (User:Afrosurreal, User:2600:1700:cf90:ed80:e01b:5252:7a0c:5c88)

The WP:SPA Afrosurreal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – also posting as 2600:1700:cf90:ed80:e01b:5252:7a0c:5c88 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – has been WP:OWN squatting on the article Afro-Surrealism for several years, in a self-promotional manner, and is now libeling other living writers. He is D. Scot Miller, writer of an op-ed about Afro-surrealism that was published in the SF Bay Guardian in 2009.

• Self-declared as D. Scot Miller. [147]
• In 2018, started rewriting the Afro-Surrealism article to be all about himself and his work [148], without independent reliable sources.
• Removes mention of other authors that don't seem to suit his preferences [149], [150], [151], [152] with an especial attention to suppressing mention of Rochelle Spencer [153], [154], another academic and author in the subject area.
• More self-promotional editing in 2019 [155] again.
• Weird "lecturing" in edit summaries that have nothing to do with the edit made [156]
• Repeatedly suppresses mention of Afrosurreal Writer's Workshop, with a false claim that WP itself has determined that it doesn't matter, and he claims to be personally representing "The Afrosurreal Arts Movement" [157], [158]
• Attacks at least two living persons by name (Spencer, and another writer named Sumiko Saulson) on the talk page with unsupported accusations of real-world wrongdoing [159].
  • I believe this is across the libel line, and the edit should be WP:REVDELed under WP:BLP policy.
  • In same edit, he engaged in more self-promotion, and denigrated another editor (me) simply for not being enough of a subject-matter expert to suit him, and not promoting who he wants to promote. Also made it very, very clear he is just here to go after his off-site ideological enemies, that he aims to 'right great wrongs', and that he thinks it's okay to edit the article to suit his own viewpoint above all else. He also accused me of being a shill for Spencer (whom, in reality, I have never met nor had any other form of communication with).

The user has edited no pages other than Afro-Surrealism [160], not even the closely related Afrofuturism.

For my part, I've notified several wikiprojects (African Disapora, Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy) and the article's talk page about what a total trainwreck the article has become, and also posted links to various sources that might be used in improving it (sources that Miller has attacked without any independent reliable-source evidence to back him). I have no deep involvement in the topic area (I've only done some minor cleanup editing, and some incidental looking around for additional source material). I was just rather shocked at the degree to which this page has been aggressively dominated by a single voice. I left the user a Template:uw-coi [161], before he just used the article talk page for more self-promotion (and attacks). I also added a Template:COI to the article itself.

I suggest that User:Afrosurreal needs to be topic-banned, if not just indefinitedly blocked as not here to actually work on an encyclopedia. He's treating this article as if it's his personal blog, and has a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach toward other editors and indeed other off-site writers, as if the entire topic belongs to him globally. One guy who wrote a newspaper op-ed doesn't get to determine what credence Wikipedia gives to that writer or any other writer, or view they write about; independent sources do that.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Extra credit to D. Scot for informing our readers [162] that his own "famous" manifesto lists ten tenants that Afro-Surrealism follows. I guess he was manifesting in an apartment building or something. EEng 11:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the diffs above I'm indefinitely p-blocking from the page Afro-Surrealism, any attempts to evade it with an IP will result in an indefinite siteblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

He's now [163] using 2600:1700:CF90:ED80:4D04:8869:5893:6877 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Indef site blocked the master, IP for 3 days. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Same action I'd have taken. Now if anyone can clean up the, dare I say it, surreal mess that article is, we'll really be in business. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Not here?

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

---

Someone may care to have a look at this IP's contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blatant disruptive editing. Given a month since it seems to be a semi-stable IP. Courcelles (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

WikiWikiWayne

• WikiWikiWayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AN discussion
• User talk:WikiWikiWayne#Archive revert at WP:AN by admin Bbb23 (section header altered by WWW)
• User talk:Rosguill#WikiWikiWayne

Briefly, on March 14 at 17:40 HJ Mitchell blocked WWW for 48h for violating 3RR "after explicit warning and while lecturing others on BRD" at Wikipedia:Drafts. WWW lashed out post-block to such an extent that on March 15 at 12:00 HJ opened a thread at WP:AN (see link above) for a block review. Simultaneously with the opening of the thread (I hadn't seen it) I revoked TPA because of WWW's latest screed attacking HJ and just about everyone involved. Because of an e-mail WWW sent me (and I believe he had e-mailed others although I never saw them) I later disabled e-mail access.

You can read the thread, but the consensus was that the block was deserved. Many thought I should have extended it because of WWW's post-block comments, but I didn't think that was right and said so, as did HJ.

After the block expired, WWW posted to the thread, which was still open, repeating much of what he had said while he was blocked, although with less heat.

On March 17 at 00:57 Rosguill closed the thread saying "Block endorsed as lenient, closing this before WikiWikiWayne manages to talk their way into a longer block." Seven minutes later, WWW archived the thread. I unarchived it and warned him on his Talk page. Today, he reverted me re-archiving the thread. For some background and links, see Rosguill's Talk page.

I wasn't sure what action to take, if any, and I asked Rosguill about it, but then WWW responded to my warning on his Talk page and to my comments on Rosguill's Talk page. On Rosguill's Talk page, he accused me and Rosguill of defamation. On his own Talk page, he said the comments by editors at the AN thread defamed him and that his archiving it "mitigat[ed] the damage". He then accused me bullying him, attacking him, and defaming him.

WWW has clearly decided not to let go of his anger at the block and others' comments. More important, he is taking ill-advised actions and making comments that are borderline legal threats and personal attacks against anyone who does something he doesn't like. For those reasons, I propose blocking him. Whether it should be indefinite or of a limited duration I leave to others to decide. Even if WWW is indefinitely blocked, I want to make it clear that I at least am not proposing a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think a block at this point would only escalate the situation, but I would strongly urge WWW to go and find an article to edit and let this episode fade into history. If he does that, this will all be forgotten in a few weeks, but continuing to escalate is unlikely to end well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been loosely following this drama as I was briefly involved in the initial dispute that led to Wayne's block. @WikiWikiWayne: I say this as someone who doesn't want to lose you from the project. When the initial dispute took place you very graciously apologised to me twice,[164][165] and I know that this project is better with you here. However, what could have been a small blip that was forgotten about has unfortunately spiralled, and I don't think either of us want you to be indeff'd. After Bbb23 warned you about self-archiving the AN post, you chose to do it again, and have continued reacting with hostility towards him. I'm writing this out to ask you to act quickly and decisively to 1) unarchive the AN post yourself and 2) retract everything you've said post-block to Bbb23 and Rosguill. I think you are clearly facing a potential indef here, which would be a real shame given than you previously had an entirely clean block record. It's for these reasons I think you should work quickly to undo these errors, then hopefully the community will agree to draw a line under this and we can move on. — Czello 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with eeverything @Czello said here. @WikiWikiWayne, this is good advice!! Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking WWW temporarily is going to solve anything and will likely just make him more angry. I do think accusing other editors of defamation and bullying is uncalled for, especially when the first block was absolutely in line with policy. I think if we all just let this go away, then it will likely no longer be a problem. Like @HJ Mitchell said, let WWW go find an article to edit and the problem will be gone in a bit. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry to drag you into this again, but could you have a word with Wayne? I've already done so, basically saying what Harry already has in this thread - find an article to improve and forget about this. As for what action to take, I would suggest ignoring it. Is Wayne archiving a closed thread on AN actually harming or damaging Wikipedia? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I have discussed this at length with Wayne off-Wikipedia and repeatedly advised him to move on and forget about this. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• There's an incongruence in WWW's behavior at AN--on the one hand, they assert that editors there defamed them and moved to remove the discussion from the board. On the other hand, their very actions only drew more attention to, and gave more validity to, the criticisms of their behavior at AN. Personally, I don't care what WWW has alleged about me, and would prefer to see this whole situation fade into memory. If their dramaboard antics continue to a degree that is disruptive to other editors, however, I think a timed partial-block from WP-space would be warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• Why don't we archive this thread and let things and Wayne calm down? This can't be helping.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
• I hate to be critical, but I think the archiving was at least ignorable. It was closed, everyone was done talking about it, and it was ready to be moved on from. Archiving it off AN hardly erased the record, and everyone could have easily walked away from it. As much as I thought the initial block was good, reverting an archival unless someone wanted to say more wasn't needful. Let's let WWW stop being drug to AN/ANI unless there's a good future reason, and not whether the closed thread that's over stays on AN for 5 more minutes or 5 more days? Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  WWW was only brought to AN again after he accused other editors of defamation. It wasn't just about the archival of the previous thread. I think if left alone, WWW will return to constructive editing but I just wanted to point out that the archival was not the sole reason for the creation of this entry at AN. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, not the only issue, but it was the proximate cause. WWW clearly felt his name didn't need to be on AN anymore, and had that been allowed to stand, the rest of it likely doesn't happen. All that said, WWW? Take a breath. Don't accuse folks of defamation. That's not an argument that's going to go anywhere you want. Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree that it would have been better to just leave the archiving or maybe just post to WWW's talk page and tell them they really shouldn't do that. While I don't think highly involved editors should be archiving threads, in the end the harm is very small when another uninvolved editor has already closed the thread. If you disagree with the closure itself then sure feel free to unarchive and post accordingly but otherwise just leave it be if it's a one time thing. That also means I think it's better to just leave it be now notably there's actually no reason to unarchive the thread any more, the existence of this thread means that if we were to consider further sanctions for WWW, it's better discussed here than there anyway. (And I don't think this is rewarding bad behaviour since we're discussing and thinking about that thread when we'd be forgetting by now were it not for that bad behaviour.) Note that none of this excuses what WWW said and did in response, nor what lead up to it. They should consider that if they keep repeating such behaviour, it's going to end up in escalating blocks. As others have said, their behaviour is particularly flawed since as per my earlier point, they've effectively drawn more attention to something we'd have forgotten about sooner were it not for their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

To speak up on WWWayne's behalf, he seems a great editor who cares deeply about Wikipedia and cherishes his own substantial role in it. ANI is sometimes a cruel taskmaster, but sometimes like a children's party. Dibs on the vegan ice cream! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Aggressive, NotHere behavior by Haris Murtaza 2002

See this edit and pretty much all of their other contributions. Haris Murtaza 2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the self professed "owner of biggest group of honda concerto on facebook" and is determined to have a photo of his own car as the main photo at Honda Concerto; several attempts by others to communicate with him have lead to nothing. He is also skirting very close to 3RR. I think his edit record and talkpage speak for themselves. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a block is warranted. Their edit summaries are full of personal attacks and they are edit warring over an image which is worse than the one currently in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've indef'd from that article due to long term disruptive editing and edit warring. I only see the one personal attack, which although not great, will hopefully be a one-off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep I see that now. I mistook another user's uncivil edit summary for one of theirs. Frankly I think they should just be full indef'd since they only seem to be here to change the image to his own (crappy, highly saturated, tilted) image, but we'll see. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As an amateur photographer, I agree with the assessment of the image. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Judging from their own words, blocking them from Honda Concerto is more or less the same thing as blocking them entirely. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Persistently changing content to false figures to a geography wikipedia article

User:ಹುಲಿ Is persistently changing content to false figures to a geography article (Sirsi, Karnataka. Recently User:Upendrapai who is currently blocked did similar edits. User:ಹುಲಿ is probably a sockpuppet of User:Upendrapai 2409:408C:930C:A287:D89A:8354:889A:4EC6 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What is false can you please describe. and your claim sockpuppet is absolutely false. ಹುಲಿ🐯 ^talk 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

OP, you have failed to notify ಹುಲಿ (talk · contribs) of this discussion, even though the red notice on top of this page clearly requires you to do so. Please remember this next time, as it is very important that any users you report here know that you have done so and that they can respond or appeal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sagsbasel personal attacks

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

---

This diff speaks for itself. There's also more attacks, aspersions, and disparaging comments at User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce, including this gem of a diff. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

THe first diff is just loaded with personal attacks. The second one is just inappropriate talk page behavior of changing their comments after they had already been replied to. The user also seems to be following one of the users around since they had no business commenting on that section on Deb's talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited to add, I’d never heard of Dr. Pierce before 20 minutes ago, but this account was so clearly here to push an agenda against her, plus the personal attacks being so flagrant, this was absolutely an influence we are better off without. Courcelles (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

TheGlobMonster move warring with Duke Nukem (character)

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

---

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

So, I've caught this user attempting to move Duke Nukem (character) to two other titles (first to "Duke Nukem (Apogee Software)", then to "Duke Nukem (3D Realms)"). Their reasoning is that the Captain Planet character is just as notable, which I doubt considering the Captain Planet character doesn't have its own article (and the Captain Planet character has a hatnote anyways). I don't wanna spend my evening move warring, so I've come here to ask what to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

While typing this, they moved the page a third time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of a banned user; blocked and reverted. ST47 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, of course it's a sock. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

CRAZY ongoing vandal / LTA BLP edits

Affected pages:

• Alicia Garza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Patrisse Cullors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ayọ Tometi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please EC protect these articles ASAP. There's some LTA type of vandalism / POV-pushing edits going on here. Looks like multiple autoconfirmed SPA accounts have been created to vandalise these pages.

AP 499D25 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User(s) blocked., Extended confirmed protected was Cullen and Galobtter what done the job. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kpvmay

Affected pages:

• Kundali Bhagya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kumkum Bhagya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paras Kalnawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please block Kpvmay (talk · contribs) from editing these 3 pages. As he repeatedly adds cast names of those characters in both Kumkum Bhagya and Kundali Bhagya who doesn't have appearance of even 1 sec in both series. Also he often adds unofficial character name in Filmography section of Paras Kalnawat instead of official one according to official promo and all reliably linked sources. His edits has been reverted by several other editors too quoting same reasons. But he reverts back according to his own edits again and again. So it's my request to administrators to block him from editing these 3 pages. Links are given below: [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] Pri2000 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User keeps adding copyrighted images

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

---

I asked Amir Iranshahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop adding copyrighted images that they found on the internet, but after they responded "ok", they've kept adding them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeap. I have blocked them indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Kapanol420

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

---

Kapanol420

I've been is a disagrement over an ECP edit and RFC at Moldova [171], [[172]] with User:Kapanol420. They are now vandalizing my user page [173]. I also suspect they may be involving in sock/meat puppeting. I suggest this [174] demonstrates NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy s**t do you even have a life? I pray for you Kapanol420 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed

Star Mississippi 16:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: or any wandering admin, mind revoking TPA? This clearly indicates this isn't going to be a fruitful unblocking conversation. Star Mississippi 17:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed; TPA revoked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Another rangeblock for London IP6s

• 2A02:C7F:84F:ED00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The linked range from London was blocked in January, but just popped up again. Nothing but vandalism from this person, changing to wrong songs in albums.[175][176] Time for time-out. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

IP range given three months off. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk page comments recently blocked Kapanol420

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

---

Here is there respose to being blocked: [177] and [178]. Talk page access should be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone also revdel the revisions above too as per RD2 and RD3? Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, he seems nice, doesn't he? — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Mikemaccana - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana:

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

---

• Mikemaccana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mikemaccana is in violation of the 1RR in place on all cryptocurrency related articles (see WP:GS/Crypto#1RR). I placed a notification about the GS on their talk page a few weeks ago - though the 1RR doesn't actually require notification. This is the edit they're reverting to, this is revert #1 and revert #2. Related talk page discussion is Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform)#Number_of_developers. Discussion is minimal, but is 2 to 1 against Mikemaccana's edit. For background, this is an editor who has returned recently after a 13 year absence and now edits primarily about the Solana blockchain, and their user page carries a COI notice about Solana. Since this is a community authorized GS, I wasn't sure if this belongs here, or AE, or at the 3RR noticeboard. Please advise if I should take this somewhere else. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion is minimal" indeed. The reason the information about developer use of the Solana blockchain was removed was the user @MrOllie not understanding that blockchains themselves are developer platforms. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417

The information was re-added with a note (and links to two wikipedia pages) politely explaining why blockchains are developer platforms. I also added a note on @MrOllie' talk page explaining the same.

Rather than constructively respond to the reasons given for re-adding the content, the user @MrOllie reverted the content a second time (revert 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417

revert 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1145383238). This is not constructive behaviour and my understanding is that it is in violation of 1RR. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add things over my signature. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'signature' is here, I normally expect a signature to be an item at the bottom of an article or the digital signing of a document hash with a private key. I added a link to others to help others know the users involved, and see you talk page where I originally raised the matter of your recent edits. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As others have asked, I have merged my issues with your actions in regards to this article to this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Since my edits were also to let others know I am accusing you of violating wp:1rr and wp:etiquette I have added a separate item to this noticeboard as it seems you would prefer the discussion happens elsewhere outside of this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you twice call MrOllie's edits vandalism? It isn't. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Acroterion for joining the conversation. Are you an arbitrator? I'm not sure how this process works.

I don't edit Wikipedia very frequently, so I appreciate wikipedia may have a different definition of vandalism than the common one. Given that information was provided to MrOllie explaining how the referenced information was relevant to the topic, and he responded by simply deleting the information, I'm not sure what else to call this behaviour. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions @MrOllie's behaviour could be considered a lack of good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Further to @MrOllie's introduction, as @MrOllie is likely aware but not mentioned here, there's a general sense that the wikipedia page for the Solana blockchain is generally used as a smear campaign against the Solana blockchain - this has been bought up repeatedly on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform) Mikemaccana (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikemaccana For an definition of vandalism on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious, and they clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.

Acroterion is an administrator, not an arbitrator. This board is for dealing with user conduct issues, not for resolving disputes over content.

You have been edit warring in a topic under community sanctions, while talk page discussion is ongoing and while having a COI, and have now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims. I would advise you to take a step back here. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

> MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious

I'm not sure how you can know this.

> They clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.

The reason the content was re added was specifically provided to @MrOllie -

My message in edit history: "Undo removal of developer statistics - as discussed in the Talk page blockchains are developer platforms - see the [blockchain] and [Decentralized_application] pages for details on this topic. The amount of developers is a a clearly notable aspect of any developer platform"

My message on MrOllie's page: "You recently removed developer stats for the Solana blockchain. As mentioned in the edit history when this information was re-added, the majority of modern blockchains are platforms for distributed applications - a blockchain being popular with developers is indeed a notable aspect of the blockchain. See Blockchain and Decentralized_application for more on this topic. Note I did not raise the importance flags re: Melania Trump. However I did remove the information per the flag"

@MrOllie's response was not constructive at all:

Rv edit warring about stats from unreliable source combined with deletion of actually reliably sourced information

This is very clearly not engaging in discussion. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

> now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims.

Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can know this. WP:AGF. Our default position is we assume an edit was made in good faith unless evidence is presented otherwise. You have provided no evidence that this is anything other than a disagreement over whether this belongs in the article.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the reason MrOllie gave for removing the content, the important thing is that he provided a reasonable explanation regarding the relevance of the material and standard of sourcing - the edit, therefore, cannot possibly be vandalism.

Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Indeed, so please stop accusing other people of vandalism and improper etiquette without evidence. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't resolve content disputes here, we deal with problematic behavior, which in this case appears to be yours. MrOllie isn't a vandal, and thinking you're right isn't an excuse for edit-warring.Please work this out o the talkpage, and I strongly advise you to withdraw the accusations of vandalism here. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@mrollie's behaviour in refusing to discuss changes, in a way that harms wikipedia's output and actively engages in conflict-based behavior to a user that simply explained:

1. Why some content was relevant to the topic

2. that a third user had marked somethin as being irrelevant

Absolutely corresponds to Wikipedia:Vandalism's:

> The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you insist on doubling down with assumptions of bad faith here at ANI, you're blocked for a little while. If you resume personal attacks of this kind, the next block will be longer. Learn to use talkpages to discuss disagreements, using published sources, and stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Addressing @mrollie's response to my statements he has violated 1RR and WP:etiquette:

> WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours

@mrollie OK. I didn't know that. Happy to learn, as I only reverted your work once today with an explanation before you began the edit war.

> The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it

Yes it does. Repeating:

> As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion.

Your actions in this matter are very clearly a violation of good faith, etiquette, civility, being open to compromise, and being willing to discuss - you didn't attempt to respond to the reasoning given to you in two places - the edit history and your personal talk page - about how the information you deleted was relevant. Instead you just reverted the changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFS to support your claims that MrOllie violated WP:Etiquette. You cannot just vaguely handwave "I left messages on the talk page prior to reverting, so WP:Etiquette violation". Where did he violate the policy? What did he say that was uncivil? Where was he impolite? Bear in mind that talk page discussions can take a long time, you are expected to give other participants a reasonable time to respond to questions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I see this user has been blocked, but I'll state here anyway that whatever response he is referring to here was not written by me. MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie see #MrOllie‎ - violation of WP:Etiquette and 1RR on blockchain article Solana below. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Sexual solicitation

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

---

Received inappropriate messaging (sexual nature) from IP 41.114.140.30 to my talk page. Jacqke (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell— Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

MrOllie‎ - violation of WP:Etiquette and 1RR on blockchain article Solana

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

---

• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I attempted to add my own concerns about @MrOllie regarding WP:Etiquette and 1RR to 'Mikemaccana ‎ - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana' above, for the purposes of having discussion in a single place, however @MrOllie removed them. As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion. My understanding is that @MrOllie's actions:

• Violates Wikipedia:Edit_warring 1RR revert 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417 revert 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1145383238

• Violates Wikipedia:Etiquette specifically: good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss.

I appreciate that MrOllie has raised an issue with me for re-adding the information after explaining why the information is relevant to the topic, as he considers this me engaging in an edit war. I also appreciate this discussion is now split in two places, again, I did attempt to add this above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The claims here are false and this should be speedy closed as a baseless retaliatory thread.

WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours. You cannot take a diff from the 25th of Feb and a diff from the 18th March and claim a 1RR violation.

The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it and is easily disprovable by looking at the multiple examples of talk page threads they are engaging you in [179] [180] [181]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the article under a 1rr restriction? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Yes, see WP:GS/Crypto#1RR. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is no violation of 1RR in this typical content dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:John Cummings

I highly respect User:John Cummings's contributions to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Foundation, also as Wikipedian in Residence at UNESCO), but I highly suspect that they're doing some WP:COI edits without any proper discloure. On contacting them, they have refused that clearly which is okay, but they are autopatrolled and that helps them avoid scruitny especially when they create spam page like QWSTION and its product Bananatex, Piñatex, [182], and many others. I'd leave it to the community how they would like to go with this case, but at least we should remove autopatrolled rights (not meeting guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, properly - visible on their creation Geeetech), so that an independent editor gets a chance to review their new article creations. Thanks! US-Verified (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @US-Verified: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Notification was hidden in a slew of other notifications, and for that I apologise. (Amended 01:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I did that. US-Verified (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA

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

---

Could someone revoke the TPA of the range 2603:8081:506:b6b3::/64? They're abusing their talk page access to create an article on their talk page that has been created by various socks which this range is a part of. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit of background. This is about a rather lovely kids cartoon series that has (at least in Australia) gone kind of viral: I've seen young adults ask for and receive Bluey action figures (the car they came along with had recognisably Queensland number plates!) for Christmas, people who should know far better adding Bluey trivia to Wikipedia articles, and so on. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Radhey100

Radhey100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Like, changing content according to their own will, not following the standard manual of style, remove portions from a page, editing per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines. They've been making disruptive edits especially on Kundali Bhagya. Some of the diffs from Kundali Bhagya's page which are absolute unconstructive and needless, [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]. ManaliJain (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on rail-related modules and articles

Need a rangeblock for 2600:1700:B971:1930:B8C2:E223:29B0:E024/50 or a similar range,

IP has been warned repeatedly for the on-again off-again disruptive edits. IP never leaves edit summaries and constantly introduces false categories ([188] [189], unsourced edits ([190] [191] [192] and non-notable redlinks to disambiguation pages ([193] [194][195]).

Some prior warnings were given here:

• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:101:73A3:4F10:8D76
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:FD5D:AC07:63C3:F42E
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:E962:B35F:26B8:D2AB
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:2CD8:B68F:C39:BAE6

Previous blocks can be found here.

Cards84664 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Trolling/death threats

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

---

User:Truther4424 is an unnecessary addition to the community: See their sole contrib. SN54129 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by HJM. Lourdes 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I think not. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User: Ankur D1946

Ankur D1946 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs [196][197] that show that the user accepted themselves to be a role account used by a professional PR team. ManaliJain (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

QuarioQuario54321 continually disregarding MOS guidelines, despite warnings

QuarioQuario54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wanted to bring this to ANI because after several months of reminding this user about the Manual of Style-related issues they have introduced into articles with little improvement in their behavior (more specifically MOS:ENGVAR in recent months, which this report will primarily cover), my patience has run thin. I'm fairly convinced that this is a case of long-term disruptive editing.

1. On 24 January 2023, in this edit to Inner West Light Rail Quario changed ... a few metres down Darling Drive ... to read ... a few meters down Darling Drive ..., and I issued a standard ENGVAR user warning on their talk page the day after. This is the only instance (I think) in which strong national ties play a role, as this article covers an Australian light railway.
2. On 26 January 2023 Quario altered the spellings of numerous instances of "kilometers", "meters", etc. in this edit to Airport link line (Shanghai Suburban Railway) to use the non-American spelling varieties; at that point, assuming that these changes were unintentional, I had tried reminding them to preserve pre-existing English varieties.
3. I eventually wrote on Quario's talk page that I hoped they were heeding my concerns, only for them to double down triple down quadruple down and continue their disruptive editing, as seen in this edit, for example.

Quario has had several editors contact them regarding the Manual of Style, but previous incidents appear to have largely been resolved... except for this one. With this in mind I've decided to take them to ANI because I feel that I'm out of options, and I firmly believe that Quario should hold themself to account for their disruption. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the times I intentionally changed it. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue at hand either, and you repeatedly defended your disruption by talking about how subtle the change was, how little it mattered, and how the average reader [wouldn't] even notice. This was all in spite of the style guidelines that I and others have referred you to. It doesn't take much longer to ensure that you preserve it. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am one of those aforementioned editors who has interacted with Quario on a couple of MOS issues. His/her reluctance/refusal to change is frustrating. In the case of this latest ENGVAR issue I'm amazed action hasn't been taken much sooner. Some naughty step timeout to reflect might be warranted. If this were an employee (instead of a volunteer) I'd be suggesting attendance on an appropriate training course. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Except for the first diff, at Inner West Light Rail, where they changed the spelling in actual prose from metres to meters, all these changes seem to be from meters to metres and produced by adding the conversion template? Including the other changes within that first diff? So in essence, what's happening seems to be that they aren't adding "sp=us" after the unit abbreviation in the template? QuarioQuario54321, look at this edit by XtraJovial following one of yours. Yes, which spelling is used does matter. That is what people have been telling you repeatedly. But I'm not sure it has been explained that what you need to do is, if the article spells it meters or kilometers, add "sp=us" to the conversion template. Do you understand and can you promise to do that from now on? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Or they can use {{cvt}} and it won't matter the spelling of metre. As in 1 m (3 ft 3 in). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

He/she uses {{cvt}} or "abbr=on" extensively. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit from 9 March (diff) shows that he/she does know about "sp=us" and has used it, but again like everything this user does it's inconsistent and slapdash, leaving others to clean up the aftermath 10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

False allegations of sockpuppeting leading to users reverting my contributions

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

---

I have noticed three editors have decided to undo my edits on Wikipedia on the basis of false allegations. They alleged I have been using multiple accounts, however this is not the case. I would like an administrator to look into this in the hope that I can be able to edit freely without having my edits reverting for no reason. The fellow users in question that have been reverting my contributions needlessly are 10mmsocket, Murgatroyd49 and Mutt Lunker.

Many thanks in advance for any help. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• You appear to be in an edit war. Is there a reason why there hasn't been a discussion to find a consensus Nemov (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the three editors in question are not challenging my edits content but are determined to stop me from making an edits. They claim to be mistaking me for another user who has violated Wikipedia policy. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't answer my question. If your edits are being reverted then you should discuss the disagreement. Instead you're just reverting. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Surely it is incumbent on them to present any evidence of their allegations or at least state their disagreement with my edits? I’ve posted here and asked clerk GeneralizationsAreBad to try to help with this matter as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with the users who are de facto preventing me from editing on the basis of false allegations. The problem is not that users disagree with my contributions but the false belief I am sockpuppeting aka banned. BlaineCreek (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  They did, that is at the SPI case which you have already commented on. Wait for that to work through the process. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’d be glad to have an administrator support my right to edit freely despite these false allegations. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  It appears the basis for their false allegations is that I have edited similar pages to this banned user who they are alleging to be me. If you look into my edit history, you’ll see that my edits are constructive and positive with no disagreement from other users apart from the three who are making these false allegations of sockpuppeting. I’ll leave this for now in the hope a considerate admin can clear up this ongoing issue. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could it be? Is he back? Is that you, Politicalguru? — Czello 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why the hurry? The sockpuppet investigation was only opened yesterday, and will probably be over soon. Are the edits you are making so urgent that they can't wait a few days? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And gee what a shock, OP was confirmed as a sock. (I'm a poet and didn't know it) RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

N1C4T97

N1C4T97 (talk · contribs) demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - it's evident this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Some glaring examples from their recent contributions:

• [198] - Removes "cultural genocide" and replaces it with “vandalism” instead, despite the wikilinked article Armenian cemetery in Julfa indeed describing Azerbaijan's actions as "cultural genocide" with reliable sources. In the same tendentious edit, for no logical reason, changes the citation of George Bournoutian - an accomplished historian on Caucasus and beyond, to attributed citation.
• Removes the sourced Azeri war crime against Armenian civilians and removes "Azerbaijani war crimes" category from the same article [199]. At the same time, adds unsourced "Armenian war crimes" category in several articles [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], previously added by a sockpuppet IP [206], [207], [208], [209], [210].
• Reverts and edit-wars without discussing when asked for a source for his edits, does not provide a source [211], [212], [213], [214], edit-wars in another article [215], [216].
• According to N1C4T97, the Talish, Tartar article shouldn’t have an Azeri war crime category since “places cannot be a war crimes” [217], but at the same time they restored "Armenian collaborators with Nazi Germany" category to a non-person article [218], [219], and then removed a category "Azerbaijani collaborators with Nazi Germany" in another non-person article.
• While removing sourced Azeri war crime and category in Talish article [220], adds a partisan and unreliable archive website as some sort of apologia for Azeri Nazi legion [221]. The same website (echo.az) publishes garbage such as this: "Armenia revives myths about "genocide"" [222].

In summary, this user demonstrates WP:TENDENTIOUS editing - they edit it partisan manner, resort to reverts and edit-warring, their edits push a clear nationalist point of view and they're restoring sockpuppet edits. It’s clear that this user is here to push POV in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, that is - WP:NOTHERE. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to report them myself, they blatantly refuse to abide to the community imposed extended-confirmed restriction, even though I did notify them about it on their talk page, for them just to continue tendentious editing as if nothing happened. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Multiple edit reversions of good edits & lying about facts

User Throast immediately reverted my valid edits to this page. Editor did not first initiate conversation with me to discuss, as would be expected if they are acting in good faith. The edits are pretty simple, they were both fully cited using reliable sources, and more than one.

• The first edit was in the Philanthropy section where I added one brief paragraph detailing the Dog For Dog charity
• the second was under "Legal issues" where I added one paragraph detailing prominent legal battle information and recent activity regarding a legal outcome
• The page's revision history is here.

In reading history, this editor is not following community guidelines and is violating WP:NPOV and WP:POV railroad. All their reversions happen instantly after another editor tries to edit the article and their comments about the reversions are untrue. Thank you for looking at this as it is not right. Dourriga169 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dourriga169: Please notify @Throast: of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dourriga169: I have done so on your behalf. Please remember that it is vitally important to notify subjects of any thread you post here, so that they know that you have done so and that they can respond or appeal. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hang on. He made ONE edit, affecting SOME of your changes, with the edit summary "rv: promotional tone, no unresolved legal disputes," in an article where he's made over 200 edits going back to 2021, and that you touched for the first time a few hours ago. You have made no attempt to contact him, no attempt to discuss your issues on the article's talk page, and you are badly misinformed if you're under the impression that WP:AGF requires him to gain your approval in advance of changing any of your edits. Any editor in good standing has the right to edit, change or revert your edits, with or without warning, and language to that effect presuming your agreement to this is at the bottom of every editing screen as a precondition of making those edits. Throast is certainly active on that article, but heck, just having counted, there are over sixty articles on which I have fifty or more edits; it happens.

As it happens, taking a look at your respective talk pages, your only interaction is him sending a mild warning to your talk page about misleading edit summaries. At the top of this page is the tag "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Would you care to tell us what you feel raises this single interaction to the "chronic, intractable" level, or what about it is "urgent?" Ravenswing 03:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above observations by Ravenswing, I'd also suggest the OP review WP:BRD and WP:ONUS to appreciate that the burden is actually much more upon them in this context (and as the party advocating for novel content that has been challenged) to secure a consensus for inclusion: far from new additions being presumed beneficial, there must in fact be positive consensus that such material agrees with core content policies, as explored through specific dispute resolution procedures where editorial differences of opinion exist. None of those processes seem to have been attempted here, even to the extent of the natural starting point of a talk page thread, and I almost NAC'd this discussion as procedural matter, but for the fact that the OP may have follow up inquiries about establishing consensus. But short of that, I would urge they retract this thread, reach out on the talk page, and be much more wary about escalating to ANI short of longterm, protracted disputes not amenable to other dispute resolution tools, in the future. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The editor is welcome to discuss the issue with me, either on the article talk page or on their user talk page, where I left a message elaborating on my edit right after reverting. I did this to initiate a productive discussion and to prevent the kind of edit warring the editor has now resorted to. Ryan Kavanaugh is on my watchlist because I've edited it a lot, which Ravenswing accurately notes. I've been especially motivated to keep the article in line with our NPOV policy because its subject has threatened editors with legal action and paid to have both flattering information included and unflattering information excluded from the article in the past. All of this is documented at ANI, SPA, and the article talk page. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced editting after final warning

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

---

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

Warnings:

1. 12:08, March 11, 2023 uw-delete1‎
2. 18:31, March 16, 2023 uw-unsourced2‎
3. 05:12, March 18, 2023‎ uw-unsourced3 by an administrator
4. 06:51, March 18, 2023 uw-usunsource4‎ by an administrator

Here is the latest unsourced edit by the IP at Kamal Haasan filmography – (@ 01:13, March 20, 2023): That edit is also contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which says "not [to] add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source."
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

91.73.33.144's edits match the pattern of edits from a00:f29:280::/42, which geolocates to the same location (see active ANI report above for more about that IP's disruptive editing).  — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPv4 for 72 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

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

This IP address keeps vandalizing/harassing others

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

---

• 2604:3D08:627E:4F00:C938:DB80:B585:DA30 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can any admin look into these harassment messages? [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228] Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This user (the IP) needs a long-term block at the very least. I've left a friendly note on their talk page to try and help things out but it seems they continue to insist on attacking other editors. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the long block. This IP address won't leave my talk page alone. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I couldn't agree with you more. Waqar💬 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The IP was used for a little over one hour. I've blocked it for 72, by which time they'll probably be elsewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's ok! @Zzuuzz, thanks for the help! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Combefere removed copyvio notice twice

Combefere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a copyvio notice on Killing of Tyre Nichols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) twice[1][2], despite being warned not to. Bowler the Carmine | talk 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• User partially-blocked from that page for 2 weeks. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute between User:Mnnie053 and User:Pichsambath, removal of sourced content, possible biting of a newcomer

Involved users:

• Mnnie053 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pichsambath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

• Cambodia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Football Federation of Cambodia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cambodian Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cambodian League 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Mnnie053 is in a content dispute with User:Pichsambath, citing "unsourced content" as the reason for reversion of the edits by User:Pichsambath. Mnnie053 made a report of the other user at AIV with the explanation, "Repeatedly readding unsourced content without explanation, intending to edit war." I took a closer look at the article contents that are being disputed between the two users, and on at least one article, it involves removal of sourced content (diff here). Pichsambath's contributions seem to be high-quality for a new user in general, as they are adding things like automatic date templates, and foreign language text translations here and here. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think every single bit of content addition immediately needs a source? i.e. sources needed for just substantial additions only?

Furthermore, looking at the talk page for User:Mnnie053 (the reporter at AIV) reveals they have been very recently warned and blocked in the past for disruptive editing before, with behaviour that seems very similar to what's happening above, so I probably don't know what to say between these two editors. Here's a quote from Drmies on their talk page: "Besides, on closer inspection it seems clear that at least some edits of yours are, well, vandalism with misleading edit summaries. Here, you removed a bunch of information, and you said "needs source"--but you removed the actual sources in that edit, including this article. And in that edit you also removed the basic and uncontroversial statement "The national federation is a member of ASEAN"."

I mainly intend this thread to be a further discussion thread for these two users (i.e. I am helping them out), since an AIV report is probably not appropriate here (not for in-depth discussions at least). AIV is intended for obvious vandalism and promotion/disruptive editing, and on Pichsambath's talk page I only see one warning, a level-2 disruptive editing template.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The user just reverted again, in series, and passed 3RR already, despite warnings. They posted incivility in my user page and hardly showing any communication or maybe language competence. This is clearly disruption and not content dispute. Please delete my user page as I previously requested in AIV because I didn't create it. Mnnie053 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, there has hardly been any communication from User:Pichsambath at all, so far this is the only talk page discussion they have started, and it's on their talk page, not on yours or on any articles. Though, a look at the page histories of all four pages reveals they have only just hit 3RR, not broken it. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking closer at this diff I am a bit mistaken. The paragraph changes appear to be copyediting rather than straight up sourced content addition. Indeed, no sourced content has been added. Ah I should've looked a bit closer before writing up this report, my bad. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Amigao keeps mass deleting content and sources

Amigao (talk · contribs) was blocked sometime ago for mass removal, across English Wikipedia, of sources and/or sourced passages where sources have been deprecated, sometimes replacing them with <cn> tags. Obviously, this is not only vastly problematic, because often these passages formed a part of the article's logical flow, but expressly against the policy: Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources).

Many editors, including recently myself, have pointed this out to them on several occasions[229][230][[231], etc. Also, I pointed out to them that they should instead use the deprecated inline template. To no avail.

The user has made hundreds if not thousands of such mechanical edits in the last months all over Wikipedia, often going faster than one article per minute. A few random examples from the last 24 hours: [232][233][234][235][236][237], but honestly, it's easier just to open their contribution list.

Is there an effective way of stopping them? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you should probably review WP:BURDEN. Also, deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK cannot be used to make factual claims outside of very limited WP:ABOUTSELF claims. - Amigao (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not about removing a deprecated source in individual instances, e.g., in an article you're working on. The problem is with your ongoing indiscriminate, mass removal of all occurrences of a source, in thousands articles, despite the DEPRECATED policy and objections from fellow editors. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)