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

User:The Banner keeps harassing me

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

---

It started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[1]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[2]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get you think you're right. But you don't get to accuse another editor of intellectual property theft because they dispute the change you want to make. It's not property infringement for us to use that redirect to the club. The rest of this is primarily a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about him disputing the change I want to make. It's about intellectual property theft because FCSB can't use or be associated in any way with the "Steaua" name. It's like stating on Wikipedia x is innocent when he is fact convicted in real life. It doesn't reflect reality and it encourages (not is, per se) intellectual property infringement. Also, it just isn't a neutral aproach to push the FCSB-POV. CSA Steaua literally fought in court for FCSB to be stripped down of that name. Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge the outcome? Why push forward an edit that is confusing and that violates the rights of CSA Steaua? One team has the right to use the name, the other doesn't. At least redirect the page to the article about the dispute. Also, AFC Steaua (Asociatia Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti) is arguably a different team, that also used the ,,Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti" name between 1998-2003. Dante4786 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is harassing anybody here it is you, User:Dante4786, accusing those who disagree with you of intellectual property theft in what appears to be attempt to dictate content. These sorts of accusations have a distinct chilling effect and verge on legal threats.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am only stating what the Romanian law is stating. https://www-economica-net.translate.goog/clubul-patronat-de-gigi-becali-nu-mai-are-voie-sa-foloseasca-numele-steaua_130606.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I am not accussing, I am explaining why this sort of edit can't stay as it is. I am explaining my reasoning. And third parties are also obliged to comply with court decisions. I am also asking you, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Dante4786 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is a good page if you want to have a read. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need. I don't work for either entities, I couldn't sue even if wanted to :) I'm just explaining my reasoning about a LEGAL debate. Dante4786 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion! It's always better to make it clear as it could've been misinterpreted that way ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about to clean up the confusion around Steaua București, resulting in FC Steaua București records dispute as a compromise. Dante4786 did not take part in that discussion. After a break, he immediately starting objecting against the consensus. To the point he started changing a template to his own wishes without any prior discussion (here and later again (again reverted but not by me). Dante demands that I explain why I revert his unexplained changes. I see no need for that with unexplained edits. In my humble opinion, the edit in the template is vandalism, or at least POV-pushing. The second edit on the template (that I did not see earlier), came with a curious legalese summary: Wrong name for FCSB. And the record is disputed. Wikipedia doesn't encourage intellectual property infringement. The same demand for explanation came for this unexplained edit. Maybe I am too harsh, but breaking open the long discussion to reach consensus in tough to witness.

@Scolaire:

The Banner talk 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am in favor of there being an article about FC Steaua București records dispute. From my understanding, somebody proposed for the page to be merged with FCSB and I wrote on the talk page that I disagree. Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate. How is this any fair? @Scolaire: challenged my position in a fair manner and I responded with PLENTY of sources. I replied with 3 pretty big paragraphs, arguing against all his point, not letting anything behind. You, on the other hand, started acussing me directly from the get-go and undid my edits even AFTER I gave my reasoning. Like I said, I was triyng to edit something that was a clearly known fact. You undid my edit, I edit it back, gave my reasoning and YOU UNDID IT AGAIN. So it doesn't matter to you if my edit was explained or not. You decided from the start that I was wrong and nothing that I can say could change your mind. And when I reported the unfair treatment on my talk page and your talk page, you ignored me. Only after I said I will report you, you gave a pseudo-explanation. Dante4786 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I had never seen your threat of bringing me to AN/I until I got the notice of it. The Banner talk 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I admit, I had overlook that threat. And I even overlook your comment You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. on my talk page. A second time that I see that legalese argument. The Banner talk 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! The process is usually "bold edit → revert → discuss". If someone reverts your edit, instead of editing it back with your reasoning, the best course of action is to write your reasoning on the talk page, and then wait for other editors to give their opinion (otherwise there's a risk for it to end in edit warring). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Ok, thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is, he already ignored my reasoning, when I tried to edit the second time. And it isn't the first time he read my position on the subject and replied with false accusation, only to stop all together when I challenged him with valid counterarguments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dante4786&oldid=1167705437 As you can clearly see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute&oldid=1199302981, I am willing to discuss with other editors. But if he ignores me and nobody else replies, should his incorrect edit stay for ever? This is why I reported it here, for a 3rd party to see. I don't want to argue with anybody, I tried to ignore and forget (since July), but what's the point when he does the same thing again? It's tiresome to have a dialogue with somebody who doesn't really want to listen. And I do like Wikipedia, that's why it bothers me when he insists with something which is misleading. Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a new one, I've never seen anybody interpret a disagreement over a redirect on Wikipedia as theft. I've left the OP a warning for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court where such things are adjudicated. I think some muddled language concerning the naming dispute may be an issue here, but ANI is not where this can be resolved. Take it up on the relevant talkpage, and be extremely careful to frame any argument around sources, not what you perceive other editors to be doing. Your comments up until now give the impression that you are blaming other Wikipedia editors, or are accusing them of harassment for disagreeing or not understanding what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: No, Wikipedia isn't a judge. But Wikipedia does try to reflect reality and current affairs. Am I wrong? Yes, English is not my native language, sorry about that. But please, answer me this. If x person is convicted in real life, can an article on Wikipedia state the contrary, that he is innocent? That is the equivalent of what I am trying to express. The current redirect doesn't reflect the present and, besides this, is also confusing and misleading. Because the subject is complex, I tried to make a redirect towards the article which is focused on the dispute between A and B. I didn't try to push for either A or B. But I am accused of being unfair. And when the false accusations persist, when my edits are undone without justification, even after I explained myself, when my questions are ignored and I receive only threats of being banned and so forth, am I not even slightly entitled to feel harassed? I literally gave sources and nobody challenged them. Should I just wait and let the article spread misinformation? I apologise if this wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. Like I said, I do try to respect the rules but I don't know the the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia isn't an offense, but accusing people of not following a farfetched, tortured interpretation of a lawsuit that we're not a party to, in a court that has no jurisdiction here, in order to to further a result not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, certainly is.

Playing fake internet lawyer is not an exception to WP:AGF and you're skirting on the very edge of WP:NLT. Just because *you* don't have the ability to personally engage in a lawsuit doesn't allow you to use legalese as a threat to attempt to shut down another editor's ability to post or skirt Wikipedia's consensus-making apparatus.

Your best bet would be to apologize, agree to drop the subject, and withdraw the complaint. I would guess that it's your best chance to avoid sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what farfetched and tortured interpretation of a lawsuit are you talking about? I literally gave sources. Many sources. For you and others to read them. Here, on my talk page and on other talk pages. What more can I do? Nobody is challenging the content of what I am disputing. The redirect points are misleading and I was unfairly treated. And how can I give my reasoning on a LEGAL debate, without using LEGAL reasons? It's not a threat. Again, the whole subject is about intellectual property. A legal dispute between two entities. I don't think the redirect points present the LEGAL dispute in a fair and neutral manner. How can I explain this without providing LEGAL reasons? If the subject is about intellectual property, of course we are going to have to talk about intellectual property infringement. It shouldn't be taboo, it's a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. I don't know how else I can put this. And no, I won't apologize for reporting harassment, which in good faith, I tried to ignore for months. But I do apologize for reporting it, in the wrong place, if that's the case. Dante4786 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided *any* valid legal reasons. The court literally ruled that a specific defendant couldn't use plaintiff's intellectual property when connected with their business. That's all. It has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia.

What we call entities is determined by consensus from reliable sources and our policies, not an extremely tenuous interpretation of a court case that, even if accurate (which I highly doubt), would have zero effect on us as there's no jurisdiction here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I did provide valid legal reasons. And here's another one: Full Faith and Credit Clause. And in European countries, principles of legal enforceability and judicial authority underpin the obligation for third parties to respect court decisions. I gave sources and I explained my reasoning. I can't contradict you when you don't give counterarguments. You just state "no, you didn't". I also explained from a non-legal point of view, explaining how the current redirect points spread misinformation and more confusion and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia. And to reiterate, both in EU and in USA (and in pretty much every civilized country), 3rd parties are obliged to respect the decision of the court and the intellectual property and rights of other entities. To explain this with a more recent case (it's not the same thing, but maybe this makes it easier to undertand): some gave developer released a new videogame. Everybody describes it in an informal context as "Pokemon with guns", but it's not a Pokemon game. The game developer doesn't use these words and neither do Steam, Sony, Microsoft and so forth. They, as a 3rd party, have to respect the rights of the real owner. And even YouTubers hesitate to show a patch for the game (a patch that install pokemons), because it violates the rights of the real owner of the brand. Unfortunately, you already stated that you doubt what I'm saying, without further elaborating. You don't assume good faith. And Wikipedia redirect points doesn't reflect the current reality. Another example would be this: On Amber Heard articles, to state that she and her ex-husband DID NOT accused each other of domestic abuse. Or worse, to state that she was NOT found guilty of defaimation. It's not about opinions, it's not a personal interpretation. It's about FACTS. To acknowledge or not the current state of a present legal debate. A debate where there already is a final decision regarding the name. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You should probably consult with an actual lawyer. That's not actually what full faith and credit entails. A CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A trademark prevents others from using a mark in the course of *business*. It does not prevent third parties from referring to a company in a certain way, discussing a company in a certain way, or titling an encyclopedia entry.

And from your Amber Heard mention, it appear you're also confusing defamation with trademarks, which suggests to me that any more discussion to try to dissuade you from a path in conflict with Wikipedia's ideals is an unproductive use of time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to echo CoffeeCrumbs regarding people playing fake Internet lawyer. The Full Faith and Credit clause impinges on how states in the United States interact with one another. Neither European soccer clubs, nor Wikipedia, nor you have anything to do with it. If this absurdity is indicative of your arguments with The Banner, then we're well into WP:BOOMERANG territory, and your best bet is to quit while you're behind. Ravenswing 01:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. You misunderstood why I mentioned The Full Faith and Credit. The point was to show how 3rd parties are still obliged to respect court documents, even though they weren't actually involved in the case. And to further elaborate my arguments, I brought up how things are done in European countries (since it's a subject which I am more familiar to and is actualy related to the case we are discussing). Please ping me, @CoffeeCrumbs: and @Ravenswing: so I won't miss your response. And no, I wasn't trying to compare defamation with trademarks. Come on guys, actually read what I'm writing. I was giving a hypothetical example, to show how Wikipedia would look if it didn't reflect the verdict of that case. As in "x is stated to be right on Wikipedia, when in reality x was demosntrated to be wrong in court". That sort of thing. Everybody says I shouldn't give legal arguments in a legal dispute but I when I try to give an analogy, it's somehow also a bad thing. Dante4786 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This argument is nonsense. It is illegal to write about the "Tank man" of Tiananmen Square in China. You'll note that we still have an article about it. We do not give preference to laws or 'court documents' from other jurisdictions. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't even give preference over consensus to laws or 'court documents' from our own jurisdiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects point to whichever target the reader that types that title is more likely to be looking for. You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for. If legal issues arise from what Wikipedia editors do using their best judgement, legal department of the WMF will handle it. That's where the legal arguments should be directed. Where exactly is the problem with your approach? It is here: Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? We can't worry about that stuff with every edit. There are established matters where we take legality into account, copyright violations for example. At other times, we do what's right, irrespective of whether or not it's legal in a certain jurisdiction. It only matters whether it is legal in the US most of the time. I am sure there are many state parties that would consider some of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, sexuality, national policies and international disputes as illegal. But they can't touch Wikipedia because it is under US jurisdiction. So, they block Wikipedia in their countries. They may prosecute editors in their own country if they identify them. That is why editors are advised to take such personal risks into account when contributing. It's bad enough without having people come into discussions talking legalese. We as a community have decided that we won't have it. Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments or don't edit here and persue legal dispute with the WMF.

You are making legal threats. Admins are being nice to you by trying to explain instead of blocking you. Either drop that stuff, or go to WMF legal with your concerns. We will consider taking legality into consideration if and when WMF legal advises that we do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for." Exactly! Thank you! That's what I was trying to explain, until people got focused on the intellectual property infringement part. Like I said, the subject is clearly very complex and confusing, especially for foreign readers. I believe this discussion here proves my point even further. That's why I'm asking for the redirect points to be towards the article focused on the dispute. In this way, the redirect points will be helpful and people will read by themselves and chose which side to believe. Currently, the redirect points encourage FCSB's point of view and are not consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. I'm asking for the redirect to be neutral and not push the POV of either parties, FCSB or Steaua, but towards the article focused on the dispute. "Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments" This is literally not possible. How can somebody explain their reasoning about a LEGAL dispute, without giving LEGAL arguments? And please stop interpreting dialogue as a threat. It was never the case. LEGAL arguments are a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you can't figure out how to do something does not mean it's impossible. Read WP:REDIRECT. Then try to formulate your argument wholly on the basis of its guidance. If you succeed, start a talk page discussion (then, there's WP:RFD). If you find you can't make that case, edit something else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So your suggestion is basically to not explain my reasoning about a legal dispute. You can not formulate your arguments without diving in legal terms. You can't talk about physics without using a specific terminology, you can't talk about biology without using arguments which arise from biology and so forth. You can't answer "how to put out a fire" without actually explaining how to put out a fire. Dante4786 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You can describe the dispute in an encyclopedic way with legal terminology, but not use this legal terminology as arguments about what to write about. It's a use-mention distinction, in the same way as you can use biological terms to talk about biology, but not argue that's it's biologically impossible to write the article. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and you were not hired to represent a party in a lawsuit. If you cannot sway consensus for your view, then the thing to do is lose gracefully and walk away. Ravenswing 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"You can describe the dispute" But we weren't talking about "describing". "To describe" and "to give arguments in favor or against" a point of view is not the same thing. What's more, you moved the discussion completely from the content/subject and took it towards the semantics. "cease to ramble on about things you demonstrably know little or nothing about" Huh? What exactly are you accusing me here? "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" I NEVER SAID IT WAS. I acknowledged the fact Wikipedia can't solve legal dispute. But that's the thing, IT'S ALREADY SOLVED IN REAL LIFE. My whole point was that the redirect points are misleading, since they do not reflect the current state of affairs regarding a SOLVED legal dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's solved in real life.

That solution has nothing to do with how we reach consensus. An *American* court has no power to compel speech from us in this context, let alone a Romanian one. Somehow, you have reached this idea that because a Romanian court has recognized that a particular entity possesses the right to use specific trademarks, that it now compels private entities to tailor their speech in a manner consistent with that. It doesn't. If we reached a very odd consensus, we could redirect FC Steaua Bucuresti to the entry for Burger King or Santa Claus or Henry VIII of England.

If you had attempted to do so, you may have been able to craft a convincing argument that your preferred usage of FC Steaua Bucuresti is superior, swaying enough people into changing consensus. Instead, you're trying to browbeat editors using a court case that has no jurisdiction over any of the issues discussed here while misusing legal terms such as "full faith and credit."

No admin has yet taken any actions on this issue. This would be the best time for you to apologize, drop the stick, and agree to not cite court cases that have no jurisdiction over our process of reaching consensus as reasons we *must* conform to your wishes. Sanctions are *preventative*, not *punitive* and if you made a good faith effort here to avoid these behaviors in the future, I'd wager basically most admins would consider this manner closed for the time being. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Going through @Dante4786's history on the subject is quite enlightening and frustrating. Not only have they been accusing @The Banner of vandalism, but they have been doing this for some time, sweeping for every mention of their preferred name for this football team, making changes, and calling each one "undoing vandalism" amounting to dozens and dozens of edits.

This is clearly a long-term pattern of ignoring WP:AGF rather than a single incident of aggressively accusing another of vandalism. While I feel the filer should still be indefinitely blocked until they agree to drop the faux-legal accusations against people, there's a strong case here for a topic ban on FC Steaua București (the problems seem limited to this topic rather than the wider topic of Romanian football clubs or football clubs generally). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support a topic ban from FC Steaua București. Unfortunately the behavior of this editor has muddied the waters to such an extent that even if The Banner has harassed them its not apparent. If either the legal threats or alleged harassment occur on other topics after then we can address it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't respond to generalities. I have nothing to hide. In proof of this, I sometimes (like now) involved third parties, just to solve an issue and prevent from being called bias. Like getting a page protection from REAL vandalism. Also, keep in mind, the legal dispute of Steaua vs FCSB has a long history, with many updates along the line. I tried to reflect this in my edits AND GAVE SOURCES whenever I was questioned. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute After the neutral FC Steaua București records dispute page appeared (and somewhat put together in an attentive manner by other editors), I concentraded my redirects towards this page. And again, I do not threaten the editors with legal actions, stop putting words in my mouth, it's not nice. I was demonstrating how some edits on Wikipedia don't reflect real life affairs. Dante4786 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Third parties as in alternate accounts? The Banner talk 15:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Again with the harassment. Didn't you report me for this (or was somebody else?) and it turned out I was falsely accused and this is my only account? WHICH IT REALLY IS! But don't let me stop you. Search again, search my IP, search whatever you want, do all the necessary checks, I have nothing to hide, this is my only account. Dante4786 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So I ask you a question, and that is straight harassment again?

And yes, I once filed an SPI against you due to the massive sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on the Steaua-articles. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goalandgoal/Archive. You were cleared, the real sockpuppets were hammered. The other SPI against you Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dante4786/Archive was not of my hand. The Banner talk 15:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not asking, you are subtly accusing. Big difference. And you keep accusing, even AFTER I was verified and cleared of the accusations. But like I said, don't let me stop you, please report me again. I have nothing to hide and you just proved my point. Dante4786 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You tried to prove your point by bullying me over an SPI from 2021. And when I look at this edit, I do not see any AGF or will to compromise or reason. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, that post was a reply to me; I found it reasonable, and I felt it assumed good faith. Not showing an inclination to compromise, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we can't reach a compromise after further discussion. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

24 hours and several posts later, I no longer find Dante reasonable, and it is plain he is not interested in compromise. I agree he should be blocked and/or topic-banned. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a will to compromise? What are you talking about? How can you lie like this? This is me asking for the middle ground. My opinion on the subject (as stated there) is this: ,,It was never valid and it was never about a separation. But I do admit, people did, at some point, think this was the case. So, for the moment, the middle ground would be to write about the separation, but to describe it only as an allegation." If I wasn't willing to compromise, I would have asked for the entire subject to be erased. Dante4786 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

As I am accused of harassing anyway, per his argument You are not asking, you are subtly accusing, I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles. The Banner talk 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

So, after falsely reporting me for having multiple accounts (something you have admitted to), you straight up ask for censorship. Well done, mate! You could at least stop with the victim blaming. Let's not forget, you started this by accusing me. How much more do I have to defend myself until you stop with the sockpuppetry accusation? REPEATED and INVALID accusations constitute harassment. You are literally wasting my time. Dante4786 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I give up. What you do is plain harassing me. The Banner talk 22:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Enough. Dante has clearly failed to AGF with Banner, has been consistently rude and making false accusations, and generally been a drain. I'd say indef as WP:NOTHERE. They are either willing to go to bat for their preferred club against our policies, or simply cannot comprehend our policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with the direction this thread has taken but I don't blame anyone in specific, not even User:Dante4786 and certainly not User:The Banner. First, we're in the wrong forum. I'm wondering why this conversation isn't taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion, for example. Nobody in this discussion has made that suggestion. Am I incorrect? Next, it appears to me Dante4786 is having significant difficulty being understood correctly in English, and they've confessed the language issues have been part of the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of conflation issues which might be approached with different wording satisfactory to all. Because Dante4786 is the OP and because they raised behavioral issues, we're here now so we should try to solve this. ANI is a bad venue in which to give behavioral assessments unless a contributor is willing to bring diffs and Dante4786 doesn't have that experience. IMHO, this thread has amplified the problem instead of solving it (because we're not dealing with diffs or sources, this all comes across as personal disagreement, and not a redirect for discussion). I'm inclined to suggest to Dante4786 that they take an apologetic tone here, and then start a RfD. Several editors here are capable of helping Dante4786. I'm of the opinion that if The Banner (or another editor) were to assist Dante4786 neutrally in creating that appropriate discussion, this thread would be unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are incorrect. The problem is not the redirect, the problem is Steaua București and the mess around ownership of the club, a split, renaming, reforming of the split off and countless court cases. The fact that even the court cases are not consistent, makes it even more difficult. In the past a whole bunch of sockpuppets and aggressive IPs were disrupting discussions. The Banner talk 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do think the entire Steaua București subject matter must be frustrating to edit, for all the reasons described. And Dante4786 certainly is responsible for their own edits, whatever they may be. Their unfortunate habit of personalizing discussion does not play especially well at ANI. I don't think they mean other editors ill, or even intend to personalize. When Dante4786 says "intellectual property infringement", I believe they are speaking of the limitation already imposed on FCSB (the result of such changes via court judgement), and not an accusation of any wikipedian. Without speaking ill, there's a lot of unnecessary heat involved with this discussion and most of it comes from the OP, despite their good-faith intention. That's my reading. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. —DIV (1.145.41.30 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC))

  I agree in part that mentorship ought to be part of a solution that preserves the filer as a contributor, but I do really think that a topic ban is a minimum; this is a very specific topic that's a long-term issue for this editor, with a massive chunk of their preferred name changes, going back years now, labeled as vandalism by them. The best place to demonstrate they understand that verifiability and consensus are key issues, I feel, would be in a topic in which they don't appear to be so invested. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, you are incorrect. I suggested that they try to formulate an argument for their position adhering to WP:REDIRECT and not invoking irl legality, and if they succeed, put forth that argument first on the talk page, and failing that at RFD. They replied that it was "literally impossible" for them to make that case without making legal arguments. Now, as long as they stick with their positions that (a) it's impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion without bringing in Law and (b) The Banner has been harrassing them, we are at an impasse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  When the article's subject matter is legal dispute (as is the case here), Dante4786 reasonably asserts it's impossible to discuss without using "legal" vocabulary. It's hard to disagree that Dante4786 appears disruptive, but I don't believe that's their intention. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did not tell them they couldn't use legal vocabulary or allude to the legal dispute. I specifically highlighted one aspect of their argument, that Wikipedia was violating legal rights of an entity by having a redirect point to a certain target, and told them that was a no-go. They've been completely unable to grasp the distinction between discussing the legal dispute academically and arguing an irl "Club [X] v Wikipedia" case that they've conjured up.

  I can envision a proper RFD on the dispute on the basis of correct name vs common name, or "information you're looking for" vs "information that best serves you" or their argument above about WP:NPOV. But I think you're failing to appreciate that there is absolutely no way to have a productive discussion, while they are not getting it. I could start a procedural RFD with weakass arguments that I don't really care for but then they are likely to swoop in and flood it with their arguments involving irl legality and we'd have the same mess over there. It's them that cares about the redirect's target. The only viable solution is for them to somehow begin to grasp why they need to and how they can adhere to WP:REDIRECT and skirt WP:NLT. I have not seen any post from them that gives me the confidence that they have come to understand that. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD: "start a RfD" Thanks for the suggestion! I think I will do that when I have the time. I need to read about what that implies and think how to make my "pleading" in a foreign language :) But I won't apology, I am sticking with what I wrote. I would like not to make any further comments, because I don't have much free time and I already expressed, the best I could, my position on this. But just as a final remark (or clarification): I went here because The Banner started accussing me again of vandalism and threatening me with loosing editing privileges. I didn't know where to go and as understood, this probably wasn't the right place. I apologize for that. The Banner has a history of falsely reporting me for sock puppetry. And as admitted here, he wants to get me banned. "I think that Wikipedia is indeed best served by a topic ban for Dante4786 on Steaua-related articles" Even though I tried my best to follow the rules, always wrote in good faith and gave plenty of sources and explained in high details my position on the subject, on different talk pages. (Edit: and no, I never made any legal threats) These are my final words. Thank you for taking the time to read this! Dante4786 (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your final words here. Feel free to contact me via my talk. I have some suggestions about how to phrase disagreeable assertions in such a way your intention is made more clear and less threatening. Normally I would say stick to what the sources say. In this case we may have to make that even more specific. In any case, thanks for disengaging. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD and anyone else who thinks that this is just about a redirect: this relates to a whole family of pages, including FCSB (2019 discussion), CSA Steaua București (football) (diff), FC Steaua București records dispute (diff), Eternal derby (Romania) (diff), Steaua București in European football (diff), Template:Steaua Golden Team (diff), other clubs (diff) and players (diff). It's the same thing over and over for the last six years. Scolaire (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And, they were saying Wikipedia was complicit in an illegal act, in 2019 (thanks Scolaire). The foundation isn't liable for editing decisions; individual editors are. So, how is that not a legal threat against other editors involved in the topic? Not only did nothing change in five years, I don't think anything has changed after this long discussion. I would support a topic ban from FCSB or Romanian football. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Before my first comment in this thread I did a lot of the linked reading. Lots of disruptive folks seem to edit in this cluster. In that context, our Dante4786 is a very minor-league offender indeed (compared to many others). This might even be considered a contentious topic. I'll have to do some reading on that--I've never made such an assessment but this looks pretty messy (and is within my remit as an uninvolved sysop). Allow me to ask each of you: If you were an admin, would you consider this a WP:Contentious topic and why? (please read that enforcement page before commenting) BusterD (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Under which area? I am only aware that this is about the Romanian domestic football scene. While Romania is in Eastern Europe, my understanding is that EE CTOP is for international and interethnic conflicts arising from the interaction of Nazi and Soviet past with these societies.

You are an uninvolved sysop here, yes. And you can enforce CTOP in designated areas, but you can't designate an area into CTOP, no. And CTOP is less forgiving, not more, unless you've changed your mind.

I have not looked so closely into it, other than Dante's involvement that's been brought up. So, I would certainly welcome insights you can bring from a more thorough investigation. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to write again, but I feel I am accused of new things.

1. Scolaire Wait a minute. Are you trying to have a nice conversation with me on one talk page and then imply here that there are problems with my edits on other pages? Scolaire, did you really looked at those edits? Do you understand them? Some edits I undone were from editors who now are banned. I am not a conflict-prone person. I saw, for example, that the Eternal Derby is a lost cause so I just dropped the subject. I won't do more edits there until there are new developments on the subject. And why do you reproach me for ASKING in 2019 for FCSB to change its title page? I followed the rules, I had a discussion and I gave up when I saw people didn't agree with me. You imply I'm the bad guy here. Why won't you show how many articles were truly vandalized from new ip-users and how many swear words I had to undone from other banned editors? One of them, who is still around here, is still allowed to edit on Romanian football even though he wrote in Romanian on one talk page that "he can't stand Steaua" and that "Steaua fans are autistic". Did you ever saw me write like that about anybody? Do you understand with what I had to deal with?
2. Usedtobecool Romanian Football is what I follow. It's the only subject I am knowledgeable about. It's the only subject I can write about in a foreign language. I can't and I refuse to edit on subjects I don't fully know. It would be disingenuous and unhelpful for me to do that. If you plan to ban me on Steaua or Romanian Football, then you can go ahead and give me a full block, because it would be the same thing, I won't edit on Wikipedia again. Dante4786 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dante4786: Yes, I am trying to have a nice conversation with you on Talk:FC Steaua București records dispute, but you keep shouting me down and twisting things round. When I looked at your contributions I saw the same behaviour on page after page, year after year. You most certainly are a "conflict-prone person" I would have said nothing, but BusterD said that the discussion should be taking place at WP:RFD, which gave some people the impression that it was only about that one redirect, so I felt I had to set the record straight. If Steaua București is all you are interested in writing about, perhaps you should read WP:Single-purpose account: Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." Scolaire (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Scolaire I am so glad you are bringing that up. I am shouting you down? You made very specific requests. I answered EVERY ONE of them. After that, you backpelled on your words and made new requests. I again answered and gave sources and so forth. I answered as best as I could and gave as much details as possible, so you would be happy with the reply and understand my stance. I didn't shout down even The Banner. I kept asnwering him as well, even though he was pleading here for my ban. Still, me answering all of your points wasn't enough, you moved the goalpost again. I'm sorry but you don't respect my time. Of course it is hard to agree with someone, when one of the parties involved in the debate doesn't know what they want or they keep changing their mind. While I asked from the beginning for the middle ground, you want things to be your way and your way only. I repeat, my view on the subject is different. If it was up to me, we wouldn't even talk about the "separation" because as I see it (and not just me), it was never a thing. In fact, if you aknowledge the facts, you will see it is disproved. I am not trying to trick anyobody hear, I encourage you all to read what I wrote, sources included. But to make everyone somewhat happy and achieve a common ground, I requested for the "separation" to be shortly described as an "allegation". That's it. You won't accept even 1 word while I accept a big compromise. I'm sorry but I can't, in good faith, agree with a false statement. Your own source contradicts the content of your edit. But just like I said there, I will try to reprase things, in a new manner, maybe on the weekend (or when I have the time) so that everybody agrees on it, while providing further sources. As for Single-purpose accounts, I am so glad you mentioned that. Again, I have to remind the so called consensus you insist on respecting, was achieved on the first days of the year (when many people are still on vacation), with just a handful of editors, one of which is banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.140.217.166 or on their first few edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.138.220.238 . As for me, what do you expect for me to say? Do you think this is a gotcha-moment? Do you want for me to write on subjects I don't understand? No, that would never happen. I don't want to screw other editors' work. I only write on things I am knowledgeable about. I'm honest and I will remain honest. If that's a bad thing, fine, do what you want. If the opportunity arises and I think I can help on other subjects, then I will do it, like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Last_Mercenary_(2021_film)&oldid=978463879 If not, not, I will stick to things I know and fully understand and can write about in English. I don't think people can (or should) write on multiple subjects. It's not realistical. Editors should stick to their areas of expertise and the subjects they are interested in. And while I probably have my biases (like everybody else) I try to keep them to a minimum. While I have over 200 edits on Steaua's page, I only have 6 on Dinamo's page (for clarification, I'm mentioning this because Dinamo is Steaua's main rival). So, as you can see, I try to be as neutral as I can. I don't try to stir things up or provoke or anything like that. I want the truth, nothing more. Nobody is perfect but I do edit in good faith. I even recognised my shortcomings, like not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia or how to write in a particular format and so forth. Dante4786 (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is what I previously wrote here, on 26 January: "Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate." I was referring to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. I just didn't remember what it was called. You aren't bringing anything new to the table. I complained about the very same thing, I already knew about single-purpose accoounts. Sure, you can accuse me of the same thing, you can accuse me of anything you want, that's your choice, but don't believe mentioning Single-purpose accounts was a surprise for me. And don't expect me to lie because of it and mask that I am primarily interested in certain subjects. Dante4786 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for topic-ban

This has gone on with little productive movement. Three or four editors have asked Dante4786 to drop the stick so everyone could move on and multiple posters trying to mediate now appear frustrated. So, I propose that Dante4786 be topic-banned from pages involving FC Steaua București, broadly construed, for six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I don't believe anything here is so egregious that more severe sanctions are warrantedThis would give Dante4786 the chance to demonstrate the issues are limited to this topic, to review policies concerning verifiability and consensus, and a pathway to contribute again in the not-too-distant future on a topic that is clearly important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I share the concerns of @HandThatFeeds that we could be back here in six months with the same issues, but of respect for @BusterD's not-insignificant efforts to try and work with @Dante4786 and guide them to a more productive path, I think it's reasonable to leave this door slightly ajar and hope this is sufficient a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've got the user talking reasonably on the talk page. User:Scolaire is assisting. I'll make an effort to help them understand the social norms which may make the language issues more challenging. If it's decided to block the user, it's unlikely I'll be the admin that does it. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I find a six month period to be within the realm of reasonable. Best case, the user takes some time off and comes back under the topic ban, edits other topics and picks up some useful policy and guideline knowledge. There's always a person in there, folks. We often disagree, but we don't have to be mean. Often folks refuse to give up an attitude. This user responded to feedback and is making their own affirmative choices. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Support having read both this discussion and the talk page in full. Dante needs to put down the stick and walk away. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment. No offence, BusterD, but you're setting the bar pretty low if you consider "And again, you make requests while ignoring mine" as "talking reasonably". I'd like to see some actual positive contribution by Dante before taking this proposal off the table. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support though I expect we'll be right back here either when he violates the topic ban, or returns to the same tendentious editing in 6 months. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to give BusterD a chance, which has now played out. Topic ban needs to be in place in case they return. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Dante clearly has no intention of ever changing his behaviour. He says he is leaving Wikipedia but he could easily change his mind. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Quite a few people have said that they were leaving only to come back a few weeks later when the attention on them has faded, so a topic ban seems reasonable as a failsafe. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subject's last mainspace edit was eleven days ago, before they commenced this thread. Since that edit, the user has attempted to use talk pages and this noticeboard exclusively. I see no misbehavior during that intervening time. I would argue the user has restrained themselves, has attempted to make themselves heard, has gotten frustrated and has said suboptimal things (unnecessarily and perhaps unintentionally personalized). But they have not edited disruptively on pagespace. Not once since they asked for help here. In any case, I have offered to mentor them when they return. BusterD (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seeing this edit, I do not get the idea that he even understands what the issue is, not to mention do something about it. The Banner talk 05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And except for placing the retired template on the user page, it was their last edit. I agree understanding is the problem. The user has admitted this as well. They've been dark in pagespace for two weeks. So we're banning them in case they change their mind? BusterD (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  IMO, the ban is for disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București. I think the 6 month ban is rather short but I am willing to give it a go. Dante has more long gaps in his editing, so I have to see if his retirement sticks. And yes, I am now back after a short wikibreak (I was loosing my cool) due to his harassment of me. The Banner talk 13:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  So in your opinion the topic ban is punitive, for "disruptive editing and POV-pushing around Steaua București." It's not preventing any immediate threat. As an admin, I'm not allowed to block for punitive reasons. The banning policy does not make such a clear distinction. BusterD (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @BusterD, I do not believe anyone is being punitive here. I for one do not hang out at ANI looking for my next kill. I only landed here because my watchlist updated with a section that had "harassment" in its name. I am confident that rest of the editors have also participated here in good faith, have tried to resolve this with advice and discussion, kindness and compassion, or have carefully evaluated whether those options have been tried before and how likely they are to succeed in the future. The editor stopped editing. But they did not stop accussing The Banner of harrassment, they did not accept that they could do better with respect to WP:NLT, and, although you offered, they flatly rejected your mentorship, because they concluded that accepting mentorship would be an acknowledgement of shortcoming on their part. Now, against that backdrop, as an admin, please consider your responsibility to the encyclopedia and the rest of the editorbase, and especially to editors like The Banner and others who have had to deal with this editor for five years. They did not jump to ANI after one or two day of disruption from Dante. Indeed, it was Dante who brought themself to ANI. Does The Banner not have a right to continue their work without having to see accusations of harrassment all over their watchlist? Do the rest of the editors not have a right to seek a more collegial environment to engage in something productive without constant disruption from an WP:SPA who shows no signs of collegiality? We are not banning them to punish them. We are topic-banning them from the area in which they have been disruptive in order to protect other editors in the area, for the sake of their productivity and their mental wellbeing. It is in fact preventative. It is always admirable to seek to resolve a situation with mentorship rather than sanctions but administration duties can not take a back seat to such efforts. Sometimes conflicts resolve with mentorship in place, other times sanctions become necessary and any mentorship should run concurrently but not in lieu of sanctions. This is the latter case, in my opinon, and evidently others'. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think you've got it backwards, BusterD. The topic ban is due to this editor's disruptive behavior in the area. If you consider that purely punitive, then all our topic bans are punitive and the whole thing falls apart. This is about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia, and the fact we don't trust a user putting "retired" up on their page is beside the point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:GoutComplex's noncompliance with WP:RS

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

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this issue, but I noticed that User:GoutComplex made a non-referenced edit at Empire. I reverted it and encouraged them to find a good source, but a review of their talk page shows that many editors have come to them with unresolved complaints. I feel that this reflects the community time being wasted in repairing their faultily-sourced edits and would appreciate an administrator applying some sort of harsher penalty than a talk page message. For what it's worth, their contributions seem to be overall good, as seen here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex]https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GoutComplex

Thank you!

Sincerely, JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added the standard links for GoutComplex at the top of the section. GoutComplex's use of sources was reported here a month ago, so there are recent differences here. They did not edit while the previous report was active and have only posted two replies to advice on their talk page, including a thank you for a standard welcome message. TSventon (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex has been editing for a year with over 2000 edits. I see their editing as problematic for two reasons firstly when I look at a sample of their recent edits almost all show sourcing problems. Secondly they have not responded to advice. Also they hardly ever use edit summaries.

Check of recent edits

Latest twelve Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire diff unsourced Empire diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 117th United States Congress diff unsourced 116th United States Congress diff unsourced Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff change to section heading Ainu people diff unsourced Austria-Hungary diff move reference to end of sentence Ashoka diff unsourced Xinjiang diff unsourced Maat diff this misrepresents the source Temples, tombs, & hieroglyphs : a popular history of ancient Egypt by Barbara Mertz. The added sentence Under Akhenaten's rule, the concept of Maat represented honesty in art, heat, and innovation confuses definitions of Maat as "truth", "justice" or "candor" and Mertz's views on sun worship My own, admittedly subjective, feeling is that it was the spirit of animation and creation implicit in the heat and light-producing sun that was the object of Akhenaton’s adoration. Legalism (Chinese philosophy) diff copy edit, no source needed 30 January Inari Ōkami diff partly added before a reference to "Religions of the Tao. Art of Faith II. Episode 3. 2010. Sky Arts.", partly unsourced. I doubt that GoutComplex watched the 2010 television programme, but they may have done. Michael Wood (historian) diff claim about a TV programme sourced to the book of the programme, not independent Michael Wood (historian) diff correction to the above Culture of Iraq diff Throughout the region's history, Iraq was second only to India in how many religions originated from it and how many its culture influenced.{{Citation needed|date=January 2024|reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed}} better source needed

TSventon (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

JuxtaposedJacob, can you explain what you mean by "their contributions seem to be overall good", as most of their edits I have looked at have sourcing problems. It may be that you are looking at a different sample of their edits. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon,

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt; I also went on his contributions and noted the seemingly-small number of reverts compared to live edits.

Have a great day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for creating edits that get reverted. I did not know that creating summaries was advised to be quite important. In the future, I will create better sourced content.

Every single one of my contributions to the Wiki has been a good faith attempt, including various deleted alt accounts since 2015.

What can I do in the future to clear any lingering situations up? GoutComplex (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't the issue, what you need is to source content inside the text itself through <ref></ref> tags. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did refer to that with my third sentence. I will always do that from now on unless I am doing an edit where I am just correcting the flow of an article or sources merely just imply a fact that I would like someone to clear up if another source I do not know of elaborates on it, such as my contributions here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_(Taoism)#In_art_and_culture GoutComplex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand now that it is not appropriate to insert a statement with no source and instead a {{Citation needed}} tag with "reason=I heard this on a TV episode called Iraq, Cradle of Civilization, but another source is needed", as you did in one of your most recent edits[3], a few days ago? NebY (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I do now that you said it. I was just looking for someone to contribute a better source that was more modern about this in the future. GoutComplex (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

GoutComplex I can see that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but you didn't reply when several editors criticised the sources you are using on your talk page and in the previous AN/I report. (Almost) everyone makes mistakes and gets corrected when they start editing, the point is to learn from your mistakes. That is why I advised you to respond to advice on your talk page. My general advice is that a book about the general subject of the article is more reliable than a book about a different subject. TSventon (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just come here after reverting the problematic edits here Special:Diff/1204754874 and here Special:Diff/1204755126. I'm trying to understand what these additions were suppose to add value wise, on top of the fact they are wrong. (A 64-bit integer is not a length of characters, and a character is typically 8 to 16 bits each.). I'm now reviewing, and likely reverting, further recent edits of this sort. Even where the sources used seem to be reliable, the conclusions the editor has drawn from them seem... off. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoutComplex Can you please disclose your alt accounts? There's no such thing as a deleted account. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ping @GoutComplex again as they have not yet replied after 48 hours. TSventon (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Eric

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

---

The user is deleting my edits with invalid reasons. I really do a lot of research, I consult the English language vocabulary "Collins Dictionary" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english), I make 100%, or almost 100%, accurate edits, and a user who doesn't know the rules well (he wrote "Parmesan" with a lowercase initial ("parmesan"), removed useful wikilinks (such as the wikilink "Italy" in the infobox), and, not happy, deleted italics from uncommon English language terms, such as "tortelloni"). I request a temporary block for this user. JackkBrown (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not use descriptions like you are ruining the encyclopaedia in edit summaries, especially for something as trivial as a change in italics. For the dispute itself, have you tried discussing it with Eric on one of the talk pages, before bringing him here? Requesting a block for disagreeing in the italicization of a few words is more than overblown. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: it's not just about italics, understand me, I've been working a lot these days, and not only these days, and I don't want my (right) changes to be undone in a second. JackkBrown (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Working on a collaborative project means that people might object to your changes (and believe themselves to be right, just like you do). In this case, if you don't agree, it is best to discuss the issue with them (and explain your understanding of the rules), rather than immediately bringing them to the drama board. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 01:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Eric was correct to de-link Italy per WP:OVERLINK. Also, why hasn't you tried to resolve this with Eric on their user talk page m EvergreenFir (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown As highlighted at the top of the page, this page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I would suggest that you withdraw this report. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, I have done so this time. TSventon (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

JackKBrown again

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

---

Has this editor made any attempt at being less disruptive? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Partial_block_for_JackkBrown closed without consensus, but some of the very, same issues are popping up. Is it time to ban them entirely from project space? Star Mississippi 03:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

so, let me get this straight, a user who has improved most of the articles in Italian and enriched the encyclopaedia must be excluded from the project? I thought Wikipedia was a healthy place... JackkBrown (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Making personal attacks in edit summaries doesn't really help with the healthy place thing... ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You'll notice I said nothing about your access to editing articles. You manage to edit content productively, and should focus there since that is why we're all here. Star Mississippi 03:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I'm the first in this encyclopedia to always be attacked for every little thing. You (plural) have almost never rewarded the fact that you have improved this encyclopedia. JackkBrown (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

...you brought an editor to ANI for a silly content dispute. I'm sorry, but you're not the victim here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I have been criticised for every single thing, even, and especially, for the right edits (I'm very precise in this encyclopedia); it's obvious that sooner or later I lose patience and do the same (obviously I was wrong too). JackkBrown (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

JackkBrown, accuracy is well and good, but it is absolutely impossible to be very precise about things like whether a given Italian loanword is common enough in English usage that it no longer needs to be italicized. There will always and inevitably be subjectivity involved and edge cases that do not have black or white answers. These matters are relatively trivial, and expanding and improving actual Italian culinary content is vastly more useful than quibbling about italicizaton. You and I and other editors discussed the word "sweetbread" the other day at the Help Desk. As a result, I was motivated to significantly expand the article Sweetbread and added content and five references about sweetbreads in French, Creole and American cuisines. How about sweetbreads in Italian cuisine? You are the expert. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

although having read the three different talk pages about the capitalization of parmesan and italics over tortelloni, I'm beginning to wonder if editor interaction is also a problem. Star Mississippi 13:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the bad thing is that I have consulted all the English dictionaries to check whether a food is known or not, and then I find my laborious edits deleted. Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles. JackkBrown (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Until this situation is resolved, I will no longer edit any articles.
— User:JackkBrown 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I find this hard to believe if the edits after this comment are anything to go by. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Less than a day since they said they would no longer edit any articles until the situation is resolved, there are already more than 70 edits to food-related articles alone, mainly featuring edits of the same type we're talking about here in the first place.

I'd certainly like some clarification, @JackkBrown, because few things make me lose trust in a person as quickly as when they immediately do the opposite of what they say they are going to do. And there's a practical reason too; any actions the community may choose to talk may differ on the level of trust there is in the editor doing what they say they will. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I was wrong to say what I said, many many apologies. A little curiosity: Why do you (and everyone else) always use "they" when referring to me (even in other threads)? JackkBrown (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: People don't know whether you prefer "he", "she", or any other pronoun. Singular they is a common way around this in English. Bazza (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: right, I hadn't thought of that, but I prefer "HE", thanks. JackkBrown (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Great to know! If you want to, there's an option in Preferences to select the pronouns that are used by default for you (in system messages and stuff like {{pronoun}}). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: thank you! Done now. JackkBrown (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I think JackkBrown should be banned from what I presume to be WP:? No, because there needs to be a line of communication for situations like these. Do I think they should take an extended leave of absence from the project? Absolutely. Once again there are constant questions from this editor at the help desk seeking assurance that what they're doing is correct. In the amount of time they've been registered I'd hope that they're confident enough to make what they think is the right decision, but that doesn't seem to be the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think he's well meaning, but it's increasingly apparent there's a WP:CIR issue here, likely due to the language barrier. That's not to say that there aren't many productive things they can do, but they've made the curious decision to focus on types of edits that especially require the most fluency in English. Some of the personal conflicts appear to also be language issues.

It certainly doesn't help that they toot their own horn about how valuable they are and how precise they are. If they were anywhere near their "very precise" self-description, there wouldn't be most of these conflicts or various Teahouse floods. At the very least, they shouldn't be involved in any edits involving capitalization/italicization/formatting, though wording it to not be overly harsh may require some deftness. Their assumed grasp of English is going to be a constant issue unless something is done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: "their assumed grasp of English". I have stated several times (see, for example, my user page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JackkBrown) that I don't have a great knowledge of the English language. As for the rest of your comment, by precision I mean that when I make a mistake I go back and correct it, so, having established that most of my changes are correct, those that aren't I correct, even months later; so, without arrogance, yes, I'm very precise. JackkBrown (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a very non-idiomatic use of the word "precise". Any native English speaker would understand "I'm very precise" to mean "I don't make large errors", not "I clean up after my own errors when they are pointed out to me" (a completely different idea). I think if you want to convey the second one, you should find a better way to do it (i.e., not use the word "precise"). --JBL (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You've repeatedly used the word precise in a way that is unfamiliar to English speakers (including myself), others have to clean up your errors, and you have regularly spent time insisting how accurate or precise you are, how you don't get enough credit, and so on.

So again, if you're not well-versed in English, then why are you specifically choosing to focus so much of your effort on specific style areas that require the most fluency in English? There are only so many times someone can be dragged to ANI on the same issues before the community loses patience. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my first post at WP:ANI. To offer a complementing perspective:

• Not here to expand content. The concerned editor isn't really here to expand content; for example, they recently asked me how to add a source, which they said they had never done before. As I recently summarised, the editor appears here to support content expansion by, as this noticeboard has previously noted, usually minor, cosmetic, and individually-inconsequential changes to the wikitext. This choice of specialism is somewhat strange, given that the editor's background and editorial interests presumably render them a better fit for content expansion than this kind of support.
• Why not expand content? My instinct is that the editor does not feel that they have a sufficient command of English to expand content, which I think is a pity, especially given how many free, accurate (AI) translation tools now exist. As someone frequently editing Italian-language articles with a limited working knowledge of Italian, I make copious use of such tools, and recently created my first article on the Italian-language Wikipedia from an English translation in this way. In a series of five edits, fluent editors kindly fixed my mistakes. Of course, a concern in the other direction is that Italian-language articles are usually poorly-cited, but from my interactions with the editor, finding and formatting citations could feasibly fit their interests.
• Helping WikiProjects? The editor could even be a great help to WikiProjects by identifying articles requiring clean-up or expansion, especially on Italian-language topics; I think it's no bad thing to encourage the editor to develop their contributions in this direction, but in a way that doesn't involve starting frequent talk page discussions.
• Other considerations. Nevertheless, previous discussions on the noticeboard have highlighted how the editor is enthusiastic and encourages others to be consistent in their editing practices, something which I personally have also found helpful in my interaction with the editor. Then there are two other concerns: the editor's lack of charity in interactions (something I have experienced) and their abuse of talk pages to solicit help and contest edits.

I suggested that the editor could remove a lot of the heat on them by getting off mobile web editing if they possibly can, which can remove the annoyance many editors feel from seeing a string of minor edits from the user by encouraging previews. Finally, I think encouraging the editor to contribute to Wikipedia in some of the ways suggested above could be a really fruitful approach; banning the editor from project spaces would effectively block this encouragement. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@IgnatiusofLondon: exactly! With the knowledge I have of Italian subjects, if I had been a native English speaker I could have gone beyond the five improved articles. However, English-language articles on Italian topics aren't poorly cited, they are less cited than the Italian-language Wikipedia, but the Italian-language Wikipedia doesn't value sources (for example, gossip sources are accepted), whereas in the English-language Wikipedia, a lot of attention is paid to sources, so the English-language Wikipedia is a million (or billion) times more authoritative than the Italian-language Wikipedia. JackkBrown (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: JackkBrown deleted an earlier comment apologising to Eric:

I would like to publicly apologize to User:Eric for not being kind to him at all. It doesn't matter what I think, the main thing isn't to be rude, and I was. My apologies, Eric. JackkBrown (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I deleted it by mistake when I posted the last comment. Just as well, it's even more prominent in the template. JackkBrown (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been watching JackkBrown for a bit now after an interaction on his talk page, and have been debating whether or not to bring him to ANI. There are a number of issues here, not all of which are language-barrier issues.

• In addition to italics and capitalization, he is fixated on fixing redirects (including template capitalization) and whitespace in templates, despite being told by multiple editors numerous times about things like WP:NOTBROKEN. When asking another user for advice on how to avoid making purely cosmetic edits, he came up with the idea: if I think I'm about to save a cosmetic edit, I can check for missing commas in the text, so that there are no problems if I save the edit [4] suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse.
• He also has an obsession with adding the "Use dmy dates" template to every article / updating the date on the template. As I understand it, you can update the date on this template if you have made sure all of the dates in the article conform to the standard. However, the fact that he changed the mdy template to dmy on the United States page (without changing any of the dates, which were obviously mdy), makes me wonder if he knows what he's doing in that regard.
• He does not appear to use the preview feature, resulting in multiple minor edits in a short span of time, or even undoing his previous edits. This is especially noticeable on non-mainspace pages (see, for example, his edits to this page or to his own talk page), which can result in multiple notifications to users. He continues to do this even after being asked multiple times to slow down, use preview, and read over his edits before submitting them. He also not infrequently edits his comments even after others have responded to them.
• When his errors are pointed out to him, he protests that he doesn't make very many mistakes, and when this claim is shown to be false, plays the victim. Yet he lashes out at others for minor mistakes, such as with Eric above or with User:IgnatiusofLondon in these two edits (he has since apologized to both of these users). He also has the strange claim about precision above, and the following quote on his own talk page: the problem is that I edit quickly, and very very very carefully, so unfortunately I don't pay much attention to this ban on cosmetic changes (emphasis in original). Of course, if he did edit as carefully as he claims, he wouldn't be making as many mistakes as he does.
• He's been criticised for his lack of edit summaries before. Though he now claims to have enabled reminders when leaving a blank edit summary, the edit summaries he leaves are often not helpful.
• Then, of course, there's his overuse of the Help Desk and other such forums. At one point I saw that he had 5 topics live on the Help Desk, and in two of them he had asked completely unrelated followup questions because he happened to have someone's ear.
• N.B. this user somehow has two separate talk page archiving systems: [5] [6], which are both full of these sorts of things.

Although he does a lot of good work, he also makes many not-so-great edits, and his apparent inability to take advice from others and amend his ways ends up wasting a lot of time. Smdjcl (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. I take care of the pages as a whole: English grammar, MOS:CAPTIONS, MOS:GEOLINK, punctuation, correction of dashes, various templates ("circa", "literally", "flatlist" and "plainlist"), upper and lowercase initial letters, italics, etc. JackkBrown (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it disrespectful for them to point out a link? Star Mississippi 02:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I refer to his sentence "suggesting that these edits are still his primary focus, and the other things are an excuse." JackkBrown (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, they meant that the cosmetic edit is the primary focus of the kind of edits mentioned above, with the rest (e.g. missing commas) being an excuse. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I never denied that you did other things. In fact, by saying you do a lot of good work, I implicitly acknowledged it. If all you did was useless edits like the ones I pointed out in that bullet point, I wouldn't call it good work. But the comment I highlighted does in fact suggest (though not prove) that you intended to add other things to your cosmetic edits as an excuse to make your less-acceptable edits acceptable. Whether or not you ever actually did that of course is another question, but the suggestion is there. Smdjcl (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Smdjcl: no, it isn't to make them "less-acceptable"; I, simply, modify a page as a whole, so if I want (example) to correct the grammar of a sentence, since it's the same edit, I also modify the rest. JackkBrown (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits to redirects and whitespace like I mentioned are generally frowned upon. Your comment said that if you were about to make an edit like that, you would add something else so that the edit would be okay. That implies that the other things are secondary, only added to make those edits acceptable. It may well be that you never ended up doing that, but that is what that comment suggests to me. If others disagree with my interpretation of that comment, I will happily retract it and apologize for my mischaracterization of you. However, your dispute of one relatively minor point in my overall comment isn't helping you. Smdjcl (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Which @Carrite didn't say, so you should retract your blaming of them while discussing the issues raised with the editor who did so. Carrite simply raised another discussion Star Mississippi 03:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's been a mistake somewhere, the comment above isn't even from Carrite but from Smdjcl. Carrite's only comment in this whole thread is one below about Wikipediocracy. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• I know some of y'all don't like Wikipediocracy (different strokes, etc.) but a heads up there is a thread about this user/situation there. Public Area > General Discussion > Just Asking Questions. Perhaps illuminating or not. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  .....As of 2/5, WPO mod Zoloft has moved the thread out of the spotlight to the registered-users only area now, following an observation that "He's hardly unique, and focussing on the one individual tends to obscure the broader issue" of "Wikipedia's systemic inability to adequately control the well-intentioned but [CIR-related] time-sinks..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block; the evidence in these ANI threads seems clear to me. What really jumps out is 50,000 edits in the first year (!). Is that a record? I've seen tens-of-thousands-in-the-first-year before, but I don't think I've seen 50k. Imagine, someone who doesn't really speak English, but makes 50k edits to the English wikipedia in their first year! Can you imagine doing this at another language wiki where you're not fluent in the language? How absurd. Also, they're indef'd at itwiki for block evasion (so not the first account, explains the 50k edits in the first year) and on itwikinews for being an LTA. Both are Global Sysop blocks. I don't know if they have merit, but ... well, I haven't tracked it down, but I'm going to bet the prior itwiki account had the same problems in Italian that we are experiencing in English. Bottom line: time sink due, at least, to language barrier. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Support I didn't want to land here and was hoping a p-block would be sufficient but the further this discussion has gone on, the further it's clear they don't understand nor intend to change their edit pattern which extends beyond their perceived fluency in English. And thanks @Levivich for the heads up on the accounts. My spidey sense was going off but not enough for SPI Star Mississippi 00:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: hi, could you please read my last two comments in this thread? I only ask you this, I will not comment on any of your decisions towards me, I have no right to do so and I must accept, with profound humility, whatever decision is made. I would just like to add that I have understood, finally, that the user with the wrong behavior towards other users, who has sinned deeply of total lack of humility, who has not listened enough to the very useful advice regarding my defects, well, I have come to the awareness that I'm this user. Now I would like to take a pause for reflection and think about everything that's wrong and then, perhaps, continue to be active with the project, because I could also think about limiting myself to a maximum of 20 changes per week (example); it won't be easy, but I know I can do it. JackkBrown (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have promised to limit yourself or stop editing on several occasions,and you have yet to follow through.

Despite probably 50 edits here since, you haven't apologized to Carrite for @Carrite: it's really disrespectful, rude and horrible towards me to say this. (when they didn't say it)

Your editing future is within the community's discretion, not my opinion. BUt I would strongly suggest you take on the feedback you've received here and why you're blocked on other projects. It's clear there is some problem with your editing. If you want to edit in the future, you need to make some changes. Star Mississippi 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I apologise to him in private. JackkBrown (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Very good; I'm glad you've apologised. For future reference, as a general principle, I think because your comments were public, so should your apology be public. To retract what you've said, I recommend you strike out your comment accusing Carrite (see Template:Strikethrough). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 I think you're most probably right, Levivich. ——Serial 17:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I specify that I don't write new texts, but I understand perfectly what's in this encyclopedia, also thanks to paid translators. JackkBrown (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you "understood perfectly what's in this encyclopedia" or made "100% or almost 100% accurate edits" (your words), we wouldn't be here in two very long discussions about the same behavior barely a month apart.

I started this thread thinking you needed a mentor and to stay away from making style edits, but your attitude of superiority and your lack of forthrightness in answering any concerns are putting me close to a CIR block. It certainly does not help that you said you would make no more edits while the situation was unresolved, and before even a whole day had passed, you had made a hundred edits in the same problematic territory. Now, you were not prohibited from making those edits, but as I said above, not doing what you say is a quick way to lose trust. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs: all right, I admit it, I need help and, in order not to admit my shortcomings, I make myself look (non-maliciously) superior, but the truth is that I have many faults and I need to improve (I'm trying, so far unsuccessfully, to take a pause for reflection). JackkBrown (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Admitting your own shortcomings is a great (and difficult) first step — congratulations and good luck! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I should take a bath in humility and put myself on a par, equal with others, without feeling superior; unfortunately it's a defence, because as a non-native English speaker I start at a disadvantage; I hope you understand me. I didn't just admit it out of fear of the block, but because I can no longer stand pretending to be superior to those who, like you for example, have much more experience than me. JackkBrown (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it (it's hard, difficult for me not to edit for, say, a week). JackkBrown (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, I trust you! It's always healthy to take breaks from time to time, really! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a temporary block (one month) for JackkBrown. I hope some time away from Wikipedia might help. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to deal with the persistent deluge of questions at the Help Desk, I'm all ears. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 JackkBrown has said: I hope I can take a pause for reflection, I have to make it. So a temporary block might be in everyone's favour, and to make good of what he has said, I hope the concerned editor also replies in support of this suggestion. His recent erratic edits to his userpage suggest the editor is really taking the discussions on this thread to heart, and that's always a good invitation to step away and reconnect with other things in life. In his time away, I suggest JackkBrown consider some different approaches to contributions he can make to support Wikipedia, as highlighted in this thread.

Finally, I am concerned that the editor has recently, in this thread and in a reverted edit on their user page, began talking about "paid translators". This feels like an unnecessary expense, and one that doesn't entirely engage with the concerns expressed by the community in this and previous noticeboard discussions. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 it would be nice if the description of the block included my support; that would make the block even more important. JackkBrown (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get something actioned instead of letting this fade into the archives like last time? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Timeshifter behavioral issues

I brought this up at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Sort under template discussion becoming uncivil, but no response so I brought it here since the behavior is intractable and seems chronic.

I recently created Template: Sort under and Timeshifter made a request on its talk page for a change that I consider to be his personal preferences and that I disagree with. His recent responses have become too heated, personal, assumes bad faith, and very uncivil. He responded with some profanity: "BS". He stated that he will apply the changes and that I should find consensus against it: "Unless you find consensus against that I will put it into the CSS myself." Apparently he thought I supported his preference even though I disagreed from the start, but a misunderstanding is no reason to act this way and threaten to circumvent reaching consensus. This isn't the first time, and I'm not listing all occurrences.

In a discussion last month (January 2023) at Template talk:Static row numbers#Column label unspanned look, there was personalization about me: "Why do you go into these massive fights over adding the smallest bit of additional info? It is extremely annoying, and a huge waste of time."

In an discussion two months ago (December 2023) at Template talk:Sticky header#Class sticky not working on mobile, he started talking about himself, other content, then me as a developer that ended with me abandoning any template fixes I was working on. Although he somewhat apologized, it's very difficult to discuss content with someone who personalizes conversations or can't stay on topic.

@HouseBlaster, Redrose64, SMcCandlish, Gonnym, and JohnFromPinckney: pinged since I've seen them in similar discussions with him in case they want to add anything. I mostly see these kinds of discussions with him on help and template talk pages like at Help talk:Table. In general, when his opinion is agreed with, he is easier to work with. Jroberson108 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I could go into a long list of uncivil stuff from Jroberson108 also. But we have never called each other names, and there were no personal attacks from either side. There were plenty of disagreements.

Jroberson108 has a habit of WP:OWN with almost anything he works on. By the way here is the "BS" in context:

"And what is this disrespectful BS: "You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of 'templates get used more' or 'saves time'." I told you it saved me time. That should be good enough since you know that I edit a lot of tables.

That is not a personal attack. It was me pointing out his disrespect.

By the way after much effort on my part I finally got someone to reply concerning Template:Sort under. They suggested going to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables. I did so. See:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Template:Sort under

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "BS" isn't profanity, it's a "minced oath" to avoid actual profanity. And profanity doesn't automatically make something a civility problem anyway. This does seem to be a weird and unproductive argument. I would think a single-discussion RfC in one particular place, with all the other threads closed and pointing to it, and relevant pages notified, would be enough to resolve this, especially if it's neutrally laid out in very simple "here are the options; pick one" terms. I don't think either of you've been ideal in this (starting with Jroberson108's "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion", which was testy and standoffish enough that it seems to have flipped Timeshift into "resist at all costs" mode). We're all human (I hope!), and shit happens. (See? Profanity, but not an attack.) I can't see any cause for an ANI action here, this template functionality and output-layout matter (what? a disagreement about a style issue? how could that possibly be?! LOL) simply needs more eyes and brains on it to reach some kind of a consensus. Edit: The thread at WT:MOSTABLES is probably good for this, just {{discussion top|{{moved discussion to|...}}}}...{{discussion bottom}} any other open threads about it to prevent the WP:TALKFORK issue.

To pre-emptively give some input: I would suggest that more options are better, but only up to a point (KISS principle; and the observation than a left-aligned version of such a control widget would not be of use in an LTR language is probably correct). Concision in class, parameter, and other names is generally better, but also just up to a point (they need to still be intelligible). Default behavior of the template should probably be what best matches default appearance of sortable wikitable controls (principle of least astonishment). If some particular variant is expected to be needed over and over again, make a simple template wrapper that does that version with a shorthand name that doesn't require lots of parameter futzing.

PS: I don't recall what similar discussion I was pinged about; I don't pay much of any attention to usernames, and just look at the content of what's posted and what the reasoning is, when it's practical to ignore who it's coming from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

How can you seriously say there were no WP:PA when I literally quoted one example above that is about me as a contributor and not the content.

According to BS, it is profanity, which is both unneeded and unwanted. This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion.

If you look closer, he got upset over my "You don't need to continue pushing your same opinion" remark, which wasn't meant as an attack, but I apologized anyways, then we moved on and he even thanked my apology edit. As I mentioned, it was fine until there was a misunderstanding, then it went down hill from there. I understand he might have been upset, but there are better ways to respond without blowing up unapologetically to where there is nothing more that can be said, which for me appears intractable. Granted that I'm new to asking admins for advice and approaching ANI, the description at the top this page matched this situation so I posted here.

There is nothing disrespectful about me questioning the source and metrics of statements about others used to support someone's opinion. You may have included yourself in part of it, but they still talk about others, which is what I question. "Now you are back to your original position of ignoring my point about simplicity working to make templates get used more." and "Those, like me and many others, who want to save time, will use class sort-under, knowing it is the more popular choice." aren't just about you. From my perspective, it just sounds like POV, assumptions, or projecting, which I usually ignore unless its repeated. My response was You've provided no solid metrics to back your claim of "templates get used more" or "saves time" and pointed to no discussions showing consensus for "many others" or "popular". If there are metrics or consensus for these statements, then it would have changed the discussion completely.

BTW, wanting consensus isn't WP:OWN, it's just WP:CON. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing it used in a discussion. Oh come on, that is BS, which is common word in the English language. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will say that I've noticed other instances of Timeshifter being overly-combative about getting their way. Most recently, there was Talk:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Add_year_to_article_title., in which Timeshifter framed their desire to include the year in the article title as a crusade against self-centered Americans (not an unfair criticism in general, but the article's title certainly isn't an example of it), which spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#US-centric_common_names,_or_names_that_only_mean_something_nationally when they realized they weren't going to get their way, and is full of the same bold-typeface shouting against pretty much everyone else who opined. There are other examples I can think of off the top of my head, but as they're all probably years-old at this point, I'm not too fussed about them. Regardless, and without comment on OP's behavior, I do think the complaint has some merit. It's not the worst thing, and I certainly don't think it merits a block or anything, but it is annoying, and I think Timeshifter would be well-advised to cool their jets when people disagree with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I will start by saying that I believe that Timeshifter is a boon to the project, and genuinely believe he engages in discussion in good faith. I will also mention that at Help talk:Table#Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js he demanded increasing levels of consensus against including a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js—a tool which has nothing to do with tables—at Help:Table. There was also Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter and Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#Parkland doctors say neck wound was an entrance wound. Meaning more than one shooter, another classic WP:1AM attempt at including a WP:FRINGE POV. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond to the "boon" part. I agree that he is a boon and probably the one editor I've worked with the most in my fixing of templates and a gadget for the last couple of years. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A comment made today at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility engages in personal commentary about another editor: ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. I strongly urge Timeshifter to avoid making these types of remarks. isaacl (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[Update] I do feel like Timeshifter's behavior has improved in the recent RfC (see his link above) to reach a consensus with two other editors and myself, so thank you for that. Note, the RfC started about the same time as this notice. I can't speak for everyone else above. I'll also point out that he has and still does give praise for my efforts in fixing templates he's also involved in. Jroberson108 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My input, FWIW: I have indeed had difficulty in the past with Timeshifter as he has effectively taken ownership of a few pages in both Help: and article spaces. He has frequently and steadfastly insisted that because something works for him and is simpler to him, then it therefore "works fine" and must not be changed. He generally rejects a standardized format for examples (e.g. table coding) and does not care (or apparently know) what valid HTML is or why we might want to use it. TS habitually outdents his posts on Talk pages, even when replying to a level two post, although he's not demonstrating indentation examples or including tables in his response (which might justify such an outdent). He's overly fond of bold text in inappropriate situations and has often thrown in non-sequiturs and irrelevant arguments and unsupported claims of fact. He has repeatedly reverted me (one infuriating example) and others because "I edit this page a lot" (meaning him, TS), the implication being that nobody else is worthy of making changes.

Having said that, I have spent some time scanning through recent exchanges involving TS, including the ones linked by Jroberson108 and others, and I found TS's to be much improved over my earlier interactions with him. Further, I do not see that anything in the discussions I read through rises to the level of ANI-level action. I responded some time ago to TS's stubbornness by disengaging from the tables pages (and articles with "his" tables) in particular, and Wikipedia in general. His behavior was just so maddening to me I had to (try to) stop my involvement where our paths might cross.

So at this point, I think there's insufficient need for admin action at this time. A couple of years ago, maybe, but not from the current evidence I see. Sorry, Jroberson, but thanks for the ping. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yikes, again. Timeshifter literally just asked me Can you not read?. (For transparency, I am also the editor who the comment ... I will not change your strong tags back to regular bolding, now that this discussion has sadly resolved in the favor of your current point of view. If you want to waste your time on this useless activity, then knock yourself out. In fact, after you completely convert all bolding to strong tags on a few help pages, you will have annoyed enough editors that this vaporware of the semantic web will be seen as contradictory to the simplicity that wikis were created for. was directed at.) I would like the personal attacks to stop, but I also do not want to see Timeshifter blocked. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Ick. Stubbornly stubborn, is TS. That discussion shows the kind of tone-deafness and lack of respect that I have experienced with him before (although I happen to think his intentions in this case were correct). And the page itself is the kind of terrible that keeps me disengaged from TS's pages. (It drives me a bit [more] crazy when I see such poor implementation of tables from someone who has taken over writing HELP: pages for tables. Again, not sanctionable, just icky.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• I am getting a little frustrated. Timeshifter has once again re-added a link to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js at Help:Table, despite unanimous opposition to such a link at Help talk:Table § Linking to User:The wub/tocExpandAll.js. I want Timeshifter to contribute positively, but flouting consensus is not okay. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and edit warring regarding the Tim Hunt biography. For several years Basboll has insisted on framing a 2015 controversy regarding comments that Hunt made at a conference that were widely considered sexist as an "online shaming" campaign. After LokiTheLiar recently attempted to alter this, they were reverted by Basboll and subsequently made a post at WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt) Over half a dozen people responded, none of which agreed with Basbolls position. Discussion was then opened at Hunts talkpage (Talk:Tim Hunt) which again found against Basbolls position. Basboll is still reverting any attempt to alter the wording in the article despite a consensus against their postion, and has now opened a discussion at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt which is a clear attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Basboll needs to be firmly told to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The admin @Firefangledfeathers: has previously warned them on their talkpage, see User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at WP:ANEW, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article. See for instance this diff from about a week ago, this diff from 2019, and this diff from 2020. It's largely due to reading the page history that made me jump to WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at WP:BLPN not WP:NPOVN and I said so repeatedly. At the moment the dispute is about including as quotation a disputed report of the most shameful thing the subject of the article has ever been accused of saying or doing. Getting the story even half-way right, will force us to make it a WP:COATRACK for the entire social shaming incident that he was the victim of. This clearly violates WP:BLP and that is the position I'm maintaining. Also, I have said repeatedly that I am reverting only out of caution (again a BLP concern). The disputed section has been stable for several years. A few more weeks of it being (perhaps too) kind to its subject isn't going to make a huge difference in the long. A few weeks of slander, by contrast, can do unnecessary harm.Thomas B (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOVN discussion, I agree with what Hemiauchenia, Loki, Bon courage, and Firefangledfeathers said. Thomas B is stonewalling by reverting additions to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article despite consensus against em. And indeed, this user has been removing large amounts of content from that section for 4 years. I'm also under an impression that the amount and frequency of comments made by this user is distractingly excessive, going against WP:BLUDGEONING. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [7] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future. Thomas B (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms. Thomas B (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an innocent coming to this article from NPOVN thinking it a detail about a scientist's bio, I have since discovered it's a gamergate-adjacent culture war battle that sparked interest in the Daily Mail and Breitbart. The attempt was made there to reframe the issue not as being with a white man, but with the black women (Connie St Louis) who reported his comments.[8] It goes without saying Wikipedia needs to be a million miles from buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like some others, you're on a steep learning curve about this event. As I've been saying from the beginning, it was a major shitstorm, and once the dust settled there were really only two sentences you could say about it in Hunt's bio without feeling dirty. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, scholarly journals and quality news outlets have managed to cover this quite well, and since Wikipedia only need cover accepted knowledge as covered in quality RS we are good to go. There is plenty so long as one ignores the Daily Mail/Breitbart/etc crap. While searching for sources I noticed you have blogged at quite enormous length about this, about how in your view Hunt was wronged a saint and Connie St Louis was the baddie in multiple ways, and you have vowed to take the fight to anyone who says Hunt is sexist. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to consult the policy, but I think you're violating some sort of rule about referring to my work off-Wiki. Do you want to delete it now, or should we look it up? Thomas B (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is what you want. By all means look it up yourself but I am familiar with this policy thanks. Also with WP:COI, where selective linking to off-wiki content is even sometimes necessary to evaluate a case. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. I will be disengaging with you for the time being. Thomas B (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of WP:3RR. The user has been also posting an excessive amount of comments in the discussions, which constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [9] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[10] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[11] [12]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[13], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea. Thomas B (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [14] and Bon courage[15]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[16][17][18]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [19][20][21]
  • misconstruing policy [22] vs [23] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [24]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [25][26]
  • [27] and doubling down: [28] and [29] Also [30] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot Support as the disruption is ongoing. in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC); amended 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage, I wonder, do you still consider this page ban proposal moot given Hemiauchenia's and Firetangledfeather's recent votes below? In case your opinion changed, I would like to request for you to update your vote. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NicolausPrime yes, it seems I was over-optimistic. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a WP:TAG team should receive a WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email 08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a block and a ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [31] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's WP:BLUDGEONING and stonewalling. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering Tim Hunt and online shaming and their talk pages. I don't really see how @NicolausPrime's proposal can be read any other way. The aim seems to be to speed the process of implementing changes along the lines of those @LokiTheLiar originally proposed by removing me from the conversation. I do indeed oppose them, and I think that any changes along those lines should be implemented, if at all, very slowly and carefully. I will respect a ban if that's what is decided but I really do think it's a bad idea to remove people who think you're wrong from a conversation about what to do, even (and perhaps especially) if you're very certain you're right. Thomas B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In light of Thomas B's continuing failure to disengage, I now unambiguously support a block from the talk-page. The discussion is not being helped by the two or three people who evidently are heavily invested in their own individual conclusions about what happened and what it means; Thomas B has had ample opportunity to make his position known. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I am walking away from this. My viewpoint is that both "sides" in this debate are letting their personal feelings get the better of them, and are attempting to right great wrongs (just two different wrongs). The result has been a debate that's gone off the rails, degenerated into a lot of wikilawyering, poor faith, and walls of text. I don't feel I can interact with other editors in improving this article in the current situation. I believe it will only be solved by a structured debate, forced to focus on the article rather than the editors, and therefore I strongly, strongly recommend WP:DRN. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended. I had walked away from the talk page, I had planned that I was not going to edit at all this weekend and do something more useful like cleaning the oven. What is desperately needed at this page is an admin with experience of WP:BLP, because the edits being proposed are in violation of our BLP policy.

I realise that ANI is not the place to discuss content and I do not intend to do anymore than is necessary to explain the background but it is necessary to help with BLP. 8 years ago the Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt attended a conference in South Korea. Tim Hunt who is described by his wife as "socially awkward" and "less than wordly" was asked at the last minute to give a toast during lunch. Extremely nervous he gave a 2-3 minute speech that included a self-deprecating joke that was awkward and ill-advised (in that what was said could and was misconstrued). Nevertheless it was well received by the audience; so much so he was asked to deliver a further speech during the closing banquet. A journalist attending the event tweeted a series of tweets denouncing what he'd said as sexist and misogynist, partially quoting the speech out of context and making two false claims. A Twitter storm blew up and whilst flying home his reputation was effectively destroyed and he was forced to resign from several positions. Subsequently the facts of what was said, what wasn't said came out but had little effect on the commentary that continued to be hostile, until the journalist Louise Mensch investigated it doggedly and demonstrated it to be untrue. The accepted view in the literature now is that he was treated unfairly, he is neither sexist nor misogynist but definitely socially awkward and less than wordly.

This is very relevant to the RFC that is currently being run.

1. A loaded question has been made about including a quote of what was said
2. The edits proposed all make the false claim it was his speech that was denounced as sexist, which is untrue, what was denounced as sexist was based on false reporting.

I am extremely concerned by some of the commentary eg [32] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood.". This to me indicate a closed mind, a refusal to accept in good faith that there are other possibilities and an unwillingness to listen to evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs. It seems that some editors have decided Tim Hunt is a sexist misogynist who should be labelled as such on his Wikipedia article. It seems that editors have learned nothing about the damage that a disparaging Wikipedia biography can do and why we have BLP policies. Are we really in the business of pillorying a socially awkward scientist who has been an advocate for women in science? 8 years ago this affair nearly drove the poor man to suicide.

I have to commend Thomas B for his knowledge of the case and the willingness to stick his neck out for our BLP policies, he doesn't deserve the threat of blocks or page bans. To my mind they are misdirected. It seems that 3RR, ANI and various noticeboards are being abused to try and remove an obstacle rather than seek a consensus.

I have no problem with a BLP if it accurately reflects what actually happened but that is not what is happening here. The talk page is toxic, with editors simply not listening or earnestly engaging with the consensus building process. I've given up on trying.

My suggestion is to extend the page lock until editors propose a reasonable summary of what happened that all can agree on via WP:DRN - a very aposite suggestion. I fear that as soon as the page is unlocked, the edit war will recommence. It certainly needs a good old trouting among all concerned. Now rubber gloves and Mr Muscle^TM beckon, I do hope more sensible heads like Elemimele prevail - I would also commend them for a very sensible contribution I can only apologise if your comments were drowned out. WCM_email 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I would disengage from this and have, but that isn't a license to misleadingly quote me. I meant that I didn't want to engage in house to house combat over the entrenched establishment circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny. Claims of being misunderstood are completely unsurprising.

The dismissal of anyone who objects to the hagiography as ignorant is apparently being allowed to succeed here. Oh well, another day at Wikipedia. I forgot to unsubscribe yesterday but before I do, I want to day that the remarks in their full context are still appalling and that thinking that they are appalling does not demonstrate that one has not read them. That is the level of bad faith at play here.

The idea that anything less than a complete picture should be reported has been imputed to everyone who thinks that this should be discussed as anything but a terrible thing that happened to a good man. I think that failing a page block, dispute resolution is a pretty good idea, since presumably they won't allow all this mud-slinging. Note that given the RFC and previous NPOV discussions, DRN should not be needed to guarantee that opinions can be expressed without generating aspersions, but that is where this is. The clear consensus is being disregarded with cries of BLP, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE waved off. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Young also wrote a piece in Reason (magazine), calling out the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, and how the "narrative [about Hunt] has been falling apart". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that WCM also mentioned this source earlier, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to add this to the article with an attribution, as Reason is considered a reliable though opinionated source. (I think it would be more effective to raise this on the article's talk page) NicolausPrime (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did do, the source was immediately denounced, that apparently is enough to ignore it and continue with the same narrative. Therein lies the problem, this is just me being a "misogynist" "circling the wagons to protect a misogynist" with "shitty sources". Those by the way are quotes from the talk page. WCM_email 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the page protection has stopped the disruption, and I don't see any sign that TB recognizes that his conduct has been problematic. There are people above arguing that a sanction would be moot, but the ongoing conduct makes it clear that is not the case. Above, TB says it'll be ok if he remains unsanctioned because "the constraints of 3RR" will keep him from achieving his preferred version in article-space, and I worry this is a signal that he intends to continue edit warring. The repeated declarations that he'll be stepping back, followed by further bludgeoning and personalization, suggest that TB will continue to worsen the discourse in this dispute. His most recent action is to post a non-serious proposal. He can see no reason that many good-faith editors propose versions he disagrees with, believing they are trying to "vindicate those who originally shamed" Hunt.
  I wonder if those who oppose a pblock would consider a warning, or if they think all this conduct has been just fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary pblock until the RfC is over, but not a permanent ban. The OP was not very clear in their proposal, in my view. And for that matter, a temp pblock for anyone else who is bludgeoning the discussion, regardless of what side they are on about the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I take the point and have withdrawn from the talk page until the RfC is over. I don't know if that makes closing easier. But I think I've taken up enough time. Thomas B (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, consensus is policy, so if your preferred version of the article doesn't make the cut, there really isn't anything more to discuss, is there? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was initially on the fence about this because Basboll wasn't the sole cause of disruption in the discussions, but Basboll hasn't stepped back from the discussion like he promised and his behaviour hasn't improved. His self-admitted non serious proposal at Talk:Tim_Hunt#Counterproposal followed by the comment that my proposal for a consensus version is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of [Hunt], rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him is just blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that isn't moving the conversation regarding this issue forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry you got that treatment, Hemi. As best as I can tell, you were uninvolved in the dispute, responded civilly and reasonably to the NPOVN post, then noticed that we were a a standstill and started and RfC. You made a concrete proposal for article content and tweaked it based on TB's concerns, and then you got that uncivil response. It's unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding. I produced a version that was obviously slanted in Hunt's direction in order to show well-intentioned people like Hemiauchenia that explanding it with a bunch of (true) details slants it in the direction of Hunt's original accusers (less obviously to many editors here, it seems). Once we get into the weeds, we in effect have to either defend or attack him. That's why I'm not serioulsy proposing the defensive version. I'm proposing (as I have been all along) not to get into the weeds. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Lock

Given the bad tempered nature of the discussion, I would propose that the Page Lock is extended until a consensus text is worked out through WP:DRN. Consensus building and cooler heads are desperately needed on this topic. WCM_email 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If we went to DRN while an RFC was on, it would be immediately rejected as redundant. This feels to me like a poor attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My take is that we've really made a mess of this and that the page should be locked until a resolution is found. Thomas B (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that a couple of editors (one of whom was edit warring before to stop any change) are worried the RfC is running against them, and want to prevent the likely WP:CONSENSUS being implemented. Let the community do its thing and it will all work out in due course. There is no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a mess:

1. Its a loaded question that should never be used on an RFC
2. The atmosphere is toxic and outside comment deterred by walls of text
3. Anybody who comments is denounced as a misogynist if they contradict the "consensus" circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny [33]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [34]
5. The tactic above is driving away editors like Emimele and myself
6. The content for which you claim there is a consensus is simply untrue and doesn't give a reasonable summary of the controversy. It is in violation of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY.
7. Editors are basing their edit on a personal conviction the subject of the BLP is sexist and a misogynist based on their reading of a quote taken out of context. [35]

It seems based on this comment by Bon courage, editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" and simply not listening. Given the conduct DRN is desperately needed. WCM_email 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the tactic is evidently to kick up as much process sand as possible in an attempt to derail the RfC (which follows an already extensive discussion at NPOVN). Remember we are WP:NOTDUMB. Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. Bon courage (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. I agree. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" Agree - Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

This thread has gone on for long enough, and as Obama once said, it's "shedding more heat than light" at this point. There's clearly no consensus for any kind of action against Basboll, nor for any other kind of action, and has just devolved into angry arguing. Several threads on the article talk page have also devolved into simiar acrimony, and probably need hatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there was never any need for any kind of action against Basboll, they have raised valid concerns but there is a chorus of editors who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I really do think that admin action is required and that is to lock the page for an extended period whilst this is resolved at WP:DRN. Otherwise I can easily see this ending at arbcom, this needs to be nipped in the bud. WCM_email 18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you think elevates this to an ArbCom case? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, it does warrant intervention by an admin experienced in BLP cases. Whilst the discussion has improved in the last 24 hrs and I'm assuming because of the scrutiny here. However, if the discussions there had continued in the same vein it was definitely headed there. WCM_email 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what WP:DRN is for? It's not just a place to find a mediator for any conflict. It's specifically for resolving small content disputes where no other dispute resolution process is occurring. Neither half of that is true because of the ongoing RFC.

My personal guideline is that an RFC is more appropriate when the dispute is between a few relatively-concrete options, and WP:DRN is more appropriate for chaotic disputes where exact wordings themselves are hard to pin down. Pre-RFC I could see either of those being appropriate, but now that an RFC is happening, we need to let it run and implement the consensus agreed on there, if any, before considering a separate dispute resolution process in a separate location. All taking this to WP:DRN right now will do is get it closed immediately because of the existing RFC. Loki (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that Firetangledfeathers and Hemiauchenia voted just now, I would like to still wait for a moment before closing this and for the closer to check if there's still no consensus or if there's one now. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Basboll has jumped the shark now and changed my vote accordingly. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd also like to see this closed. Thomas B (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lotobomymaster

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

---

The locked account LotobomyMaster has made another account named LotobomyMaster2. If anyone can set up a sock investigation and request for locking that would be cool. Toketaa^talk 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this should have been on the SPI. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

But the investigation page hasn't been made yet and I don't know how to do it. Toketaa^talk 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI and find the box that says "How to open an investigation" and follow the instructions. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So, what you could do is, if you have Twinkle, go to the user page, click on TW in the top right corner, select ARV, then click the drop down menu and select sockpuppet from the menu. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't use tools. Toketaa^talk 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the account has already been blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The block might have been in response to the post here. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

oh someone did it already while we were having this conversation. Toketaa^talk 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Probably the fastest sockpuppet block ever. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved At this time, I wouldn't bother with an SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet another thread at ANI from this editor that didn't need to be here, and should have been submitted elsewhere. See User_talk:Toketaa#Use_of_ANI for context. Needs to stop. Daniel (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't know about SPI at the time of typing. You can partial block me from here if needed. Toketaa^talk 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, For most functions, you can go to the search box and simply add WP: ahead of the topic you wish to find out more about (and locate the relevant noticeboards). For example WP:Sockpuppet; WP:Conflict of interest; WP:Copyright violation, and so on are shortcuts to some common topics for which we have guidance and policies. Also, Twinkle is very helpful and easy to use. I recommend you consider trying it out. — Diannaa (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page has a listing of commonly needed areas as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toketaa, was there any reason why you reverted to restored poorly-sourced (WP:PRIMARY) material not once but twice? Daniel (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know what was happening. I just tried to revert the one that was flagged as vandalism. Toketaa^talk 14:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

17:44, 5 February 2024: edited to remove the content. 17:47, 5 February 2024: edited to add the content. If you don't know what is happening, maybe just leave it for others? Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was just confused there, first I reverted the flagged vandalism, then rollbacked to the last edit before the edit war started. Toketaa^talk 15:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

A bit late, but just to add: if the socking is that level of obvious, AIV is often a better place to report it than SPI. Easier to report, and saves clerk manpower. (If there would be a 100% sure case for an impersonation block if they turned out to be different users, AIV is the place, otherwise SPI) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DE Block

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

---

Toketaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked because they magically quit socking and badgering editors long enough to get the standard offer (User_talk:Toketaa#Appeal_for_standard_offer) and I understand why they were procedurally unblocked. (Funny that they didn't know about SPI at the time of typing). But their disruption in the short time back has already been more trouble than their edits are worth. I was toying with a project-space block, but I'm really wondering whether we need their edits at all. If folks are in support of one more chance (again), I think this really should be the final straw because they seem both unable and unwilling to listen to the advice provided. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice made to user, courtesy pings to @Daniel Case @Bbb23 @NinjaRobotPirate @331dot who have actioned their blocks/unblock requests Star Mississippi 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this situation. However, I'll note that people are always going on about how "reblocks are cheap". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not know how to open an investigation, I did know what SPI was. Toketaa^talk 14:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would say just 6 month partial block me from SPI and ANI and maybe RFPP and AIV, but if you wanna do indef partial its ok with me :) Toketaa^talk 15:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand; you are one single annoyed administrator away from being indef blocked sitewide. A block I am 99% sure will never be undone, based on your history. We are not interested in what block you think you deserve. You are going to (a) have to use your own willpower to avoid posting in project space, (b) not revert edits you don't understand just because they've been "flagged" as vandalism, and (c) generally stop being a timesink for other good faith editors, many of whom have been trying to help you. p.s. if your response to this is "I didn't understand SPI", I'll block you myself right now. Zero more careless edits. Literally zero. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that Toketaa should be indefinitely blocked sitewide. They've been unblocked for only a month, and they persist in exercising poor judgment in a number of areas, not just in project space. The core of the problem is their immaturity and inability to control their impulses, which, unfortunately, are often wrong. They also often acknowledge rebukes and seem to say they will do better, but they fail to do so. I do not believe they are malicious; nor do I believe they are socking again, but they are not an asset to the project. Some examples of bad judgment. They patrol edits by others as a sort of counter-vandalism. Yet, they often don't warn users when reverting them, even though they've been told by another editor and by me that they should. They also revert users for things other than vandalism, but don't provide an edit summary. Warning editors and providing edit summaries are not required, but undoing another editor's work without an edit summary is not something anyone should be doing - unless it's vandalism or at least something akin to vandalism. They even have on their userpage (not sure when they put it on because they mess around with their userpage frequently) the following: "I revert all vandalism but only warn user accounts, not IP's." OTOH, it's very honest, but OTOH it's not a thing I'd brag about. Same thing in a userbox that they revert users "manually", not with Twinkle. That's because they don't like using "tools". Okay, their privilege, but why not? Apparently, I didn't object to the user being unblocked (must've had some discussion somewhere other than their Talk page because it isn't there and Daniel Case, who was the unblocker, said he would consult with me). Anyway, if the user is indeffed, I recommend an extended standard offer, at least a year before they can request an unblock and explain how they've changed. I just can't imagine that less than a year would cut it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  You assented to the unblock here.

  I do think they're sincere about wanting to do right, but I admit I don't know them as well as others here seem to and thus I defer to their judgement about a reblock. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. I agree about their sincerity, but, unfortunately, good intentions go only so far given all the points I've made above about their editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Goodbye... Been nice to see you :( Toketaa^talk 13:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• This (especially the edit summary) is just bizarre. Support indefinite block for CIR-related reasons. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ill just support, no rebuttal. Bye. Toketaa^talk 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Cynic in me wonders about the connection to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Something_horrifying_happened_to_me_this_afternoon_(based_on_my_time_zone,_Eastern_Time)... @Daniel Star Mississippi 01:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reading that thread, I don't understand why NoobThreePointOh says that Toketaa "know[s] about this IP".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 I remember on that IP's talk page, I found one comment from Toketaa saying to the IP that Writ Keeper blocked the IP. So I'm just saying it based on assumption. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was reverting the blanking but the block notice got caught up there so I had to add it back. Toketaa^talk 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's my take on it, too, it's actually fairly typical of Toketaa's interference in things that don't concern them. To the extent Star Mississippi is implying that the IP and and Toketaa are the same person, I seriously doubt it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Was gonna say this earlier on that thread but after FloquenBeam's comment I stayed silent for a while. Toketaa^talk 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry @Bbb23 that isn't what I meant to say. I'm just finding Toketaa and Noob's meddling a little curious. I have no doubt that Noob was harassed. But Tok is worried about folks finding them and Noob jumps in with an LTA so I think there's something else going on here. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Definitely nothing with me. I'm just here to have a general discussion on certain comments. In fact, the LTA one where I commented is certainly true. I actually remember that user continuously closing AfDs, which is something I still kept in my mind until now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Welp... Gotta go to bed now, so this will be my final comment. Farewell, and see you in around 1 year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This thread was started by Star Mississippi. My reading of their comments was that Toketaa should be sanctioned for their conduct since being unblocked last month, but SM wasn't sure whether it should be a project space pblock, a sitewide block, or a final warning. Since then, the thread has not attracted a great deal of attention. Daniel and I have explicitly stated that Toketaa should be indeffed. Daniel Case, the unblocking admin, appears to consent to a reblock. Floquenbeam, in their usual blunt style, gave Toketaa a zero-tolerance warning, but did not expressly object to a block. Toketaa, in their odd manner, supported an indefinite block, and posted "Blocked INDEF. Goodbye." to their userpage in anticipation. I'd like to wrap this up and will indefinitely block Toketaa unless someone objects (I believe I've pinged everyone involved). To be clear, my block would not be a community ban as there was no formal proposal or clear consensus to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  No objection. See you in a year and 3 months. Toketaa^talk 16:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming your assessment of my comments. The disruption I was most aware of was project space, which is why I started there. And confirming I have no objection to the original unblock. There was no policy based reason to retain the block. Star Mississippi 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Confirming I agree with your summary and support the proposed action. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I just indefinitely blocked Toketaa. As far as I'm concerned, this thread (main and sub) may be closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article

XMcan (talk · contribs) was page blocked from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk page for disruptive editing. Since then, the majority of their editing has been to James A. Lindsay and that article's talk page. Their focus has been to remove mention of Lindsay's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). There has been other disruption along the way, such as reverting attempts to add sourcing or labeling edits they disagree with vandalism. I submit that the disruption the block was intended to prevent has simply moved to a new article. Can something be done about this? MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out here is that XMcan said, here, on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that it was decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns about that article (in a context where they were generally discussing, and showing familiarity with, decade-old Wikipedia disputes on that topic.) Yet XMcan's edit history has only five edits prior to December 2022, none on that topic. The dispute on that topic a decade ago involved a large number of WP:SPIs, throwaway accounts, and so on, many of whom ended up facing sanctions for the sort of behavior XMcan is exhibiting now; I suspect it's possible that XMcan is among that number and switched accounts to evade scrutiny. Their response when I asked them about this - which I think was a reasonable thing to ask, under the circumstances, in order to give them a chance to explain the discrepancy - was to deflect. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had never even heard of CMCT/FSCT until November '23 when I first stumbled upon the Lindsay BLP. The dinosaur reference was simply an inartful quip about my age. Can we please refrain from making further bad-faith aspersions? XMcan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @XMcan:, regardless of your age, how can you have "broached our concerns" a decade ago about something you first heard of last year? Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I remember about the post in question is that I had just finished reading the 2014 Slate article, which explains the history behind FSCT/CMCT/CM pages and how they were merged. I was excited to learn that even the great JW shared my misgivings about the CM=CMCT equivalency. In my excitement to show how JW and I are on the same side of this issue, I misspoke. BTW, it was that Talk post that led to my p-block. XMcan (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To state the obvious, there's no guarantee Jimbo was ever on the same side as you, at least in a temporal sense. What Jimbo felt in 2014 might not be what they felt nearly 10 years later, and you didn't feel it until recently. Those of us who are actually dinosaurs in a Wikipedia sense have been on various "sides" of this throughout the years. Plenty of editors still feel the same they did 10 years ago, but some don't.

  Anyway if you had offered this explanation when asked the first time, I think plenty of us would have been willing to accept that at face value. (I mean I think we can all accept you misspoke, but there are various ways that might have happened.)

  But the fact you've been persistently evasive about it and we've had to drag something resembling an explanation out if you, means the existing doubts are compounded. There might not be enough for any sanction, but we're all free to disengage from you when it isn't necessary. In this case, while you seem to have raised some legitimate concerns (without having looked at the sources), I have no desire to help someone who could be a sock; and the BLP issues seem to minor to worry so I doubt I'll look into it further. I might not be the only one.

  Consider this carefully the next time you decide to evade legitimate concerns about your activity. Plenty of us actual dinosaurs, for good reason based on long experience, detest socks, and are very reluctant to get anywhere near anything involving them unless it's to counter them and we feel we can do it fairly. If there are socking concerns and these are unanswered, this might lead to the same result. Sometimes the concerns are great enough that we get involved anyway, but not always. Socks never seem to understand that they're generally achieving the opposite of what they seem to aim to achieve.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To give a different example of what I mean about the temporal issue, let's say an 18 year old, opposed to same-sex marriage says Barack Obama shares the same views as me! In that cases it's an even weirder statement since we actually know he doesn't. Yes when this person was about 2 years old, Obama may have said something similar about same-sex marriage. But by the time this person was about 7, Obama had already came out fully in favour of same-sex marriage Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage. So to get so excited about the fact their views matched at different points in time, is just odd. To be clear, I'm not aware Jimbo has expressed any differing views on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's not something I care about. I just find it odd you'd get so excited about something nearly 10 years old, when the world especially the US and Wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure Jimbo Wales has moved on a lot since then. For example, this was before Trump's presidency run and so before post-truth, alternative facts, fake news and the Intellectual dark web took on their modern realities in the US political environment. (For example, consider that Dave Rubin was still with the TYT at the time.) It was also at a time when Fox News caused some concerns but their news arm was often an acceptable source without question especially outside of politics and science since they hadn't yet gone all in with the election results denial angle. I mean heck Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources didn't even exist, and WP:DAILYMAIL style source deprecation had never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there any reason to believe that extending the partial block to also cover James A. Lindsay would do any good? Having already migrated from one venue to another, taking the disruption with them, it seems likely that this would just be repeated in a third place. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could do the trick but I am doubtful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

XMcan's reverts here are not disruptive. This article has a blatant BLP issue, and XMcan has challenged content that I have also challenged, within a WP:BRD process. What's being attempted here in this ANI is to silence and minimize dissent through sanctioning. This is a move we've seen many times before, and it's the reason we have a huge bias problem across Wikipedia when it comes to politically-charged topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As Jweiss11 correctly points out, this is first and foremost a content dispute. Editors can scan through the current Talk discussion and assure themselves that my posts are civil and on-topic, unlike some other posts, which have, in some cases, focused on the messenger rather than the message. Whenever I mentioned the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory in Talk, it was solely in relation to the BLP and not as a soapbox about the CMCT article. (e.g., [41]) I’ve learned my lesson from Valereee’s ban not to soapbox in Talk, a fact that they can hopefully confirm in this ANI.

Meanwhile, Aquillion and MrOllie have been repeatedly trying to add new controversial material to the BLP without addressing already raised problems with the existing statements/sources. (e.g., [42][43][44] ) When challenged on policy grounds such as WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and in contravention of consensus from prior discussions, and in contravention of WP:BLPUNDEL, they still restore this content falsely claiming consensus or asserting that there is no need for further discussion.[45][46][47] This approach is not helpful on any article, let alone on a BLP, where the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

In summary, rather than solving this content dispute through Talk or bringing it to the appropriate venue, such as the BLP noticeboard, MrOllie and Aquillion are attempting to silence and intimidate dissenting voices. This constitutes a misuse of the ANI process. Therefore, a boomerang for both parties should be considered. XMcan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. XMcan, it's completely appropriate to call out an editor's behavior in a content dispute; that's not focussing on the messenger. It isn't inappropriate to ask about a statement you've made that implied you might be a returned editor using a new account. It's also completely appropriate for someone to bring what they in good faith believe is a behavior issue to ANI.

That said, at a BLP, continuing to argue against content when there's not clear consensus to include it is something we should encourage. Especially when it's at articles about US conservatives. We do in fact have a tendency to treat such subjects less neutrally.

That said, XMcan is a bit long-winded -- XM, I'd definitely recommend you learn how to write short -- and it's very hard to tell whether there's bludgeoning or sealioning going on. I just brought a case of very clear sealioning here, the worst I've ever personally been involved with, and only two admins apparently were willing to read the diffs because proving sealioning requires so many of them.

Is there any reason one of you hasn't opened an RfC or taken this to BLPN or NPOVN or whatever's the most appropriate noticeboard? Valereee (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question and comment Question: was the tban for a specific article or a topic. If an editor is tbanned from article A then they aren't allowed to edit the article or the talk page. If they are tbanned from the topic A then they can't edit article A or content about A at related articles. I would not view an article ban as a topic ban. Comment: I don't see any clear examples of problematic behavior at the BLP in question. I do see an editor who perhaps should be more brief/selective in their replies but that is about it. Certainly nothing that requires intervention or blocking based on what seem on the surface to be legitimate BLP concerns. Note that one may ultimately not have consensus for their BLP concerns but that doesn't mean their concerns were without merit. Springee (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was no tban, it was a p-block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edit warring continues while this ANI is open [48]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [49] article in question and do not be taken in by the misleading summaries offered in this thread. Promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory by Lindsay and the other figures examined is the main topic of the citation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that content is in dispute and given this is a BLP and NOCON it's probably best to run a RfC to decide if the material should be included. Springee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edits like these really make this feel like sealioning. A simple search for "cultural marxism" shows that it's mentioned in the article. There are several other examples including edit with misleading edit summaries. I think it's worth noting that after being banned from editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory wikipedia page, the first thing XMcan did was to attempt to remove any mention of CMCT from another page. I don't think reaching consensus will be possible as long as he is able to edit the page. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing that's confusing a lot of people (and giving the false impression that XMCan is "sealioning") is a failure to differentiate between 1) "cultural Marxism" as an observation about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly and 2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that a bunch of Jews somewhere are secretly plotting to destroy civilization. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference, it’s just that modern mainstream discourse doesn’t bring up the Jew thing because it looks bad and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What? There's a significant difference. The former is Marxist cultural analysis, the latter is the unfounded conspiracy theory based on Jews taking over the world via socialism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

An observation [by the right] about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly is certainly not Marxist cultural analysis.  Tewdar  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to highlight some recent contributions I've made to the Lindsay BLP that are unrelated to the FSCT/CMCT issue:

1. I identified a missing date of birth in one of the sources.[50]
2. I corrected an error regarding Lindsay's undergraduate degree, which had been incorrectly listed since “forever”.[51]
3. I eliminated duplicate citations.[52]
4. I attempted to improve BLP tags and LP descriptors, although I ultimately abandoned this effort due to a lack of consensus.[53]

In contrast to my contributions, it's worth examining the efforts of those who advocate for my ban. Have their actions truly enhanced the quality of the BLP? Upon reviewing their recent contributions, it becomes apparent that their focus predominantly revolves around portraying Lindsay in a negative light. XMcan (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Yotrages

On the article about singer Wizkid, User: Yotrages is purposely altering direct quotes and violating WP: NPOV. Following my correction of his fake altered quotes in the "Legacy" section of the article, he's continuously restoring them despite being notified for it. Even after a lengthy message left by User: Vanderwaalforces on his talk page, he refuses to understand that a statement like “Wizkid is regarded as an African living legend” is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind is editing per his own opinion and violating WP:NPOV, he has removed lots of fairly written and reliably sourced contents without reason. He's also owning the article, he has already changed the article's lead section, in which I didn't revert. So he's also trying to change the whole page without tangible reasons, and based on some rubbish excuses. And he's even accusing me of being a fan of the artist, in which i'm not. Yotrages (talk) 16: 29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“without reason”? I have written in every single edit summary of the article the reasons of my edits, that are: removing altered fabricated quotes, change the wording per WP: NPOV, and fixing genres per Wikipedia:Independent sources. Everyone can check that you altered almost every quote in the legacy section, please stop it.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

These are your edits. You surely have some nerve accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. This is you, caught red handed altering quotes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: @SarekOfVulcan: has increased the protection level of the Wizkid article to allow only administrators to edit it, which is a prudent measure to end the dispute between you two. As I mentioned here, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article and address the NPOV issues, this is a simple matter that can be resolved without involving any administrator who has other priorities to deal with. The WP:3RR is there to advise us, but you both disregarded it.

@SarekOfVulcan please I would suggest that, in the future, the protection level should be reduced as its current level won't allow other productive editors who are not administrator to edit the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The full protection is set to expire tomorrow, so this shouldn't be an issue. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind can you heard that? we both violated WP:NPOV, so don't act like you're doing a good job to the article. And I wasn't caught red-handed or whatever I rephrased those qoutes, and about the first one, I gave you three tangible source deeming him "One of the greatest". so I think you're on your own. Yotrages (talk) 4:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages, no one said that Dolly's edits violated POV, but I'll say that your edits were not productive. Besides the overlinking and the excessive quoting, there's statements like this, "Wizkid's contributions to the Nigerian music industry have earned him several achievements"--no, he did not get a Grammy for contributing to the Nigerian music industry; he got one for best video, apparently. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that @Yotrages: is continuing his editing with personal attacks, removing POV templates to articles with active discussions on their talk pages (1, 2) DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more falsified quotes, as noted by @Schazjmd: DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

sneakily removing other editors' comments during active discussions in Schazjmd talk page DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages uses a mobile editor, so I believe them when they said that removal was inadvertent. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Quissie

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

The new user Quissie appears to be making lots of unsourced or copyvio edits. I'm wondering if it is some sort of AI bot? It might be good for an admin to simply undo all of them, since there's a lot. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at more of their edits, I think this is a real person, but they don't source things and they introduce errors in grammar or facts. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Noting that Inter has temporarily blocked Quissie and that several editors (including myself) have reverted some of the aforementioned edits. I'm inclined to believe that they are a real person and are not editing in bad faith, but rather with a bit of zeal coupled with not fully understanding some of the relevant policies and guidelines. I don't think there is anything else to do unless some pattern of problematic editing and/or lack of communication emerges once the block expires. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Pitsarotta

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

Personal attack, Nazi allegation, refusal to get the point: [54] --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The other user has made pretty convincing points and was relatively polite throughout the entire interaction, and why did you have that flag on your profile? I don't see anything relating to that user really justifying an ANI. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The user has committed WP:PERSONALATTACK (You espouse a murderous ideology and bring shame to the Ukrainian nation), violated WP:CIVILITY rule, made racist, xenophobic, Nazi and Fascist allegation (It's ironic that someone who worships fascist killers would dare accuse anyone else of racism. I hope you see some sense one day) and Ad hominem tu quoque argument, refused to get the point and assume good faith (I can no longer believe ANY of your contributions here (both the actual article and this talk page) were made in good faith and take back all I've just said). Their behavior is disruptive and offensively to me, harms to find a WP:CONSENSUS and build an encyclopedia and I ask their block as a deterrent to such unacceptable behavior.

I do not share the aggressive ethnic nationalist ideology of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and condemn every single one war crime and crime against humanity committed by the OUN and UPA, as well as any other crime ever committed in the world. This flag was used long before the creation of the UPA by the Ukrainian Cossacks, you can see these flags in the Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks painting. I've used this flag as a historical symbols of my country and never as a hate one, I've immediately expressed a will to remove it when realized that picture of this symbol can be offensive for certain groups of the users and removed it as as soon as I was unlocked.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that Pitsarotta is what they claimed you were, which is odd. I don't see any instances of them worshipping "fascist killers". LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that. It was the quotes. Read what I wrote more closely, if you do not understand something because of my level of English, you can ask me about it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh in English quotes tend to be denoted by "quotation marks" not (ellipses). Apologies for misunderstanding your comment and hope this helps. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I know. Now I realized that I should have use both ellipses and quotation marks. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Volodymyr, you know very well what that flag means today. Historically it was used by Ukrainian fascist groups who committed atrocious war crimes and ethnically cleansed their region of Poles, Jews, Czechs, and Russians. Today it is used by the Ukrainian far-right and neo-Nazi organisations in Ukraine that see those same butchers as personal heroes. It's a horrendous stain on otherwise quite friendly and warm relations between Ukraine and Poland in the present day. Why did it take a block and unblock for you to remove that hateful symbol from your profile, I wonder? --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already said: I DON'T SHARE THIS IDEOLOGY and I've removed this flag when I've understood basically exactly what you just said. Doesn't matter which flag I've had in past on my profile page, that's not a Nazi flag or SS insignia, there's no any human rights group which recognize this flag as Nazi or/and hate symbol, nor ADL, nor Freedom House, Wikipedia is just not a place to call your opponent in discussion 'Banderite' and accuse them on supporting of massacres. Your words have grossly insulted me. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr

(edit conflict) It seems to me like the content addition you've made is heavy on soapboxing and low on quality secondary sourcing. It is almost as if your edits were nationalist POV-pushing. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:BOOMERANG is in order. I suspect that @UA0Volodymyr is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that UA0Volodymyr seems to be skirting their topic ban with several edits recently. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban is on themes related to the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, Rosa Luxemburg was German and Polish, not Russian. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment says "the general classification of their words on Ukrainians (In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture". This seems like a violation of the Russia-Ukraine topic ban, no? Daniel (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to the topic ban being broadly construed I would say so. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand what do words of the born in Poland German writer of Jewish origin have to do with Russo-Ukrainian conflicts of my topic ban on this theme. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If Rosa was Russian maybe, but I thought she was German. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;". Based on this, I believe you making comments and edits relating to Rosa's views on Ukraine in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict amount to a pretty clear breach of your topic ban. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't related to the context of the Russia-Ukraine, she didn't support any side of the conflict, but denied the existence of the Ukrainian nation and language as whole, not only in the conflict's context. That's not about Ukrainian revolution of 1917-1921 or something else, that's just a regular xenophobia of unrelated person. This has as much to do with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as regular anti-Semitism has to do with World War II. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is against the letter and spirit of the "broadly construed" clause in the topic ban. I agree that the edits violate the topic ban for "Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed". Calling out Luxemburg's book about the Russian revolution as part of characterizing her views about Ukrainian nationhood makes the violation clear. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is exactly what "broadly construed" means. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DISPUTES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES RUSSIA AND UKRAINE, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A dispute about Ukrainian nationalism during the Russian revolution by a German communist. You seem to misunderstand the tban and what 'broadly construed' would include. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The existence of the nation and denying of it has to do with neither nationalism or revolution. You ignore an obvious violation of CIVILITY by Mr. @Pitsarotta. That's unacceptable. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow you really need to read WP:BATTLEGROUND, as for you totally unfounded aspersions they are also not something acceptable here.

Anything discussing the dispute between Ukraine and Russia is covered by that topic ban, and what you added was about that dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: dispute between Ukraine and Russia, not dispute between the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language and German communist. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I just can't understand how you see a distinction here, the content is without question covered by your topic ban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you've made it up. Rosa Luxemburg was not Russian and I've written her general opinion on the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not her opinion on nationalism and revolution. That's a TBAN on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, not on the all themes related to Ukraine. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No I haven't made it up. Your topic ban is not in regard to "the Russo-Ukriane conflict" it's a topic ban from "disputes involving Russia and Ukraine broadly construed". That broadly construed covers a German communist talking about Russian claims to Ukraine during the Russian revolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I was not written about the Russian revolution, I've written "In the The Russian Revolution work, Rosa Luxemburg is convinced that Ukrainians have never been a nation, have not had their own government, and have no national culture, except for the poetry of Taras Shevchenko. She compared them to Bavarians:" and after there is a quote proving it. The quote has mention of the "Ukrainian nationalism in Russia", but not the revolution and what I've written has mention of neither Russia, nationalism or revolution, except for the name of work and no more. You're trying to find a rule violation where there isn't and can't be one. That's an obvious violation of the WP:BURO and no more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the fact you can't see the issue is worse than the infraction itself, this isn't BURO it's an inability to see something very obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I also just wanna add that Rosa Luxemburg technically was Russian, in that she was a subject of the Russian Empire like all Poles living in the Russian Partition were. Though yes, she was Polish Jewish by ethnicity, later becoming a naturalised German citizen through marriage to an old friend's son (the marriage was done only so that she could stay in Germany). Apparently Russian women who married foreign men automatically lost Russian subject status, but I don't know if this was still the case in 1897 when this marriage happened. And I'm not sure if Luxemburg continue to be considered a subject of the Russian Empire at that point anyway, given her opposition against the tsarist regime and the repressions she faced due to it. Regardless, as others have pointed out, all of this is clearly within the scope of your topic ban. --Pitsarotta (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr Being very serious, either show prove that You are putting pressure on me because of your political views is true or strike it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I've confused you with Mr. @LegalSmeagolian. Excuse me, I'm gonna strike it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You still seem to have a very battlefield mentality, you might not have made that mistake otherwise. If other editors disagree with you that doesn't make them your enemies. As to LegalSmeagolian comment it should be struck, but if you had a swastika on your user page because you were a Buddhist you might be asked some probing questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here as an enemies, I'v just tired of these senseless and bureaucratic accusations and because of this I've confused two users. I apologize again and emphasize that I have no bad faith regarding this encyclopedia, I just want to help to build it and build a consensus regarding disputed points and Mr. @Pitsarotta got in the way of that by deeply insulting me, accusation me on what I do not do, basically accused me in the support of the horrible Volyn massacres and pogroms and refused to get the point and now I ask for a precautionary measure for him. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What about this also? You literally link "Ukrainian War of Independence". Daniel (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting it, UA0Volodymyr.

UA0Volodymyr earlier changing that wiki link pipe to Ukrainian War of Independence was definitely a violation of the topic ban. That combined with edits pertaining to the Rosa Luxemburg topic make me worry UA0Volodymyr isn't willing to adhere to the terms of the topic ban (which includes the topic and ban being broadly construed). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I forgot about ban being broadly construed to all pages while adding this link, sorry. If you want me to not edit even on accusation of anti-Ukrainian sentiment people who have nothing to do with Russia and Ukraine you should have grant me a topic ban on all themes related to Ukraine, but now it's just a ban on Russo-Ukrainian conflict and not more. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what the words "broadly construed" cover. Just stay away from Russia/Russians and Ukraine/Ukrainians entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not. TBan is on Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on Ukraine in general. You are deliberately interpreting the rules to suit yourself and against me. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We are a bunch of uninvolved editors who are trying to help - talking about historical perceptions of a the formation and existence Ukrainian state closely parallels some of the modern discourse and thus, when the ban is broadly construed, it applies here. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

State has nothing to do with that, I've written about the obvious denying of the existence of the Ukrainian nation, culture and language, not a state. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of hairsplitting is not helping you. If you aren't willing to abide the broadly construed ban, then what will you abide? Perhaps the community could propose a topic ban for you from Russia and Ukraine, but I have to wonder: will you hair-split that and write about Crimea and Kievan Rus'? I wonder if some other editing restriction will be more effective. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. I have in plan to complete an Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia article with translation from the Russian Wikipedia and complete some article about Ukrainian settlements, for example Milove.

Stop trying to expand a topic ban to areas unrelated to it. If you for some reason, which I do not understand, because I, unlike Mr. @Pitsarotta didn't violate any rule, was civil and I agree with the revert of my edits by Mr. @LegalSmeagolian, because I agree that the Zbruch newspaper is a weak source for the English Wikipedia, don't want me to edit any article related to Ukraine just give me a complete topic ban for this whole theme, don't game the system and evaluate my actions and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions equally, otherwise I have a right to request arbitration, which will independently assess whether my actions are in line with the topic ban and Mr. @Pitsarotta's actions are with WP:CIVILITY.

Thank you.

UA0Volodymyr (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just friendly advice: don't expand an article about a Ukrainian town under Russian occupation if you're topic-banned from the Russia-Ukraine conflict broadly construed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I can expand a sections of the article unrelated to the conflict(s). Topic ban is not for all Eastern Ukrainian towns, it is for the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it's realistically possible. I strongly suspect if you try, you'll cross the line and rightfully end up blocked. If you no longer wish to end, the better solution is to voluntarily stop editing rather than force us to block you. Also even if it were possible for an editor with a decent understanding of their topic ban and who is very diligent in ensuring they stay away from it, it seems clear this isn't you. I see at least one acknowledged mistake editing in violation of your topic ban, requiring a revert here, as well as the Rosa Luxemburg which it sounds like you still don't see as a problem. And checking out your user page makes it seem you've violated your topic ban before too. Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) Yeah The Russian Revolution work is obviously within the bounds of the topic ban, thus a t-ban violation. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not even sure what is being discussed here. The user has been indef blocked. They were recently unblocked with the condition of a topic ban on everything related to RUSUKR broadly construed. Then they go and violate the topic ban. Logically, send them back to the indef block. If they can not understand the scope of their topic ban, they should not be editing Wikipedia. If they understand but are willingly walking at the edge, even worse.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the re-implementation of the indefinite block that was lifted last month. In the month since they've been unblocked, they have been re-blocked for a week for "CheckUser block per ticket:2024012610005944: abuse of email and violation of TBAN" by Maxim. This, combined with the failure to get the point above and the stated intention to continue to breach their topic ban as interpreted by everyone else uninvolved, means this editor should be re-blocked indefinitely. I would have done it myself but given I offered an opinion above about the topic-ban, someone could potentially argue that I am involved (although I don't believe I am) - but better to be safe than sorry. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I support a block as well. Ymblanter and Daniel have summed it up. UA0Volodymyr's explicitly stated intention to continue violating the topic ban and its broad construal, WP:IDHT behavior, and refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the community's interpretation of the topic ban all provide ample reason to reinstate the block. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the below comment, I do not have good faith that they can edit outside this topic area. Reinstate the indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I emplore UA0Volodymyr to understand that the tban is "disputes between Russia and Ukraine" not "Russo-Ukrainian conflicts". Unless they can show they understand why their edits were in breach of the tban I don't see how they will not make the same mistake again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if my voice counts here at all as I was accused of a bunch of stuff by Volodymyr, so I understand I'm not a neutral party and that's also why I preferred to stay out of this mess until now. However, if I do get a say then I would also like to support a block. The user has clearly breached the topic ban, they also came up with a bunch of ridiculous accusations against me. I still see no problem with most of their earlier additions to the Rosa Luxemburg article and I assumed good faith throughout the entirety of the discussion that happened at Talk:Rosa Luxemburg, up until the moment I saw the hateful stuff on their profile. I was not even aware of a topic ban until I read this discussion. I also think the fact it took a block and unblock for the user to remove that hateful flag from their profile is telling.--Pitsarotta (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this flag because I've understood that it actually can be offensive to the certain groups of the users, not because I was blocked, I wasn't blocked for completely different thing. And again, stop discussing personalities, Wikipedia is not the place for that. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place for violating topic bans, but UA0Volodymyr has edited material pertaining to broadly construed disputes between Russia and Ukraine. On February 10, UA0Volodymyr added to the Quasi-state article a table entry and wikilink for West Ukrainian People's Republic, a quasi-state that broke from the Ukrainian People's Republic as part of a dispute over whether to form an alliance with Poland against Russia. Diffs: [55], [56], [57], [58] As the ban is broadly construed, this continued behavior of skirting the topic rather than keeping a wide berth seems concerning. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. I didn't know about this alliance, I thought that ZUNR was never in direct conflict with Russia, nor White or Red. Also ZUNR didn't break from UNR it broke from Austro-Hungary. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I admit that my actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban and promise to not do such actions anymore, also I've also lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article and Pitsarotta user and I don't want to participate in this discussion anymore. --UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Racism

This page → https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deslocalizaci%C3%B3n Contains a racist caricature of asian people. This is unacceptable, it's asian hate

Please remove immediately

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Yann_Wehrling_(%22delocalisation2%22)-01.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.63.120 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's Spanish Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing that English Wikipedia admins can do about vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia; you need to contact the equivalent page to ANI there. If you need help with this, see the Embassy or the Spanish Wikipedia equivalency. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Paid editing scam involving User:BradKins

User:BradKins has twice used my account name in edit summaries in a strange attempt at avoiding attribution for page moves.

In November 2023, they tried to move Draft:Lamar Richardson to main space with the edit summary "Moved by wikishovel".

Now they've tried it again at Manfred Little Konzett, with the edit summary Wikishovel approved this page. No idea why they chose my name: I've had no involvement with either page, and as far as I can tell no involvement with any edits by User:BradKins. Revenge for previous SPIs is one possibility. The article creator of Manfred Little Konzett appears to an innocent victim of a paid editing scam: they wrote that they were approached via email by another user (whom I'll assume was BradKins), and has just now confirmed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manfred Little Konzett that they were asked for payment for this.

This isn't the first time my name's been used in a paid editing scam: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User Wikishovel asking for money to publish our company. Wikishovel (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Now blocked. Looks like they also tried to "impersonate" AlanM1. At least these strange attributions in edit summaries should make the ring easier to spot in the future. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Salto Loco and continued tendentious editing

Salto Loco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been blocked three times and warned multiple times for tendentious editing (including vandalism) in RUSUKR topics. Now we had this, which is either vandalism or POV pushing borderline vandalism. Probably a long-term block is needed now. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits such as this one suggest perhaps a topic ban is needed as a minimum. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vandalism, and a long-term block (possibly an indef block) is needed. This is not the first such edit. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

207.144.23.222 edit warring

Repeatedly reverting warnings and editing my messages, see page hist. Could someone revoke tpa? JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the declined unblock requests and removed talk page access for the duration of the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: Could you please modify your signature to comply with MOS:ACCESS? You current colour combo makes it virtually unreadable (at least to me).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I've also left a request to that effect on their talk page. Bazza (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's even less readable for me... (check the contrast checker, you'd want at bare minimum 4.5 of contrast and it's best to aim for 7) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this ok?

JayCubby plz edit my user pg! Talk 17:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that works! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the admin comments be restored to what they used to be? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Recentcontribution2000 and nationality changes

• Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all edits by Recentcontribution2000 (talk · contribs) consist of changing/modifying the nationality. They started off by replacing "Russian" with "Ukrainian" for 18th- and 19th-century artists, even if there was already source cited (see for example this). Other times they would use low-quality sources for this. I warned them about MOS:NATIONALITY and how ethnicity should generally not be used unless they could first demonstrate that most sources refer to an artist in a certain way but they decided to again continue with mass changes adding "of Ukrainian origin" without any sources. See for example this edit on Kazimir Malevich. This may be something covered by RUSUKR but I am not certain. Mellk (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All of my contributions are complimented with researched and verified sources, I have corrected any of my consensus errors and read up on the consensus of naming and nationality. Everything i am editing is both historically accurate and important contextually. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Further: I'm seeing a double standard/bias for Ukrainian born artists who grew up in the Russian Empire. See Chopin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin -- born March 1, 1810 in what is called "Poland", but was at the time not Polish land. Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

See also this edit on Ilya Repin. They did this based on "Resembles more closely the Ukrainain article (the artists birth country)" even though there are a bunch of references there. Mellk (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

All references acknowledge Repin's Ukrainian origin. for further reading: https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/finnish-museum-acknowledges-painter-ilya-repin-long-classified-russian-as-ukrainian-1234694820/

Artist Ripin and journalist Hilyarovsky corresponded in Ukrainian. They were united by their love for Ukraine

Repin, Malevich and 5 more Ukrainian artists who were appropriated by Russia

One of the world's largest museums, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, recognized Ilya Ripin and Ivan Aivazovsky as Ukrainian, not Russian, artists

Vsevolod Mikhailovich Garshin (1855–1888) Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One edit to this initial claim by Mallk -- All of the pages I was editing came from the wikipedia page titled "List of Ukrainian Artists" Recentcontribution2000 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that per WP:RUSUKR this user, who has 29 edits, is prohibited from making the edits mentioned above. I have now made it clear at their talk page. If they continue (which means if they make one more edit like this) the account must be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Some IP is trying to hack my account

This evening, I discovered a bunch of failed logon attempts and an email about a temporary password. I was off-wiki during this time.

I have two-factor authentication, so they aren't going to get anywhere, and my password hasn't been guessed. Should I ignore it or escalate it? I've got the IP address (clearly not mine) and can forward that to Trust and Safety, or whoever deals with these matters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether you should report it, as it may be different for admin accounts, but if it happened to me and there were no indicators of compromise, I wouldn't personally. To reduce unwanted reset password emails though, you can enable the "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." setting in Preferences. FozzieHey (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Likely some LTA, I yesterday had the same clearly as a consequence of some protections I made on Commons. If you are sure it did not have any consequences, just ignore it. Ymblanter (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It happens to me from time to time too...I just ignore it. Lectonar (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of user rights

I would like to request that all my user rights be revoked, including extended confirmed. Hurricane Noah (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hurricane Noah, all done. Please do advise if you'd ever like some or all returned in the future. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NewPedia24

While going on my recent changes patrol, I came across a very strange number of edits from one user in particular: User:NewPedia24.

Their user page is (and please don't misinterpret this as a personal attack) a complete mess as of this writing. [59] They say on their talk page that they support the Communist Party of Russia... and like Ronald Reagan? [60]

But I'm not getting to the point. Their edits borderline on vandalism, and they outright admit that they have a strong opinion on the subjects of the articles they edit. Take their edit to the Rage Against the Machine article, in which they say in their edit summary "Hate it so much I am a moderate haha". They added the descriptor "far-left" to the lead with no sources. [61] Then, weirdly enough, they reverted their own edit. [62]

This isn't just a one-off thing. They've done it many times. They did it on the "Sadegh Omidzadeh" article, and again on the "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" article.

It personally seems to me that they aren't here to make an encyclopedia, but would like to hear them explain their actions - specifically their editorializing and their vandalism. I will notify NewPedia24 on their talk page, and ping them here. @NewPedia24: What do you have to say for yourself?

Please don't read this as a personal attack, and remember to stay civil. Sincerely, Professor Penguino (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. This from today coupled with a very patchy editing history of bizarre editing, in addition to what Professor Penguino outlines above. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel: I just wanted to point out that your block notice (and the ANI notice too, really) is completely covered by a sea of userpage boxes that they added to their talk page... – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Should I remove them? I noticed that my ANI notice was buried under all that stuff, but wasn't sure whether I had the right to. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the user boxes. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's fair, it was pretty much violating the purpose of user talk pages (as mentioned at WP:OWNTALK). That and I couldn't figure out a way of just sectioning it off. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping them from adding more user boxes to their user page. Their talk page needs to be functional - and hopefully not a complete mess lol.

Anyway, have a nice day! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Long-term subtly disruptive editing

• The One I Left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've communicated my concerns about The One I Left's behavior directly to them several times over the years.[63] Unfortunately, their edits have continued to involve policy violations,[64] misleading summaries,[65] and questionable lead section changes.[66] The reason I believe this has largely gone unnoticed is that their edits usually involve large chunks of text, requiring a closer inspection. On top of that, they mostly write "added (sourced) content" as summaries. A click on a random recent edit with this summary showed an unsourced claim being added (i.e., the actor's "mixed reviews").[67] Here,[68] they even removed content. During July–August 2023, I found a series of blanket reverts by multiple users that I believe accurately represents the same issues that persist today.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75] KyleJoan^talk 04:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:KyleJoan and I have always had interesting conversations, but my edits have always been in good faith. I think it is not uncommon for people to have disagreements with other people's edits. I have never added anything that is purposely misleading, or false. When i edit I try to add context and sources. You can disagree with me on specific edits and thats fine. I'm sure I could go through other people's pages and disagree with their edits and find some fault with them but I'm not a disruptive editor. I add quality to articles, I don't tare them down Over the years editors have complimented my on the quality of which I add to articles. In 2021 I received a Precious Prize number 2549 for my contributions from User:Gerda Arendt. Again I love discussing specific edits, or changes. I'm not editing to be disruptive but to add quality and I'm open to any and all debate.The One I Left (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You first received a notice about adding unsourced material in March 2019. Almost five years later, you wrote that a BLP subject's film "received mixed reviews but was a commercial success" without sourcing. Do you believe that your good intentions exempt you from the requirement that users adhere to policies and suggestion that we write accurate edit summaries? KyleJoan^talk 14:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Which film are you referring to? Again, I'm open to conversations and debate. But I wouldn't describe my edits as being disruptive or vandalism. I received a Barnstar last year from an editor, I create quality articles, and add sources, and prop up empty articles. I could criticize you when you removed sourced content relating to the entire family history from the Finding Your Roots segment on Sunny Hostin's page.[76]. On one of your edit summaries wrote, "Whaaaat?"[77]. But I don't wanna criticize you or anyone. I feel like this feels like a personal attack when we could have discussions about it. Again I'm always available to speak out or admit a mistake or typo. Just reach out and I will fix it or admit I made a mistake. We are all human. The intention and acts are never disruptive and always in good faith to create a better article.The One I Left (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of this user's edits seem constructive - I understand your frustration for their misleading edit summaries but it seems like a very small percentage of their edits meet this criteria and even then I don't see how they are made in bad faith, as often it looks like some material is sourced and some is not. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I recognize The One I Left does a lot of good work. What's frustrating is encountering the same issues year after year, especially after various notices urging them to exercise more care. If I were to point out every error, I'd write on their talk page almost weekly. They haven't even fixed the errors mentioned here, instead opting to interpret policy issues as "disagreements" and evidence of failures to cite sources as "a personal attack". How is it appropriate after 14,000 edits to add unsourced material sometimes (even under the umbrella of good faith)? KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your problems with my editing tend to veer towards personal disagreements and phrasing issues more than policy issues. Like I also said I could nitpick and point out every error you make and every edit summary you've made but I think that's unfair and wouldn't put you through that. Again, I would not describe my edits as disruptive. I have never added anything that would be considered false and I've never vandalized. I understand the feedback that I need to be more descriptive in my edit summaries but again I'm not a disruptive editor, I do good work, and I act in good faith.The One I Left (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

anonymous edit warring at Sharafutdinov

So, in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharafutdinov&action=history we see that there's an anonymous user who is hell-bent on re-formatting the list. They did it first under the edit summary "normalize", then I tried to meet them half way, but no, it was just not good enough, it was their way or the highway! Three times reverting afterwards. The kind of formatting with a template that they seem to be offended by was included after a discussion in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 20#Sharafutdinov and isn't actually particularly controversial; I've also checked at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#on annotated biography links and two other people brought up some concerns, none of which seem to indicate an actual reason to wage this kind of a holy war over this. So we've gone through WP:BRD, they've engaged in some amount of discussion at the talk pages, but it was mostly wikilawyering, and as there's a fair bit of knowledge of the various intricate Wikipedia procedures, I suspect we're dealing with some form of a previously blocked editor who is using anonymity to continue pushing whatever weird agenda this is. Can another admin please warn this person that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of behavior? --Joy (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't post ANI notices in anonymous talk pages as they already cycled through 3 different IPv6 addresses over the course of this little incident. Maybe a low level of protection is best. --Joy (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This is (a) a content dispute, (b) forum-shopping, and (c) edit-warring by both you and the IP (NB: I have no connection whatever to that IP, I just happened to be reading this page). 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9DF8:8FA0:FB91:68EF (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. both you and the IP (more you) need to start discussing more on the talk page and stop edit warring and making personal attacks on WT:D ("If you actually want to contribute something useful, this is a pretty bad start", "I guess I'm just going to have to ignore further trolling"). This isn't fit for ANI. Also, just a reminder that IP editors are still human, and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're block evading. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've been observing this kind of behavior for decades, so it's hard to keep assuming good faith from people who want to fight over wiki formatting. I've dealt with probably thousands of anonymous editors over time, and indeed I have no idea who either of you are, but it's rare to find people who have such strong views over syntax. This is not normal, or at least it's not supposed to be normal. --Joy (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel

Cornsimpel (talk | contribs) is a user who's been active in Armenia-Azerbaijan and related topics since December 2023, being completely inactive for 2 years previously. I’ve noticed their edits in Anatolia article and reverted them because of the extended confirmed restriction on these topics. I have also warned them of the restriction [78] and reverted other edits covered by it. Nevertheless, Cornsimpel reverted me [79] in violation of the restriction, then made a spree of edits claiming “self-rv” [80] when in actuality they still ended up moving the whole Etymology section which covered Armenian genocide, erasure of Armenia mention and place name changes in the aftermath of the genocide, etc, to the very bottom of the article, just like in their original edit that I reverted. Cornsimpel has done the same thing in other articles under the restriction, reverting and restoring their edits [81], [82] claiming "not within ec restriction" (see sections that these articles too are literally under the restriction, with explicit mention of Armenian genocide [83], [84]). And in similar fashion such as in Eastern Anatolia Region, moved down or just outright removed any mention of Armenian genocide, place name changes in the genocide aftermath, see Anatolia.

The user then proceeded to WP:GAME extended confirmed restriction by doing 100+ edits in one day, such rapid activity was never shown before in their contributions history, neither the type of edits like random inconsequential article moves never done before by this user, presumably in order to game extended confirmed faster [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90].

All in all, it’s safe to conclude the user was violating the restriction while doing POV edits and restoring them, then in one article claims “self-rv” while literally just doing same edit as before (moving info down), and in another claims to not be within ec restriction when clearly the article was under the restriction. Then, presumably in order to justify all of these restriction violations and POV, goes on a 100+ edits spree never done before in their contributions' history, and games extended confirmed restriction. I believe the user should at least be topic banned from Armenia-Azebaijan and related articles simply because they lack the competence and first thing is to revert violating the restriction they've been warned about hours before, edit in a POV manner to begin with, and game the system afterwards. Vanezi (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little take aback by this complaint. Vanezi, you reverted many other editors on the Anatolia article. I did not think that was right and I explained that to you in an edit summary. I asked you to get in touch with me if you wanted me to clean out my own edits. You did not reply to me there or on my talk page where I invited you to raise additional concerns with me. I feel a little bit like you baited me telling me you were reverting because of an EC restriction and then waiting until after I made EC to file this complaint. It's true that I did feel more engaged than after so many of my edits were reverted, but also because I'm very interested in the subject I am working on (earthquakes and geology). I haven't been editing as often because I did a lot of research before making my edits. But, I'm very proud of the work I did today by the way, the tectonic plate articles are very difficult articles and I have been working on them for hours, and all year for the work I did to make today's edits so I don't see it as WP:GAME, I was just very well prepared to make a large number of difficult, substantial edits quickly. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel reverted again shortly after gaming extended confirmed by making rapid 100+ edits in one day, never done before in their contributions. Their edit is just a tendentious POV change. They added an unsourced section, but what's alot more concerning is that they tweaked the lead and an already existing section of Etymology, both of which were sourced and covered the article's relation to Armenian genocide, Western Armenia, Turkification and Place name changes in Turkey in the genocide's aftermath. From individual summary of their edits, you can see that the edits themselves don't make sense such as removing sourced content from lead and doing original research changes with bogus edit summary [91], removing sources from a caption then adding the same picture with a completely different caption and unexplained quotations [92].

Same thing in another article, again reverting [93] and restoring mostly their POV edits which again include removal of entire reliable sourced paragraph about Armenian genocide and Western Armenia relation to the name change [94].

I think it's evident that the user isn't concerned about POV issues at all which I already mentioned above, and the first thing they do after gaming extended confirmed status is to edit-war and restore their tendentious original research edits which have no consensus and in several instances are just reliable sources removals and original research rewording. That's why I have stated that Cornsimpel hasn’t shown the competency required to edit in a contentious topic area such as Armenia-Azerbaijan, and especially concerning Armenian genocide. Vanezi (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How can the user just randomly change sourced content and remove sources then reword with their own WP:OR? This is unacceptable. Their edit summary makes no sense. They also remove historical info but now from the body. After changing the lead and body, they then remove vasts of citations from the map, remove the map as "fake", then re-add the same map with pov scare quotes, even putting scare quotes on Armenia.

They then make more POV changes (keep in mind this is happening while the ANI is up) adding additional completely unsourced doubt ("some") and scare quotes to the already obscured lead thanks to their previous OR and removal of several sources and changes to sourced content. They add more "some" doubt and a cn tag to the lead they themselves had previously erased sources from, then add the same Oxford source pretending to add a new citation when they were the one who removed the citation in the first place and obscured the wording in a POV original research manner, then restored the same source but now changed the text to add MOS:DOUBT despite it being clear RS. They also keep adding scare quotes as evident by the diffs. And they added completely irrelevant to the article info to the lead and body that has no connection to Eastern Anatolia region's name changes; this seems like an attempt to push more POV in any ways possible, even if the article is irrelevant to the added info and their added source doesn't make the connection to the Eastern Anatolia name change either.

Can admins take a look at this user's behavior? Despite this ANI case, they are continuing to push POV and tendentious editing. Vanezi (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Attaullah Tarar

There's a backlog at WP:RFPP so this isn't getting attention. Attaullah Tarar is a WP:BLP who recently has made news in their home country. The article is under sustained attack from IPs and new accounts – several edits a minute – all of which appear to be unpleasant. A bit of protection for a few days would be nice. Thanks! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, over 250 edits in one day. I've semi-protected the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr Fir! Much appreciated. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also answered the request on the talk page and will be taking a SSR-esque approach to any edit requests demanding edits that contravene policy. That said, I can't be on 24/7. I have the article and talk page watchlisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:14_novembre

User 14_novembre is doing some strange things, like this edit posting a fake AfC acceptance notice on someone's talk page. In fact, it's hard to find too many sensible edits in their history. They're now requesting additional user rights, at least pending changes reviewer and auto patrolled.

Per this convo User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_61#Re:_Block on Bbb23's talk page, they seem to be a LTA, Calicanto2023, who is blocked on it.wiki. Calicanto2023 also has edited on en.wiki, albeit not much. They've also been here at ANI referring to that.

I don't know if this is technically socking, I don't know if they've yet done (here on en.wiki, that is) anything necessitating a sanction, but it looks to me like it may be heading that way. I'll leave this here in more capable hands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

14 novembre's recent comments at the Teahouse have been cryptic and unhelpful. I left a note on their talk page. I was unaware of the other issues until now. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is a prolific sock at it.wiki. See this list. The problem is most of the accounts are either not registered at en.wiki or have 0 edits at en.wiki. Calicanto2023 is I believe one of the few who has.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 @Cullen328 @DoubleGrazing That is the point. All these sockpuppets on it.wiki have no contributions on en.wiki, unless a few, which are prior to the creation of this account. So I actually don't think it could be considered a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Also, I am using this account and not Calicanto2023 just because I prefer this username. I also point out that the activity of creating SP on it.wiki has stopped more than 3 weeks ago, as I realised that to hopefully be unblocked in the future I had to do so. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, I oppose granting any advanced user rights. 14 novembre, in my view, your editing is bordering on disruptive. If you continue on that path, a block is a real possibility. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Why? 14 novembre (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you kindly provide an example of disruptive editing? 14 novembre (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your obtuse and unhelpful behavior at the Teahouse is a perfect example. Cullen328 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I do not understand where this "obtuse and unhelpful behavior" is. Could you please provide a specific example. Thanks 14 novembre (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Asking Arjayay and Iljhgtn if they could upload a movie poster for you repeatedly, last I checked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh Was that disruptive? No. 14 novembre (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you please provid a specific example. sure, CIR on the teahouse. Babysharkboss2!! ^{AC/DC (Talk Page btw)} 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2 That is nothing serious. One can't be blocked for 1 slightly inappropriate edit. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

apologies, wrong comment. THIS. no idea isn't a constructive or helpful comment. Babysharkboss2!! ^{AC/DC (Talk Page btw)} 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

At WP:TH#Gujarat model Hindu fascism and xenophobia is infiltrating Wiki, you responded to a very emotional question about a highly controversial topic area with No idea. At WP:TH#Citing sources, your single word answer was No, which was incorrect, later followed by it is not an issue, which was unresponsive and unhelpful. In both cases, your unhelpful, incorrect and cryptic comments derailed the conversation, at least temporarily. Cullen328 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Well that was one occasion, but if you see my 329 contributions you can see that there is a significant history of constructive edits, which have undoubtedly improved Wikipedia. Please reply if you do not agree and you want to go on with this procedure. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what the purpose of making more than 40 tiny edits over 15 minutes on your user page was? None of those edits seem significant or constructive to me. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUMMY 14 novembre (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As explained on the page you linked, dummy edits are for using the edit summary to add information that you forgot to add before. None of the edits mentioned have any edit summary, so what was their purpose? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby None. It has been I mistake. I will not such edits again. 14 novembre (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It's too early for you to answer questions at the teahouse. The same applies for commenting at administrative noticeboards, going to admins' talkpages to share your opinions on who should be blocked and for how long, and requesting advanced permissions. You need to focus on articles. Editing articles is the only way to show your home wiki that you are serious about being a contributor. And, it is the only way to convince admins here to continue to give you that chance. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It took me at least 1000 contributions to get pending changes, and about 5000 to get rollback. Plus, I had to demonstrate my skills of reverting vandalism on the site. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Babysharkboss2@Bbb23@Cullen328@DoubleGrazing@Ingenuity@NoobThreePointOh@Usedtobecool Well, thank for your answers. I will take into account what you said. Good evening 14 novembre (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• At a minimum, no advanced permissions. But their conduct at the Teahouse is not helpful. This should serve as a final warning to begin editing productively, or they will lose access to edit. Star Mississippi 21:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Ingenuity OK. I shall take this advice into account. 14 novembre (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

82.22.44.102

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

I've come across 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few times while patrolling on Huggle, they're making consistent MOS changes to train classes in articles. Now normally I would bring this up on a relevant WikiProject, but their talk page does seem to indicate that they are WP:NOTHERE so I'm thinking that this might be an WP:LTA. Does anyone know any more information? FozzieHey (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. FozzieHey (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Note their user talk page, shows some prior history by the person, if not from that IP. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

They're very clearly a sock of somebody, and are very clearly not interested in editing collaboratively so blocking is definitely the way to go. @HJ Mitchell and Redrose64: are you familiar with this editor? Thryduulf (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If most of this IP's edits are being reverted as unhelpful then a one-month block might be considered. The statement on their user talk might be viewed as a promise to evade any block that might be imposed: "PLEASE DON'T BOTHER BLOCKING ME, I KEEP GETTING A NEW USER TALK PAGE NUMBER EVERY YEAR. There is another IP at Special:Contributions/82.30.152.3 that shares their interest in British railways, also begins with "82." and generally has all their changes reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've often come across this guy, one of their "tells" is to replace the valid link Diesel multiple unit with the link DMU, which goes to a dab page. I don't think that I've seem them do anything useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a range block personally. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Whois reports that both IPs belong to Virgin Media, which is one of the largest IPs in the UK so any range block will have to be done carefully to avoid collateral damage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some form of soft block will at least pin them to an account? Geardona (talk to me?) 13:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.22.44.102 (talk · contribs) for one month, due to the constant style changes with no willingness to discuss. Let me know if they return from another IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I also think a range block will cause more damage than it would solve. I'm not entirely sure if 82.30.152.3 is the same person, as that IP focuses more on blatant vandalism as opposed to styling changes. If it is though, the only range which covers both of those IPs is 82.0.0.0/11, which contains 2,097,152 IP addresses. I guess all we can do now is see how easy it is for them to change their IP. FozzieHey (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Outing attempts at Talk:Rent regulation

Rent regulation and Rent control in the United States sees a fair amount of editing and talk page posts by a IP-hopping user who generally geolocates to either Spain or Morocco. They edit, get reverted, and then make repetitive points on the talk page. Most people aren't much interested any more, so I'm one of the few that actually responds. Their frustration seems to be boiling over now, see Talk:Rent_regulation#Who_is_MrOllie, which is an attempt to out me. The stuff they're linking is laughably off base, so I don't think it needs revdel or oversight. They move around enough that blocking or rangeblocking probably won't help much, so I'm not asking for that either. But if an admin could have a word with them, that might go a long way towards in terms of deescalation. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have rev-del'ed those as they're purely disruptive and IMO, not doing so encourages it to continue. Star Mississippi 23:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but they're just going to keep reposting this stuff, as they have just done. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Rent is too damn high. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Zwitfire

• Zwitfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2800:200:F540:2636:5579:7D3D:86BE:181F (talk · contribs)

Repeated addition of unsourced material. Some diffs of my reverts: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, etc.

Warned three times: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3.

Repeated (latest) additions post-warnings (diffs of my reverts): diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, etc. --WikiLinuz (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Proposal: Indef ban as user tends to only edit in the drug topic area and we cannot have people adding random unsourced content in that area - if the editor edited other areas I would say TBAN but this looks like a SPA.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by logged out IP editing:

• 2800:200:f540:2636:5579:7d3d:86be:181f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar edits:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3

Not sure if I need to create a separate SPI case, or a checkuser here at ANI can just quickly look it up. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks open and shut--the IP range shares the same disruptive interest in gun law articles, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked from the article namespace, as the pattern continued even after they were notified of this thread. I am going to leave the user a note on their talk page that they have to come here and discuss this if they want to resume editing in the article namespace. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm failing to assume good faith when they do edits like this: 1201756222^{08:53, 1 February 2024}. Mind you, the part about the death sentence and it being illegal was added by an ipv4 IP just 4 days before they edited, the long standing version since at least 2012 (diff) seems to have been that it is legal. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I found <this> interesting edit in September of 2023 which added an edit almost exactly the same as had been removed in the previous edit (diff), said previous addition (diff) was made by an IP in a similar range (first 16 characters are the same) and said IP's /64 range is currently blocked for 1 year for "Disruptive editing: Multiple additions of unsourced information about legal status of drugs with misleading edit summaries":

• 2800:200:F540:2655:950D:7DED:C1DC:AC5A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The two IP addresses are in the same /48, yes. And looking at Special:Contributions/2800:200:F540:0:0:0:0:0/48 honestly looks like we've got very few people editing on that range. If we can confirm that the IP addresses are relatively stable, it might be worth a wide anon-only rangeblock, but we'd need a CU to make that determination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as only the new /64 is active this doesn't matter much, but I went digging a bit more and found that this disruptive user (at least the IP one, unless they're both the same) was seemingly active at 179.6.34.0/23 from 2020 to 2023 (maybe that's the range, at the very least they used the fourth most recent IP with the DUCK summaries and 179.6.35.221 based on the talk page, which ties them to yet another /64 range in the /48).

• 179.6.34.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Basically I'm just noting it here for history purposes, it does not seem that they are using IPv4 ips in that range currently. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Red-tailed hawk, if you are only issuing anon-only blocks then you don't need a CU, your own judgment is sufficient. There is little for me to add as a CU. Even so I'd recommend lengthening your existing one-week /64 block of 2800:200:F540:2636::/64 to six months. This editor moves between /64 ranges but not that often, so I don't see the benefit of a /48 block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated reverts and refusal to discuss on Rio (franchise)

A number of similar IP addresses (most recently 2600:1008:B03C:414F:D5EF:3CC1:60BD:3B30) have made repeated edits to remove a single line. None of the edits have a summary, and when I attempted to discuss on the article talk page it was blanked with no summary. FEZfan (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• There is an edit war going on, but instead of using my admin hat, I offered a comment on the talk page using my editor hat, which is the same hat I'm wearing now. The IP's are correct that the sentence shouldn't be used in the article, per our policies on original research. You can't just draw conclusions based on what you believe is a lack of information (you can't prove a negative), although you CAN quote a reliable source saying that, if you can find one. Now, that is my well thought out opinion, based on my experience as an editor here, but you probably want to stop editing, and instead use the talk page to discuss that change instead of reverting back and forth. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Agri-tista5q

Please revoke TPA of that sock. Thanks Nobody (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @1AmNobody24, I should've just asked here first. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Literally nothing they've said on the talk page has been of value. Not a single proper unblock request. Purely disruptive. Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong support for this. There has been a great deal of re-factoring of talk page comments (including mine) plus much nonsense. I put a request on the blocking admin's talk page but they may well be not awake in this time zone.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

^ this. Clearly just trying to be annoying. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Also deleted misleading user page. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

List of maphrians

I request your attention to this article. There has been a duspute regarding the content and structure of this article, mainly regarding the pov of the article author, Mugsalot and its obvious discrepancy with the references. A discussion on the talk page over the issue resulted in a consensus based on majority opinion here. However the editor involved is still disregarding the consensus and continuing the removal of sourced content in an edit-war fashion [95]. I have repeatedly tried to engage the editor in the talk page but it seems useless. Additionally, the user has started assuming bad faith too. Therefore I seek an administrator intervention into this matter. Logosx127 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet who I have engaged with on the talk page repeatedly. The consensus he refers to only existed after his original account was blocked. One revert does not constitute an edit war. Mugsalot (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not single revert. The editor has reverted twice removing over 1000 bytes of sourced content and I am sure that it will continue if I restore it again. The discussion I have mentioned involved not just me but other editors also, I do not know why the editor keeps disregarding the consensus that involved not just me. Logosx127 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is continuing disruption elsewhere [96], [97]. Logosx127 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Tmv

A long painstaking series of edits by myself to the Tamara Awerbuch-Friedlander were deleted by User:Tmv with absolutely no explanation or even a note on my talk page as to why (see [98]). WTH? Outrageous. Nirva20 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nirva20, you have not used the article's talk page or Tmv's talk page to attempt to discuss the revert. This board should be your last stop, not your first. Schazjmd (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Nirva20 Oh, that was not what I intended at all. And I was totally unaware of that mistake... I apologize. --Tmv (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Vikepro is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference. In his profile earlier he praise BJP and scolded Congress by citing fake scam and corruptions. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. Please take proper steps against him. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread on them. As per the top of the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment two steps above appears to be posted later than the comment below, who appears to be the actual OP. Of course, Vikepro didn't notify this user either. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Might have been my issue in merging the sections. But there's also the empty section, so not entirely sure what either is up to besides edit warring. Star Mississippi 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference.I am continuously adding citations about the added article and this user repeatedly removing my article without any proper reasons. Evrytime i am giving proper reasons for my act but this user never bothering fo give reasons to remove my article. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. This user is new in Wikipedia as this user joined this platform 26 days ago. I think this user is paid that's why he is spreading fake information.Please take proper steps against him.Vikepro (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have full-protected Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance for a week. You're both edit warring. If the disruption continues to move elsewhere, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sir, i have added the valid citations so wheres my fault? The other editor who is removing my content is not giving any reasons and valid citations. Its mean the ither user is doing vandalism. You can research the news articles which i have given in the citations then you will realise that who is correct. Vikepro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Can I ask for a favor? @Vikepro created a user page at the other user with a WP:PA in edit summary. Could you delete the page as it wasn't created by them [99]? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done @DaxServer. That's unsurprisingly, what lead to the prior block: User_talk:Vikepro#November_2023 cc @UtherSRG Star Mississippi 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  This comment of theirs is concerning aswell. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  On second look, both are still edit warring. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours and @Vikepro for two weeks following an earlier one week block. Leaving longer form notes on their Talks. Star Mississippi 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi This user @Vikepro is just editing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a political party only, [100] Please have a look to this link at last he has written (जय भारतीय जनता पार्टी means Hail Bharatiya Janta Party) and also please see [101]and [102] Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi He has defamed a particular party and promoted another political party. Please check his userpage history which is full of promotion and defamation. And many of his edits were disrupting other political alliances by removing some strong parties from it or decreasing its seats tally. And he was increasing seats tally of his favorable alliances. His given sources were not conveying the related claim. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  [103] He is also calling admins "stupid" and "leftist" on @Shaan Sengupta's Talk page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive nationalistic editing by TheCreatorOne

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

There's a lot of different Wikipedia guidelines this editor is abusing that I could point out, from WP:NATIONALIST to WP:BATTLEGROUND to WP:COMPETENCY which is evidenced by their edits and summaries. They are spamming pages with WP:POINTY unproductive edits, in order to try to prove that x territory or village was inhabited purely by Albanians, or to point how an event was "propaganda". At the same time, they go on these long angry nationalistic rants in their edit summaries or on talk pages, that has nothing to do with the actual validity of the content people are objecting to (quality, undue/due, appropriateness, ect.) showing they're WP:NOTHERE. For example:

• "I have already said that the name of this page should be changed to the Albanian name and the picture should be changed , if the name is not changed within one day I am personally going to change the name... this is nothing but an insult, even more insulting is the Serbian names that are being used for some of the town. This is my last warning before I change the name personally."
• After an editor reverted them here explaining that listing every single village that had an Albanian majority along with the names of people was excessive and irrelevant, they went to the talk page and answered with: So what you are saying is that people with Albanians names are not Albanian ? but people with Slavic, Christian names are not Albanian either ? ... But it seems to me that people here want Kosove and Dardania to still be connected to Serbs despite Albanians are obviously connected to the territories history.. What's even more insulting is how they use the Serbian names despite these areas haven't had Serbs it seems for a long time.
• In an article about demographic history, they added a whole bunch of content that doesn't deal with the actual topic ([104] [105]) Not to mention creating a whole bunch of reference errors. They then proceeded to go on a rant on the talk page about "telling a false version of history" [106]
• You mean it deals with invented fairytales and propaganda ?
• When they were reverted in this article because the content they added already repeated the first sentence of the paragraph, they responded with 100% Albanian development, don't try to remove the truth with invented stuff..
• And more ranting in edit summaries: stop lying, stop telling a false version of history and stop manipulating the facts, stop taking different parts from different books in order to suit your agenda.. ..stop telling invented lies and fairytales.. I am just telling history based on the evidence while you are telling propaganda and lies there is no evidence for the things you people claim..

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Griboski (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted several of his edits which were previously revertee by an admin. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple attempts have been made to encourage @TheCreatorOne to act in line with Wikipedia policy to no avail:

• 10:48 7 February 2024 - Message left on their talk page, raising awareness to their problematic editing. TheCreatorOne responded by venting their feelings in a long and protracted response that violates WP:TALKNO [107][108][109][110]
• 16:59 February 2024 - Responded to by an editor reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. This message was in response to TheCreatorOne asking them to add content in an unsolicited manner
• 23:35 9 February 2024 - Message response to TheCreatorOne, once again reminding them to abide by Wikipedia policy. The response came after TheCreatorOne made allegations that some content was a bunch of invented history to fit Serbian nationalistic
• 14:20 10 February 2024 Uw-disruptive2 warning left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.
• 15:35 10 February 2024 Contentious topics reminder left on TheCreatorOne's talk page.

Despite the multiple reminders and warning, it seems TheCreatorOne's behaviour has not changed and they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We must look at it from the beginning, for example in the most recent case: Kosovo. Why was he reverted? Because of "nationalist nonsense"? The user is quoting Noel Malcolm, one of the most experienced authors on the subject Kosovo. He is a reliable source and is used across many articles. This clearly rests on WP:IJDL. Everything that happened after that is not entirely his fault, but also yours, because you falsely accuse him of spreading nationalist nonsense and keep reverting him with false excuses. Everything that is not quoted with N. Malcolm should be brought to the talkpage and not be edit-warred. The user actually did open a discussion, but some users of this talk did not participate until now while reverting at the same time. I agree that the user should be warned concerning his word choice, but we should keep in mind who is responsible for that. He is being reverted by multiple users at the same time, sometimes with reasonings that constitute WP:PA. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: User is clearly WP:NOTHERE and has violated the 1RR restriction multiple times. Given their behavior so far, it is highly likely they will continue. This is a high-visibility page, admin action is urgently needed. AlexBachmann, your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. This also isn't a new user or someone unfamiliar to the Balkan topics area. ([111] [112]) --Griboski (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Same can be said for certain users that just kept WP:STONEWALLING and haven't participated in discussions yet.

Your attempts to excuse this user's behavior are completely unhelpful and reflect very poorly on you. In what way is that unhelpful? I cleared up confusion.

However, regarding Griboski's comment, I have to say that the users indeed share similarities. An admin will have to look at this. This, however, still does not justify the removal of perfectly sourced and reliable content. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Except it isn't. Can Malcolm be used as a source and compared and contrasted with others? Sure. Spamming the same contested 17KB walls of text across multiple pages? No.

When someone is engaging in tendentious editing, we shouldn't be forced to entertain their soapboxing. Since this thread was opened and they've been notified, they've reverted 3 more times in an article with 1RR. --Griboski (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@AlexBachmann your response falls under WP:ASPERSIONS and isn't tolerated here. There is a difference between opening up a discussion and using the talk page as a forum to vent feelings without any desire to engage with editors with other viewpoints. ElderZamzam (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

As per definition: „casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor accuses another of misbehavior without evidence“. I do not see that here. I‘ve already explained that reliable sources were removed. Everyone has the right to be defended, especially when other users may also be in the wrong. Let’s wait for the admins decision. AlexBachmann (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Any chance you can look into this? --Griboski (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There may be logged-out editing, but not on a huge scale, and there's nothing more that I can see. This will have to be handled by other than technical means. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the potential socking but the behavioral evidence. At the very least, they have reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours on the Kosovo page which has a 1RR restriction. [113] [114] [115] [116] Griboski (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

This was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [117], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([118]), be uncivil ([119], [120], [121]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [122] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [123] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([124]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([125]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [126].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([127]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([128], [129]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([130], [131], [132], [133]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [134].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([135]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([136], [137], [138]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([139]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[140]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[141]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Pablo1949

@Pablo1949’s only 2 edits are vandalizing The Backyardigans See contributions Here. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be best reported to WP:AIV. Looks like they're already blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, i’ll remember that going forward! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The gist of it is, if you can describe the problem in one sentence that makes it obvious to anyone there's bad-faith disruption, it's AIV. If it has to be explained/debated/etc, it's ANI. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Milkycat1

Milkycat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor only makes non-constructive edits, ranging from adding peacock prose to outright promotionalism to various articles, many of which have such problems to begin with, but the edits from this user only make the problem worse. In addition, several of their edits removed references, at least one introduced completely incorrect style "fixes", and one changed the wording of a quote (which can happen when WP:LLMs are used, which might be the case, but it isn't especially important, and is not in itself the reason for this report). Yesterday, I reverted all of their edits, and posted on their talk page (special:permalink/1205543186), but there is no response. Instead, the editor continued doing non-constructive edits.

I will not post any diffs because any random selection of their edits should illustrate what's going on. —Alalch E. 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP and admin involvement

There is an ongoing BLPVIO that have a large number of people, potentially including admins. Doug Weller (talk · contribs) for example warned me for 3RR while the other editor did four reverts and the admin can be seen coordinating with them. In addition, I think I was temporarily blocked but I don't see anything in the logs? This is WP:BLP territory with potential INVOLVED admins that needs other admins to investigate. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Forgot to put a section title on the talk page. Did not mean to delay, obfuscate, or annoy. Sorry. 🤦‍♂️ int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Int21h, you were last blocked in 2013, and that block was removed as it was in error. There are no recent blocks of your account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Int21h, Doug Weller gave you a detailed response to your concerns, explaining that he is not an involved administrator in this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to purge logs? (It came up with my last block-in-error.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The log makes it clear that the 2013 block was an error. Nobody acting in good faith could possibly hold that 11 year old mistake against you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Int21h:, I'm sure int21h was blocked recently, they're just confused over the details. User:Doug Weller did block Special:Contributions/89.10.174.232 for 72 hours [142]. int21h if that was you, you're not allowed to use an IP to make edits in the same dispute per WP:LOUTSOCK. The editing patterns makes it hard for me to imagine this was an accident but in any case even if it was an accident you are responsible for any edits you make be they with an account or IP so pay attention to whether you're logged in or not. Note that it was an anon only and account creation block. So this block would not have affected any editing from your account, so you would have only seen that you were blocked when you tried to edit from the IP (or make a new account). If you want to continue to edit from your phone or tablet or whatever that IP is using, please log in to your int21h account. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And whatever any other editor is doing, I note that User:Int21h brought this here minutes after continuing a slow edit war.[143]., basically promoting the subject. Ironic that of my two edits there, one reverted the IP back to Int21h's version. The other was my reverting the IP whose edit summary said fixed typo while, as the later IP edit, changed "pseudoscience" to "science". I would like Int21h to justify their claim that there is a BLP violation in the removal of their edits. My view is that this is likely to end up, and probably should, with at least a partial block for promoting pseudoscience. Or at AE, I gave them an alert a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sock IP

2402:A00:401:7C3E:3034:268C:5649:DBAB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Block evasion [144][145]. This range is up again after being reported previously at this SPI. It's clearly a sock of this user. Here's further identical edits from just a few days ago [146] [147] (i.e that is readding the word "ancient Hindu" to this obscure barely edited article) and same "economic reforms" related edits to this page[148][149]. I had reported this yesterday at AIV but it didnt get a response as it was 3 days stale. This suspicious IP is also stalking and engaging in revenge editing against me after I reported them yesterday by adding questionable material I am opposed to a different article. [150][151] Codenamewolf (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Codenamewolf, if I were you I would clean up and improve this evidence and then file at SPI. I don't think the case is so obvious that it's immediately actionable. The range was reported at SPI previously, but the responding admins made no decision on if it's the sockmaster (AKG). The Taliban insurgency edits are over material contentious enough that many users would make that change. Your stalking diffs either make no sense or are under-explained. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

By revenge editing, I meant exactly one day after I reported them [152], this IP suddenly is copy pasting material I had reverted previously two week ago on a different article [153][154]

Regardless, this IP range is now blocked now for distrupion, but I had to unarchive this ANI report again because another registered user took to complaining against this to the blocking admin. Codenamewolf (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is laughable (like your other claims) that you call it "revenge editing", despite this particular article was never edited by you until a few hours ago.[155] Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've linked two diffs above. One was my revert to the page Partition of India (15 whole days ago), and the said content is now being pasted on this article by IP after my report against them. I made the "first" revert to that page after already having coming across this IP. Refer to both diffs. I'm not making any other "claims" either, just posted identical edits to a blocked user like you would to a regular AIV/SPI.

Anyways, regarding the snarky comments see WP:PERSONAL Codenamewolf (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians

User:YaquiWoman Has threatened legal action at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. They said "That is completely fine as we are having the Texas Band of Yaqui tribal attorney Mia get involved and we will be reaching out with a Seaze and desist letter." here. I've already reported at WP:AN3 but thought I should post here as well due to the legal threat. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by @Firefangledfeathers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to overlook the circumstances that led to the legal threat. Will other editors and admins please take a look at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians? There are reasonable grounds for concern, as the article has many things to say about the group that will be interpreted negatively. The cited sources are not great, being mainly primary/government sources, a couple databases, and one news source that doesn't mention the group. This all may be fine, but I think more eyes would be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Firefangledfeathers very much. I only saw what was being added but after reviewing, the article does appear to have issues that someone might be able to correct. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lodged an AfD on that article. From my point of view, no independent/reliable sources are provided, likely fails GNG. CSMention269 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

COI editor

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

---

Hello - please excuse me if I am not reporting this in the correct format. A recently registered editor, is making a series of edits to the Karen Black article together with articles related to her: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Carson&action=history, [156], [157] and [158] Such an emphasis on one family to the exclusion of other subjects is sufficient enough, but the added content is of personal nature including family photographs. Advise regarding COI has been posted, but it has been ignored. Could someone investigate? 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Deep Purple 2013 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The editor has ignored your message and has continued with their COI edits, see [[159]]. Also they have removed templates from pages, gave no edit summaries and are nearing breaching the 3RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Deep Purple 2013 has indeed broken 3RR on a number of articles, though I suspect the IP has as well, as the IPv4 and IPv6 active on these articles appear to be the same person. I would normally protect here, but I have just declined Deep Purple 2013's request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, because I believe it to be gaming the system to gain an advantage. Blocks may also be required. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And now I have declined a WP:AIV report by Deep Purple 2013 where they claim the 80.136.196.48 IP is blocked and therefore the IPv6 is socking, however their "evidence" that 80.136.196.48 is blocked was to their own AIV report about the IP, which was declined as a content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Deep Purple 2013 and 2003:D3:FF12:1D52::/64 for 72h for continued edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

223.136.110.159 making false accusations to cover up their vandalism

223.136.110.159 has done nothing but make false accusations of vandalism against me in my talk page over my edit to Herbert Wigwe which was properly reffed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Wigwe&diff=prev&oldid=1206139716

Their contributions also appear to be nothing but tampering information under false pretenses and harassing other users on false vandalism charges and erasing this report.Borgenland (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Evidently, their continuous blanking of this complaint is proof that user is WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And further providing evidence by tampering with my addendum. Borgenland (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm no expert, but I'm not sure the editing circumstances warranted raising AN/I in the first place, but the subsequent behaviour is probably worth considering. However, I would like to understand why IP considers the edit to be vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They were also reported in AIV. Their edits also speak for themselves. Such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2024&diff=prev&oldid=1206143376. Furthermore, if they had nothing to hide, why go the extra mile of erasing this complaint before it can be closed properly????? Borgenland (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, and I agreed that their behaviour since the AN/I was raised is definitely worthy of scrutiny. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider it as such. I expanded the details on Herbert Wigwe's death to include an WP:RS source about his death. Then out of the blue they come barging into my talk page accusing me of vandalism and falsely claiming that my edits have been reverted. It is frustrating though that they have to be given some benefit of the doubt. Borgenland (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I might have phrased the report differently, or just reported to AIV directly, but reverting the addition of a stub tag by the creator of the article itself (as the second edit of the article) and then warning the user for vandalism for it? (revert, warning). In my eyes that's just trolling. The type that we're better off not feeding more than what's necessary to have it stop, lest we give a troll too much joy at our expense. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I just hope some strong measure be taken. Preferably a long ban. Borgenland (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandal got blocked for 31 hours. Borgenland (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're wondering why it wasn't a long block, it's basically what is said at WP:IPBLENGTH. Those were clearly not the first edits of the user behind that IP (knowing warning templates, boards and all), but it was also their first time using that IP so who knows how long they will be using it.

But yeah, glad that's done. We can safely move on for now. – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Due to WP:IDNHT unblock requests, I extended the block duration to 72 hours. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked editor hopping IPs like a jack rabbit, vandalizing Karen Black's page as well as her family members'

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

---

A recently blocked editor[160] is hopping IPs and repeating the same shenanigans.[161][162] Not only does Black's page need protection from the blocked editor, so do the pages of her family members. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Stalking

User:SeriousHist was banned in an edit war with me in January. Since then they have been stalking me with proxies and several socks specifically just to revert my edits. Same fixation on my talk page, edit history, and urges admins to ban me.

• 185.243.209.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 185.76.176.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Taicompatriot (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sword of china (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Truthtaw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Qiushufang (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked a few of the more obvious socks. There's an SPI open for the others, so I'll let the CUs sort those out. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible UPE with Endaxas

User:Endaxas has created In Takt Records, which I've marked for CSD G11 (literally lists contact info and no sources at all). Also made Kimi (singer), which I marked for no sources, which Endaxas reverted. Other artists part of the record label made as promotion. User is now attacking my articles, such as El Caribe (Dominican Republic) and more. Global block requested. TLA (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done, blocked by Jimfbleak. TLA (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow

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

Please look at:

1. Special:History/McAnally‎
2. Special:History/McNally (surname)‎
3. Talk:McNally (surname)
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 9#Supposedly conflicting etymologies & reliability of sources
   • This was responded to in the following way (leading to an apparent consensus: Talk:McNally (surname)#Cont. 2): PamD's edits of March 2023; after that, however, there have been many more inscrutable removals and restorations.

Gaelicbow is apparently facing some dilemmas and is repeatedly restoring and self reverting content on McAnally‎ and McNally (surname). After multiple attempts I have stopped trying to fully understand his reasons for such edits. I request that an administrator blocks Gaelicbow from McAnally‎ and McNally (surname)‎, since text constantly appearing and disappearing in stroboscopic fashion can't possibly be a good thing for our readers. —Alalch E. 12:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ElijahPepe continually makes persistent disruptive edits to New York Times against consensus

User:ElijahPepe has been continually making disruptive edits to New York Times against user consensus. This has taken the form of the following acts:

-Blanking massive parts of entire sections against talk consensus, based on events that he has personally "determined to be notable". When editors revert his changes, tell him to take it up with talk, explain that consensus is against his changes, or even leave warnings on his page, he often flat out refuses to engage and reasserts his mass deletions to the point of edit warring them. If he does engage, it'll simply be to say "I personally don't like that, I'm going to do this instead, no discussion to be had", often in the form of the edit summary message.

Examples can be found here: [163] talk, [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170] user page

-He will also mass delete necessary citations, on the grounds that the html code in which the citations are recorded does not fit his personal style (the style they're coded in is the standard <ref> style, whereas he deletes without replacement any citation that does not follow {name|year} footnote style). When people reinsert them because they're necessary, he likewise deletes them again, leading to paragraphs full of "Citation Needed" tags that have to be deleted until the citations are replaced as a result. Then, when the paragraphs are restored w/ citations according to talk page consensus, he simply wordlessly deletes them again, despite numerous attempts to ping and discuss with him on the talk page. Occasionally when he blanks citations, he'll (I should stress, only occasionally) replace them with footnote citations of his own sources which consensus agrees don't actually cover the required cited info, and yet despite being told this, he continually deletes them for being coded in an html format he personally doesn't like. Despite being pinged in talk on these issues to discuss, he instead wordlessly deletes once more, even when talk page consensus says otherwise.

EDIT: For clarity to any admin reading, the citation style used by Elijah was unilaterally implemented by him here in this 230,000 character change made without discussion. [171]

Examples: [172], [173], [174], [175], [176] talk, [177] talk.

Snokalok (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather extreme avenue to go through, and it appears as though you're taking it lightly. To clarify:

• Rewriting elements of a page is acceptable, as was done in the second link—based on Sideswipe's comments, the third link—which Soni thanked me for, the fourth link—which I believed was acceptable because I had seen sections with the Main template but no content before, the fifth and sixth links—which were reducing the content and removing banalities in coverage, and the seventh link—which I had asked Soni to discuss this in the talk page and I had expressed concerns over how the citations would display; several of the works cited interfered with how shortened footnotes were used.
• Going through a talk page to discuss what to include is acceptable, which is what I did in the first link.
• The citations that you added are not necessary and one is sufficient for the content in the page. The citations must follow shortened footnotes. Earnestly, it's not my personal style, but I chose to implement it for this article because of the division in references between The New York Times and other sources. There are no issues in what I left on that article in terms of the content-citation relationship. As far as I know, consensus has not agreed that the Klein source does not cover the content.

Your characterization of a citation style that "does not fit [my] personal style" is mischaracterization and suggests to me that you aren't making a genuine effort to resolve a dispute here. I'm not going to conceal that I'm not open to help, but I appreciate the copyediting that has occurred. Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page. In "Deciding the content within the history section", Sideswipe and I agreed that transcluding the ledes was a viable option. I'm not sure why this is still an issue or why this warrants ANI. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Please ping editors if you are going to discuss them @Sideswipe9th: Soni (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

- Rewriting elements of the page is acceptable, but if consensus is against those rewrites, or even just people want to discuss them first, it's not acceptable to just go ahead.

-Your discussion amounts to 'This is my article, get in line or get out of the way'. See the way you responded to me re-implementing citations, by saying "Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed."

-Consensus *has* agreed that Klein doesn't cover the necessary content, that's why there were 20 citation needed tags and the paragraph was removed pending need of citations.

-"Discussing content is clearly not working because most editors are not engaged in crucial areas of the talk page" Everyone has been speaking to you on the talk page, everyone has been pinging you on the talk page. You've just found their disagreements unsatisfactory and because it's clearly your article in your mind, you've decided to go ahead regardless.

-Notice how many other editors came here on their own to say "I was about to make an ANI post too, then I saw this one went up like a minute ago". No one pinged them or anything, they just came here, to make a post about your behavior, and then saw this one. Snokalok (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I will second this, as another editor who was minutes away from writing about Elijah at ANI. He has clear ownership issues and problems understanding how consensus works. To give a few clearer cut examples of these issues... here's a list (that may coincide with User:Snokalok's list)

• He added 250K bytes to a 200K byte article, basically doubling the size with just one edit. When the unannounced overhaul was discussed on talk, he was mostly not receptive. If you have an issue with content, WP:BEBOLD.
• He then engaged me in a revert war against consensus that eventually ended with the edit summary If this article is going to surpass 12,000 words with a history section, then it shouldn't have one and blanking of the entire section
• Other handy quotes from talk which concern OWNership - This is not how this should be done. The article is significantly worse and this is not what this article should look like. I now need to drop everything that I'm doing on this article to deal with this
• Also - This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I'm going to ask editors hold off on editing this paragraph, because this has now been made the utmost priority for this article and I'll have to halt my work on finding references for the website section to deal with this.. He very clearly has a "Editors who are allowed to edit this article" in mind that excludes anyone who disagrees with him.
• Another concerning diff - Shortened footnotes must be used. There's no way around this; if you're not willing to implement them, they will be removed. Everything in this paragraph is in the Klein reference. Three references are way too much for what amounts to an oversized quote. (bolding mine). Note that there is an ongoing discussion about the reference style itself on talk, so consensus is still pending.
• Finally [editors have tried] to engage him in this very discussino, trying to make him understand Wikipedia policies and why he needs to follow consensus and/or engage with other editors. Instead, he's decided his preferred article split is the way to go - I certainly plan to expand the ledes and would really prefer to start working on the virtual reality section tomorrow. He was thrown a very clear bone and proceeded to edit war rather than discuss the changes with anyone else.

I don't know if his edits are "disruptive" but he obviously does not understand basic Wikipedia policies and refuses to learn. And it's a pattern enough that it can't be fixed by just talking to him.

Soni (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I referred to the edit as worse because it was inconsistent in what it chose to cover regarding the Times and it introduced {{Cite book}} templates that interfered with shortened footnotes. Retaining that content isn't an option because it isn't a complete summary of the history of the Times; a sentence about column width followed a sentence about additional lifestyle sections, which is certainly more significant. Altering the previous content would have served as a benefit to readers. I'm definitely not opposed to attempting to trim the history section down, but I also want to be careful about how it's done. Permanent content that does not adequately cover the topic will not suffice. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

To stay in the clear, I'll state that Sideswipe9th and myself have been discussing Elijah offwiki, mainly because how frustrating all of this has been. Our comments are independently made and any takes here are my own. Soni (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note, I was also about to draft a thread about this issue. The biggest issue from my perspective is that Elijah is not engaging on the talk page in a manner that is open to collaboration. When he does engage on the talk page, it has an air of finality to it, with statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[178], I am done trying to argue this.[179], I'm not looking for help at the moment.[180], and I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times[181].

Myself and other editors have repeatedly and extensively tried to get Elijah to collaborate. See 230,000+ char change, Deciding the content within the history section, and Getting the article to GA on the article talk page, and NY Times on Elijah's talk page. We have tried to impress upon him that collaboration is not only necessary for the FA process, but the standard procedure on enwiki.

Yesterday, I explicitly asked Elijah to [not] make any more edits to the article, or the sub-articles for the next couple of days so that we could plan out the content for the main NY Times article and its newly created sub-articles. We need this plan so that we don't wind up creating four History of articles (1, 2, 3, 4) when the scope of all of them are still in flux, and so that we can properly scope out the content for the potential Online platforms of The New York Times and Critical reception of The New York Times. That last article in particular, Critical reception, will need very careful planning so as to avoid neutrality issues. And then by having a plan in place, each of us who are ready and willing to help bring this article to GA and eventually FA status can then play to our relative strengths as editors.

I hate that this discussion at ANI is necessary. Elijah can write good albeit lengthy content, and I think his overall goal of getting the NY Times article to FA status is laudable. Despite everything, I still want to help with that, as I think there's scope to get multiple articles to GA/FA status. I think his input in this, his content creation skills, and his background knowledge of the sourcing will all be invaluable in this process. The problem is that he's utterly resistant to allowing anyone to help in achieving this goal. I don't know what is needed here to get Elijah to work with us, rather than against us. I really don't want to see him indeffed or long term blocked over this unless it's absolutely necessary. Maybe the seriousness of this thread alone will be enough, or maybe he needs a rolling article space PBLOCK from the NY Times, its associated articles and any other articles we need to create for summary style and page length reasons, or a narrowly construed article space TBAN from the NY Times and its associated articles. I just don't know, and I am sorry, really truly sorry that it has come to this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Utterly resistant" is erroneous. The copyediting and even alterations that I have read have been very beneficial for the article. The issue is when consistency is not observed. The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No Elijah. This is not a content dispute, this is a behavioural dispute. In the last twenty minutes you have added almost as much text to this discussion (3904 bytes) as you've added to Talk:The New York Times in the last four days (4406 bytes). When I've said you are utterly resistant to allowing others to help, it is because you have made statements like I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there[182] (emphasis mine) and I'm not looking for help at the moment.[183]. Statements like that close the door on anyone being able to help you achieve the goal of bringing the article to FA.

Even in this reply you have said The route I'm taking now is to write content in a userspace draft so I can continue to work on sections that need to be expanded. (emphasis mine). The route you are taking. So you can continue to work. How are we supposed to give feedback on this, give input on how sections or articles should be structured, even create substantive content ourselves, when you are setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved comment) I read through Talk:The New York Times and ElijahPepe's ownership viewpoint is clear. I can sympathize with having a vision for how an article should be and wanting to get it done without interference, but that isn't how wikipedia works. (Citation style is a separate issue, and WP:CITEVAR supports not mixing styles.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

In this context I would like to state for the record that the article used <ref> style until Elijah made a 230,000 character change unilaterally which implemented his footnotes style, and then used that as justification for deleting all other citations because they went against the citation style he implemented without discussion. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, @Snokalok, thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize the cite style had been changed by ElijahPepe just under a month ago. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that my behavior has frustrated other editors and I apologize that I have not been as forthcoming or responsive as I should have been. I will accept any consequences as a result of my actions. I also express that I have the same goals as the editors on the Times article and I have only been seeking the best possible outcome. My intentions were to move this new content, write any additional content, and submit it for good article. It is clear those intentions did not consider other editors. I will hold off on any edits to the mainspace article until size issues have been resolved. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is one editor trying to improve an article and get it in line with best practices, while several other editors are just saying no without providing any constructive input. Blocking well-sourced content seems like a much bigger ownership problem to me than adding it. Just split the article. Problem solved. This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see many editors trying to give constructive input on the talk page, which is where the discussion should be (not in edit summaries). Schazjmd (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Don't add content" is not constructive input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're reading my request that Elijah not edit the article or sub-articles for a few days in isolation from everything else, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However in context that request was made to try and get Elijah to engage productively on the article talk page, so that we all could construct a plan for the scope and content of all of the articles, and help put that plan in motion.

At present, Elijah is displaying severe ownership issues over the content, by unilaterally making decisions and dictating content without respecting any of the feedback expressed on the article talk page. Yes be bold is a guideline, but ownership is a policy and it covers this exact circumstance. There are editors on that talk page who want to help bring this article to GA and FA status, but we cannot do so right now because of the ownership issues. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin controversial bot-like editing

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

On January 24, I blocked this editor from mainspace for one hour to force them to stop their unauthorized bot-like editing and reply to the four objections on their talk page about WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI that had gone unanswered for approximately six hours while they continued the same kinds of bot-like edits. The relevant user talk threads are here and here.

One of the behaviors about their bot-like editing that bothered me is that they are mass changing the template {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in articles. While this may seem like a little thing at first, I really dislike seeing this on my watchlist. It is my belief that all template first letters should be capitalized, because the software will not allow someone to create an uncapitalized template. It's Template:Cite, not Template:cite, so why would we mass convert {{Cite}} to {{cite}}?

This editor is back at it again, for example with this edit today.

I also see some other hints of unauthorized and objected-to WP:COSMETICBOT-like editing, for example at User talk:Maxim Masiutin#Be careful.

Can we get some kind of action to stop this behavior please? This user is cluttering watchlists, not getting consensus for their controversial edits, and is disregarding users who have asked them to stop. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor should be blocked until he promises to stop making edits such as converting {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. His last explanation for this on the talk page was that it was motivated by consistency. That's just inadequate. There is no need for consistency in this area. These are non-constructive cosmetic edits. —Alalch E. 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think that replacing Cite to Cite are not needed, I would not do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you concerned that I use Citations bot to fix article errors or that I change Cite to cite when there is already the majority of the intances are lowercase and just a few uppercase? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention that I used citation expander which is the standard tool included in gadgets that I added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID?

That article had 52 uppercase Cite and 325 lowercase cite, so I thought all lowercase cite would be appropriate. Would it have been OK if I just added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID but kept the case of the cite? It would have anyway triggered the update in your watchlist. Please let me know what kind of activity would you like me to stop. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think if you did the following 3 things I would be happy and withdraw my objections: 1) Never change {{Cite}} to {{cite}} again, since I feel this is changing correct code to incorrect code. 2) Read WP:COSMETICBOT and make sure the gnoming edits you choose to work on follow WP:COSMETICBOT and are important enough to merit a diff and watchlist disruption. 3) Pay close attention to when your edits are objected to, and immediately stop until you have consensus. Controversial edits should never be done in a WP:MEATBOT like manner. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! I do (1), (2) and (3). Is that be OK if done a substantial amount of edits to an article on contents (not just technical edits), such as preparing it to a GA nomination, changing Cite to cite should not constitute an (1) event? Are you OK with my edits when I fix errors such as "Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style"? Are fixing those errors merit? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing CS1 errors doesn't bother me. You can probably keep doing that unless/until someone objects. I will always object to changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}} if I see it, because I believe this is changing correct code to incorrect code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will not be changing Cite to cite if you object, because I have no interest in it, you (or somebody) probably proposed to start a discussion, but I didn't start a discussion because for me it is not an important point; however, if in the future there will occasionally be a discussion and a consensus on the case of templates, let me know, because I sometimes change "short description" to "Short description" template. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I will ask for advise on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy whether fixing cs1 errors constitute a cosmetic change, and proceed accordingly. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1 might be a good place to ask. I'll bet a citation fixing expert such as Trappist the monk watches that page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I asked in the Help talk:Citation Style 1 instead, as you suggested. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Parqud making mass unexplained and/or disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age

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

New editor making non-stop disruptive edits at Islamic Golden Age with zero communication or explanation, despite multiple reverts and warnings on their talk page. At worse, each round of edits has involved deleting mention of Persian or other non-Arab(ic) cultures. At best, they've been making unhelpful changes to spelling of Arabic names and terms, often away from established convention.

It started with these IP edits, which are almost certainly the same editor the day before. After those were reverted, the new Parqud account repeated the same edits here. After another revert, he repeated them again here (along with some spelling changes). By this point he had received two warnings on his talk page: [184], [185]. Since the last warning and revert, he hasn't repeated all of the same edits but has of course deleted mentions of Persia(n) again ([186], [187]) and continued other unhelpful spelling changes ([188], [189]). Zero explanation or communication throughout. R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Harassment at page "Anies Baswedan"

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

There is some edit warring and harassment here: title=Anies_Baswedan&diff=1206112505&oldid=1206105651

> political buzzer who is trying to revert edits

> keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me

Please look into this. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring between Natsuikomin (talk · contribs) and Asphonixm at Anies Baswedan. I see Asphonixm's edit summary which includes "he keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me." That is indeed concerning. But the editor interaction analyser only reports interaction at that one article and not even on its talk page. @Taylor 49: Please can you clarify why you say there is harassment here? NebY (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian wikipedia:

ngelawan buzzer tolol seperti anda

meladeni buzzer bodoh seperti anda bodoh = stupid

The accusation of attemped murder is most likely false. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editors are among those editing an article on Indonesian Wikipedia on the same subject, a current candidate for President of Indonesia, and the analyser shows little other interaction there - and of course what happens on that Wikipedia is outside our scope. Why do you call editing on that subject on this Wikipedia (the only one that concerns us) harassment? NebY (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it then? The edit summary is unacceptable in any case. User "Asphonixm" repeatedly attacked user "Natsuikomin". Do you claim that there is no problem at all? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it), and I see that a week after you told Asphonixm they were blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia, you've followed them here and raised this ANI report accusing them of harassment. Well. Time to let other editors take a view on this. NebY (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see very rude edit sumaries by "Asphonixm". I was asked by a user on id wikipedia to post this request here. I have no personal need to hound user "Asphonixm" or anyone else. I indeed had informed "Asphonixm" about the block imposed by another administrator, after having checked that harassment/personal attacks indeed had occurred. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't much care about all the other stuff right now. Unfounded accusations that another editor is "trying to track me down so he can kill me" - used as a reason that the accuser's edits shouldn't be reverted - is blockable. Like, indef with no talk page access without even waiting for an explanation blockable. I'm going to do that now. Any remaining content or behavioral disputes can be handled in their usual fashion. Any *actual* death threats can be handled thru, you know, the police. Not used to try to win an edit war on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Glasfaser Wien, inadequate sourcing, failure to engage with warnings constructively

Glasfaser Wien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Glasfaser Wien's edits on English Wikipedia thus far have largely comprised the addition of information without adequate sources to back it up, for which they have been warned on numerous occasions. Thus far, their only engagement with these warnings has been belligerent edit summaries and blanking.

Examples diffs. This list is not exhaustive, but does comprise nearly all of their edits since late last September:

• See the edit range 28 September through 30 September, which began with an edit war at Apollo 12 (talk page warning diff), continued with fait accompli-style mass changes across multiple articles, and ended with WP:POINT-y changes (example diff)
• October 2023 edit war at Psyche (spacecraft) to insert novel claims without providing a source.
• Recreating an article about V-4 (rocket launch) using a single source that does not appear to make mention of any of the information in the article (Special:Diff/1206265877). This is despite a prior warning raising the issue with this article on their talk page.

Absent an explanation, the V-4 article with a single, irrelevant source crosses into CIR/NOTHERE territory, whereas the earlier edits demonstrate lesser manifestations of the same lack of compliance with WP:V and less-than-civil engagement with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)