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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

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

---

• 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: [1] 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.[2] 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)

Hmm thank you for that very illuminating piece of information Bon courage Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited." (WP:OUTING) Thomas B (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "outed" you I pointed out that you've been banging on about this for years

Really, I am busy and have spent quite enough time on a topic that you are for whatever reason fixated upon. If and when you condescend to let mere mortals touch the topic I may have some suggestions, but meanwhile you might want to acquaint yourself with the recent Arbcom case where Volunteer Marek really was outed and endangered before you wave that policy around. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for harassment... Am I really hearing this from someone who's painted me as ignorant and incapable of intellectual rigor? Who told me I had no business editing this article? I feel the need to wash my typing fingers now. It's interesting that you mention a name change. First of all it's a good idea, although considering you're still using the exact same phrases, the only embarrassing thing is that you've pretty much obviously already made up your mind regardless. More to the point though, was Bon courage supposed to not look for sources lest it embarrass you??? You aren't making sense. I'm definitely considering changing my name to Thomas, for sure though! It seems to be a free pass at ANI. Do you realize that another editor has taken the exactly same position I have? And it didn't bother you a bit. Guess what that editor's name was. I'm too busy for your BS and Bon courage is doing fine. Ta.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have forgotten, but I have not asked for any of your time for a week now.[3] Be well. Thomas B (talk) 16:49, 13 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 [4] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[5] 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.[6] [7]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[8], 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)

S

• 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 [9] and Bon courage[10]

  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:[11][12][13]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [14][15][16]
  • misconstruing policy [17] vs [18] 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 [19]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:

  • [20][21]
  • [22] and doubling down: [23] and [24] Also [25] 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 [26] "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 [27] "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)

• Support I was doing a drive-by looking for the "od" template for a WP:GLI entry, when I had a look. I've had experience of this in the past most recently. It is disruptive when the editor is guarding the article to maintain their own revision. Its form of WP:OWN. I have no time for it. An article ban is ideal in this instance. There is many other areas the editor can work on. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support It has become very clear that Basboll has come to the article to right great wrongs and edit in defense of the subject's honor. That, combined with their desire to frame this situation as a "shaming campaign" combines to make them ill suited for editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect righting great wrongs is the motive of some of those editing on the talk page, more concerned with the protagonist in this controversy than the victim. But I am certain that Basboll's motives are to protect wikipedia from a BLP violation not in defence of anyone's honour. WCM_email 08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, yet he had already spilled many many pixels at blogspot defending the subject's honor long before this discussion began. To be completely clear, I am sure the man was joking. I also think that jokes like that are a problem. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He also hasn't edited the talk page for 48 hrs so at this stage any admin action is moot. This is the second time you've alluded to off-wiki activities. You appear to be inviting WP:OUTING and you should really stop that. WCM_email 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have I until just now, since it became clear I was a convenient red herring. I came over to see if the RFC had closed yet. The prior writings merely underline the inability to be neutral on the topic. But that was evident from the start. Meanwhile, strict as the outing policy may be, if it doesn't cover Grabowski and Klein I sincerely doubt it covers the recognizable style of and nearly-identical statements of someone now editing under their own name; I find that your concern is specious and more likely a threat than an actual concern. The fact that I ignore your behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't noted. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I have edited here for many years, and at times been involved in very heated disputes, always in my own name. I've never encountered this sort of behavior before. As a result, I've put in a request to have my username changed. Making editors answer for things they wrote online eight years ago is obviously not helpful to the current debate. Especially in the context of a request to ban the user. Since this is ANI, I had expected an administrator to step in already. Things seem to have changed around here. Not a pleasant atmosphere. Thomas B (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break from editing the article, especially while an ANI discussion is ongoing, does not mean sanctions are unnecessary. And the repeated claims of OUTING are spurious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

what a mess of a situation Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:12, 13 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 [28]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [29]
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. [30]

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)

nod, my comment about DRN was intended for the event where the waters at the RfC had been sufficiently muddied by the bludgeoning to obscure consensus, as seems possible. In that event a more structured discussion may be necessary for the benefit of those can't quite process that they are misinterpreting policy. But as Loki correctly points out, there is no point in doing that until the RfC runs has its course, and depending on how that goes it may prove unnecessary. I would have thought a page block a week ago would have been better, but apparently the admins do not agree.

And lest I add to the toxicity here, I will now return to thuch me more civil topic of modern-day fascism. Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 13 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)

I'm seconding the closure request. It appears there's consensus that imo is now unlikely to change. The sooner this is closed, the less vitriol will continue to spill, and there's still much potential for that. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this end for a while, to be honest. Does someone have to post it at WP:CR? You'll get no objection from me. Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just scroll off if people stop commenting. I think it's best if this is dropped now. I'll give @Thomas Basboll a WP:CTOP alert, and the most efficient course of action, if an editor wants to report a problem in future, is to do so at WP:AE. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a request for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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([31], [32], [33], [34], [35]). 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., [36]) 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., [37][38][39] ) 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.[40][41][42] 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 [43]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [44] 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)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 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) "The term 'cultural Marxism' is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an 'antisemitic conspiracy theory' (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish)." - James Lindsay in Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish. They aren't "against the west" because they are Jewish, they're against the west because they want a communist revolution. It's a conspiracy and if not antisemitic on it's face, then it can still be used by antisemites due to it's close relation to the original antisemitic conspiracy theory. A claim can be antisemitic without the claimant knowingly being antisemitic or a self proclaimed antisemite. It's a distinction without a difference (at least in Lindsay's case). Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tewdar, that's an observation that been made by many centrist, moderates, and liberals as well. Pokerplayer513, that's a misreading of what Lindsay is saying. He says more on the topic here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Can you give me an example of any centrists, moderates, or liberals using the term 'cultural Marxism' to describe what contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly? The OED says 'cultural Marxism' is used chiefly among right-wing commentators, but I don't really see any use of this sense by anyone I would describe as centrist.  Tewdar  05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Any RS that say something similar Jweiss? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I don't want to get drawn into an argument about content here, but for the record here is the quote from Lindsay that Jweiss11 says we are 'misreading' - The term “cultural Marxism” is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish). It seems to be that Pokerplayer513 paraphrased it accurately. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Pokerplayer513 said "Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish." What Lindsay actually says is: "The most apt meaning of “cultural Marxism” is that the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context (see also, conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism)." This is not a "conspiracy theory" nor does it have anything to do with anyone being Jewish. This is a description of leftist political beliefs held by some number of people. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tedwar, I think you are correct that the term "cultural Marxism" is explicitly used mostly by conservatives/right-wingers, but there are centrist, moderates, and liberals who criticize the contents of "cultural Marxism", as defined by Lindsay, e.g. "conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism." Sam Harris, John McWhorter, and Steve Pinker immediately come to mind. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I’d like to see any of those guys use the term “cultural Marxism”, never mind that Sam Harris is only a few steps away from Lindsay and his ilk. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Those are two different quotes. The more relevant quote here is obviously the former. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I think the most relevant quote about what Lindsay believes obviously starts with "the most apt meaning..." Jweiss11 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) No, the most relevant quote is the one where he admits it’s a conspiracy theory. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, a political critique is not a "conspiracy theory" merely because one disagrees with it. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Is it a conspiracy theory when Lindsay calls it one in his own words? I really don't like to discuss content in ANI threads, but this has been a helpful demonstration of what it is like to discuss with XMCan and/or Jweiss11 on Talk:James A. Lindsay or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) You can argue against cultural Marxism being a conspiracy theory all you want but the point is that this isn’t about you, this isn’t about your opinions, and your opinions are based on a questionable reading of an extremely unreliable primary source that is clearly outside your area of expertise (I’m not insulting you— you edit almost exclusively about American football, not political theory) Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) MrOllie, Lindsay explains that "Cultural marxism" is used differently by different people and then goes on to describe what he things is the "most apt" meaning. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, I'm confident in my reading here. That I edit prolifically about American football here doesn't obviate my ability to understand other topics. A lot of people are offering their opinions here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) If you want to keep arguing about this, the talk page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is thataway and full of editors who have heard these arguments a million times. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) What I'm arguing about, fundamentally, is that MrOllie accusations toward XMcan are flawed, and that XMcan is correct in that we have a BLP violation at the Lindsay article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) By "That it is possible to see “cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory—both legitimately and not" Lindsay means there is a legitimate conspiracy by "cultural marxists" to "achieve some form of communism" and there is an illegitimate conspiracy theory "by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain." Both conspiracies, both led by jewish theorists, but one of them apparently isn't antisemitic because it doesn't blame Judaism. Also Jweiss11, I don't think that quote can be used in isolation. If it said something like "oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is covertly re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context by it's adherents without the knowledge of the general public" it would be more fitting, but that is something garnered from context. Also RS > primary source. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Lindsay is not asserting that the "legitimate conspiracy" of cultural Marxists is led by Jewish theorists. While Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, as were a majority of the core members of the Frankfurt School, their Jewishness was orthogonal to their ideas and beliefs, and, more importantly, those advocating for culturally Marxist principles and policies in the current era are not overwhelmingly Jewish. He would point to thought leaders like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Ibram X. Kendi. I don't believe any of those individuals happen to be Jewish in any way, ethnically or religiously. Also, the extent to which the efforts of such people can be considered a "conspiracy" is questionable. Is every political project involving more than one person a conspiracy? Any political campaign for public office is going to involve two or more people coordinating their efforts in service of private, often secret, strategies. So is every political campaign a conspiracy? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Talk page thataway Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) In fact amateur philosophy department thataway, off the site Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 13 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.[45]
2. I corrected an error regarding Lindsay's undergraduate degree, which had been incorrectly listed since “forever”.[46]
3. I eliminated duplicate citations.[47]
4. I attempted to improve BLP tags and LP descriptors, although I ultimately abandoned this effort due to a lack of consensus.[48]

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)

• I’m done standing off to the side on this: XMcan should be topic banned from modern politics. Jumping from an article you were blocked from for pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning to a directly adjacent one is pure system gaming. I’m also calling out Jweiss11 here for defending XMcan by baselessly claiming Cultural Marxism is not a far-right conspiracy theory but rather some moderate mainstream opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could Dronebogus kindly provide evidence where Valereee stated that I was p-blocked for “pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning”? It's important for discussions to be based on factual information rather than mischaracterizations and aspersions. Additionally, your comment directed to Jweiss11 feels to me like potstirring. XMcan (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/XMcan states you were blocked for “disruptive editing”. All I recall you doing during that discussion was not taking a hint that your opinions were solidly rejected, so I’m making an inference here. It’s hard to find the block notice when you’re constantly deleting your talk page entries with no archive. But the point isn’t the specifics, it’s the fact that you were blocked for disruptive editing about a particular topic on one page, then moved on to another page on the same topic. Either you stop dancing around the edges of your editing restriction, or you will eventually get some kind of stronger sanction. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The assertion that I am “constantly deleting my talk page entries” is another gross misrepresentation, easily disproven by reviewing my Talk page history. Unfortunately, Dronebogus persists in their months-old campaign of distortions and mischaracterizations.[49] XMcan (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I delete some messages, especially if they look like canned warnings (which I think you understand are often considered patronizing to experienced users). I never delete block messages from admins, in the spirit of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

as i opined a few days ago there, a page-ban from an article should be considered a de facto ban from the topic in any other article. if we aren't willing to extend the blocking rules in that direction then a formal discussion of topicbanning XMCan from Cultural Marxism should be initiated here. ValarianB (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban for XMcan regarding cultural marxism. I'm not sure if this is the right venue for this, but seeing more experienced editors like Dronebogus say the same thing and that XMcan continues to sealion on the James Lindsay talk page then I also agree. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban for for XMcan regarding cultural Marxism. The repeated harping on XMCan alleged "sealioning" is an obvious example of failing to assume good faith by editors who are frustrated to have their opinions challenged. XMcan is fundamentally being punished for vocalizing a minority opinion, specifically a minority that challenges a leftist orthodoxy that is widely entrenched across Wikipedia in topic areas related to contemporary politics. And part of the reason his opinion is a minor one here and now is that other editors that might agree with him have been sanctioned in the past after having similar Kafka traps applied to them. Do we want to rinse and repeat that history or strive for a future of Wikipedia is that fairer both in treatment of it editors and its presentation of content? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure does feel like The Trial. XMcan (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about “leftist orthodoxy” being “widely enforced on Wikipedia” I’m just not gonna take your opinion seriously. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, I’m afraid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I agree that reality has liberal bias. But the bias I'm talking about is leftist, not liberal (i.e. left of liberal), much like many of opinion sources that have been cited in the Lindsay article, e.g. Current Affairs, Jacobin. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is not an overwhelming number of “leftist […] opinion sources” cited in the article, even for “cultural marxism”. I’m seeing academic papers and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Plus I don’t think citing a leftist critique of someone misconstruing Marxism is necessarily a bad thing. I’ve seen right-leaning opinion sources cited for some topics as well— it’s just that this shouldn’t be one of them because serious academic literature strongly disputes their conclusions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Dronebogus, @Jweiss11, @Pokerplayer513, @MrOllie, @XMcan, anyone else I'm missing. Please stop arguing content here. It's absolutely 100% counterproductive to getting admin eyes on the issue. Could someone please collapse all this content stuff, I'm getting like 30 seconds of connectivity at a time. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it's probably time to consider some CT editing restrictions for James A. Lindsay. XMcan has made a suggestion that seems helpful. Perhaps a consensus required restriction for sources? (FTR, I am not closely following the entire huge discussion there; I'm out of town with spotty access and am only editing sporadically, I don't actually want to become the enforcing admin myself right now but would support someone else setting it.) Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need some sort of extraordinary solution implemented across any topics that could be construed as adjacent to “Cultural Marxism”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This might qualify for WP:CTOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 13 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)

He's still falsifying quotes. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Today you're edit warning over multiple articles. This needs to stop immediately... I've asked for Chris Brown to be fully protected. Moxy- 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is not nice for Yotrages to still be making these types of edits and looks like they have a WP:CIR issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 13 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)

The user (to me) seems to be at times productive but at other times a problem. Definitely disruptive and a problem user, but also someone who if improved would be valuable to the project.

I think an indef block (with a WP:LASTCHANCE appeal) would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. If he stops his problem behavior, great, a valuable editor. If he doesn't, its another revert and an extra block. I also support an indef TBAN. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:55, 13 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.[50] Unfortunately, their edits have continued to involve policy violations,[51] misleading summaries,[52] and questionable lead section changes.[53] 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").[54] Here,[55] 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.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] 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.[63]. On one of your edit summaries wrote, "Whaaaat?"[64]. 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)

Since this report, The One I Left has made at least one edit containing unsourced claims (i.e., "received negatively", "received mixed reviews").[65] Is unsourced, not "considered false" material acceptable–in a BLP, no less? Is it others' responsibility to monitor and clean up after an experienced user who should know better? KyleJoan^talk 01:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you even reading my edits or just making assumptions? I literally sourced and had direct quotes.

• • "received negatively" - "which was received negatively with Frank Rich of The New York Times writing it, "isn't a play - it's a temper tantrum in two acts... One of the more shocking lapses of Mr. Albee's writing is that he makes almost no attempt even to pretend that Himself is anything other than a maudlin stand-in for himself, with the disappearing arm representing an atrophied talent.""
  • "received mixed reviews" - "Albee's plays during the 1980s received mixed reviews with Michael Billington of The Guardian writing, "American dramatists invariably end up as victims of their own myth: in a success-crazed culture they are never forgiven for failing to live up to their own early masterpieces. But if Edward Albee has suffered the same cruel fate as Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams, he has kept on trucking" The One I Left (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

    This user's confidence in citing one review to support a claim about mixed reviews shows they either refuse to adhere to policies or they do not understand NPOV, V, and OR. KyleJoan^talk 05:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can remove it if you really want, but I'm just adding one critics opinion which was mixed for his later work. Again this is not disruptive work but I'm open to debate as to wording, phrasing etc. However you initial claim that I had no sourcing is false. The One I Left (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the mere presence of a ref next to a claim constitutes appropriate and sufficient sourcing whether that ref verifies that claim or not? KyleJoan^talk 07:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply sourcing a quote lol You seem to be making inaccurate allegations against me saying I didn't source any content when I have specified quotes and sources. Again, if you want to debate the phrasing that's fine and I'm open to it but it's not disruptive.The One I Left (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to ping these users and ask them to clarify that your edits were not in fact unsourced, poorly sourced, or plain incompatible with the sources cited?[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] KyleJoan^talk 15:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are totally misrepresenting a lot of these edits. I don't think you're arguing in good faith at all unlike my edits. Most of edits are minor phrasing disputes over whether to add certain awards or credits in lead or not. Which is fine and totally up for debate! One of them even described my edits as being in good faith. The MJ the Musical reverts were around one particular user wanting to sanitize that article from any negative reviews! So they were in fact disrupting the page not me. They didn't want any negative reviews in the article and in the end a consensus was made to include the reviews.The One I Left (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's impossible to misrepresent reverts that blatantly say "unsourced", "inaccurate", and "WP:PROVEIT". That said, I'll refrain from commenting further if no other user believes this is actionable. KyleJoan^talk 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will admit to accidentally misapplying a nomination towards Paul Dano for a role. We all make mistakes and it was quickly reverted. For that I sincerely apologize and was embarrassed when the mistake was made. But a lot of the examples you name are out of context. The "unsourced" allegation you reference here, [76] refers to when I added a comedian who was already listed as being an influence in the sourced article! So despite not understanding the reversion, I just added multiple sources on top of that other article to back my claim[77]. Regardless I'll stop commenting too. Clearly we have differences of opinions, but I think debate, conversation etc should be allowed and encouraged as well as the ability to recognize one acting in good faith. Not every editor is going to agree on which titles, accolades get listed in the lead or phrasing etc. But I'm not a disruptive editor.The One I Left (talk) 15:44, 12 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)

I am sorry that you do not like my edits. I really am. I try to make high quality edits and I hope that others benefit from that work. I do wish this discussion were occurring on the article talk page so there would be a clear history of talk page discussion and editing. For this reason, I am not planning to make further edits to the article. I simply don't find it appropriate for the edits should be occurring independently of the discussion, and I am uncomfortable with the discussion currently, since you are not discussing anything with me. And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work:

1. Quotes are commonly used for place names in discussions of toponyms for conceptual clarify and the benefit of readers, like most forms of punctuation.
2. Are you accusing me of having a too pro-Armenia POV? I thought that was generally a consensus view on this project but, as I have stated, this is not my main area of involvement with this project. Was it my edit calling "historic Armenia" the "native national home of indigenous Armenians"? Or the part that toponyms were changed "to erase the name and memory of the historic Armenian national home that now fell within Turkey's borders"? I don't think these are "original research". I feel the statements are supported by the citations in the article, if not the exact verbatim words I added. Christ, where did I go wrong. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• "And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work"

The user must be trolling at this point. I have shown diff by diff the problematic, absurd and tendentious nature of this user's edits and even edit-summaries in the article, the user's reply is to describe their "work" as "earnest and good faith". I believe an admin action is due for this case. Vanezi (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person. I hope that you are able to find a way to contribute to this project constructively. Cornsimpel (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person.

This is a personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike it, or else you may face sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for the clear personal attack. I further think that between the personal attack and the pretty clear GAME editing, Cornsimpel should be indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. However, as they were not given a {{alert/first}} notice prior to these edits, I do not believe I have CTOPS authority to unilaterally impose said sanction at this time and thus am instead proposing it as a community sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support tban per the evidence above [95], [96]. Vanezi (talk) 17:18, 13 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)

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [97] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 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 [98]? 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 The user is just editing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a political party only, [99] 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 [100]and [101] Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. 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.

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

  This is now WP:NPA. Admins, grab the mop. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  He has already been blocked. Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 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 [103], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([104]), be uncivil ([105], [106], [107]), 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 [108] (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 [109] 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 ([110]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([111]) 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 [112].
• 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 ([113]). 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 ([114], [115]) 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 ([116], [117], [118], [119]) 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 [120].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([121]) 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 ([122], [123], [124]).

• 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 ([125]) 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[126]

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[127]

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)

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 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)

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 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 [128]. 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.[129]., 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)

What of the four reverts and coordination with said editor? This concerns the Harold E. Puthoff article as an WP:ATTACK page. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Int21h Please answer my question about a BLP violation - and if the Puthoff article is an attack page, add a speedy delete tag to justify your claim - if it's deleted, as we do with attack pages, it will justify your claims. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, two way street; answer all these question without evasion. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? Totally get that woo woo or magic or whatever is your thing, what gets you going, but you are abusing your admin rights. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Derision is not going to help your case,please drop that. Warnings or sanctions may not be distributed according to your particular liking, that is not a cause for grievance, and this is not an example of administrative involvement. The IP was clearly being disruptive. You are editing in a topic related to pseudoscience; are you contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic, or that the use of that term is a BLP violation? I have left a CT notice on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion In fact I didn't have to give int21h a warning as they were taken to AN3 before, although no action was taking. Then of course there was the obvious editing logged out where the block of the IP made int21h think their account was blocked. User:ජපස certainly needs no warnings, they are aware of editwarring. I did post to their page but only to point out that their ct alert was made after mine and thus redundant. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice topic change on a reply. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I am not "contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic". I have been explicit about this multiple times and it's cluttering up multiple talk pages by woo woo and magic aficionados. And that wasn't a term that was an entire sentence. And it's a BLP article. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If it makes things easier, I warned myself about edit warring just in case the asymmetry felt unfair. jps (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked indef and article listed at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@CSMention269 Closed as speedykeep. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 14 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)

• @PamD: Do you have any thoughts on this matter?—Alalch E. 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. I haven't the stamina to plough through all the changes made since I added a paragraph of careful text citing three different highly reliable sources, but it's pretty upsetting to see that it has disappeared completely over the months. The current version of McNally (surname) has no references nor explanation of the name, is just a list of surname-holders, and the only sourced statement in McAnally is "McAnnally is a surname" (sourced to a 1923 work reproduced on a genealogy website), though it includes the unsourced (and cryptic) statement "The death of the eponym is recorded in the Annals of Clonmacnoise in 1316." so neither article makes any reference to my three sources. PamD 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Delving further into the previous discussions, I think I may not have noticed the "ping" on 22 April 2023, or perhaps felt I'd contributed enough with my researches.

  If authoritative sources have something to say about the surname origins, it is appropriate to include that in our Wikipedia article on the surname. Yes, most surname articles are lists of surname-holders only, but where there is sourced information and editors with the inclination to add it, it should be added. If the sources differ, we can say so. If there are other reliable sources with other things to say, then we can add those, well cited. But this looks as if content has been removed because Gaelicbow doesn't like it, which is not a good reason to suppress the correctly-sourced work of other editors.

  So it appears that Gaelicbow's editing here is disruptive, with a WP:OWN approach to the two articles, and that a topic ban from these and any related surnames might indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. PamD 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've been watching Gaelicbow's edits for a while (they keep showing up on my watchlist all over the place.) Their edits are disruptive, but on the low end of the scale. They don't give explanations for why they add or remove material, seems to be just personal preference rather than encyclopaedic reasons, and are terrible at referencing information. On multiple occasions after they've been warned and have been very actively engaged in disruptive behaviour, they've removed the warnings and stated that they were "vandalism and/or irrelevant" when they were clearly justified. I haven't had the energy to go further on it but it seems clear that their editing is of the "I don't like it" disruptive manner. This conversation is extremely telling of their combative "I don't like it" mentality, and the only time they engage with other editors is in this manner. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortly before last Christmas (I left a note on his talk page on the 25th) he started changing people from being Irish in being Anglo-Irish. Without sources. What he defended with: Seriously? They do not need sources when they are self-evident in the content of the article (and the articles of their respective forbears).. So yes, I can imagine that his editing is reason for concern. The Banner talk 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples: this, this, this and [130]]. The Banner talk 22:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow appeared making edits on a small article I created a long time ago, Leonard McNally. There was nothing majorly disruptive about their edits but i did notice that they kept making changes, undoing them then redoing them over again over quite a lengthy period. Some of them were nonsensical. I couldn't really fathom what they were doing. There didn't seem to be a POV at play - just slightly WP:CIRish and, well, just strange. DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 14 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/Archives/2024/January#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)

Yeah, great. There is reason to suspect that you wanted to impose this phantom consistency by combining otherwise inappropriate, purely cosmetic, edits with the barest-minimum-of substantive, token substantive, edits, that are not the primary intended change. After I looked again at your recent edits I can not find any edit that consists solely of changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. That appears to always be combined with some other change, a substantive change, making all of those edits (that I've seen), consisting of multiple types of changes, technically okay as a whole. But technically okay doesn't mean advisable.

And, really, I don't think you were consciously trying to create a fait accompli as Novem Linguae has accused you, but the friction arising from the appearance isn't worth it. It's great that you should stop converting Cite to cite, because it distracts editors looking at the watchlist, makes it hard to find the substantive part of your edit in the diff, and makes it harder to understand what your edit is about. Editors see an edit in their watchlist starting with words such as: Used lowercase "cite" template everywhere for consistency ... and they think it's a non-helpful purely cosmetic edit. This type of consistency would truly be a phantom. It's a worthless consistency. It doesn't matter if it's "Cite" or "cite". I don't agree with Novem Linguae that "Cite" is correct and "cite" is wrong. Neither is correct or wrong, they are the same. The variation doesn't affect anything.

I retract the part of my previous comment saying that I think you should be blocked, after reviewing more, and after your commitment to stop replacing Cite with cite. —Alalch E. 01:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and for your detailed comment. I also sometimes change {{short description|}} to {{Short description}}.

May I propose that each template that allows multiple spelling, such as {{Cite}} and {{cite}} or {{short description|}} and {{Short description|}} to have a defined preferred spelling, for example, in the documentation? I mean that such templates must have explicit mention in the documentation that different case variations are allowed, but the suggested (recommended) variant is ... .

Where do you think is a place to discuss this proposal of mine? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:23, 12 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)

I wonder whether discussions in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would affect my "reputation", i.e. when someone will complain about my edits in the future, will they be able to refer to this incident to reinforce their arguments? Or an incident report may have a short conclusion that will make things clear? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to do the same things, then yes, someone will refer to this discussion. If they have a complaint about unrelated issues, this probably won't matter much unless they are advocating for a WP:CIR block. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you because I take your concerns seriously, i.e. when you first time contacted me about "cite", I stopped replacing "cite" everywhere, and began only replacing it (1) only when there were other substantive edits, and (2) when the majority of "cite" were already lowercase. But after your raised another concern yesterday that you didn't like it, I promised to never change it unless I work on article content, writing stuff, such as preparing article for a GA or to raise a category, such as from C to B. Would you mind in the future to contact me first, i.e. via my Talk page or via an article in concern talk page, and if we would not resolve quickly, write to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, rather than writing to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents straight away? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that we already discussed this on Jan 24, and I had mentioned escalating to a noticeboard in that discussion, so a noticeboard was in my mind the next logical step.

Even if I am wrong or not in the majority on my template capitalization preferences here (which is possible), the takeaway here should be that bot-like editing must be exceptionally conservative, careful, and respectful of consensus and complaints. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, that makes sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with Maxim's response and consider this

Resolved

for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 12 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)

And how will you deal with the defamatory (which means containing false information) edit that the user made? He always restored the edit, and here you were saying that I might have breached WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE???
Bruh, you're the one here who ain't neutral. That's even defamatory, and "you suspiciously defended the defamatory edit made by Asphonixm as if it's just a case of breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE!" Natsuikomin (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@NebY, If you're a sysop and rollbacker or any other special statuses other than editor, those statuses of yours would and should be revoked for being frankly and clearly unneutral, that is, breaching WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:DONTHOAX in a row. Natsuikomin (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They haven't used rollback at all in this edit dispute, I don't see what this has to do with revoking an unrelated permission. Being a rollbacker (or a sysop, although they aren't one) doesn't grant any "upper hand" in content disputes, as rollback should be used for obvious vandalism only. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't edited the article or even the talk page, only this discussion plus an ANI-notice on Natsuikomin's talk page. The above vehemence, the claims that I've breached WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:DONTHOAX, and the accusatory edit summary at the article[131] do not inspire confidence. NebY (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad you didn't do (roll back) that. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

said this after defending the defamatory ('defamatory' means "(of speech or writing) intended to harm somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them"), even without bothering to check the user's edit against the source he cited. Even after I told you that what Asphonixm wrote on the article was different from what CNN Indonesia reported on their article, you still proudly said this. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How was their comment in any way defending that edit? They only said: 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)
Which doesn't look like defending any of the edits at all, close to the opposite in fact, and wasn't even making an in-depth commentary but just talking about a possibility. A pretty reasonable position to take before assessing the content in detail. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 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)

Fully support this block and the subsequent talk page revocation, that is a ridiculous thing to write to try and achieve a chilling effect on editorial processes. Thanks for your decisive action Floquenbeam. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. NebY (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the editor is now using IPs Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1048:35:6985:9A5B:4FC2:6850/64. It looks like they've restricted themselves to editing their talk page and don't seem to have repeated their extreme allegation. Actually they've completely ignored the earlier allegation and the block rationale and instead seem to be ranting about other alleged behavioural problems. However their block was without talk page access so it's clearly still evasion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes I did reply rather than simply deleting as I felt it a better solution in this instance since the editor still doesn't seem to get why we blocked them and how to appeal and so it's likely someone whether UTRS or on wikipedia might need to do something to try and help. And having replied I didn't feel comfortable just deleting the IP comments I was effectively replying to. If someone else wants to just delete their evasion, don't let my comments be a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the user kept insisting on restoring its defamatory edit on Anies Baswedan. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user also made several disruptive edits in which he/she unnecessarily rearranged the layout of sub-sections. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, don't post on their Talk page again while they're blocked. The comment you made (under the Shame on you header) can be considered grave dancing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (crossposting at ANI and user's talk page) While I think this unblock request would probably be better done thru UTRS, if any admin thinks that talk page access should be restored and have an unblock request handled here instead, feel free to do so without talking to me first. I'm not around consistently. However, when talk page access is removed, you can't just use an IP to post on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  further comment (ANI only): do not import disputes from other wikis to en.wiki. We have quite enough of our own, thanks. The only reason there weren't multiple edit warring blocks issued is because one person went so far over the top that there wasn't enough symmetry to do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobbylonardo not providing edit summaries, questionable edits

User:Bobbylonardo was created on September 10, 2023; their first 5 months as a Wikipedia editor have included nearly 2,000 edits, most of which are creations of redirects, additions of categories, or other minor and constructive revisions to the encyclopedia. I bring them up here because of a few concerning behavioral patterns:

1. They have never added an originally written edit summary to any of their edits, even after being asked on three separate occasions, by three different editors, including myself (1 2 3), to do so
2. They have added and removed the "Featured article" icon to several articles without following the procedure to do so (additions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11)
3. They have, on at least two occasions (1 2), added material to a talk page with the signature of another user.
4. They have been warned twice, by the same editor (1 2), about their additions of copyrighted content to an article about a television series. They have already been blocked once, on January 27, 2024, for "persistent addition of unsourced content".

I believe that this user can be a productive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and at the same time I am very concerned about their repeated failure to take any kind of feedback from the community, or to abide by the community's standards for edit summaries and cited information. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Two examples of content that this user added that likely violate copyright, and that the user has not yet been warned about:

1. This diff is copied from this IMDb page
2. This diff is copied from this DIRECTV episode guide page

White 720 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I investigated what was going on with their edits using other's signatures:

1. <This edit> was an almost exact copy of the top of another article's talk page as it is right now(Talk:Rosie's_Rules), with the signature replaced (original comment was added in <this edit> in 2022, which is a different name in the original because that user changed their username)
2. <This edit> was a copy of a previous warning on their page, by the correct user this time, but with some alterations: <original>.

Not sure what to make of this.

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC))

You must leave a notice on the talk page of an editor when you bring them to this page. (I have done so for you). ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobbylonardo&diff=prev&oldid=1206365293 White 720 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm used to seeing such warnings in sections on their own, and missed the one you placed there. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries! My edit is easy to miss, especially because I removed a duplicate comment that the user had added in that section at the same time as I issued an ANI notice. White 720 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is still not providing edit summaries White 720 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [132]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [133][134] [135]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [136] [137]
• Removal of edit warring notice [138]
• Removal of ANI notice [139]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [140] [141] [142]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [143]
• Personal attack [144]
• WP:PA against Leventio [145]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [146]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157])
• Erroneous material ([158] [159])
• Readded boosterism ([160]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me.

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone make this edit?

When I was editing the draft, I changed some external links in references after the filter stopped me, but then it stopped me again. I am sure that the edit follows the policies, and I don't know how to change those external links so that the filter doesn't block me. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This external link should work instead, it's a direct link instead of that proxy thing you had. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

FI.214 disruptive page moves

FI.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's talk page has numerous warnings going back to last year, many regarding undiscussed controversial page moves. They were also blocked for this by Favonian in December and have been warned again since then. However, they are still continuing with this, including numerous controversial moves of Indian topics today - [161]. It seems this editor is not getting the message about this disruption. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That's quite enough of that. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistent copyright violations by User:Mejoel

This user has been consistently making copyright violations even after repeated warnings and notices (4 to be exact). I believe this behaviour will only continue if they are not given a proper final warning or a block. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time one of their drafts violated copyvio. Previous draft deletions were Feb 2022 and Jan 2024, preceded by a warning from Diannaa in Feb 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Star Mississippi. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP editor - Repeated use of bare URLs, use of fake citation titles and lack of communication

I'm reporting 80.192.53.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because honestly I'm at a loss with this IP... they have been providing useful edits for a while under a couple of different IPs (which is of course normal), but have consistently either used bare URLs for citations and other times made up fake titles for sources... examples are below. I've tried multiple times, from November 2023 to today, to engage this user on their talk page, but have not once received any kind of acknowledgement. They have only once left a message on my talk page, about an unrelated issue - and I prompted them to read their messages on their talk page... but nothing has happened. Is there something that can be done to get this user to communicate, instead of other users having to tidy up their edits every time?

Bare URLs:

• [162] - bare URL with title "6435 gets new owner", requiring manual removal before a bot like ReFill2 can be used
• [163] and [164] - both bare URLs with custom title, again requiring manual intervention instead of a bot
• [165] - Again, bare URL with title

Examples of fake titles:

• [166] - IP used "45690 to visit EOR" when the article linked was titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced"
• [167] - IP used "5593 On sale" with an article titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced". They also used this in another article with the titles "5593 On sale" and "7760 On sale", and another with the title "7760 On sale".

Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I haven't linked each and every issue... In my eyes this is more a lack of communication than a behavioural issue - I would be more than happy to show the user how to easily add citations properly, but I can't seem to get through... Danners430 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to prevent LCSB archiving the discussion before someone is able to weigh in Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

IP with obvious WP:COI, plus edit-warring

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

This looks like an obvious WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE. This IP has been rapidly spamming a self-published article posted online in December 2023 (this). Every single edit has been inserting this unformatted reference, without contributing anything else, across five articles so far. The spamming is especially obvious in these, where they inserted it three times in a row in the same article. After I reverted them at History of the Quran and gave them a warning on their talk page ([168]), they edit-warred at that article ([169], [170]) and repeat the same thing at Criticism of the Quran ([171]). R Prazeres (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hr. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly removing sourced content without explanation

160.39.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Has a history of repeatedly removing sourced information from Greenhill & Co. and Boutique investment bank without explaining why. Has already been warned. Latest edit on Independent advisory firm give me a suspicion user might be trying to remove mention of competitors for various reasons. While user might be using shared IP from Columbia University, it just so happens all these disruptive edits come from this address. AntiDionysius (talk · contribs) seeking your input if any.

I'm seeking a temp block for this IP to see if the message will be understood. If still not then it will be increased to indef eventually. - Imcdc Contact 05:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; the combination of unexplained removals and apparently constructive additions is a strange one. I don't know if I think this is a person who is just very bad at edit summaries/general communication, or if there's an undisclosed COI going on. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:GabrielPenn4223

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

---

I began tracking GabrielPenn4223 (talk · contribs)'s contributions after they made this questionable move request last month, and in the time since, I've noticed some behavior that is concerning, to say the least.

They have been combative with other users over edits that are several years old, combative in general, have previously been blocked for inappropriate behavior, has created draft articles in mainspace, was nearly blocked again, nominated numerous articles for GA status despite not being a significant contributor to them, created questionable redirects, made questionable requests for deletion, made questionable requests for page renaming, made requests that would clearly fail, and has apparently done all of these things under the guise of we are not all perfect.

It seems that after being told to stop nominating articles for GA status (and apologizing for their behavior), they have moved on to nominating articles for deletion or redirect, often without any consideration to their subject matter, general notability, or existing references. Ultimately, I believe their intentions, while good in nature, are misguided, and they are creating more and wholly unnecessary work for other editors, and I've seen enough of it that I thought it might be prudent to open a discussion into their editing patterns. Of course, I could be wildly off base here, but as a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I felt like it was time to bring these edits to attention. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I apollogize and I will promise to improve. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm a fairly brand new editor to Wikipedia so you know I make mistakes at times. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I probably need to stop nominating redirects or pages for deletion/discussion? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, GSK. Thanks for the message, and I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia as you know. and I make mistakes. I've stopped nominating and reviewing GA's nearly an entire month ago and

everyone makes mistakes. I clearly have apologized to users who have gave me negative feedback or I got negative feedback over with. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block per User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect. The community should not have to tolerate this much trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to get my best to improve, I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support CIR block the user has done nothing productive for Wikipedia, and has been a massive WP:TIMESINK around the GA process. Many editors have asked that they start making constructive edits, but they continue being disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've stopped making everything miscallenous (GA, moves, AfDs, RfDs, you name that) until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for at least 90 days or something longer, as mentioned at the teahouse. I've started making constructive edits by adding a news source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  By "constructive edit", you mean adding erroneous text which other users have to clean up? What, do you think you should be praised, as you hoped when you posted your self-flagellating user essay on so many talk pages? What is the purpose of citations on Wikipedia, GabrielPenn4223? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-citing-an-article-in-Wikipedia#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20citing%20articles,accuracy%20of%20the%20information%20presented. This states: The purpose of citing articles in Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information to support the claims made in the article. By citing sources, Wikipedia articles aim to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the information presented. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  quora isn't a generally reliable source. we have reliable rules set. see WP:Reliable, and WP:Quora Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's not a reliable source, citations are to provide verifiable sources to define claims made in the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Adding CN tags to nearly every single line of an article is also not acceptable behavior. GSK (talk • edits) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I'm going to stop. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I added a "unreferenced section" template to a entirely unreferenced section. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, indefinite CIR block, no further questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This seems a pretty clear case of CIR to me, and it doesn't appear the prior block has had the required effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a constructive contribution today. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I have already needed to correct your "constructive contribution" because it added erroneous text. Furthermore, I support a CIR block. GSK (talk • edits) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  How long? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block per AirshipJungleman29 and Chris Troutman Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC

• Support CIR block It is always good that a user is willing to admit their own shortcomings, but when their history is overwhelmingly filled with disruptive behavior, the user should be blocked to prevent more disruption regardless of their intent. The Night Watch (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly admit my shortcomings. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GabrielPenn4223: Can you clarify "mostly", please? ——Serial 15:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Generally I ask on a page or the TeaHouse and get advice, and if I get advice I take it most of the time. I stopped making GAs, AfDs, RMs, RfDs, AfCs, etc. not until I read the rules or understand what these are. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  In case it's indefinite maybe try to wait six months with the standard offer? or maybe shorter block GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think they are lucky to not be indeffed already - Blablubbs used the indefinite checkuser block template but only set the block length for two weeks. I'm wondering if that was a misclick. Either way I would support a CIR block now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if it was a misclick GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am apologizing for my behavior; I'm going to improve articles instead and stop the "we all are not perfect thing.". I am new, and it's a hard task to improve articles. I will not make GA nominations, AfDs, moves RfDs AfCs ever again until I clearly understand what these are and read the rules of these. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Gabriel. This is based on the evidence presented here and my own review of their behavior. However, this is not a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Led8000 on Talk:United States

After I saw Led8000 calling other editors "anti-intellectual" in this post, I wrote "Calling other editors "anti-intellectual" is insulting, uncivil, and inaccurate, and only serves to make other people discount your opinion and be more likely to insult you in return. Wikipedia policies require us to criticize ideas, not people, unless we're filing a report at WP:AN/I or other dispute mechanism." Instead of agreeing to follow these policies, Led8000 in response to this and some arguments about content called me "a very confused and misled power-hungry person" in this post. I let that go and tried to refocus on sourcing and content. But then in another thread I see Led8000 advised another editor "Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally." in this post. I don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and Led8000 has made some thoughtful contributions to the discussion, but this habit of insulting other editors in the conversation seems like it could easily and repeatedly derail what are delicate negotiations over wording in a politically charged article. Not to mention reduce participation by editors who just want to volunteer their assistance and not be attacked for expressing concerns or making suggestions. I see warnings all over the place that this is a contentious topic and best behavior is required. I'm not sure what generally happens in cases like this, if editors are typically admonished, or topic-banned, or what, so I'm asking about it here. And obviously leaving this up to uninvolved editors, considering I've been one of the targets of these demotivating attacks. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Beland. I sincerely thank you for your message on my talk page about your post here, instead of trying to be covert or misleading in that way. There are too many things that you have not mentioned and left out here concerning this, and I will not be prompted by you to waste time of my life on a discussion here like this. I only advise people to see all of me and Beland's interactions on that talk page, for now. A question to other administrators, is Beland misusing this page? I was under the impression previously that this was actually a sort of page to let other administrators know about site-wide potential compromises or coding problems with the website. Led8000 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your final query, you might be thinking of WP:AN; this venue is correct for this kind of issue.

On your main point: I'd advise that if you think there is additional context missing from Beland's report, you should add it now. Right now it does look like you've made a number of personal attacks, and people aren't going to go hunting for reasons why this shouldn't be actioned by admins. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actioned how, exactly? And what have I done? I have now realized, as I should have before, that Beland obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing, as is a completely logical assumption for any of the top 100 Wikipedia contributors. I am not anti-Wikipedia (my third edit , in 2012, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=497932002 ) . I also did not intend to imply, and I would not want any, probably overall positive, significant contributors to be motivated to put less effort or work in to Wikipedia. Beland is included in that group, in my opinion, just like every other of the top 100 or so Wikipedia editors. I do not intend, and I have never harassed anyone on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the internet, or in person, or any other way, also, in my entire life. The 2 or 3 potentially "uncivil" messages on that talk page constitute what? What really happened, is that this post here by him can be explained by this talk page section, which seemingly has emotionally affected him, thinking that I intend to start a series of complaints to oust him as a long-time admin or something, such is addressed earlier here, based on my assumptions of intentions and perceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Extended_confirmed_edit_request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1206868576#Extended_confirmed_edit_request Led8000 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's some of what you have done :UPDATE. —WELL, THANK YOU, bitter anti-intellectuals,..., You are a very confused and misled power-hungry person,..., Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally., and of course in the comment above "obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing," and "which seemingly has emotionally affected him". Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be brief. @Led8000, stop making observations about your perceptions of other editors' states of mind, here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's obnoxious, and actionable. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what Acroterion said. Comment on the edits, not your personal opinion of the editor. If you can't stay focused on the merits of the discussion, and continue with your attacks, you will get blocked from editing. It is unnecessary and unproductive. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the third uninvolved administrator to comment, Led8000. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is policy. This discussion has two possible outcomes. The preferable one is that you follow the policy and agree to stop making personal attacks. The other outcome is that you get blocked from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

An editor who contributes valuable content... sometimes

I noticed a newly created category, Category:Pro–nuclear_weapons_activists, with only one BLP entry in it. I submitted it to CfD. The category creator is CJ-Moki. CJ-Moki has a long history of deleted categories and deleted articles. So many deletions and warnings over so many years; however, CJ also contributes good content to the project. Have a look at User_talk:CJ-Moki. I am laughing as I type these examples of problem content: Category:Targets of Gamergate, Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Libya, Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, Template:Nazi discussion, Harriet Tubman folding chair, and Mr. Krabs felllatio. I suppose this could be described as periodic disruptive editing? The problem activity isn't localized to any one topic or namespace, and it is intermittent. OTOH, this is an example of one of many contributions that made it to DYK status by the editor: Behind Closed Doors: Horrible, Filthy, Vile, Disgusting, Inappropriate, Off-Model Drawings by the Crew of a Popular Cartoon Show, so maybe we take the good with the bad? I don't know.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hmm, this seems tricky. I'm looking through their contribs and a lot of them seem to be in good faith, especially the DYK's. However, the unnecessary addition of empty categories, baseless redirects, and especially the attack page you brought up all pull this into a place that is of uncertain to me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Callanecc said that the newly created category is not an attack page. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, I couldn't even see what page FeralOink was talking about, I just saw the warning. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Chavurah

Hi! JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 are tag-teaming [172] [173] to add an advertisement for an art collective and its magazine to Chavurah, an article about Jewish fellowship. This includes two external links in the body. As an IPv6, I am, of course, automatically assumed to be a vandal and being told that removing spam is not a valid reason for removing spam. Can anything be done? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:E532:22ED:9050:A469 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This assumption is quite obviously a WP:AGF violation. 2003 LN6 17:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! It's not an advertisement, it's just a reference to the contemporary usage of the term "Havurah" primarily among religious Jews in NYC. I'm not sure how this source is seen as an advertisement considering it's from an independent Jewish news organization. JewishArtnik (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason there are two external links is because there are no wikipedia articles referring to the contemporary use of Havurah yet. I know it's being worked on but until then where should it be linked? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If the organization merits its own article (i.e. it is notable), then it would have one. Until then, every instance of a chavurah does not need to be mentioned in the article. Please see WP:Write the article first. ... discospinster _talk 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am working on creating its own page as it is quite notable in the Jewish community. I don't, however, understand why the organization would not also be mentioned in the article for the term "Havurah". Other organizations and movements are mentioned in the article, not just the literal translation of the term, so why should this not be referenced as well? JewishArtnik (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The only other organization mentioned by name is Havurat Shalom, and it has got an article. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The process here would be to create the article for the organization (assuming it meets Wikipedia notability requirements), and then it might make sense to add a "For the art collective, see Havurah (Art collective)" note at the start of the Chavurah article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would remind JewishArtnik and 2003 LN6 that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so things that share a name have separate articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here. See dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

pages by a blocked user

Globally blocked user Special:Contributions/Mykytal (bodiadub's sockpuppet) has created many spam promo pages, which are eligible for deletion under G5 speedy deletion rule. Here are some of the latest pages:

Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group Daria Zarivna Viktor Andrukhiv Viktor Andrukhiv Andriy Smyrnov Yulia Yanina 2A02:810A:8E3F:FAA4:D45C:1A7E:10F2:80DD (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New articles about political scandals

I have submitted the article Draft:List of state political scandals in the United States which was rejected for being too long. So I shortened the article by breaking it in to fifty individual articles and reducing the contentof each and the number of references used. I then resubmitted. See example Draft:List of Oklahoma political scandals, etc.

These new articles were immediately accepted by an administrator and encouraged. This admin’s decision was then vigorously challenged by a few editors who caused him to reverse his original decision. Each of the new, smaller articles was then rejected by the admin and these editors for being TOO LONG, and having DIFFERING TEMPLATES, BLP, RECENTISM, and ORGINAL RESEARCH. I challenge their reasoning.

• Being TOO LONG is negated by Wikipedia:Special:Longpages.
• DIFFERING TEMPLATES is addressed by Wikipedia:Citing sources:Citation style. “Wikipedia does not have a single house style for reliable sources.”
• BLP violations are easily remedied by multiple references which were discouraged.
• RECENTISM and ORGINAL RESEARCH are such vague concepts as to be irrelevant.

All these issues were discussed in full at Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States an article in existence since 2004.

I would ask that the reasons for acceptance/non acceptance be examined and the validity of the comments given for rejection be re-considered. And finally, I draw your attention to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marquis de la Eirron who has been mentioned on this subject before.Johnsagent (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins have no special privileges in the determination of content matters. You should discuss this with the other editors involved. If you wish to accuse anyone of sickpuppeting you should do so at WP:SPI with WP:DIFFS showing proof of your claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnsagent, content disputes do not belong at this noticeboard. There are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of points to consider here:

• The user who accepted the drafts, @WikiOriginal-9, is not an administrator, although that shouldn't matter either way.
• Your original draft article is as long as the longest of Special:LongPages. The issue is that this amount of text hits the limit in terms of templates able to be transcluded, meaning that some citation templates don't render at all.
• "Not having a single house style" means that different citation styles in use, like Wikipedia:CS1 and Wikipedia:CS2 (used in most {{Citation}} templates) are accepted. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia:Bare URLs like the ones you used are okay, as they are much less informative and at higher risk of link rot. Indeed, your AfC declining message mentions that Links such as this [https://www.nydailynews.com] with no text should not be used.
  • It also doesn't mean that any possible way to cite information is accepted. As written in the Manual of Style, Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an
    article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system.
• Your later individual drafts were not declined for being too long or for differing templates. Rather, as it was discussed here, issues such as BLP violations, recentism and original research were indeed brought up. These are certainly not "such vague concepts as to be irrelevant", and indeed original research is highly discouraged on Wikipedia.
  • If there aren't reliable sources describing specific events as scandals, they shouldn't be labeled as such. That's also where the BLP violation comes in, even if the facts are supported by reliable sources (not any source is sufficient), commentary on the facts is not, and describing factual events as "scandals" is indeed a potential BLP violation if not supported by independent reliable sources.
  • The lead sections are definitely full of original research, using your own specific definition of scandal and asserting things such as Breaking the law is always considered a scandal.

In other terms, declining those drafts was absolutely justified, and I warmly invite you to rework them to remove original research, make the labeling of individual events as "scandal" in line with their descriptions in reliable sources rather than your own definition, and ask further question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need any more information (trust me, it's a way calmer place than ANI).
Also, please don't vaguely hint at people being sockpuppets with no evidence — not only is it bad form to cast aspersions, but it also happens to be useless here as neither the declining users nor anyone involved in the discussions have been blocked as sockpuppets. If you have evidence of any of them actually being sockpuppets, please bring it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than throwing an accusation here without supporting evidence. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz

This user initially wanted to promote a Chinese tech product. After that was speedily deleted, they are now posting random content in their talk page while linking a Thai casino site in some of their edits. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Admins lied to me and should be sanctioned for bad behavior

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

---

Rant.

I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was very appalled with the unprofessional way that the users on that talk page conducted themselves. So now that my ip block has been lifted, I want to file a complaint on the matter and call for the users involved to be sanctioned. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page. My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla blatantly lied to me. My ip was banned from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my account. They were clearly on a power trip by making up this easy to debunk and obviously false lie. They clearly just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of that unjust block, so they tried to gaslight me. Shame on them. That behavior is unacceptable and is clearly worthy of sanction on its own. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page where they essentially admitted that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. This was a complete lie, I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for a completely fabricated reason. It was obvious that all 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. They clearly viewed me, as an ip editor, to be inferior and not worth dealing with in good faith. This behavior was absolutely disgraceful on their parts. Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla decided that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, but that was of no concern to Gaelan. He just wanted me gone, so he made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. This was another extremely flimsy excuse. I had made some mistakes on the talk page, but all of those edits were already undone and I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. And it was all on my own talk page, I was not vandalizing anything. Since that issue was already resolved, it’s clear that was not a good reason to have me blocked and was just another flimsy excuse. Again, these admins just didn’t want to deal with an ip editor. They wanted me gone. I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter decided not to remotely engage with any of my arguments, and instead just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. For no reason at all. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block. They completely ignored me. Once again, I was a mere ip user they didn’t care about. Of course they had no desire to deal with me. So, my request is that @OhNoitsJamie, Yamla, Deepfriedokra, Gaelan, and Berean Hunter: all be blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, the same amount of time my ip was wrongly blocked for. They blatantly lied to me and ignored my fair reasoning and requests I gave. They showed utter contempt for ip editors in the way that treated me. Since they wanted me unfairly blocked for 5 months, it’s only fair that these people all be blocked for 5 months in return. I very much hope getting a taste of what they have subjected ip editors to will help them learn to treat ip editors with actual fairness and respect in the future. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter hasn't even edited in 3.5 years. This block was 5 years ago. This is absurd, and I can only guess, a troll. I'm blocking the IP for 30 days. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown This OP IP is part of the BigBuilder1755/EpicTiger87 sock farm. They've posted this nonsense here multiple times under a range of accounts and IPs, e.g. [174]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, EpicTiger87 has previously tried to start a fight with me at DRN over trivial edits to John de Lancie, so if I assume this is the case (and it seems to be) then by all means, other editors/admin should review this block, as I might be considered "involved" even though I had no way of knowing when I made the block. Still looks like a troll to me, although *101's info might explain what flavor of troll they are. Dennis Brown 2¢ 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Solid block. I've also had to deal with this sock farm/LTA myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I remember seeing them talk about this same issue about a couple of weeks ago. I think Bbb23 had removed the topic or something??? I don't know. But yeah. I told the user that the admins were just trying to do their job. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm especially feeling really bad for Jamie since a couple of months ago, a disruptive user named Garrybcoston was making unconstructive edits to other pages and Jamie politely warned them not to, in which the user rudely responded back. That user has thankfully been blocked by PhilKnight but it still makes me feel guilty that someone would blame Jamie like this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  They are either trolling (likely) or they are so incompetent that they can't tell reality from their own thoughts, so pity them. Admin are used to getting blamed for obviously false things, no worries. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  True. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Phrasia

• Phrasia (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a 1RR restriction when unblocked a month ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive358#Unblock/unban request from Phrasia, and has restored the same content (a list of songs sourced to fansite ddrfreak.com) twice to Music of Dance Dance Revolution today. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Just to give my side of the situation, to my knowledge, the restriction was not breached. The restriction is geared towards edit-warring, which isn't the case. It is a list article, and the article is very much incomplete/missing content (there is even a template notice which I didn't even add mind you, which explains this). Dance Dance Revolution is a complex subject, (there are thousands of songs that were featured in the series, and that's just the Arcade/amusement side of it, not to mention console and home releases and other event editions such as Disney versions etc.) It seems fan sites, video game blogs, message boards aren't reliable sources. However, maybe an exception should be made, because a similar series Pump It Up has sources from music game fan sites. etc. I did one revert, and that is my only revert, and if my edit was reverted again, then so be it. I'm now looking into getting further help, so my contributions are included on that article, if there is still controversy/discrepancies (which I mentioned on the articles talk page). Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    This first edit could also be understood as a revert, as, even if some parts were technically slightly different, you brought back the vast majority of what the previous editor removed. This, along with your unambiguous revert bringing back the same content minutes later, could be seen as breaking the 1RR. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    Only technically different in one part: their first edits today added 12k of songs sourced to TV Tropes, YouTube and ddrfreak.com. When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added the same content back minus two reference tags (see a diff of their two edits). When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added it back again. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    The fact that these long lists of information on other music game articles are sourced to fan sites, etc. does not indicate that we should continue to do so. I've asked folks over at WP:WikiProject Video games and gotten similar criticism for doing the same on different individual entries of Beatmania IIDX. Reconrabbit 13:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NairaKanakMeera

The NairaKanakMeera (talk · contribs) appears to be sockpuppet of User:Kairakairav (who previously had 21 other puppet, all either containing "Naira", "Kuhu", "Kaira"). (Filed for investigation)

Constantly adding uncited information to articles Karna, Chandragupta Maurya, etc., Replacing sourced information with original research. Multiple warnings given by different users. No action taken and keeps doing disruptive edits without consulting.

.245CMR.•^👥📜 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Right of reply

Does a visitor leaving a comment on my personal talk page and subsequently erasing the reply function count as a cause for uncivility and ANI? I have had one user doing this in the past few hours during an argument with me twice on my talk page but am not sure whether I can file a report.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207388774
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207377589

Borgenland (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's odd behaviour, but I don't think they're attempting to remove a "right to reply". You don't need to use the Reply function to reply, you can just edit the section like any other on Wikipedia. I don't think personally I've ever used the "Reply" function so don't actually know how it works, but it looks like it's triggered by a four tilde signature insertion. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It just feels suspicious why they need to. Not to assume total bad faith but I do wonder the deliberate urge to make life harder on the part of the respondent by removing the tildes. Thanks though for the insight. Borgenland (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting their own signature in a subsequent edit is a common error made by new users. Please assume good faith, and keep Hanlon's razor in mind. They almost certainly did not mean to do anything malicious. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In all likelihood, they don't even realize they're doing it. At first glance it looks to me like they're just copyediting their comments, and affecting the notoriously buggy WP:DiscussionTools is just an accidental side effect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Could people please take a look at this user talkpage?

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

---

User talk:Jcheckler contains some extraordinary content and attacks on Doug Weller and myself, posted today. The post is a response to a warning from myself 12 days ago, where I asked the user to stop misusing talkpages and boards for political speech about things like the "Communist Total Enslavement Agenda against Humanity", or Wikipedia being an "untrustworthy bastion of special interest Leftism/ Liberalism/ neo-Marxism". I also called them out for antisemitic dogwhistles about the Rothschild family, international bankers, and "globalists". Their reply today states that, on the contrary, politics and religion ought to be discussed anywhere and everywhere at all times. Wikipedia has become "a Political, Religious and Ideological Bastion of Anti-American/ Anti-Human neo-Marxist Propaganda due to the Censorship of so-called power hungry authoritarian leftist "Administrators" who want to enforce their Agenda on Society as "Reliable Source" referenced fact". Specifically, Doug's userpage and mine, with their "juvenile authoritarian nutcase bizzare radical content" show our "brainwashed irrational immaturity". In fact, the two of us are probably the same person. When I warned Jcheckler a couple of weeks ago, I had doubts about their being here to build an encyclopedia; now I have more. But I don't think I'm the best person to sanction them. Could ANI readers please form their own opinion? Bishonen | tålk 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC).

• I have removed, and revision-deleted, their attacks, and warned them that any future attacks of this type will immediately lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• It must be exhausting being this guy. Just pedal to the floor, dialed up to 11 on the outrage meter (sorry, I meant Outrage Meter), 24/7/365. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  There might be more going on here than just the attacks. Edits such as this accusing family members of murder conspiracy and accusing the treadmill repair guy of intentionally sabotaging his treadmill are not the signs of someone who should be writing an encyclopedia. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• The subsequent responses to the removal (1 and 2) show no signs of understanding as to their disruption, and in effect equal a doubling-down. I have indefinitely blocked for being not here to build an encyclopedia, and I'd suggest that talk page access should be revoked should the generic ranting continue post-block as I expect it likely will. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would also have indeffed them for their misuse of capitalisation and capital letters. Why do these people always do that? Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sad part is that he literally replied to the ANI message Bishonen sent by asking if he's supposed to be scared or if we're framing him of something he "didn't do." NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the cause comes partly from their dear leader's own erratic use of capital letters, and partly is an echo of the sovereign citizen belief that capital letters harbor secret and baleful powers. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the rants come across as if he is paranoid that everyone is out to get him (a common thing from those with extreme views). Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I always just shake my head every time I know someone is out to think that the world revolves around them and that they have power by putting capital letters. It just makes me... lose brain cells. Ugh. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I EnDoRsE this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

.kcolb siht EsRoDnE I LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

i SeCONd ThAT Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Odd thing here is their editing history doesn't show any evidence of this. Has the editor just had a change of how they edit? Have they been hacked? It's rather odd to come back after a 6 month break and launch into long rants and accusations. They've only edited talk pages and went right to particular people and boards. They've barely used a talk page before this so it's very different behaviour from their previous edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They told me that they never sleep and are dying. But given their other comments on my talk page I don’t know what to believe. I was asked earlier if they should be blocked for their own sake. I couldn’t at that point but I think that being blocked is the best thing for them. See [175]. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There was this, eight years ago. Not with quite the same fervor, but something was showing, already then. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User ShirtNShoesPls, potential BLP violations

Bringing this here after advice received from admin.[176]
ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Over the last few days/week or so I've come into repeated contact with the named user above. This emerged out of a report I made about their edit-warring on the article for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.[177]
• They have a habit of creating very basic draft-level articles with little to no sourcing and abandoning them immediately after (some of these I've moved to draft[178][179]) and making larger edits likewise with relatively poor sourcing for what's claimed.[180][181]
• However this behaviour has now moved on to BLP articles, which raises the scale of the problems they cause.(new article:[182])(edits to Joe Biden article:[183])

While I don't believe much if any of what they've done is nefarious there seems to be major issues with their ability to usefully edit and understand policy, and therefore stronger action likely needs to be taken as a result.Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to make a new section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, added it in. Silly error on my part. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You're good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll 5: Rio Heist

(Yes, my bilateral relations troll ANI messages are Fast and Furious references. Previous discussion about them here.)

So I once again caught the bilateral relations troll trying to make junk edits to see also sections... but this time, not bilateral relations pages, but rather "X in country" articles. IPs I've reverted so far are 50.48.224.60, 50.48.236.154 and 45.53.108.230. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User resorting to insults

After creating an attack page which was speedily deleted, @Femzino Must Go is now trying to defame me, stating "Get off my d--k, b---h!" and threatening to ban me when I linked Wikipedia:No personal attacks to him. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's bad. Oh well, they got indefed by Stwalkerster for WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request not appeaing on list

YoloMc8562 has had an unblock request open for over a week, but is not listed at Category:Requests for unblock. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And responded to -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination as hispanic

Editor @Netherzone has made a discriminatory question to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnovoa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI

 – Signed what appears to be an additional report made simultaneously with the one below. Remsense诉 03:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Being yell at

@Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Wikipedia. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No, a single word like that in all-caps is for extra EMPHASIS, not yelling. Like that. Zaathras (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been multiple actions that can be reviewed in the Draft:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera article. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Fjnovoa, you have provided no diffs or pages, and any hardly any context so that others may easily understand what has happened.

Here is the complete interaction history between the two users. Remsense诉 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• This report has absolutely no substance. A WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted, given that Fjnovoa appears to be a single-purpose account (and they have already been blocked on eswiki for this). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have been blocked unjustifiably, and have requested review and a user deletes my requests to keep me blocked. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)