Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheDragonFire300 (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 18 April 2024 (→Edit summary needing redaction: Close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick

    There is clear consensus to topic ban Thomas B from the topics of Tim Hunt and online shaming, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Substituted template to prevent another auto-archiving for 30 days. NicolausPrime (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    About a month ago, as an outcome of an ANI thread, User:Thomas B was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages Tim Hunt, Talk:Tim Hunt, Online shaming, Talk:Online shaming for edit warring, stonewalling, bludgeoning, battleground behavior, and forum shopping over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.

    Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of yet another thread about Tim Hunt, for the second time on WP:BLPN already. The thread resulted in another editor getting reported to ANI.

    Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [1] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [2] "I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine." (boldings mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)

    He wasn't banned, he was blocked from 4 pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban uses the term "page ban", but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have missed the blocking policy. Note that the notice on his talk page says "blocked", not "banned". Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of edit warring a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation?
    I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.. That sounds to me like it's very close to WP:PROXYING. Combined with their refusal to listen to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The original proposal was for a topic page ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a "block", despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a 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. (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is opposing, and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an WP:NPOVN discussion started by User:LokiTheLiar. After this discussion and Talk:Tim Hunt reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to WP:ANI, which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second WP:BLPN thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, "Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it." The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including after the page ban, and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Thomas B

    I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as requiring ("In practice the only way that I can see to do this...") a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.

    After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.

    While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.

    Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.

    Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by policy but by consensus.[3] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[4] over many years[5], took it over and forced me out, because there was one thing they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.

    Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--Thomas B (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban

    I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.

    • Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a topicpage ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the interaction here is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as "consensus for" if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. Springee (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We had extensive discussions on WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, Talk:Tim Hunt, WP:ANI, the RfC, and now yet another one on WP:BLPN. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: a single subsubsection in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is WP:STICK. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is WP:BLUDGEONING.
      This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as counter productive? NicolausPrime (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of Bludgeoning [6] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards WP:FORUMSHOPPING, this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [7] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at WP:BLPN once before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. WCMemail 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked."
    This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
    "He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false."
    The very discussion that you link, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt, immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.
    "we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly"
    This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to post diffs demonstrating that Thomas B raised the issue at multiple forums. You can't because he didn't. He raised it once at WP:BLPN, which was the appropriate forum. What would you call it when the same group of editors are the same ones on multiple threads all calling for someone's head? The same group of editors complaining loudly that he was forum shopping for raising it in one forum. WCMemail 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Oppose Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about WP:BLP policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at WP:BLPN. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with Newimpartial e.g. [13]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an WP:ANI thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. @EducatedRedneck: I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. WCMemail 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [14] [15] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as was noted by SilverSeren above).
      No other editor in "my" section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).
      You also imply (when you refer to an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.
      Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? WCMemail 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).
    If you still do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to this. Please take the hint. WCMemail 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not going to report it, then stop bringing it up. This is staring to look like WP:HOUNDing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you think you are bringing it up or not, your repeated insistence on your unique view that I transgressed my anti-bludgeon restriction - which you do in an irrelevant section, and without any kind of evidence - is pretty clearly the kind of WP:ASPERSION that CIVIL tells editors not to make. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally fucking did, right there, which is why I responded. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B's contribution history is quite clear, you're welcome to check it for yourself. Before he was brought to ANI, he raised it at WP:BLPN and that was the appropriate forum. He hadn't forum shopped. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I see the disagreement. It's true that Thomas B did not open the first BLPN topic on Tim Hunt, though he was the first respondent and contributed extensively. Also in his defense, there wasn't a crystal-clear consensus from that one, so him subsequently starting a discussion on the article talk was likewise appropriate. Subsequently raising it at BLPN could also be interpreted as part of WP:DR, seeking outside opinions.
    So, on the whole, I agree forum shopping is not a valid reason for sanctions. However, I'd assert that disruptive editing, evidencing WP:IDHT in this very thread, is a valid reason. Whether his behavior counts as disruptive is a judgement call. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're linking to the NPOVN discussion, which was started by User:LokiTheLiar during the initial edit war with Thomas B (at that moment it was a 1 vs. many, where the 1 was Thomas B). Both BLPN threads ([16] and [17]) were later started by Thomas B. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed he forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, which you now acknowledge was done by another editor. Prior to the page ban, he'd only raised it in one forum. As a BLP, WP:BLPN was the correct forum and where it should have been raised in the first place. 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose; Springee put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any "chilling effect" on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Though i agree with Springee and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration without Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the "wrong" opinion, it's a ban for being utterly and completely unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that he should stop digging after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a quite tame posting You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have "dropped the stick" and ignored their direct questions? Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're still digging... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --JBL (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a transparent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK combined with WP:IDHT. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and WP:AGF (saying things like they want to paint Hunt as a sexist when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been mainly answer[ing] their questions. See for example: [18] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [19] (continuing to double down) and [20] (no one asked any question here either) and [21] (example of WP:IDHT, editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [22] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. (also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything) CambrianCrab (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people" ok then. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2).
      Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting WP:IDHT? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. Thomas B has made 20. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if it has become the general view at WP
      This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence WP:BLUDGEON, which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose By the time the post was made to BLPN Hemiauchenia had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. Firefangledfeathers trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. S Marshall was providing some valuable comments. Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. fiveby(zero) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[23] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thomas B, you may wish to reread WP:IDHT. I feel encompasses why this amount of annoyance is being had from your conduct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, his WP:IDHT response to months of discussion and attempts to WP:FORUMSHOP the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he still doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We are passed the point where consensus is clear around the Tim Hunt issue, the continued bludgeoning and forumshopping is disruptive. Enough is enough. T-ban. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request closure: this proposal has gotten a significant number of !votes, and no new !votes seem forthcoming. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexatious pursuit of a topic ban

    This was archived without action but a group of editors decided to restore it even though there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is by the way the second time they've done that but this time adding a template to prevent archiving for 30 days. That is pretty clear evidence of the sort of concern that @Elemimele: expressed that this looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion and very much evidence they are unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK (ironically). Especially as even his detractors note the BLP thread resulted in some constructive changes. Any closer needs to be aware of the vexatious way a topic ban has been pursued. WCMemail 12:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PS to be clear, by vexatious I am not referring to everyone who commented but only those who aren't dropping the stick. WCMemail 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (uninvolved non-admin comment) It's been unarchived because there is a clear consensus for a topic ban, and has been for a while now. The only vexatious behaviour I see is on your part. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another uninvolved non-admin comment I was actually reading the thread linked by Wee Curry Monster because I was at that user talk page for another reason and, rather than being a meeting of a shadowy cabal it was a user seeking guidance about whether un-archiving would be too much of a violation of AN/I norms and showing due caution before seeking closure of an AN/I thread involving behaviour they were concerned of. Reviewing the thread above I would concur with Lavalizard101 that there is a clear consensus for a topic ban. Suggest an admin just close this out properly before it becomes another waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia

    This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further gaming of the sanctions.

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

    Comment

    I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the Tim Hunt article, making 4 in less than a month. I like @Elemimele: and @Fiveby: are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest @Thomas B: stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as S Marshall suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. WCMemail 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that you started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague WP:FORUM manner? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from posting evidence of this happening at WP:ANI with supporting diffs? For example, [24],[25]. I've taken the page off my watch list, took a break, the thread dropped off the page with no action and its being resurrected seeking sanctions when there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I've already demonstrated the accusation of misconduct are unfounded. Fling enough mud, often enough, eventually it sticks. WCMemail 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, file a formal request for sanctions, which you repeatedly avoid doing. You're casting aspersions and hounding by not actually requesting action, but still making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it's actually a bad idea for WCM to file such a request as it would be baseless and retaliatory. It would only expend even more of what is remaining of WCM's rope. I'm not the best in Wikipedia's policy, but I can imagine this backfiring even to a WP:CBAN, which we should try to avoid. So WCM just needs to stop casting aspersions, stop bringing all this in user talk pages, and move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.
    I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

    I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.

    For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [26] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

    These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]
    5. [31]
    6. [32]
    7. [33]
    8. [34]
    9. [35]
    10. [36]
    11. [37]
    12. [38]
    13. [39]
    14. [40]
    15. [41]
    16. [42]
    17. [43]
    18. [44]
    19. [45]
    20. [46]
    21. [47]
    22. [48]
    23. [49]
    24. [50]
    25. [51]

    Recently, a user voiced their concern [52] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [53]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [54]. Other recent examples are these [55] [56] [57] [58]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [59].

    Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As already explained [60] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [61], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
    Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Artistic creation was indeed a central part of Badr al-Din Lu'lu''s rule, see: "Another notable figure is Badr al-Din Lu'lu (d. 1259), a ruler of Mosul who was recognized for his patronage of the arts." in Evans, Helen C. (22 September 2018). Armenia: Art, Religion, and Trade in the Middle Ages. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-58839-660-0. or "Badr al - Din Lulu ( 1210-59 ), first as vizier of the last Zengids and then as an independent ruler, brought stability to the city, and the arts flourished. Badr al-Din Lulu himself actively supported the inlaid metalwork industry in his capital." in Ward, Rachel (1993). Islamic Metalwork. British Museum Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-7141-1458-3. To be complete, an article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' indeed has to be in great part about art, except if you want to create an article such as "Art of Mosul under Badr al-Din Lu'lu', but I would tend to think this is unnecessary, as long as we can describe his artistic contributions in sufficient detail in the main article. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not uncommon for a ruler to be a patron of arts, doesn't mean that their article have to become a Commons article. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.
    [62] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.
    [63] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.
    [64] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.
    [65] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.
    [66] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source
    [67] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question
    [68] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:
    Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to bring forward some information about some interesting but little known Armenian churches such as the Bagnayr Monastery, the Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani) or Astvatsankal Monastery. At first, it seemed that Virtual ANI was about the only source on some aspects of these churches. Although it is not strictly RS, Virtual ANI turned out to be a fairly good source of information, and is also used as a source by institutions such as UCLA's Promise Armenian Institute. I agree it's not ideal though, it was more a way to start up these articles as I was researching them in the first few days, which I should probably have done in a Sandbox instead. I have since replaced the references with proper WP:RS sources, which, to be fair, have all confirmed the information initially obtained from Virtual ANI. In general, the existence of Seljuk influences on Armenian art is a well-known fact, including muqarnas etc... and is referenced per the above, among a multitude of other sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have started out with something like this comment, rather than ignoring KhndzorUtogh diffs and attacking them, not until after you've been criticized further. Moreover, Virtual ANI is still being used in some of the articles [69] [70]. Whether it's a well known fact or not is irrelevant, we still need to cite WP:RS, you should know this by now, you've been here for years. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have not added a single "Virtual ANI" reference to the Ani article since the time I first started editing this article 3 months ago: the dozens of Virtual Ani references in the article have been there for years (including when you yourself edited the article) and were added by different users. As for Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), I removed the two remaining references I had added [71]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my bad regarding Ani then, should have checked it more properly (see? I immediately apologized for my mistake. I didn't ignore it, double down or started attacking you). And thanks for removing the last Virtual Ani citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.
    I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [72] [73]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [74]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [75]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [76]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely reads like a personal attack and I encourage you to retract that comment. Northern Moonlight 00:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment retracted, and apologies if anyone felt offended. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pataliputra replied about their casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack with casting aspersions yet again ("your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences"). This user seems to have a history of making xenophobic comments and pestering and harassing other users, having been warned previously. Some past examples:
    • "An actual Indian"
    • "The 'Society' paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society?"
    • "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country"
    Pataliputra was also warned by an admin to drop this argument because the images weren't undue. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect any user like me with 7 years and about 70,000 edits on this site will encounter some conflictual situation at some point... your so-called "history of ... pestering and harassing other users" refers to a single event back from 2017, and was a defensive statement by a notoriously difficult user who has long left the site... My request for an "An actual Indian" for an illustration on the India page dated back to 2020 and was in reaction to an underage American kid wearing an Indian garment being used as an illustration in that article. In the end, that image was removed from the article by the very same Admin you mention, so I guess I was not all that wrong. And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour. And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I think an image is undue in the context of a specific article or paragraph, I will also call that out, as most of us should.
    ...Except when it's an image uploaded by you per the diffs. I just had to do more clean up [77].
    And yes, I'm suspicious of users who seem to deny the existence of foreign influences in their art or culture, and will tend to denounce this as bigotted behaviour.
    Which you just attempted here against KhndzorUtogh (who merely called you out for obvious WP:OR) and it backfired. Be mindful of WP:GF and WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I'll have to call into question what you call "clean up"... [78]: you are replacing contemporary images of actual Seljuk rulers by an image of a tomb, which would better fit in the page of an individual ruler, and worse, an anachronistic (15th century) French miniature with not an ounce of verisimilitude to the actual Seljuks. These are not improvements. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Beggars can't be choosers, you very well know that contemporary images for specific events are hard to find for this period. At least they're related to the topic, which is what matters. You (amongst other things) added the image of the last Seljuk ruler to the section of the first Seljuk ruler for crying out loud (which I replaced with the tomb of the first Seljuk ruler, be my guest if you can find a better and actual relevant image). And all those images I removed were conveniently uploaded by you. Your reply further proves that your edits in terms of image adding are not constructive. You should read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would certainly support a restriction on any image-adding; the apparent aspersions being cast freely and OR (or at least uncited) edits lead me to come very close to supporting a stronger restriction, but if i AFG i hope/guess/think that a smaller restiction will help him realise the inappropriateness of some of his actions and edit more appropriately. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Pataliputra better be topic-banned from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. Or even more topics based on provided diffs; e.g. Armenian and Caucasus. There are similar edits to his edits on Saka. For example, on Kushan Empire, Puduḫepa removed Pataliputra's addition,[79] then Pataliputra restored his edit with a simple edit summary;[80] ignoring Puduḫepa's concern and the content of article. Pataliputra's edits led to Talk:Kushan Empire/Archive 2#UNDUE and speculative content. If you read the discussion, you see there were more questionable edits by him. Another example is Ghurid dynasty. Original research and unsourced edit[81] which was reverted[82] by HistoryofIran. Pataliputra has good edits for sure, but in this case he needs 6-month to 1-year vacation. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will note that I have long been one of the main contributors to the Kushan Empire article. When an unknown user comes around and deletes referenced material, we usually immediately restore the material. If disagreements persist, we naturally continue on the Talk Page. In this case, we agreed to leave aside the Turkic hypothesis (mainly stemming from the Rajatarangini account describing the Kushans as Turushka (तुरुष्क)) since the modern sources were weak.
    • The fact that the Turkic language was in use in the Ghurid dynasty and the succeeding Delhi Sultanate is neither original research nor unsourced (you will find more references in the body of the article). We removed it from the infobox because, arguably, it was mainly a military phenomenon, but it was in extensive use nonetheless. Please see Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Allen Lane. pp. 48-49. ISBN 978-0713995824.:

    "What did the contours of the Delhi sultanate’s society in the thirteenth century look like? Contemporary Persian chronicles present a simple picture of a monolithic ruling class of ‘Muslims’ superimposed over an equally monolithic subject class of ‘Hindus’. But a closer reading of these same sources, together with Sanskrit ones and material culture, suggests a more textured picture. First, the ruling class was far from monolithic. The ethnicity of Turkish slaves, the earliest generation of whom dated to the Ghurid invasions of India, survived well into the thirteenth century. For a time, even Persian-speaking secretaries had to master Turkish in order to function. There persisted, moreover, deep cultural tensions between native Persian-speakers – whether from Iran, Khurasan or Central Asia – and ethnic Turks. (...) Such animosities were amplified by the asymmetrical power relations between ethnic Turks and Persians, often depicted in the literature as ‘men of the sword’ and ‘men of the pen’ respectively."

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather distorted version of what truly happened at Talk:Kushan Empire. Just checked that discussion - you were using poor sources, just like how you are doing today. You only agreed to not keep it only after you were called by several users several times. As for the Ghurids; that quote does still not justify that you added unsourced information back then (it's honestly quite baffling you can't see this, we've LITERALLY just been through this in regards to the diffs posted by KhndzorUtogh, just don't add unsourced info, it's really simple). And I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate by that quote, this still doesn't prove that Turkic had an administrative role military wise, it merely demonstrates that Persian secretaries had to learn Turkic to cooperate with the Turkic slaves, who also formed a ruling class. In other words, you are engaging in WP:OR/WP:SYNTH again - I also support a topic-ban from Central Asian, Iranic, and Turkic topics. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is again a mis-representation: this fact about the usage of the Turkish language in India was actually already sourced from Eaton in the Ghurid dynasty article ("Culture" paragraph [83]), and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere" [84]. As for the role of the Turkish language in the Ghurid dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate, this was more I believe a matter of Persian secretaries having to learn Turkish in order to communicate better with their Turkic rulers. For example:

    "Fakhr-i Mudabbir's remarks draw our attention to the linguistic and cultural distance between the lords and the members of the realm they governed, so much so that Persian-speaking secretaries -"the grandees of the highest pedigree"- had to master a "foreign" language to function as their subordinates. (...) So remarks like those of Madabbir refer to the advantages that knowledge of the Turkish language conferred upon a Persian subordinate in the service of the Delhi Sultanate."

    — Chatterjee, Indrani; Eaton, Richard M. (12 October 2006). Slavery and South Asian History. Indiana University Press. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-253-11671-0.
    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Except Turkic being an administrative language military wise is not sourced in the culture section, so the one doing the misrepresentation is still you. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken, "Turkic being an administrative language military wise" is your own expression, and is a bit too specific. My only claim (if my memory serves me) was that Turkic was one of the current languages of the Ghurids, especially among the military [85] ("men of the sword", and later among the ruling elite of the Delhi Sultanate), which is exactly what Eaton says throughout (the two sources above, among many others available). On the contrary your blanking and edit summary [86] seems to deny any role for Turkic, and misrepresents Persian as being the only language around, which goes against academic sources. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally what I said even back then along with more; "While the military was seemingly mostly Turkic by the late Ghurid period, that doesn't seem to have been the case in the early and if not mid Ghurid times. Regardless, that doesn't mean that Turkic had any role/status military wise.". So where is the part where I'm denying any role for Turkic and saying Persian is the only language? More WP:ASPERSIONS, you clearly didn't learn from your experience just with KhndzorUtogh (also, this is not the first time you have made WP:ASPERSIONS against me, eg [87]). Turkic slave soldiers speaking Turkic (shock!) means that that the language had a status in the Ghurid system? With your WP:SYNTH logic, we should starting adding "Turkic" to the infobox of about every medieval Middle Eastern dynasty (including the Abbasid Caliphate) due to the popularity and power of Turkic slaves, perhaps "North Germanic" to the Byzantine Empire due to the Varangian Guard, Persian to the Abbasid Caliphate due to their Persian bureaucracy and so on. I'll try to avoid to responding too much to your comments, I feel like there is more than enough evidence to warrant a topic ban. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am evading a block, sorry, block me and kindly go through my request

    ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! (User:Adishere) - I was blocked as a not so matured editor, who created this account to do some small constructive edits and today has edit count of little less than 4000. (User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession) - User:ExclusiveEditor(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ExclusiveEditor Why did you evade your block and decide to perform sockpuppetry? That's just going to bring you more consequences. On your old account, you should have taken the standard offer and waited out your block for six months, then had an unblock request. Now this won't be good for you. Let's see what the admins will say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a significant time from the block and socking to now as far as I can tell. I'm not immediately inclined to hold a procedural error against them. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I'm not sure, but this is just my opinion. It's fine to hear the others say their thoughts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If they aren't using accounts to make disruptive edits anymore, than there's no need for a block. Noah, AATalk 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I cannot reply for next six hours due to some reason. ExclusiveEditor [[ User talk:ExclusiveEditor|Notify Me!]] 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request: ExclusiveEditor

    I'm adding a separate subheader to draw more attention to this unblock request. While I doubt it'll gather consensus in EE's favor, there seems to be enough disagreement that I'd at least like to hear a few additional voices chiming in before this discussion is archived automatically. Kurtis (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support unblocking for the reasons given in the preceding section: it's been three years, they've made a reasonable unblock request (albeit not procedurally perfect, but who cares), so far no evidence of any disruption with the socking, and preventative-not-punitive. I think we wouldn't be here if that 2020 unblock request was accepted. I'm not a fan of the "you must demonstrate your understanding of what you did wrong" rule for unblocks -- which always seems like a demand for kowtowing. If someone says they won't do it again, that's really all that should be necessary for a first-block unblock (different tho if it's a repeat offender). Levivich (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support unblock, although they did sock, blocks are preventive and EE has been editing constructively. This was good-faith socking imo. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, my feelings fall somewhere in the middle here. As someone who admired ExclusiveEditor's anti-vandalism contributions, the fact that they were evading a previous block and willfully violating WP:SOCK (this wasn't the first time they evaded their block, the master account has an SPI report that can be seen here) seriously disappoints me, and I believe that User:Bbb23's block of the user (as well as User:Yamla's decline of their appeal) is entirely justified. But I also think about admin-penned essays like this, as well as these two, which, despite not being anywhere close to policies or guidelines, make interesting points with regards to this kind of behavior potentially skirting the WP:Ignore all rules and WP:NOTPUNITIVE policies. I don't know, maybe I sound foolish right now -- I've deliberately stayed out of this thread up to this point, because I feel that this is a very complex matter that is hard for me to respond to in a concrete "yes" or "no" way, given my appreciation of ExclusiveEditor's edits here. I think this could go either way, and frankly, I'm not opposed to consensus going one way or another. If they remain blocked, the standard offer is available to them, assuming they stay off here for six months. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing about block evasion in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Adishere/Archive; the investigation was because the editor was using the two accounts to edit the same articles, the accounts had not been blocked when the report was made. Peter James (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admittedly I was incorrect in that one facet. I don't think this overshadows the fact that they knew block evasion was against the rules, given that they had been previously blocked for abusing multiple accounts. That is the point Yamla was getting at on the user's talk page, and I have their back in that regard, considering this was not their first time using another account to circumvent policy. To quote their words on that page directly: "This wasn't an accidental mistake. This user knew about WP:SOCK, having been caught violating that in the past. This was a deliberate decision to continue violating Wikipedia's policy, a decision they took days after being caught violating exactly that policy the previous time." JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Just in case my block doesn't make it clear. Unblocking would set a dangerous precedent. We block people, not accounts. Many socks justify creating their latest account because "my edits have not been disruptive". It simply doesn't - and shouldn't - work that way. There are consequences for socking, and one of them is to be unblocked, you must request an unblock, not create another account. As for the standard offer being an essay, there are many essays that have more power than formal guidelines and even policies, e.g., WP:BRD. Is six months arbitrary? Sure, almost all time durations are somewhat arbitrary, but we don't always make it six months. Sometimes it's longer, and sometimes it's shorter. It depends on the circumstances, but it's the default starting point. It's also not a get-out-of-jail-free card, meaning the extension of the standard offer doesn't mean we will grant an unblock request after six months, but that we won't consider one before then.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, this all just feels like a roundabout way of using the block button as a means of punishing an editor for their past transgressions. Aren't blocks explicitly supposed to be preventative, rather than punitive? Kurtis (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who has been previously blocked for socking myself, including the "quiet return" type socking, I can see both sides of the argument. However, socking in and of itself is disruptive as it involves deception and disregard for the rules. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've expressed this sentiment many times in the past, but it bears repeating: we have absolutely no idea just how many sanctioned editors have abandoned their old accounts, registered new ones, and became integral Wikipedians without anyone being any the wiser. I could list countless examples from throughout Wikipedia's history that eventually came to light—just imagine all of the ones that didn't. I would hazard a guess that if we somehow had the magical ability to expose and indef every single editor who created a sock account to circumvent a sanction without ever being found out, we'd lose many of our most productive article writers, a sizable chunk of our most active administrators, and I'd even wager a few arbitrators past and (potentially) present.

      And just to be clear, none of the above should be construed as accusing any specific editor of ban evasion. My assertion is merely that it's a lot more common than we will ever realize or care to admit. Kurtis (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      And as someone who was once indeffed by Bbb23 for editing with a different account while this one was under a self-requested block (which was very stupid of me), I think that some admins have a stubborn fixation with the letter of the rule even when the best interests of the encyclopedia might be better served by a more nuanced approach. Also, what Kurtis said is very valid. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's for a ban, which is WP:3X, not WP:1X. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: per my comment above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the block is not being evaded and the accounts are linked it isn't socking. Peter James (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The block Was being evaded though, the creation of the account after an indef block on the master IS block evasion. Plain and simple. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing the unblock. The user clearly admitted to socking, and even though they may have had good intentions to improve, socking is still a bad thing to do on Wikipedia. I'd support going for a standard offer, just like Bbb23, but the user needs to acknowledge that what they did was truly wrong and how they will not do it again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that he willingly confessed to his prior history is, in my view, evidence enough that he wants to be transparent from this point on. He could have just kept quiet and carried on as he had been for the past couple of years. He chose instead to fess up, completely of his own volition, and make a formal unblock appeal to the community. Out of process? Yes. In violation of WP:SOCK? Also yes. But I'm convinced of his current good faith. Kurtis (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. Tell me then, is there any other way that you could prove to others that people will not sock again? They have apologized for their behavior and demonstrated understanding of why socking is bad. In fact, I would say that blocking them again would set a precedent that the Wikipedia community is a big elitist gatekeeper which does not value second chances. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opposes make me feel concerned a lot. This community assumes that a sock person's behavior is unchanged for years and they are deposed to socking again and again and again. "Once a drug user, always a drug user", as they say. However, I genuinely believe that most people are not like that and have a capacity to improve on their behavior once they fully understand as to why they are indeffed. There are drug users that are clean for the rest of their lives. Too often though, our community demanded the impossible from the indeffed users, by hyperanalyzing their unblock response and deluding themselves into understanding their true intent from a bunch of words on the screen, and thus perfectly good editors who did exactly what we say get their unblock for their indef still need to wait for years, sometimes even decades. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But they literally continued to sock away as if nothing happened. Using your "drug user" analogy, this user showed up to rehab professing they stopped using drugs, all the while still having cocaine residue left on his nose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And all else being equal—this metaphor breaks down a bit—they've showed up to rehab because they would like to stop now. Remsense诉 23:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. They seem to understand the problems and have an understanding of how they should and should not act in the future. If for some reason this turns out not to be the case, they can be blocked again. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Kk.urban (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane, who provides a good analysis of the situation and reasoning supporting an unblock. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock per CactiStaccingCrane. I am not satisfied by the arguments for keeping the editor blocked. Preventative, not punitive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock as I stated above. The arguments made by some are akin to "They broke the law and must serve a certain amount of time before we would even consider parole". That is punitive when the person has made a sincere request for an unblock, understanding what they did was wrong. Noah, AATalk 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock. I always have found the song and dance of unblocking quite degrading to our editors. It seems that those with written articles can get away with nearly everything save for Arbcom (and sometimes, even then). But then we do not extend any rope on newer editors, tripping them up for every possible technicality. Unlike some very experienced editors' behaviors, this is voluntary, not even a "Someone dragged them to ANI/Arbcom to make them reveal this". The intent of Standard offer is of a clear second chance, aka "Do we think they'll be more likely to be a net positive than not". I do not appreciate the humiliation and punishments sometimes doled out instead of empathy.
    As for the precedent it would set... I welcome it. The precedent it sets to me is "We care about preventative blocks more than blocks for the sake of punishment". I am happy to discuss and unblock good faith users in the same bucket. Did they understand their mistake? Would our initial punishment already have lapsed by now? Have they shown they can edit productively? Do we think they'll probably be a net positive? If the answer to all of these is yes, then yes, we should set a precedent for unblocking such editors. Soni (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Frenchprotector29

    Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [89]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [90] [91] [92] [93] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have continued disruptively editing as can be seen with this edit. I think a block is warranted if they don't heed any warnings and repeat the same mistakes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and recently here too, removing sourced info [94]. They are WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also misusing WP:RS [95], and have made long term edit warring at Siege of Krujë (1467) [96] [97] [98] [99]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MLKLewis, edit warring in a Landmark-related article

    MLKLewis (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting the same content over and over (again) against consensus. Can they please be blocked from all Landmark-related articles, broadly construed?

    1 2 3

    For literally decades the Landmark sock- and meatpuppets have been trying to influence Wikipedia articles about Landmark and related topics. There was an arbcom case and a bunch of them got banned but that did little to stop their activity. Another will pop up in a couple of days or weeks but at least that is a couple of days or weeks of peace.

    Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is probably the best move. I never realised it went on that far back and or there was an arbcom case. scope_creepTalk 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the abuse is blatant enough to warrant an indef block: such edit warring, including the inflation of source material and the writing of tendentious, promotional text, goes against the very spirit of what we do here, no matter how hard the editor works on Maggie L. Walker. A topic ban is the least we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I was thinking this afternoon about why the editor is edit warring like mad, to get that block in. I suspect there is some kind of relationship there that I can't fathom and no communication until the ANI notice. scope_creepTalk 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polygnotus I tweaked the heading a bit hoping to draw other editors into the thread. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: If the goal is to draw in more editors I can ping some people who had problems with the Landmarkians (or whatever they're called) but I assumed that would be considered canvassing. Uninvolved people usually don't want to dig through 20 years worth of archives to understand the scale of the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polygnotus, yeah, that's canvassing, but a neutral note on AN would be OK. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This confrontation was instigated by Polygnotus and Scope creep by removing material from the Werner Erhard article that was factual and reliably sourced. diff There was no discussion on the talk page. The edit summary said "mostly promotional". In my adding back the material I requested reasons for calling the material promotional, as I do not see it as promotional to state factual material from the past. And on my talk page I offered to discuss the specificity of the edits so as to work together to address concerns. User Polygnotus also made edits that I did not agree with and they were not willing to assume good faith or discuss things rationally on the talk page of the article. Instead of discussing the edits Polygnotus used ad hominem attacks and incomprehensible logic, and was not willing to engage in any kind of reasonable discussion. MLKLewis (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MLKLewis: Since you made the accusation of "ad hominem attacks", I would love to see some diffs. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MLKLewis: IIRC I was working on making improvements to the article and then you reverted all the improvements and I tried to explain that we have no creative freedom when using sources.
    What is your relation to Werner Erhard, Landmark, and related entities? Please disclose your conflict of interest. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MLKLewis: When will you recover from your ANI flu? Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read what has been written and published in reliable sources about Erhard and his work and have contributed that to the Erhard article.  What I find disturbing in recent edits by Polygnotus and Scopecreep is that the result of their editing is that all material regarding Erhard’s later work has been eliminated from the article entirely (despite there having been many reliable sources used to validate the facts of his work).   This itself reveals a bias against the subject on their part that I felt it necessary to counter. The information removed from the article was sourced by reliable publications.  The argument given in these wholesale removals of content was that it was promotional. When I requested comments as to why it was seen as promotional I got no response and was then accused here of edit warring.  Earlier interactions with Polygnotus on the talk page of the article were disrespectful and lacking in civil discussion.  It didn’t seem to matter what I said, I was met with attitude, uncooperativeness and condescending insults designed to make me go away (as opposed to constructive discussion aimed toward consensus which I thought was a fundamental principal in Wikipedia).  MLKLewis (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Are you saying I shouldn't have assumed good faith? Polygnotus (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MLKLewis: You accused me of "ad hominem attacks"; I asked for diffs. You haven't provided any. Such behaviour is frowned upon. Polygnotus (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your relation to Werner Erhard, Landmark, and related entities? Please disclose your conflict of interest. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

    Goodfacts666 has made just a little more than 200 edits but it is difficult for me to go through all of those to find something pointing to sock-puppetry.

    A new user cannot do this, this or this.
    I can't report someone for sock-puppetry based on a hunch. I will need concrete proof, that is similar diffs, editing areas, shared by thar ID and others, so I am reporting here.
    In her very first edit she added a {{cn}} tag; a newbie would not know about that.-
    In her second edit she added an image - a newcomer would not be able to do that.
    in her seventh edit she uses another sophisticated tool. This is another edit's diff where she uses the CS1 tool.
    In this edit she has commented out some text instead of adding a {{cn}} template.
    In one of her first few edits, she uses WP:Hotcat which isn't something a new user would know about - see this, this and this
    Also, this is a diff of her ability to auto-collapse sections in the Template:Sikh_Empire template which certainly a new user cannot do.
    This and this are other diffs of her collapsing text.
    In this diff, she has added an, "Unreferenced" tag which new users would not even know about.
    In this diff she tells another user that pinkvilla is not a reliable source as per WP:RS which I think a new user would not be aware of.-Haani40 (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz, the text, "The Sword of Tipu Sultan - a web series on Tipu Sultan" was added by User:Indianjewme - see this diff and User:Goodfacts666 edits the same - see this and his sock User:Nenetarun mentions personal attack just like User:Goodfacts666 - see this diff for use by the former and this for use by the latter and User:Nenetarun used WP:Hotcat - see this diff and this much like User:Goodfacts666 (see the examples above of her/him using Hotcat).-Haani40 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite possible that this user was editing as an IP for a long time before registering the account, or that she did as I did (I know it sounds very old-fashioned) and actually read the intructions before making her first edit. Do you have any evidence of disruption? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is difficult to believe but I will leave it for the administrators to decide what to do.-Haani40 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been editing for less than a month and seem equally well informed. Whose sock are you? 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are Goodfacts666, aren't you. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's difficult to believe about it. I know that I'm a little weird, in that I check before doing things whereas most people just carry on regardless, but I don't think that I'm anywhere close to unique. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goodfacts666 is being accused of sock. Please, verify it. Zzuuzz 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haani40 you have only been a user for 24 days. why should we not assume the same for you?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have registered my account more than a month ago and have more than 600 edits, besides making some edits as an IP before that (and reading Wikipedia articles for a long time now, before that). To the Korean IP, why would I complain against myself? -Haani40 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{{1}}}

    Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please defend yourself!-Haani40 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, "it's difficult to believe" your target could have done exactly the same thing you did? Either you're a troll or a galloping hypocrite. In any case, Not Hereapplies. 2001:4430:50FD:968D:444:B105:9220:FFE4 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{{1}}}

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AuguMaugu is asking the IP the question, not me. Neither of those messages on my Talk page were warnings, the first was about a link by Kautilya3 to a complaint at AE about another user and the other was just a message to, "cool down" because Joshua_Jonathan thought I was upset (but I was not).-Haani40 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was directed towards you, Haani40. I accidentally tagged the IP user. I edited my previous comment to reflect this.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock has been blocked, so bury the hatchet.-Haani40 (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ===

    sock puppetry of User:Haani40

    ===

    Hello,

    Can anyone please run a sockpuppet checkuser tool for User:Haani40 ? Goodfacts666 (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also seen this guy, adding controversial statements in biography of person and removing various sources like adding Hinduism terrorism in someone's biography. I also think he's a sock of someone. Tag admin. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can any admin please run check user for User:Haani40 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Checkuser is not for fishing. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    #1 : 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 has been undoing most of my edits exactly like User:Haani40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfacts666 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're adding controversial statements in many persons biography and misusing features of HotCat to add Hinduism terrorism in biography of a person as well. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the admins, the IP is talking of Goodfacts666.-Haani40 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    to the admins: IP 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8539:48E3:7133:DE55 is the same user User:Haani40. Releant check lke geolocator/checkuser will clear it out

    Goodfacts666 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, here is your fault for vandalising several articles. Even after many warnings from other editors, you're still vandalising the articles. Don't accuse anyone without proof. 1.187.216.30 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the IP's first edit in ten years. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an IP. They get re-assigned. On mobile networks in India, they get re-assigned most often. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't even know him. Can you explain why are you adding Hinduism terrorism in famous freedom fighters personalities? You're also deleting citations and vandalising many articles without taking concensus. 2402:8100:2728:14DF:2C0E:52D3:44:DBAF (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any update @Haani40? Who's sock is this guy @Goodfacts666 2402:8100:2728:14DF:8C07:EB51:B855:57D7 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea since the articles edited by her are not the same as others but the reason I reported it here is because the administrators should know that this user with just a little over 200 edits is making edits like an experienced editor. To sanction her is up to them.-Haani40 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've submitted a sock puppet check for all the above parties. This is enough. Grow up, please. Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And that doesn't look suspicious after merely 10 edits ;) Look, if anyone's going to complain or summon a checkuser, add substance and credible references. Otherwise, resolve your disputes. Less fish, less flailing and gesticulating, more substance. Or not. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohio RizzleRizzler 1: your so called sock puppet check was reverted.-Haani40 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn. Good for you. I guess you won... something. You might want to look up WP:HOUND and WP:STICK, though.
    Ohio Rizzler 1 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user @Haani40 gets personal, uses harsh words, has many warnings on his talkpage...for a particular reason! Goodfacts666 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Main complaint

    The main complaint here appears to be adding the "Hindu Terrorism" category to Babu Bajrangi. I'm pretty sure anyone reading that article would agree that the category is not misplaced. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's the IP's complaint; please look at the diffs at the top of this section about Goodfacts666 here and comment (that's the original complaint).-Haani40 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the substance of that complaint is fully addressed in WP:NOTFISHING. It looks to me like all of this could be solved by both account users agreeing to keep off each other's talk pages. ---- D'n'B-t -- 16:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Naah, he added that category in many articles. Also, She/he is now banned. 2402:8100:384E:3694:1505:7A5E:857D:D6D0 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address threatening blocks

    IP address Special:Contribs/102.88.37.75 is leaving comments threatening to block users unless they pay money. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's just that page, then that's *likely just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124 using proxies. I guess the page could be protected. Or deleted, wasn't it created by a proxy? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me step back a bit on what I said above and expand more:
    1. This appears to be an extortion scam, there was another thread in the archived SPI about one such instance Special:Permalink/1217429341#Reporting editors asking for money.
    2. On the draft you linked in question, an account that edited the article later posted the same extortion message Special:Diff/1217105085 and was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI I linked.
    3. All IPs who have contributed to the page so far have been proxy, including the one who created the article and another who also posted the extortion message, with the exception of the one you linked (which is in the same range as one of the other blocked proxies).
    Maybe it is of interest to discuss the scam situation, that's what I'm stepping back on from my original message.
    *edit: I misread the IP edits actually, only the one you reported did the extortion, besides the account that was blocked as a suspected sock of the SPI, and that's the only one with no history of being blocked as a p2p proxy. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)*edited: 22:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised no one else commented here - though I did make my first comment in the same "not much to do" vein because the comments in question were already ~6 days old and I still think the IP is likely a proxy. At any rate, if no one else thinks it's urgent or worth commenting as it is, I still want to know at least, @Funnyfarmofdoom: Is this the only recent case of this sort of thing that you have come across? – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove invalid tag as shudra

    OP blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Original complaint

    jus remove that why because Wikipedia is very good platform should have correct information devanga are basically from Karnataka region we are leading as kingdoms as king long time ago but you are keeping shudra sentences not fair and Community will not tolerate this Please you also ask them to remove that sentences you told you will change if get sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra see and change it https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsk2022 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, this is a content dispute and I don't see a urgent incident or chronic ... behaviour problem for ANI. Secondly, maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how if a source doesn't mention something that means it's false? I would advise you read WP:RS again and find a proper source. If you cannot, maybe just drop the metaphorical stick and focus on another part of the wiki. On a side note, competence is required and I would advise you write in coherent English when communicating as some of your sentences seem to run on for a whole paragraph and don't make grammatical sense, hampering communication. Please also don't spam every noticeboard and talk page as this won't get your edit accepted faster (quite the opposite actually). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove that sentences contains shudra that's it
    please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra
    https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf
    Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely a refusal to "get the point" now. I would support an indef block. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove shudra sentences Harishsk2022 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    actually no purpose of adding that sentences that sentences removal only Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harishsk2022 and Devanga

    Hi. I already added {{admin help}} to my talk page, but the issue continued, so I came here. In short, Harishsk2022 has been spamming messages about removing content from Devanga on the article's talk page and my talk page. I've told them to stop multiple times, and asked about the situation at the Teahouse (WP:TH#User talk page restriction?). The user then added the following text:

    Hello
    please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra
    see and change it
    https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

    to every page related to the subject, including the Teahouse and here. Could an administrator please look into this issue quickly? Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef block per above thread. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked this editor for one week for disruptive editing, and have explained the reason their behaviour needs to change with an explanatory message on their talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great. Thank you so much! One week is short, but let's hope they learn. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Apologies, but I get the feeling that there needs to be an WP:ARBIPA warning for him. I get the feeling they will continue to push aggressively for this edit once their block expires, and the last thing the topic area needs is yet another caste/ethnic warrior. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ElijahPepe New York Times issues

    This is a continuation of behavioural issues first raised at ANI in 11 February 2024. ElijahPepe is continuing to be disruptive on The New York Times and its various sub-articles. Since the start of this year, he has exhibited the following issues on this set of articles:

    Warned multiple for editing without using edit summaries
    WP:OWN issues
    • I'm looking to take this article to featured article status. I don't need help in taking it there [100]
    • I'm not looking for help at the moment. [101]
    • I didn't expect anyone to discuss any of these changes. [102]
    • Whoever nominates this article to good article can take all of the credit for the work that I did, because the work is irrelevant here regardless. [103]
    • I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. [104]
    • I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [105]
    • I have determined the following events to be notable to the Times [106]
    • Warned about ownership by me on 8 February 2024
    • Warned about ownership by Drmies on 8 February 2024
    • Warned about ownership by Soni on 10 March 2024
    Editing against consensus
    Unable to edit collaboratively with other editors
    • I am done trying to argue this. It is patently obvious reducing content over time is not an option. [107]
    • Right, because there aren't problems already with editors stealing my content without attribution. [108]
    • The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to [109]
    • I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. [110]

    Dealing with Elijah on this set of articles is utterly exhausting. I know that he has explicitly driven at least one editor off editing the article and it's talk page; Premeditated Chaos on 27 February 2024. During the last ANI about this behavioural issue, Elijah apologised for his issues, yet here we are two months later with the exact same set of problems. The underlying behavioural issues with editing collaboratively with other editors however may not be unique to this series of articles. On 27 March 2024 Elijah displayed similar issues on his user talk page in a discussion with ZLEA about the scope of the Boeing manufacturing issues article, though I haven't dug any deeper to see if there are more widespread issues on other articles and talk pages.

    I'm not entirely sure what type of sanction is appropriate here. Either a TBAN from the NY Times, broadly construed, or a series of PBLOCKs from all of the articles on the topic would prevent this disruption. I am sure though that a voluntary arrangement to not edit this series of articles will not work, as Elijah has claimed multiple times since February that he was done editing the articles (27 February, 2 March, 2 March, 14 April, 14 April). However there are elements of WP:NOTHERE behaviour though, in discussions on the NY Times talk page he has implied that he's only in this for the GA credit ([111]. Driving away productive editors, asserting ownership of article content, and being unable to collaborate with others are textbook examples of NOTHERE, so perhaps a stronger sanction is needed.

    I hate to have to bring this case though, because despite his behavioural issues Elijah can write good content, and his original goal of getting the NY Times series of articles to GA and eventually FA is a laudable goal. However the largest barrier to achieving this goal throughout the entire process has been his behaviour. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of ANI notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I no longer edit the articles in question and I have removed them from my watchlist. In my absence in the last month, nothing has prevented neither Sideswipe9th nor Soni from engaging in any of the articles. Arguably, nothing has prevented them from overruling anything that I agree or disagree with. I returned today to remove references that were retained before the articles were split, which I believe is the least contentious edit that can be made, particularly considering I included those references and know which ones to retain. I'm not sure how doing that has resulted in an ANI thread and a reversion of my edits. I don't see how Boeing manufacturing and design issues is relevant here. The page title inherently assumes that there are manufacturing and design issues in general, not within a specific year. ZLEA assumed that the page would only cover Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, but that is erroneous because the scope was laid out early on. Creating an article with a specific scope is not ownership, and it was ZLEA who refused to listen to what I was saying.
    To correct the record: I did not spend the time that I did to include the article in my user page assuming it receives good or featured article. I don't include any of my good articles in my user page and I have intentionally kept it that way. I prefer to get credit for the work that I do, and the impression I received was that I would not be credited whatsoever.
    I'll accept the consequences, assuming those should occur. Again, my intentions were not to disrupt the article, but it has been my responsibility and I assume that I have done so. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe When you are making non-trivial edits, an edit summary is very important. In the case of major edits, such as your recent redactions on the NY Times pages, I would hold that they are obligatory. Unexplained deletions of that magnitude are going to naturally be seen as a red flag by other experienced editors and those who are on the alert for vandalism. Really, you have been around long enough that you should know this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see how my edits could have been seen as vandalism, but I take issue with the insistence on requiring me to use edit summaries for all of my edits to the point of reverting them. That has not been an issue in my time editing. I interpreted my prior issues with it to arbitrary barriers; that was not the case here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That has not been an issue in my time editing. That is demonstrably not true. You have been warned by six editors for this (diffs above), and you were page blocked from the NY Times article for a week in part because of this (diff above). Explaining your edits by edit summary or talk page discussion is required by policy, and that is something you have consistently failed to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to edits I have made to other articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe This is turning into an unnecessary time sink. As noted above, the matter has been raised with you on multiple occasions. I dislike having to address experienced editors sharply, but this has reached a point where it is becoming disruptive. You are required to use edit summaries on all non-trivial edits. That's it. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your choice. However, the requirement to use edit summaries applies throughout the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Administrator note Per a request and discussion on my talk page, I am reopening this discussion as the OP feels there are unresolved issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Courtesy ping @ElijahPepe -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for reopening. The caution may help with the edit summary issue, if Elijah can stick to it, and to assist with that he may wish to enable the prompt to always include one as was suggested by Softlavender back in February. However that still leaves the ownership, editing against consensus, and the inability to edit collaboratively with others unaddressed. Given how long this has been going on for, and how it's driven at least one editor away from the topic (PMC) I think these need to be addressed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what you have brought up is prior to the previous ANI thread. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No actually. While the issues may have come up, the last comment in the prior ANI was on 12 February, and most of the diffs are from after that date. The four diffs prior to that date are there to establish that this is a pattern that has been ongoing for you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe9th, since you asked for this discussion to be reopened even after Ad Orientem's "Formal caution", I was just wondering what kind of resolution are you looking for here? You are the primary editor keeping this dispute alive, unfortunately we haven't heard from other editors about this behavior so this kind of rests with you: What are you expecting here? I'm not saying it will happen but I'm not sure what you are aiming for here...a page block? A warning? Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have lurked instead of speaking up much. This is quite draining and I'm a bit burnt out here. I have already discussed many of these concerns privately with Sideswipe, and generally every discussion on this spans 1000s of words without any proper resolution.
    I have no problems with him editing the article even if he says he will walk away. But the OWN-ership and ignoring consensus has persisted constantly. As has dismissing other editors who disagreed (and repeated "I am being driven out of this page" comments against others). And potentially gaming the GA system (Making a unilateral page split only to nominate both halves of it immediately for GA). Not all of these are actionable already, but they are indicative of why Elijah's caused constant problems for others.
    As for what resolution I'd like, I would like anything clearly actionable. The edit summaries are the most obvious example, but the lack of discussions/going against consensus/OWNership are more problematic. I would like most/all of those to be covered under any warnings, so we have a clear path forward (Say, If ignore consensus again -> Block). I would like to not return to ANI a third time just to address the the same problems. The current warning just covers edit summaries. Soni (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you expecting here? I don't know, I'm too close to the situation to be fully objective about this. I brought this issue here for community review by primarily uninvolved editors, because discussing it with Elijah doesn't work. He seems fundamentally unable to collaborate effectively with other editors. If you check the back and forth in the New lead is not an improvement discussion, PMC tried to get Elijah to collaborate on a better summary for the article lead and she ended up describing it as the pulling teeth version of collaborating. I have tried repeatedly to get him to collaborate, to treat Wikipedia as the group project that it is, and have the same opinion. For example, I did a review of the first history of sub-article looking for issues that would come up during the GA and FA process. I came up with an extensive list of questions and issues, and Elijah's response to all of the questions on vagueness and clarity was I included what was relevant, alongside a snipe about article authorship at GA/FA; I presume that you will nominate this for featured article, even though a majority of authorship attribution is my own. Neither of those comments are helpful to actually addressing underlying issues with that sub-article.
    Maybe a warning about the above issues is appropriate. But the problem with a warning is, we were here in February with the same types of behavioural issues. Elijah apologised for them at the time with the implication that he'd do better, and that just hasn't happened. If he's issued a warning on the other three issues listed above, are we just kicking the can further down the road for another couple of months?
    He's already driven one editor away from editing the article, and in this very discussion another is saying his behaviour as burnt him out, neither of which is behaviour we should be treating lightly as it goes against the WP:DE guideline. WP:OWN is policy, WP:CON is policy, and being able to collaborate with other editors underpins almost every policy and guideline we have. Violating all of those, and continuing to do so after the original report on 11/12 February is the underlying issue here and is what needs addressing in some way. I just don't know what the solution is. I would love it if Elijah would fully collaborate on these articles, he knows this sourcing better than any of us right now, and the process would go so much smoother and faster if he would collaborate and cooperate with other editors. But he seems utterly unable to work with other editors. Multiple of us have tried, and we all get the same lack of response. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that I have been pinged here. After reading through the above discussion, I see that I have nothing to say that has not already been said. However, I am quite disappointed to see ElijahPepe claim that I refused to listen to what they were saying, which anyone who reads that discussion will see is far from the truth. - ZLEA T\C 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was also pinged here. I became involved in this article peripherally, mainly in an attempt to help Elijah. I'm active on the Discord and while he was drafting his overhaul, Elijah frequently posted about it there soliciting feedback, and I was one of the people who commented occasionally. After Elijah moved the article into main and ran into some pushback, he asked for my advice offwiki. I did my best to provide advice and steer him toward engaging with other editors on the talk page. Unfortunately I found these conversations - like the onwiki one - to be exercises in frustration, and I eventually bowed out of trying to engage further, just as I did onwiki. For what it's worth, I was not an active editor of the article(s) outside of trying to assist with this, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I was driven away from the article, but I did exhaust my interest in assisting Elijah any further.
      It's obvious that Elijah has done an incredible amount of work on the NYT topic, and I don't want him or anyone else to think I'm dismissing his effort. The problem is that he has paired his incredible devotion to the topic with a sense of ownership over the articles that has resulted in some really poor behavior on his part. At every step, he has stonewalled or outright rejected reasonable suggestions for change. He has repeatedly said he doesn't need help or input from other editors. When asked to concretely explain his thinking or suggest compromises, he frequently provides useless comments along the lines of "I don't know" and then refuses to elaborate. Even getting him to use accurate edit summaries was an unbelievable slog, as noted above.
      What's more concerning is that he seems to assume that other editors are out to somehow supplant him or steal his work. In addition to the repeated comments about people "stealing" his GA/FA credit, there are comments like this is going in the direction where most of my work will be disregarded and editors [are] stealing my content without attribution (this last in regards to a good-faith but poorly-attributed split, quickly fixed). This ABF behavior continues into the present, with this lengthy comment yesterday where he accuses everyone of trying to take credit so that they can add a link to their user page and once again complains that he is being asked to use edit summaries. This mentality is a recipe for disaster.
      Elijah has repeatedly expressed frustration and a desire to quit the topic area, but seems unable to do so. In February he expressed at least once that he was going to unwatch and step back, but continued editing the articles. Yesterday he said much the same in this discussion at 14:20 my time: Understandable. I will cease all, in the strongest terms possible, edits relating to the Times, its history, or its online platforms. (Can't link to the diff as it's been OS'd due to unrelated edits). Literally less than one hour later, he's back on the talk page: [112] and has made several edits to the main and the sub-articles since. His behavior makes it impossible for any of the other good-faith editors who want to work with him to actually make any improvements to the article. As much as I would prefer not to, I am beginning to think it might be better for Elijah to be blocked from the topic area, because he is clearly unable to work collaboratively with others within it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my mind on ignoring the topic. Ceasing edits is how the article remained in its state for a month, and it was not just to leave it as such. There are several sections remaining that need to be expanded. I'm willing to accept help there, I only ask that shortened footnotes be retained and reliable sources are used. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ElijahPepe also did the frustrating cycle of asking for feedback and then ignoring it in my case as well (I told him, repeatedly, in increasing levels of bluntness, that the original 33k work he moved into the mainspace from draft was a massive violation of WP:SIZE, but he did it anyway and then acted defensive after people predictably complained on the talk page. Who could have seen this coming.). You've done a core of good work, but if other people say that there are problems, you need to believe them. The other editors are acting in good faith and trying to help. Sometimes helping means modifying the text you've written. That's okay.
    I don't want to get too much into the broader issue, but re the linked diff above where Elijah writes I'm not sure why my opinions are getting disregarded, I'm not sure why there's some unique rule for using edit summaries that I have not once experience at any point in the last two-and-a-half years editing, and I'm not sure why making decisions and being bold has to involve weeks of discussions. Since being subtle apparently doesn't work... Elijah, edit summaries have always been required. Even if your next project is a single-digit page views topic with no other editors to collaborate with, you STILL need to write informative edit summaries. They don't have to be an essay, but they do need to be there. The reason it didn't come up is that most people have better things to do than hassle other editors over it, and it's a lesser problem than most of the other things that are happening on Wikipedia... but that doesn't mean that lack of edit summaries aren't a problem. Use them. SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    Could someone please ask Lubiesque to stop harassing me? After leaving an unwelcome comment on my talk page that I deleted, while telling them that they are not welcome on my TP, they still left another with a Calm down M Bitton (the comment speaks for itself).

    I'm not exactly sure of the intent behind this, but I'm certain that it is related to the last ANI report. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made such a request. IMO we can close this now. If Lubiesque posts on your talk page again without a very very very good reason (e.g. ANI notice), come back here and ask for them to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply isn't particularly charming, if I'm honest. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but ultimately the community isn't generally supportive of blocks just because of rude responses to requests, unless they either persistent enough or cross some other line like NPA; so the main question is still whether they respect the request or keep bothering M. Bitton. I mean even an editor directly saying they're still going to do something they shouldn't be isn't always enough for a block until they actually continue. I planned to say something like "I'm just one of your fellow editors but that shouldn't matter anymore than it matters to me who you or anyone else I encounter is. The key thing is you should respect our guidelines and practices going forward." However the response by Novem Lingua seems sufficient so better just leave it at that. Especially since I can understand Lubiesque might not be happy about me calling their reply crap. I should have just said stuff since the the rest of the message was enough to convey their message on M Bitton's talk page was unnecessary and unhelpful regardless of any request to stay off. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wname1

    This user keeps adding copyrighted material (and non-WP:MEDRS compliant content) to medical articles concerning brain tumors. CopyVios of [113]:

    At anaplastic oligodendroglioma: 2024-04, 2024-02, 2024-01

    At brain tumor: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-11

    At glioblastoma: 2024-02

    Previous attempts to communicate the issue to Wname1: 2024-02, 2024-01, 2024-01, 2023-12, 2023-12

    The same behaviour is seen across many other projects and their talk page contains mentions several other copyright violations. User:grim, User:Doc James, User:DanCherek, others and myself have tried to communicate the problem to Wname1 to no avial. --MaligneRange (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaligneRange MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. <ref>med.stanford.edu/neurosurgery/patient_care/radiosurgery.html "Radiosurgery/Cyberknife". Stanford School of Medicine. Archived from the original on 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2019-02-08. {{cite web}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)</ ref> I built and for MaligneRange this is wrong. What else is Cyberknife for? Yes, it helps with Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma.


    Symptoms of anaplastic oligodendroglioma may include:
    • Seizure
    • Headache
    • Weakness on one side of the body
    • Language difficulties
    • Behavior and personality changes
    • Balance and movement problems
    • Memory problems.
    I have written.
    Prognosis
    5–Year relative survival rate: Ages 20–44, 76%. Age 45-54, 67%. Age 55–64, 45%.[7][8] Procarbazine, lomustine and vincristine have been used since May 1975. For 48 years, new therapeutic options have been regularly tested as part of therapeutic studies to improve the treatment of anaplastic oligodendroglioma.[9]
    I have written
    I started the treatment
    I took the pictures and video.
    I started pathogenesis
    I started diagnosis.
    I gave the start
    Wname1 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg". Wname1 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wrote this article and it is accepted: "Danish withdrawal from the European Union". Wname1 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you said relates to the copyright violations that I brought up. I wasn't even aware of you being the creator of the article - but I'm not surprised to find the originial version to be mostly a direct translation of this page by the Swiss Brain Tumor Foundation with some slight rearrangement of sentences, another copyvio. MaligneRange (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use the "reply" button to reply to comments, or thread them properly in the future. I'm a bit confused by this response, you just say MaligneRange doesn't like the Anaplastic Oligodendroglioma page I started. Can you address the claims of copyright violations and sourcing? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg largely reads as an unattributed poor-quality (machine?) translation of the German article de:Landsmannschaft Zaringia Heidelberg. NebY (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article used to be even worse:[114] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this same editor wrote the German Wikipedia article, so at least ours is not a copyright violation of theirs, but it seems to have other problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the German article was already written in hundreds of edits by many registered and IP editors beginning in 2006, before Wname1 contributed to it in 2021 and translated it here; here's the last version before then. NebY (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa. I was only looking at the last 50 edits to the German article rather than the 1000 that I have displayed on English Wikipedia and lazily thought that I was looking at all of the history. In the light of this it looks as if Wname1's magnum opus (why am I speaking so much Latin today?) is indeed a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and that they present it above as "I also wrote this article" says they truly don't understand copyright or how serious a matter it is on Wikipedia. Nor does their chaotic response above address the blatant copying from outside Wikipedia by which they created Anaplastic oligodendroglioma (probably by machine translation - we see their difficulties in writing English above and on talk pages). NebY (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues with Researcher1988 at Zoroastrianism

    I have some significant concerns regarding Researcher1988's behaviour at the Zoroastrianism page and its associated talk page. I've been slow coming to AN:I because they're a new user and I hoped that with a bit of guidance they might calm down a bit. Unfortunately it seems things have escalated over the weekend.

    These issues have included: Edit warring: [115] [116] [117] [118] Refactoring other users comments at talk: [119] (also a bit of a WP:OWN issue instructing a user at article talk not to reply to a talk comment. Copyvio issues: [120] [121] Calling out individual editors at article talk to debate: [122] And just so much WP:IDHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT at article talk that I honestly don't even know where to begin with diffs. The user has been warned of many of these issues at user talk: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] but it seems like every time they are asked to stop one behaviour a new one crops up. It seems like the user has a serious POV issue regarding any source that might interfere with a straightforward monotheistic reading of Zoroastrianism. I will say, to their credit, that the user has a good eye for finding sources and I have sincerely enjoyed reading some of the refs they've found, although they need a bit more development identifying appropriate academic sources. However with that being said I think continued participation in pages related to Zoroastrianism is probably detrimental to their development as a Wikipedia editor. I'd suggest a limited duration topic ban while they learn the ropes might help them develop as a constructive editor. Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just tried to protect the page From vandals. I have provided various Materials to the page and made positive and constructive edits.
    the problem is with one particular user who is relatively new, has little knowledge of Zoroastrianism and yet, wants to edit the article according to his personal interpretations.
    this debate is ongoing for 4 months now. the user doesn't accept the sources we provided, and persistently wants to edit the page in a way that fits his own personal views. Researcher1988 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should note that the "vandal" in question is a third party they are involved in an edit conflict with and has categorically not vandalized the page in any way. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    with all respect, what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism."
    the user tried to add misinformation and materials not supported by sources to the page in order to change the materials to his own liking.
    It is 4 months now that this conflict continues. I just wanted to prevent this from happening and protect the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus so I'd just let it go, especially since this argument has been going on for four months. Suggesting a close and a move back to Talk:Zoroastrianism. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone close this? I would, but I don't know how. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not considering we now can add canvassing to this issue. [130] [131] Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's... Not good. And here I was thinking this would end quickly. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sincerely I don't lightly take edit conflicts to AN/I. This is rather a user who is becoming a constant time sink with antics like this while describing specific other good-faith editors as vandals. If it were merely a heated edit conflict I would not bring it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just seeking help from other editors, so we can end the dispute sooner. is it not allowed on Wikipedia? Researcher1988 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVAS is clear that you cannot go to other specific editors and ask them to resolve a content dispute in your favour - doing that while someone has an open AN/I thread about you is also just rather ill-advised. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never wanted them to vote in favor of me. it is not about me, it is about a discussion which involves many. I just thought the dispute would end sooner, by calling other users attention. I didn't know It would make a problem. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff [132] is precisely what you should not do. And this is the problem - you are taking up a lot of time for us explaining, at length, don't do this, don't do that, and your clear strident POV on the topic is exacerbating this. I have suggested before you take time away from this topic and develop your skills elsewhere. This is still what I think you need to do as this is becoming disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we seek a way to solve the problem in the talk page? I don't think the problem is complicated. as I said, It is not about me. I'm just concerned about the misinformation in the page. Researcher1988 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you've said, the debate has lasted for four months already, and has resulted in an ANI discussion, so I doubt it. WADroughtOfVowelsP 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, those are newbie mistakes, how about Skyerise, a veteran user with 100+K edits who reverts a stable version of the article on shaky grounds while there was no consensus for that version ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, there is a clear consensus on the talk page that we should not (yet) commit to calling Zoroastrian monotheistic. However, the so-called "stable" version does just that, so it violates that consensus. Which I've explained on the talk page with summary counts, etc. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs you are providing can also apply to other editors at that talk page, I underlined several times personal attacks towards me and WP:POINT, WP:ONUS, WP:CON issues there.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my mind, the consensus is that the page should be neutral on the matter of monotheism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As an involved editor in this issue, I must say that there are multiple problems there, while Researcher1988 might have made some mistakes as a newbie, more experienced editors have baffling behaviour there, refusing to ackowledge WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:ONUS and so on. I tried myself to reinstate a stable version of the article in order to achieve a consensus first before inclusion, but have been reverted by said experienced editors on the ground that they agree with the version of the article that had no consensus. I think admins eyes would be welcome and a full protection of the article should prevail to avoid further edit warring.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [133] At this point should we just notify any other involved editors at Zoroastrianism? Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever is the subjective of what they did is called "Subtle Vandalism." should probably be notified of the discussion, since they've been accused of vandalism. I would, but I'm not keen on who is who in this pronoun game. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that might be a few of us by this point. I think. He's certainly aimed it at me a fair few times. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved Comment At time of writing this thread is so far dominated by the filer and the subject of the thread. I'd ask Simonm223 and Researcher1988 to put the back-and-forth on hold and have other eyes look at this before it balloons to a size nobody will want to pick through.
    Researcher1988, regarding It is not about me, this thread should not be about the content dispute, but rather was made to discuss your behavior. Removing comments of other users that are not unquestionably and obvious vandalism is something you should not be doing. Short of specific sanctions applied to users for past behavior, article talk spaces do not exclude any editors, anyone is free to join any conversation there. If you would like a discussion to only include you and one other editor, you will have to rely on your talk page or email, and neither of those can establish consensus. Short of evidence otherwise, only you know why you picked the editors you did to request they join the discussion, and while that in and of itself is not against policy, editors are very suspicious of anything that looks vaguely like canvassing. Messages like this are almost guaranteed to be seen as canvassing, since you are trying to dictate how the recipient views the conflict before they even read the discussion. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gladly, if I comment further on this it will only be in the context of presenting new diffs. I would prefer not to engage in more back-and-forth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    well, I believe that User (which I accuse of Vandalism), has turned the dispute into a personal one. whenever I post some Information on the talk page, he shows up and posts something irrelevant and repeats his older opinions.
    In this case, I created a Topic for discussing a matter with another user. but he showed up and posted some irrelevant comment. I decided to delete his comment, since my post was meant for someone else.
    I believe these experienced editors are taking sides and their behavior is unfair. what is interesting for me is that they never blamed the other side, who is deliberately continuing this dispute for 4 month (despite various sources presented to refute him,) and his behavior is in my opinion some kind of trolling. Researcher1988 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 If you would explain your reasoning (on the page) instead of telling me your beliefs, it would be a lot easier for us to discuss things & reach some sort of middle ground. As it is; I have been trying to engage with you about your sources, and the ways in which they contradict you, but you haven't really been willing to engage back. This makes it very hard to see your point of view, as you will state a thing as true (or quote someone stating it) but not explain why it is true. Without knowing the 'why', there is no possibility of agreement because the 'why' is the part I need to hear in order to agree. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with Reasercher1988: I never wanted to launch an admin complaint like this, but I will list the issues I've had with Reasercher1988 since I am one of the affected parties. To date; Reasercher1988 has made editing the article & talk page a deeply frustrating and borderline impossible experience, particularly through frequent WP:EDITWARing and spamming. I believe that is an intentional tactic to make people give up. Some of the things they have done:

    • Attempting to start an WP:EDITWAR with every other editor on the page. Including yesterday, with Simonm223, Skyerise, and myself. Tactics include: !) straight-up undoing, 2) dumping the other person's edits into a section far deeper down the page, 3) Simply editing their edits out of existence while making their own edits. In functional terms: Every single edit we make to the article, no matter how minor, is either reverted or buried by Researcher1988. This includes purely aesthetic aesthetic edits - such as adding titles to various sections in the Theology section, which Researcher1988 quickly and silently removed. And did so twice, if I recall. Researcher1988 seems to feel they WP:OWN the page in question, and that only their own WP:POV and vision should be allowed. I have been 'Told Off' and reverted by Researcher1988 for even attempting to correct the grammar of a section they have edited, which is essentially the entire article. Meanwhile they freely edit my content, and shuffle it about the page at will. Usually burying it in a far deeper section than I intended.
    • Even attempting to add a direct quote from one of Researcher1988's own list of approved sources into the page will be instantly reverted if the quote happens to Researcher1988's own beliefs. This is clear WP:CHERRYPICKING. Typically their excuse it that there is "no consensus" & that I am "misinterpreting" the source. For example, my edit on 07:47, 15 April 2024 added a very direct quote from Mary Boyce - who is on their personal approved list. This was was swiftly reverted at 07:47, 15 April 2024 saying "Undid the edit; first we should reach a consensus; besides the sources doesn't support the claim.". I was, in fact, acting on the recent talk page vote - which came down very hard on the side of neutrality on the issue. When I undid the undo, explaining it was a direct quote, they undid it again. I then ceased in order to avoid an WP:EDITWAR - something Researcher1988 has been warned about in the past. This is typically how Researcher1988 gets their way on the page - by simply forcing the other person to break a rule in order to fight back. I feel this is another version of WP:STONEWALL.
    • Almost as soon as I began trying to edit the page, Researcher1988 started their regular accusations of vandalism against me and other members. Not to mention insults and combative (rather than constructive) behaviour. One of his primary complaints being that we are editing the text that is 'already there' - by which he means his own. Which he regards as 'perfect'. You can see a prime example here. I think this goes against WP:BITE.
    • This is part of Reasercher1988's ongoing and massive campaign of spam & disruption the Talk page, under the guise of 'correcting' or 'calling out' other members about rule breaches. This behaviour has destroyed multiple votes created by Reasercher1988 themselves. Typically by derailing them the instant someone posts a vote they don't like. You can see this in action here, where Reasercher1988 launches a consensus and then tries to debate me the second I vote. That debate looks small now, but it was originally so large I had to split it off into this section here, which is itself huge, in order to try and preserve the vote. They then launched another vote where they did it again. Firstly by making the intro to the vote a massive list of their own personally approved sources, in an effort to sway the voters, then immediately debating with everyone who objected. This got so bad I was forced to create a parred down copy-paste of the vote - minus the debate - purely in order to keep track of it & make it readable. Reasercher1988 saw this only as an opportunity to start yet another copy of the same exact debate, even though I purposefully removed all the reasoning posted with each vote in order to avoid provoking him. As you might imagine, this kind of behaviour makes it very difficult to use the talk page at all. I believe this to be WP:STONEWALL in order to enforce WP:POV, at the very least. Reasercher1988 may demand 'consensus', but they operate entirely without it and disrupt all attempts to achieve it.
    • Multiple times Reasercher1988 has posted copies of that same massive list of personally approved sources on the page - which is itself spamming. Both here and also here. They seem to do this as form of stonewalling. This tactic, combined with their endless arguing against everything, makes it incredibly frustrating to engage with anyone on the page. The clutter is getting so bad, I would like to archive most of the page.
    • Overall Researcher1988 refuses to engage in proper discussion, and will simply state and restate their opinion without addressing any of the problems raised. This makes speaking to them, itself, very infuriating.

    There is actually way more I could say, but I feel these are the main points. Regardless of the above, I don't really bear Researcher1988 any ill will or think they should be banned - but I do think that they need to be reigned in in some way to prevent them dominating the page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I had reason for Every edit and revert that I made. why you continued this debate for 4 months? why you don't get the point and refuse to accept various reliable sources who refute your claims? Researcher1988 (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 Your own sources conflict with your views, and mine are reliable. If you would like to discuss why, please send me a talk page message. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bordering being a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT considering this has been going on for 4 months without resolution. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not guilty of that, but I admit it's possible. I do feel it's happening the other way, however. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the above, I'd Support a topic ban on Researcher1988 from Zoroastrianism, broadly construed, with the standard offer available once they've edited elsewhere to demonstrate they can edit without WP:OWNership issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Throwing a Support behind that as well. Maybe also take a look through the article and the Talk page and see what can be done there to make the article better. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping in mind I'm someone who has engaged in this content dispute a considerable amount, I would also support a topic ban per HandThatFeeds's formulation. Remsense诉 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for banning the user for multiple reasons.
    Not only did the user misgendered me three times with several Users pointing out that this is impolite, they also violated several guidlines and trust.
    The user started an edit war with multiple users stating that they have been putting undue weight to their position, just for their own source to turn out barely to not support their view at all. Furthermore, it has become clear from the talkpage (I cannot find the exact version difference in this chaos anymore but it is possible to find by the search function) that there was probably religious motivation (maybe a form of neo-Zorastrianism comprable to Neo Tengrism insisting on being monotheistic) behind their edits, as they said that

    "I insist on calling it Monotheism, because it is a Monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians consider themselves monotheistic, they never saw themselves as Dualistic or anything other than monotheistic."

    Except for their own understanding of Zorastrianism, there is no evidence for that it was called "Monotheistic" by Zorastrians (especially since the term did not exist back then). There is reason not to apply good faith given how often the user attacked several users pesonally and refused to adress any concern brought to the talkpage. Instead, they just opened a new poll or a new discussion whenever they felt cornered.
    Thus, there is little to no evidence for remorse, and accordingly, little hope the user will improve their behaviour. Their behaviour is unbearable for other Users, frustrating and time-consueming for no good reasons or benefits. On the long-term Wikipedia profites more from banning the user entirely. Furthermore, it seems imperative to make clear that Wikipedia Users are not the playball for frustrated indidivuals who just want to see their opinions, here. Not deleting them could encourage bad behaviour in near future on other article talkpages as well, causing talkpages to deteriorate to the level of a WP:FORUM. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @VenusFeuerFalle
    Zoroastrianism is called "Mazdayasna" "Mazda Worshiper" by Zoroastrians. Zoroastrians believe in one god. modern Zoroastrians consider themselves Monotheistic. there is a scholarly consensus that Zoroastrianism is Monotheistic and Religious Dualism is a variation of monotheism too.
    this user completely ignores all reliable sources which clearly state Zoroastrianism is monotheistic, and insists on his personal opinions which are not supported by any of the academic sources:
    "In Zoroastrianism Ahura Mazda, the ‘Lord of Wisdom’ is considered a superior, all-encompassing deity, the only existing one, who may be venerated in all other god-manifestations. This certainly is a monotheistic concept."
    https://www.academia.edu/27409859/Zoroastrianism_and_the_Bible_Monotheism_by_Coincidence Researcher1988 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    and insists on his personal opinions

    oopsie VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That deserves emphasis as an ancillary point. I usually think it's best to be patient with people on this particular point—but we have been. Researcher has been directly asked several times not to refer to VFF as 'he'. That they continue to do so without even acknowledging the requests is getting to be a sanctionable problem in itself, I would argue. Remsense诉 01:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am usually a User avoiding conflict, but if you keep on this attitude, you find yourself here again for WP:HARASS and WP:PA for spreading lies about me constantly and intentional misgendering, in case you will not be deleted entirely, which would be the (appropriate decission). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Researcher1988 You have been shown evidence that is not correct, and that the status of the religion is highly debated, but you have ignored it so far. Including evidence from your own sources that say it changed & evolved. If you would like to talk about it, I will be on the article's talk page. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Ghost train" IP again

    Fresh off serving a block for a bit more than a month, the Ghost Train IP (first ANI thread) has returned with the same activities as before, on the same range. Can we hit Special:Contributions/2001:BB6:9800:D00:9143:7563:8EF8:15F/64 with a block again, for longer this time? They've also created a nonsense draft at Talk:Timothy the Ghost Engine which should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Canterbury Tail for actioning this. No further need for admin attention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry forgot to come back here and post, I got "squirrel!!!!" Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're rolling on the rails of this sock train... I like Astatine (Talk to me) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summary needing redaction

    SYMBIOTIC WP:REVDEL
    (non-admin closure) The linked edit summary has been revdelled, which is something that its author agrees was the best cause of action as well. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone remove the edit summary of this diff [134]? I don't think it's appropriate to refer to the subject of a BLP as "Adolf Hitler". I can't notify the editor who left the edit summary because their talk page is protected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. I intended to say something along the lines of "this is like if Hitler's opinion was used on Germany-related topics" (and thus is undue), but it came out all wrong. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Surprising attack out of nowhere

    User:Dahn came to my talk page to call me "frankly moronic", "inane", and "destructive". Baffled by this, I took a look at the edit they had a problem with, where I discovered this edit summary, where they called me an "ignoramous". Faced with an attack like this, I don't know where else to turn but here. It's extremely disheartening. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • For what it is worth, I apologize. Though most of those things are not in any way personal attacks, but references to the result of the action I commented on (not "called me", but "called the things I did" this and that). As for what those things are: the random removal of sourced content, without any semblance of a discussion, on the pretext that the sources "do not exist"; when it was absolutely clear that the sources have a print version (the name of the paper magazine is immediately apparent in the reference), and when not even a perfunctory effort was made to actually check if the html version was ever archived. At the time of writing, I was on a mobile device, which makes it near impossible to fix this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) beyond a sheer revert; going to search for the archive myself, on said mobile device, was too much of a practical hurdle, and it was especially annoying to have to do so based on an editor's whimsical claim/apparent unwillingness to check a source/assumption of bad faith from other editors. I would like ANI to instruct Fred Zepelin regarding the scope of such behavior, which may have occurred over several articles. Dahn (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      this uncollegial type of problematic editing (which I continue to see as bordering on vandalism) The only uncollegial behavior I see is from you. Fred Zepelin was obviously incorrect (though that wasn't vandalism), and you could have justifiably reinstated the removed source, gone to his talkpage, and explained what he did in a collegial manner. You chose not to, instead showing up at his talkpage with guns blazing and assuming bad faith; your behavior is not justified post hoc because Fred was in the wrong about content. Grandpallama (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps so. But at what point is a user expected to already know that theyre not to remove sourced info? And why should I be the only one expected to police pages against such disruptive edits by supposedly experienced users? (Thats assuming you really do not see the removal of others' work under a bogus claim as uncollegial.) Dahn (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dahn: What of "[..] also restored originall spelling removed by another ignoramous"(summary)? Is that not an insult on the IP who changed the spelling and the OP ("another")? – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure who I'm answering to and how a raw IP was able to locate this discussion and contribute to this piling on, but: is the point here that I should be apologizing to a(nother) raw IP who changed the spelling of the alternative title because they couldn't manifestly figure out that the spelling rules of Romanian were once different (and that the original title was therefore spelled slightly different -- an encyclopedic and sourced info), or did not want the info present in the article for some obscure reason? Just to clarify: is this what is being asked of me? That I apologize to raw IPs committing hit-and-run vandalism? Dahn (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is civility. I get that it can be very irritating to have content you wrote be removed with a bad explanation (I'm assuming you wrote it), or even to have it vandalized, but the base level of interacting with civility is expected even when interacting with actual vandals. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, being able to collaborate without escalating things is extremely important. Acknowledging that is what I would expect at least, which your initial response evaded a bit by starting at saying that you were commenting on actions (though I'm just commenting, and am no admin, obviously). – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The very first words of my very first comment here: For what it is worth, I apologize. As for the rest: the behavior I was commenting on, as unjustified as those comments may be, is itself disruptive, in both cases you bring up. (Yes, I did write that content. But it's mostly the fact that I sourced it transparently, that I have painstakingly referenced it, and I'm expected to protect it against users who either claim that "the source does not exist", based on quite baffling rationales, or, as is the case with the raw IP, just don't want it in there. Lets also take a moment to ponder the implications of accusing editors that they have fabricated sources.) Dahn (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not good enough when the rest of your comment mostly consists of justifications for that WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Fred Zepelin encountered a dead link, so they removed the content it attributed. Not the best course of action, obviously, as at the very least {{Dead link}} exists. But your aggressive note to them on their talk page (permalink) was disproportionate when compared to the gravity of their error. So please take this as a warning to dial it down when presented with similar issues. Thanks. El_C 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks a bit like Im already being hounded by this point, especially with personal takes about what I did that wasnt good enough as an apology. Fair enough. But allow me to note: Im not "justifying my actions", Im asking that, whatever comes out of this case, Fred Zepelin is also instructed regarding the disruptive nature of that sort of editing. Because disruptive it is, even if the link were dead -- since the reference was not even link-dependent, let alone that the link was archived; since no discussion about the reference was opened anywhere by him; and since the near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries (note his first one as well) was that the source had been fabricated by editors. That kind of editing is not just "not the best course of action"; editors acting like this create gaps in content, and impose themselves, and their range of competence, as a filter on what can go in the articles. They need to be educated not to do that. Dahn (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is just "not the best course of action." By all means, educate away, but without all the added aggression baggage. Because that approach to education is folly and is not welcomed here. El_C 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am referring to how ANI, or anyone engaged in this discussion, should educate an experience user not to engage in that sort of editing, which is (once we dont sugarcoat it) disruptive. As for myself: I create content, and would rather spend more time on creating it, rather than micromanaging sensitivities of users who delete sourced content without ever engaging in a discussion (doing so would effectively double my time spent here, absorbing me in thankless tasks). I accept scolding for whatever I did wrong; but please at least make sure Fred doesnt end up doing this over other articles I cant even be bothered to check. Or is that something I am expected to keep an eye on? And does Fred even acknowledge that there was something wrong with his edits, including from a civility point? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not gonna do that. No, you are not expected to, either, but are free to do so if you are able to do so civilly. El_C 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not being hounded; you're hearing a consensus in the reactions of other editors. If you're committed to not dropping the stick, though, I think there is a conversation to be had about the fact that incivility seems to be a normal pattern, not an exception, in your edit summaries: [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145]. You're doing quite well to get off with an informal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am being hounded by being asked to engage in this conversation, with users who do not ultimately decide what sanctions I supposedly deserve. As for the "stick", I have dropped it even before you came in searching through my months-long edit history. The only think I asked, and I believe anyone will be able to pick it up, is that Fred's removal of sourced content be analyzed for what it was. Are we done here, or do you guys still need my input? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do decide on the sanctions here, so please keep my warning and additional comments in mind. Thank you. El_C 03:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    searching through my months-long edit history To be clear, that's just from the last 30 days. Grandpallama (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dahn I know you were just blocked, but I was typing this and still think it applies, though I won't rephrase it:
    RE "[..] do you guys still need my input?": We need your assurance that you will avoid being aggressive like this on future instances where people do things that you consider disruptive. --- I will now comment on the rest of your concerns, but that's all I feel we need for now.
    As to if Fred has done this on multiple articles, we don't know that, and we can't assume that, and you shouldn't assume it either. If Fred did continue doing it multiple times or to multiple articles, or if someone brought up a concern to them in the future and found out that their page talk history has had multiple of those before with no change, or someone really does see a pattern of disruption in their edits and comes with evidence, then we can do something official about it.
    So far their work in this instance was sloppy, which ultimately resulted in them removing existing references and content, but to us it's just one instance, ideally you telling them about it civilly after you corrected it, or in the summary, would have been all there was to it, unless they had repeated it. It likely wouldn't have ever reached this board. – 143.208.236.191 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You keep adding to your comment after having submitted it, Dahn. Anyway, you write about a purported near-explicit accusation in both of his edit summaries [...] that the source had been fabricated — and you link to an edit summary that reads: nothing at that link, cannot find any reference to that quote anywhere. That is not a "near-explicit accusation" of "the source [having] been fabricated," that is you assuming bad faith. Because maybe they thought it was a simple (or complex) error, and you can't read minds. El_C 03:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the examples Grandpallama provided above — that's a problem. A problem far more extensive that I initially realized. You cannot continue like this, Dahn. You need to not do that anymore. El_C 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C: The content was sourced and had been removed. The source existed and had been published (in a paper edition, the link was already superfluous); the fact that one needs to "see" a paper source to "allow" its content to be used as a reference is assuming bad faith from the editor. A paper source, lest we forget, can simply be used without any link, so not being able to check the link does not invalidate the source.
    As for my past uncivility picked out from in months of productive editing, I accept whatever critique and ruling (even when I was exasperated by evident vandalism, I was arguably out of line; and I was evidently out of line in other edit summaries, that did not refer to such editing -- some of the diffs provided are just snide, not truly insulting to anyone). They can be weighed against my productive editing, or not -- either way, I don't suppose you want me to have to sit around for the rest of the day having to perform self-criticism. Give me my punishment, if any, and let's all get on with our lives. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours: User talk:Dahn#Block. El_C 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this thread is still open, and since I just saw it, I’ll weigh in after the fact: the block was a serious overreaction. Dahn apologized from the start and pledged to be more cautious. That is all that should be expected, not a ritual abasement. There was no STICK or BATTLEGROUND, just a refusal to engage in self-humiliation. And the AGF was on the other side, by assuming Dahn had added invalid content. It’s striking how this project treats productive editors, expecting them to expend valuable time explaining and accounting for their valid choices. A sad moment, not so much for Dahn but for the rest of us. — Biruitorul Talk 05:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that you've not read this thread in full. They could have stepped away with my original warning and that would have been that. No, that level of incivility (repeated, 30 days, not months) is not acceptable, and you are doing him and the project a dis-service by stating otherwise. So, no, performing self-criticism was never sought. El_C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just compared, at a glance, Biruitorul's user talk page (200+ sections) with Dahn's (400+ sections), so the above comment makes more sense to me now. It's fine to stand up for friends or colleagues, but that defense needs to be evidence-based, not reflexive. El_C 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dahn's apology was essentially "I apologize, but don't think I did anything wrong". That's not an apology, that's just deflecting so he can continue doing what he's been doing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It's a "sad moment" whenever someone shows a pattern of incivility and someone tries to brush it aside or say it's no big deal. This is damaging to the project and makes the problem more difficult to solve down the line. Also, see User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned; defending another editor's incivility does them more harm than good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the consensus here: this was an appropriate block, and arguably an inevitable one, considering the consistently WP:IDHT reflex and cavalier attitude towards WP:CIV in every post of Dahn's chain of responses here. The original comments on the OP's talk page were unambiguous WP:PAs (irrespective of whether the descriptors were directed at the OP or their behavior), and Dahn could easily have been blocked for those alone. But having initially dodged that outcome, they couldn't seem to find the wherewithal to not talk themselves into trouble--so committed were they to trying to rationalize and justify their nakedly aggressive, unproductive, and basically caustic rhetoric, which was paired with near-complete ABF and a fundamental failure to understand the most basic tenants of acceptable discussion on this project. Even as one editor/community member after another weighed in to tell them they were taking things way over the line in tone, and on very undeserving grounds, they continued to resist all community feedback and assert that they were in fact the ones being 'hounded'.
    Frankly, it had hit a point of raising a WP:CIR concern, and El_C's decision to ultimately act, where they had first exercised discretion not to, was entirely appropriate in the circumstances, and indeed almost certainly saved some trouble for other future targets of such needlessly combative and disruptive language, the project generally, and (honestly) probably Dahn themselves. Dahn seems relatively intelligent, aside from their inability to read the room in this instance, and hopefully putting the breaks on them when it comes to such behavior here increases the chances that they can be a solid net positive to the project for the longterm. It's unfortunate that it needed to happen as such, but looking over the discussion, I think it's very clear that it did. SnowRise let's rap 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too endorse the block. It's important to remember that blocks are preventative nut punitive, but it's clear from the discussion above that Dahn requires some enforced time-out to reflect. Because so far they're either missing or refusing to get the point. Incivility drives good editors away and no amount of constructive editing is an excuse for it. WaggersTALK 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YHWHTruthKeeper

    Discussion doesn’t appear to be productive, [146] and if I take action at this point it will just confirm whatever they imagine is going on concerning the Michigan Militia. Since I once reverted, I bring it up here. Acroterion (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment} The username suggests a possible agenda which might be at odds with Wikipedia's goals. Narky Blert (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I suppose that it's possible to edit well, but I've never seen anyone with "truth" in their name who is not a POV-pusher. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Yahweh Truthkeeper in particular does suggest an agenda. I've made a suggestion that they adjust their approach, but their first nine edits don't make them look very promising as a positive contributor. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're also borderline on legal threats [147]. Anyhow who cares if a crank feels their conspiracy theories are confirmed? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef: Seems like a CIR problem, I think this editor should be blocked for NOTHERE. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Narky Blert's username-based premonition, and their edits could well be motivated by whitewashing of certain far right agendas, but I don't think they have yet reached the point of being block-worthy. They're interacting on their user talk, for one thing, rather than continuing to edit-war in article space; that's a good development. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, let's see what they do next. What I was doing clearly wasn't working, but they weren't in block territory yet as far as I was concerned. Their going directly to 11 on the denunciations isn't a good look, but I have a thick skin, and maybe somebody will do better. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we got an answer [148] Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think what really pissed him off is that it was a woman telling him what to do? Valereee (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think anything anybody could say would have gotten through, but we tried. Acroterion (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lotta anger, wherever it's aimed. Oh, well. Like you say, we tried. Valereee (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling me a citation needs to be cited and that quoting SCOTUS opinion (that justifies the removal of a word that appears to be opinion or a typo) isn’t a good look for an “encyclopedia” editor, either. YHWHTruthKeeper (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dismitha

    Dismitha blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Has a bias towards actor Vijay, and even purposefully alters content against what sources say, like this and this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    AliM7mdd

    AliM7mdd blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:AliM7mdd is already listed at WP:AIV for dozens of AFD template removals, but has now resorted to a malicious page move of User:Fanfanboy to main space: User:Fanfanboy has been correctly reverting the removals of AFD templates. Could an admin please intervene? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Some convincing assurances will be needed for reinstatement of editing privileges. El_C 12:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Vaguceba

    All edits from this user have been translations from the Spanish wikipedia to the English wikipedia to pages about Mexican television series. These pages don't seem to need these translations and the user ends up leaving the pages with poor translations, removal of references, and additions of red links that they will most likely not create pages for. The user might not understand English and may be related to blocked IP 2806:2F0:55C1:D6BD:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) who was making the same edits to the same exact pages.Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several points that I would disagree with:
    1. Any page about a notable subject can be translated. Nothing "needs" translation.
    2. Poor translations on notable subjects should be improved, not complained about.
    3. There is no requirement for the creator of a red link to personally create the article pointed to. This is a collaborative project.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (non admin comment) Without going into the merits, translations from other language Wikipedias must always be attributed. See WP:TFOLWP. Narky Blert (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated removal of sourced content

    This is already at AE and an admin is looking at it. Do not take a second bite of the apple, nor impose deadlines on volunteers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content backed by reliable sources from the Aksai Chin article. See this, this, this, this and this diff. Kautilya3 has told them that, "their reverts are improper and merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on the talk page of the article here but they continue to remove the sourced content.-Haani40 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this already being discussed at WP:AE? DanCherek (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is about the behaviour of Abhishek0831996 but here I expect an admin to warn them not to remove sourced content (besides, nobody has bothered to take action at WP:AE despite so many days having passed after the complaint being filed).-Haani40 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, for "China occupied", there are dozens of sources.-Haani40 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This point has been discussed on the Talk page of the article here but neither of them is willing to accept that we have used reliable sources and so, they are repeatedly reverting that edit.-Haani40 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without going into this particular case I must point out that there is in principle nothing wrong with removing sourced content. Merely having a reliable source doesn't necessarily make content suitable for an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources say about a topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To add another point, I don't see why this is not still just a content dispute, one that was apparently intending to go to WP:DRN. In fact, minutes before this thread was started, @Haani40, you edited the page(once more adding the disputed content...) with the edit summary "I will seek dispute resolution over this".
    So what happened? – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went and read the other disputes there and it seemed that they were being told to come here (ANI).-Haani40 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    FeldmarschallGneisenau

    Hi. Can an administrator please take a look at the discussion going on at User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau? It has became quite heated and turned from a policy debate to personal attacks. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the real issue is the building evidence this user is a sockpuppet: User talk:Bbb23#Potential sock... Zenomonoz (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Maybe a SPI could be opened after an admin responds. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FeldmarschallGneisenau has been temporarily blocked, and accepted the block. No opinion about a SPI. Lectonar (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 and WP:CIVIL

    The IP in question added a paragraph to Spirulina (dietary supplement) that conflicted with WP:MEDRS, and Julius Senegal reverted it [149]. This started a conversation on User talk:Julius Senegal#Why did you remove my edit of the spirulina page?. Julius Senegal responded with an answer that conflicted with what the IP was saying, and the IP said Now give me an honest answer.. Also, this seems to be a WP:CIR issue since the IP said The "doubtful[ness]" of the journal is not relevant.. Then they went to say PS. Are ***you*** a doctor? Then, at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Deleted for not fitting the narrative., the IP started making personal attacks, eg. Editor Julius Senegal removed the edit, and when I asked him why he gave a bullshit answer. His honest answer would be that he's a shill for Big Pharma. What can I do? And why is Wikipedia becoming anti-science?, Again, his answer was bullshit. You are all showing that the once great Wikipedia has been ruined and is no longer a reliable source of information., and accused Julius of being racist. Is a block in order? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 04:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Block for reasons above. The IP also made this personal attacks during the incident: "Again, you can't be honest, or you would reply that you're not a doctor, you've never heard of these doctors, and you don't possess the skills, educations or intelligence to judge the study. Thank you for helping turn Wikipedia from being a great source of knowledge into a steaming pile of useless shit. 2600:1700:B2C0:5E10:D4BA:B511:43FF:4786 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)" I'm all for a block. anyone else? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:IPBLENGTH, IPs should almost never be blocked indefinitely. Even IPs used by blatant vandals are expected to only be blocked for a long time if the IP or range has been used by vandals for a long time. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)*edit: No longer relevant. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'm not really that used to policies, I still have a lot to read :P thanks IP! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP editor for one week for personal attacks, harassment and disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Виктор Не Вацко

    I am unsure, but I assume the user is banned on the Ukrainian part of the website. However, at AfD is European Football Coach of the Season and European Football Coach of the Year, both have been pointed out to be fabricated hoax articles that require WP:G3 along with the template Template:European Coach of the Year which I just tagged G3, although the user hasn't edited in a while, would it be prudent to global ban the account to stop any future business? As it seems the user does return to doing these editing every so often. Not to mention it seems there maybe a bit of work to cleanup some of the mess created by this user. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just say or ask 2 things:
    1 - The procedure for sanctioning people with global bans is documented on MetaWiki at meta:Global bans. We (the English Wikipedia community) do not have the authority to sanction people with such bans.
    2 - Let's see if I'm understanding it right, both of these articles have been nominated for deletion as hoax, by the same user, because on the Ukrainian Wikipedia these articles were created by the same user (who is blocked there) and were identified as hoax. Did I get that right? If so then I will note that the account that was blocked on the other Wiki for creating many hoax articles is not the same account as the one you are reporting here (the account you are reporting also does not appear to be blocked on the Ukrainian Wikipedia). – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mitte27: If a user creates fake articles that's a problem that needs to be dealt with, being misled is not really good enough. Also it could easily be the same person for all we know. We still have issues to deal with. Govvy (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, unfortunately, many of these hoaxes in Ukrainian Wikipedia have existed for more than 10 years. They were posted on behalf of a journalist associated with a football publication. So it was quite easy to believe in them. --Mitte27 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, both accounts appear to not just have interacted with each other, but also had conversations with each other (the first 2 pages are their talk pages) on the Ukrainian Wikipedia: editor interaction
    edit: Though I'll disclaim that I haven't read those conversations more than using Google Translate on one. – 143.208.237.53 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, as far as this noticeboard goes there is an enormous difference between deliberately perpetrating hoaxes and being misled. The former is a behavioral issue that belongs here and can be dealt with by blocks or bans, but the latter is a content problem which can be dealt with by normal editing, including AfD discussion or tagging for speedy deletion. And for all anyone else knows you and I could be the same person. You need more evidence than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: That's not what I am looking for, the first thing is to G3 delete the articles pointed out, and the next was to block the user from possibly doing anymore dysfunctional editing. That was all. Adding hoaxes to wikipedia regardless of method is still punishable. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want an editor punished for believing a hoax? NebY (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Celia Homeford and WP:CIVIL

    User:Celia Homeford clearly did not threaten to block anyone.
    An independent editor has advised the OP of the error of their ways.
    Fundamentally a content dispute and thus out of this board's purview.
    But the OP is reminded that they have been warned already of the guideline of edit warring on their talk page, and therefore it is likely the next noticeboard they sojourn at will be WP:ANEW.
    (non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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



    The user had threatened to block my account over a minor issue (one over-linked profile) on the Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia article, which I wanted to keep—but instead of being civil, the user started harassing me on my talk page. This prevented the user from creating an environment that was conducive to encyclopaedia, instead using the space to display their "authority" and blatant abuse of power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentwort12 (talk • contribs) 12:00 17 April 2024 (UTC)

    it didn't violate MoS, as I understand it that 'Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Common sense applies; do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there' MOS:REPEATLINK I definitely think the re-link is contextually important since it's a list of her residences at that moment in time and it certainly didn't warrant such aggressive reply from this user Wentwort12 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already accepted this "overlinked situation" but I don't think this user's aggressive behavior should be maintained, treating other editors with no civility over edits about linking and threaten to block their account over one overlinked is definitely not a conducive behavior Wentwort12 (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unbiased6969

    Since this thread from last year, [150], Unbiased6969 is still producing aspersions and personal attacks in nearly every edit they make. Here's the diff list since February

    • This is what I meant when I said its hard for some to remove their bias. [151]
    • I suggest reaching a consensus before making edits. I don't think sources are the issue regarding this matter. [152]
    • Okay, since you edited your comment after my previous on, here it goes. [153]
    • A misinformed editor, at one point, added their own opinions into the article, not accurately depicting a study's author, but then citing the study as if the author made that statement. [154]
    • Consensus shouldn't need to be sought for noncontroversial, widely known facts. It is those that wish to dispute known facts to bring new evidence to be scrutinized to challenge if they disagree with the facts. A good-faith editor would not say "demonstrate consensus" to someone trying to correct to say "the earth is sphere" for the earth's wiki. [155]
    • Agreed, a good-faithed editor can clearly read the source and see that the source is referring to the APBT. Now, why would the wiki article state "Pit bulls were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting" if the source clearly states that the APBT was? [156]
    • Pit bull breed, could be used to describe the ABPT, but often times, its just used by ignorant people to the topic who think that pit bull are actually one breed [157]
    • Oh, I cant make simple edits correcting demonstratably false information without gaining concensus first apparently. [158]
    • Oh, you would think that a topic about a breed would be uncontroversial, but unfortunately for those with an bias and are unable to remove themselves from it when making editing decisions, any information that goes against that is controversial, even if it's the mainstream viewpoint. This page has semi-protection for that very reason, because a lot of people rather use this page to push their agenda than to work towards wikipedia's goal of presenting the mainstream viewpoint of academia and reputable organizations on the topic. [159]

    Geogene (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the facts Unbiased6969 is trying to assert here, according to sources pit bulls were bred to fight, not just the American Pit Bull Terrier. The pit bull is unique in many ways. Historically, the breed was derived from the "butcher's dog" developed for the blood sport of bull-baiting in England. The dogs were intentionally bred to be stronger than other dogs and to engage in dangerous behaviors that would favor their winning in the ring by fighting a bull to the death. When this sport was banned in England in approximately 1835, the owners took their dogs to the coal mining communities of Staffordshire County. There, the dogs were placed into coal pits to fight one another, and the breed was manipulated to be quicker and more agile. This breeding eventually resulted in the smaller, tenacious terriers now known as the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The name "pit bull" is associated with dogs displaying these phenotypes. [160]. Unbiased6969 is pettifogging about whether one particular source said "pit bulls" or "American Pit Bull Terriers" were bred to fight, and using it as an excuse to insult me on the talk page. Geogene (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing very little here that would qualify as personal attacks. Mostly it's just snark and frustration at what appears to be WP:STONEWALL behavior by others. Frankly, I can understand that frustration. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If Unbiased6969 wanted to present a coherent proposal with sources, they have already had years to do that. Calling your opponents "ignorant," and calling them "biased" repeatedly has, unsurprisingly, not had much effect on the article. Geogene (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an article that has been targeted by individuals with ideological agendas for years. I'm not going to get dragged into the editing dispute, but the links given above do not show personal attacks that require sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I consider Unbiased6969 to be one of those individuals. Does that mean that behavioral guidelines should operate differently there? Geogene (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to dial back the rhetoric yourself. I disagreed that these rise to the level of personal attacks, that does not mean guidelines are "operat[ing] differently". And you can't really claim Unbiased6969 is making a personal attack in calling people "biased" then turn around and identify them as having a biased agenda without making you look like a hypocrite. I'm done with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's hard not to look sideways at a single-purpose account named "unbiased" (next you'll tell me User:TotallyNotASockPuppet might be a duplicate account), those quotes just aren't so problematic. I will say, however, that there are enough WP:SPAs, enough battleground behavior, and enough POV-pushing in the pit bulls topic area that I think it's a good candidate for WP:CTOP. It's been going on for years and sprawls to many pages, some of which don't seem to get any attention other than by advocates one way or the other. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see Tamzin and Abecedare floated such an idea in the last ANI thread. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People seem to get hung up by the username. Its unbiased6969, which the following letters I would have hoped made it evident of the lack of seriousness and sarcasm. No one is unbiased, but people can work to limit how their bias affect their actions. I would hope that someone would look at my contributions, or attempts to since I get stonewalled all the time, to see if I am editing in a way that is NPOV.
    The pit bull topic is one that needs serious moderation and has for years. I can give several examples of how its written with a POV that, if I were try to remove to create a more NPOV, would be no doubt undid. For example, why is the pit bulls dog page the only dog page with a link to the "dog bite" and "list of fatal dog attacks"? Its not on any other dog breed page, even though multiple breeds populate that list.
    Its also littered with data from animals24-7.org and dogsbite.org, both which were deemed to be unreliable by the WP:RS community. However, there are users in this thread that will defend the removal of this unreliable data, and the evidence of such is located within the talk page archives.
    As for a WP:CTOP, I would assume it would benefit the topic as trying to improve the page to present a NPOV that represents the mainstream academic viewpoint is not achievable for editors in its current state. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've just seen so many accounts containing the words "unbiased", "truth", "fact," etc. who wind up being battleground POV pushers that we're a bit wary of any account with those terms. It's hard not to reflexively wonder about a user with those in their name. The 6969 helps, but I still did a double take the first time I saw your name. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 6969 helps? Do you know what 69 means in vulgar speech Geogene (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it helps sell that they're being humorous about the "unbiased" name bit. Also, "vulgar speech?" What are we, the Vatican? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I can certainly respect the skepticism, especially with a history of seeing repeating patterns. However I am a sarcastic speaker and intended on it being sarcastic because many claim to be unbiased, but no one is. Some are able to see their bias and others are blind to it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I've made a couple of comments recently about users with "fact" and "truth" in their names. It looks like "unbiased" needs to be added to that list. We write based on consensus about what reliable sources say. It is a clear bias to say that sources and consensus should be ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) And the Earth is not a sphere. It approximates to an oblate spheroid.[reply]
    I agree. Truth69420 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You look like a sock Maestrofin (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oops its your names that are similar im sorry Maestrofin (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of being a sock puppet, among other things, and was wrongly banned in the past for it, which was reversed when a check user brought up that an investigation was already concluded on me to not be a sock puppet. I don't have enough time for 1 editor account, let alone 2. For the admins out there, good time to mention that I have moved residences, so expect a different IP this time. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you judged all my contributions based on a username. Outstanding! Can you point to one example of me writing contrary to what "reliable sources" say? I will wait. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to wait long. In the edits that were provided in the first statement in this thread you said that sources and consensus were not required. You even said that they were not required for the untrue statement the Earth is a sphere. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying the earth is not a sphere? I will leave this here...[161][162] Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This mini-argument about the shape of the Earth is a good example of what it's like to argue with Unbiased6969. You can tell them something, they won't understand it, and assume you're a Flat Earther (or the equivalent). In this instance, they've produced sources that they think supports their argument, but do not. And their only apparent purpose in Wikipedia is to camp on that talk page and argue with me about how "biased" I am. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't know what to make of this response. You provide a citation that the Earth is not a sphere, but seem (your language is very unclear so I may be wrong) to still be claiming that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First link says earth is an ellipsoid, second link says an ellipsoid is a deformed sphere. I will concede that there is a technical difference, but it also doesn't take away from the point i was trying to make, which is obvious widely known facts shouldn't even need consensus because good faith editors wouldn't dispute widely known facts. Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you said that sources and consensus were not required That is not my reading of those quotes. I see them as saying "2+2=4 should require seeking consensus to fix" and "this dispute isn't about sources". Whether the related disputes are about sources or whether the subject is as straightforward as 2+2=4 is a separate matter. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My arguement is that I have already shown both the UKC and AKC, and the Britanna encyclopedia all recognizing that pit bulls is a term used for various forms of dog breeds that result form the Bull and Terrier. The wiki article itself mentions this fact several times, but yet Geogene continues to argue for "consensus" as a way to stonewall edit to an article to better reflect the sources claim as the article does not presently do that. All those same sources state that at least one of the breeds, multiple breeds for some sources, that falls under the term "pit bull" was not bred for fighting, against your statement here[163], and despite that you reasserted here[164]. Its not controversial information and is widely recognized, so no consensus shouldn't need to be sought for something so widely recognized, unless the persons intent is to stonewall because the edits go against their bias. I'm not against consensus, I'm against it being used as an argument against improvement in bad faith. Unbiased6969 (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dispute that "pit bull" is an umbrella term for a type of dog, not a specific breed. Your seeming willingness to argue without so much as being consistent about what is being argued about is disruptive. Geogene (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, you are correct. You are saying that the breeds identified as "pit bull" were bred for fighting, and not originating from a preceding breed that was bred for fighting. I will update to reflect accuracy to your position. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also cited a source at the top of this thread that says, perfectly clearly, that pit bull-type dogs are descended from fighting dogs, and exhibit dog fighting phenotypes. Therefore, pit bulls were bred for fighting. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Break in the logic train. It ignores the 100+ years of breeding after the Bull and Terrier. Done arguing it here. Anyone can go to the talk page to see the discussion. Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguing with the source now, a peer reviewed paper in Annals of Surgery, one of the most reputable journals in medicine, with an impact factor of around 10. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of "ANI is not for content disputes" are you having difficulty with? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see how arguing against basic facts expressed in reliable sources is a conduct problem? Geogene (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting Aspersions[165] "refers to a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe". The evidence is located on the talk page and the talk page archives. I will update with links as I get time.
    However, you would be correct that I should bring them to an appropriate committee rather than just make the accusations. So you got me on the procedure. However, I still have not cast any aspersions as there is plenty of evidence of Geogene's bias affecting editing decisions on this topic. I am not the only user who has issues trying to improve the article as noted in the archives.
    I suggest a topic-ban for Geogene and when I get home from work I will provide links to their contributions to the talk page that show a repeatedly engaging ins disruptive practices, including defending keeping data in the page that originated from a source WP:RS has deemed to be unreliable in the past, despite being shown that fact. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Defending Merit Clifton (animals24-7.org) being cited in the article [166]
    Past editor stonewalled and then a dispute filed. Seems history repeats with this editor[167].
    History of being accused of personal attacks against editors they disagree with [168].
    Accuses the AVMA of having a bias in an attempt to discredit [169].
    Taking a break for now, but will continue to update examples of their contributions that are in bad faith. I will start getting into our past discussions, was focusing first on this user and other editors.Also, if anyone knows how to obtained archived dif, would love a refresher on my talk page. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're going to make unfounded accusations about things I supposedly said four years ago, but still no diffs? I'll help you out a little on the first one. What I said there was, And as for Merritt Clifton, if reliable sources treat his work as reliable, then it is reliable for most of WP's purposes. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC) That's WP:USEBYOTHERS, and it's a part of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. So you're basically accusing me of knowing the rules. Which sounds to me like WP:COMPETENCE issue. Geogene (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another gem from Unbiased6969's list. [170] Four years ago, I said, I suspect one could easily argue that the AVMA, ASVAB, and ASPCA do have biases that Time doesn't; the ASPCA is an advocacy group. Yes, that's right, I dared to call the ASPCA an advocacy group, and Unbiased6969 thinks I should sanctioned for this. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice red herring. The topic was the AVMA being accused of having a bias. Not the ASPCA. I will continue to dive and pull examples when I get home tonight. Others can read and make a determination whether you're contributions are in good faith, and if a topic ban is warranted. Unbiased6969 (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AVMA might have a bias. Can you prove they don't? This is normal discussion of sources, that you are weaponizing in bad faith. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual message - request for emergency assistance?

    Not sure where to report this. Someone posted a very strange message on a talk page and may be in need of assistance. [171]. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:EMERGENCY explains how to handle this sort of thing, and who to email regarding concerns like this. I did revdel the edit, as that was a phone number it appears. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent misrepresentation by an editor

    There are two major points of contentions:

    1. Coco Lee's place of birth (Hong Kong, Wuhan, both, or neither) in the infobox
    2. the Sing! China#Alleged mistreatment incident in terms of due coverage and placement in Coco Lee article's "Death" section

    Dustfreeworld has continued to claim that there is consensus or agreement from discussion for their revisions [172] [173] [174] [175], but that is not true.

    Evidence contradicting Dustfreeworld on point #1:

    "She was born and died in Hong Kong" [176]

    "Since we don't even know where she was born" [177]

    "She was born, died and most notable in Hong Kong/China" [178]

    "premature for the infobox" [179]

    "no consensus yet for the infobox" [180]

    "Sort it out in the body first. Then decide whether and how you will deal with it in the infobox. Remember there is no law saying that ths infobox must have PoB data." [181]

    Evidence contradicting Dustfreeworld on point #2:

    During the first discussion [182], there was one editor agreeing with my positions, one agreeing with theirs, and a third one recommending a shorter "Death" section with controversies under a different section. Dustfreeworld tried to stop the RfC, claiming they were misrepresented, but has not explained what their original or "true" comments were.

    During the second discussion [183], there was one editor saying the section is too long and potentially unrelated. Dustfreeworld tried to change the subject to the stock market.

    Over the course of our disagreements, Dustfreeworld has suggested that I lied [184], spread misinformation [185], deliberately slandered them [186], or work for Sing! China [187], all made without evidence. So I temporarily backed off from editing the article, but now they are claiming to have consensus.

    This shows Dustfreeworld does not understand what consensus means or does not care and cannot impartially edit information related to Coco Lee when it comes to her origin or relationship with Sing! China. Vacosea (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) ANI is, as the top of the page says, for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I do agree that some of Dustfreeworld's comments have been uncivil. I'm not sure about the Sing! China situation, but the last discussion of the birthdate problem was in November last year, which you posted in after months of the thread's inactivity. (Both that and Sing! China discussion.) Dustfreeworld has been reverting you because you've been unilaterally reverting birth place info when only one user (aside from you) has clearly agreed with you—according to the very same links you have posted. You also brought this to ANI a few months ago, where it resolved into a bunch of bickering. Please put down the stick. (For the record, you and Dust have been moving towards slow-motion edit warring. Not saying that you are right now, but breathe in and look at the mirror.) Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Szturnek

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

    I am having a problem with Szturnek behavior on talk.

    • I started a discussion about an issue on their talk page.[188].
    • They decided to reply on my talk page. I repeatedly asked them to keep their replies with the discussion, they decided they to continue to reply on my page, including restoring sections I had removed and refusing to respond in the discussion (or the article talk page).[189], [190], [191], [192], [193]
    • @Firefangledfeathers: asked them to stop [194]
    • They then decided to selectively edit my comments. [195]
    • I requested they not edit my comments.[196]
    • They decided to reply (about editing my comments) on my talk page, instead of in the original discussion on their talk page, same pattern as Firefangledfeathers warned them about previously. [197]. Their reply includes the statement "I'm not breaking any rules" and "I have a different style of responding to comments in the discussion".
    • They have not restored my full comment.

    I thought Firefangledfeathers comment would stop the problem, but now I think this editor is being intentionally difficult, they need to understand (1) not to edit other users comments, (2) to keep discussions in the place they were startedd and not expect other editors to chase their replies to other pages.  // Timothy :: talk  21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My behavior does not violate the regulations.
    There is no point in the regulations that forces users to respond to comments, posted on their own discussion page, on their own discussion page.
    I prefer to respond on the talk page of the person who comment on my page. But @TimothyBlue: has a different opinion on this - and instead of asking me to keep the discussion in one place, he tried to force me to follow his own vision of the discussion by constantly deleting my comments, and making the original discussion pointless.
    My mistake was restoring my previous comments on his talk page - but when @Firefangledfeathers: pointed me that a user can delete topics in his discussion without any restrictions I stopped doing this.
    When I found out about this rule, that user can deleting topis on thier own page, I decided to clean up my talk page - and accidentally deleted one sentence. I apologized for what when TimothyBlue told me about it, but I didn't actually restore it, because it was thinking he had already restored it himself in this editions (I didn't check carefully). But now I restored this sentence - so this issue is solved in my opinion. Szturnek¿? 21:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need a rule to compel you to respond to a comment in the location where it was made?? Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. XD Szturnek¿? 22:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you "accidentally" delete exactly one sentence in the middle of two paragraphs? This strains credulity.
    Your claim that you should be able to reply to a discussion on another talk page instead of in the discussion itself makes no sense. If everyone did this it would be impossible for editors to follow a discussion and contribute meaningfully.  // Timothy :: talk  22:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. At first I wanted to delete everything, but then I changed my mind and by pressing crlt+z I didn't restore everything ;P
    2. It's only a your opinion. I prefer my style, because when I make reply on your page, you got a notification. Szturnek¿? 22:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taunting others with emojis such as ";P" in obviously nonsense replies is pushing AGF to the breaking point. You might think its being clever, but it will eventually get you blocked.  // Timothy :: talk  22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, Wikipedia is a place only for serious people, and no light jokes will pass here. xD But serously - I wrote ";P" because I'm laughing from my stupid mistake, not from you.
    I haven't vandalized anything, I don't offend anything, and I don't break the rules in any other way - so why should I be banned? My only crime was "modifying your statement", but I fix it and apologized for it - so I consider this matter closed.
    Okay - I've had enough - I rarely edit the English Wikipedia, so I don't want to engage more in this discussion. You provoked the whole situation by being too outraged at my style - but okay, I'll end it.
    Żegnaj, mam nadzieje, że nie będziemy musieli więcej razem dyskutować. Szturnek¿? 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    User:AirshipJungleman29

    Could you please take appropriate administrative action against the user User:AirshipJungleman29 for violation of Civility policy of Wikipedia.

    There are the principles of discussion on talk pages of Wikipedia, such as Communicate (WP:TALK#COMMUNICATE), Stay on topic (WP:TALK#TOPIC), Be positive (WP:TALK#POSITIVE), Be polite, Make proposals (WP:TALK#PROPOSE), etc., that the user User:AirshipJungleman29 did not follow.

    I am not competent in interpreting Wikipedia rules, therefore I ask for help. Let me describe the situation so that you could make a fair conclusion. The discussion was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1219457528&oldid=1219300767 (diff), or see [198].

    Generally, User:AirshipJungleman29 engages in a discussion by making an argument but then declines to discuss the argument they made, switching the topic or using subjective terms such as "tedious" to characterize my arguments. If they find my arguments inappropriate or not worth discussing, they should not engage me in a discussion. But if they presented their opinion, they should have respect to my arguments in favour or against their opinion. They should not expect their opinion to be final and indiscussable. They should have respect to the other editors this way.

    Specifically, in a Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Major usability issue in the user interface of the Good Article nominations list - proposal to fix I made a proposal to present data in a GA nominees in a user-friendlier manner and gave arguments on what I thought a usability (design) error in presenting the information on counters. Instead of discussing on substance, such as whether the current counters are correctly displayed or they are not, or whether the proposal of me or another user is a correct way do display data; or whether the change the way of displaying data is worth implementing. Instead of discussing the substance, User:AirshipJungleman29 first objected on form, quote: ("Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site"). When I asked User:AirshipJungleman29 to provide an example of this proposal in a form they find proper, they ignored and instead didn't stay on topic but raised a new topic that I and a user which was later blocked violate GA review rules. When I argued against this claim of User:AirshipJungleman29, they again avoided the discussion on substance but threatened me with ANI: "And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI". This is not a constructive way of discussing. If they didn't want any argument from me, they should not engage me in a discussion, but if they did, they should treat my reply with respect - this is in accordance of the "dot not fuel" principle (WP:DENY). By fuelling the discussion in that they do not intend to duly participate, moreover, ANI treats for "tediousness" is an intentionally toxic behaviour that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia talk.

    User:AirshipJungleman29 violates the essence of a healthy discussion, which is the willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be open to different perspectives and respecting the arguments of others, even if they differ from one's own.

    When User:AirshipJungleman29 chooses to characterize my arguments as "tedious" rather than addressing them on their merits, it undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Everyone's contributions or opinions are valuable and deserve to be treated with respect.

    Moreover, the use of threats, such as the threat to open a thread at ANI, can create a hostile environment that discourages open discussion. Disagreements should be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner, rather than resorting to threats or intimidation. I am welcoming the ANI that User:AirshipJungleman29 threatened because I wanted to know whether my way of discussing things is generally OK, or it should be changed - I am always willing to learn and improve to behave better on Wikipedia, therefore, I would like to have an official position on whether the observations of User:AirshipJungleman29 or their ANI threats are substantiated or simply a threat with a purpose of intimidation.

    The principle of WP:DENY, or "do not fuel", emphasizes the importance of not engaging in unproductive discussions. If User:AirshipJungleman29 does not intend to participate constructively in the discussion, it may be best to disengage and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia in other ways.

    Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have diffs that aren't 50 diffs in a trench coat? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Special:Diff/1219306898
    2. Special:Diff/1219320957
    3. Special:Diff/1219383414
    4. Special:Diff/1219457019
    Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lord love a duck, this is seven hundred and sixteen words long. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting statements with diffs: In this discussion, AirshipJungleman29's comments to Maxim Masiutin:

    • [199] Please take your concerns about accessibility and apply them to your own comments, which are probably second to none in sheer tediousness on this site. You have been told such before, on this very page—if you can't remember, you will find it in the archives; no need for miffling about with "maybes".
    • [200] Yes, you and BeingObjective did not bother with the GA instructions, which clearly explain the GA process. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30, you can find the sections relevant to you, through a process I believe nerds call "reading"—I don't know if you're as unfamiliar with it as you are with "clicking".
    • [201] No, the "usability error" affects only those who can't be bothered to read the instructions, such as the now-blocked BeingObjective and yourself. Everyone else has managed to get their heads around this, presumably because they spend their time reading instead of making assumptions.
    • [202] And if you do not cease your constant tediousness, I will be opening a thread at ANI to achieve the same result for you. You may take that as a final warning.

    Other editors also disagreed with Maxim's proposal but not with such contempt. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the friendly presentation of diffs. Your way of presenting situation simply as "other editors also disagreed" is misleading because it was at least one editor who agreed. However, this is not relevant to the ANI since agreements or disagreements are normal process of discussion. My point is that discussions should be made in a proper, friendly and respectful way, on substance, without personal threats and intimidation and and should stay on topic - all the attributes of fruitful communications of Wikipedia violated by User:AirshipJungleman29. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think Maxim Masiutin has made my point quite well for me. Interacting with them tends to leave everyone perpetually irritated and exasperated because of their constant WP:SEALIONing, WP:WALLOFTEXTs, and battleground behaviour. For example:
    Examples
      • from RoySmith: "You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. If you don't [walk away] you will surely end up being blocked." (incidentally, MM took this as a personal attack and demanded an apology)
      • also from Roy: "This guy is a menace. Either he's trolling us or this is the worst case of WP:CIR I've seen in a long time. Either way, he can't be allowed to continue to wreak havok on GA. I'm way too WP:INVOLVED so I can't block them. Could some non-involved admin please deal with this?
      • from Trainsandotherthings: "You ought to be blocked for the amount of bloviating you've done to date all based on your inability to follow simple instructions."
      • From Premeditated Chaos: "your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI ... Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so"
      • also from PMC: "Fucking hell, man, take a step back and realize that every single person who has responded to you here has disagreed in one way or another with your interpretation of the criteria. You are the one who's in the wrong. You have been the entire time, and all the walls of text in the world are not going to change that."
      • From Firefangledfeathers: "Most of the kbs are yours, and it would help if you could provide briefer responses" (MM subsequently accused FFF of "cherry-picking sources")
      • From Serial Number 54129: "Please consider apologizing for wasting several editors' time."
    • If you do, for some reason, want to put yourself through the torturous process of reading MM's comments, a good example can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 30#Understanding of p. 1b of the GA criteria (from which some of the above messages were taken), and the sections underneath it, along with WT:GAN at the moment, where they have contributed over 2,250 words in a day and three hours.
    • Looking back on it, I should have brought this to ANI a lot sooner, and spent less time thinking that yelling at him on talk pages would somehow work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that I did omissions in the review process, as demonstrated by the link you gave, but you could address them in a constructive manner without personal attacks. I since that improved and the lasted GA drive demonstrated proper quality of my reviews: Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/March_2024#Maxim_Masiutin. We should not put shame to people who can demonstrate that they can learn. Anyway, please stay focused on your behaviour as it is the essence of this ANI. Even if you think that other editors are wrong (and your position can be indeed justified), please present your position in a respectful way, without violating Wikipedia rules, as you show bad example to the other editors. Please cease and desist of your violations and show good example (which you did not in the link that you gave and the diffs that I gave). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And once again, you miss the point. I was not demonstrating the poor quality of your reviewing, I was demonstrating the effect you have on other editors. Have you ever heard of a WP:BOOMERANG? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you that the effect was inappropriate. Still my mistakes can not serve as an excuse for your bad behaviour, please respect the cooperative spirit even if you think somebody is wrong, there are civilized ways to address somebody's wrongness. You show bad example for other editors. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As for WP:BOOMERANG, you probably mean that there is no "immunity" for reporters. I don't want to seek immunity, if I made something wrong I would like to hear it in a constructive way and/or take proportional punishment if needed to make lessons -- it should come from competent, calm and uninvolved person. You used of the term "yell" to describe your behaviour as a hint that you were not that person. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AirshipJungleman used some rather blunt language that I would have suggested rewording, but it was not unwarranted. Maxim's accusations about failing to properly engage are unfounded, and these drawn out sealioning arguments that say nothing of substance are standard for Maxim. This is not the first time that he has been a timesink at WT:GAN, as Airship's examples show. Particularly telling is this post in which he blames others for his own misunderstanding of process before criticizing the block of a wikifriend over similar behavior, comparing the block to a wrongful execution by hanging that occurred in 1882. At a minimum, there needs to be a ban from the Good Article process for Maxim Masiutin, though I would not fault anyone for saying that there are broader CIR issues present. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1219478834"