Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics

Randy Kryn has been insisting at WP:FTN that a topic in parapsychology and chaos magic is not a fringe theory at WP:FTN even after being told so by multiple editors, apparently refusing to acknowledge the concept of fringe, accuses others of edit warring while continuing to revert after multiple editors have reverted their edits 1 2, (apparently they didn't notice I wasn't the only one who reverted their changes...)

I'm taking this to WP:ANI because quite frankly if one of the top 200 most prolific editors truly still hasn't figured out what WP:FRINGE is by now, this is far more serious issue of failure to get the point.

They've previously been at ANI, warned and blocked for edit warring before.

My previous interaction with this editor was them re-opening a closed merge proposal citing non-existent policy (or perhaps their own personal standards), then claiming they never read policies so this seems like a pattern of invention of non-existent rules or policies that fit their own personal standards while disregarding community concerns about their edits. - car chasm (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this might happen, because I had left a message at the fringe wikiproject notice board that I was signing off for the evening. So what occurs a few minutes later? This nonsense. The edit war being referred is entirely the editors, as I reverted and asked for a talk page discussion and then....whoo, right into an edit war. And the discussion being referred to is just beginning and has had few comments from other editors. There is way too much wrong in the above (i.e. just to start, my ANI excursion was closed quickly because...the person bringing it was mistaken, and my blocks with Dicklyon occurred in 2015 - maybe eight years of good behavior counts for something) but I don't have time for much more now. Please read the links provided above to see how they have been spun and misdefined. And if I keep typing I'd have less than good-faith things to say about this editor, so will now sign off for real for tonight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I don't know about the rest of your report, but your extrapolation that Randy Kryn has said he never read policies based off this comment is wildly off-the-mark. You claimed that Randy Kryn cited a guideline (or at least pretended to) in this comment (or maybe in this edit summary?), but it's abundantly clear Kryn did no such thing.
Likewise, this was not a denial of the concept of fringe.
I try to be charitable in my responses to AN/I reports, but really I have no clue how you can so poorly misinterpret things this way without intentionally doing so. I recommend withdrawing this report as the most sensible action (lest you attract further scrutiny for yourself). Though, you should probably apologize to Randy Kryn as well, but I do not find that a likely occurrence, sadly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you must have missed the part in the previous edit where I cited the first sentence of WP:FRINGE, which was directly what they were responding to. Anyone who would like to do so is welcome to read the entire context at WP:FTN if they would like. Or perhaps you'd like to pop over to the page in question and look at it yourself? At any rate, as far as I can tell, I've done nothing wrong here, and so I have no concern about attracting further scrutiny. - car chasm (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I did see your comment Randy Kryn was responding to, but to me it just seemed like he was just disagreeing with you that fringe theory applies to this case and not whether fringe theories exist conceptually.
The logic may or may not be flawed, but that isn't really a conduct problem for a one-off comment. The FT/N thread hasn't finished playing out, so it's yet to be seen whether Kryn can provide actually sufficient evidence that this model is WP:FRINGE or not. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if it wasn't clear the issue I took with that previous edit was that they re-opened a closed discussion with the justification "Undid revision, closed too soon, not enough participation" which certainly seems like something you'd only do if there was an issue with policy. This is a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing. - car chasm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

But, it is also less relevant, so I've struck it out from my report. - car chasm (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking that part at least. When it comes to Wikipedia:Merging, there really isn't any guideline or policy that controls it. The process is rather informal when attendance is low even if the information page makes it seem otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ජපස: and @Ad Orientem: as involved editors. - car chasm (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely something strange going on here. I am not sure it rises to a need for admin intervention quite yet, but User:Randy Kryn is somewhat uncharacteristically engaging in WP:PROFRINGE argumentation over at WP:FTN in rather surprising ways. He seems to be arguing that Timothy Leary is considered unimpeachably WP:MAINSTREAM within the context of consciousness studies. That does not seem to be the case at all according to reliable sources that we have. However, I'm not sure there is much admins can do excepting that it is weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument. jps (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Quite concerning that this has been brought to ANI. The edit war finished at the 3rd revert, and this wouldn't generally be the venue for that anyway. The rest of the complaint seems to consist of "user disagrees with me and I'm right". Well, I don't really care who is right here, but taking somebody to ANI for being politely wrong is a massive misuse of time, energy and policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Randy isn't really being "polite" here, but even so I think that if this ANI report is premature, it is perfectly fine to close this report. However, given that Randy is such a fixture at this place, it is somewhat understandable for a user to think that there is something off here when the rhetoric in the edit summaries and at the noticeboard is so absolutist. jps (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain further, the edit war in question (apparently WP:BRD is a thing of the past) concerns the removal of Category:Timothy Leary (as well as Category:Ram Dass - Dass used both the names Dass and Richard Alpert) from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. They were both definitely American consciousness researchers and theorists, and have been in the category for a long time (as have other individuals who were removed quickly in a category-disrupting edit run). As either a "fixture" here (call a plumber) or if I were a one-edit newbie, many who know the work of Leary and Alpert would call much of their professional work at Harvard, and their work and writings afterwards, as being that of consciousness researchers and theorists. Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this. In his time at Harvard Leary seems to easily qualify for the category, so I reverted and asked to discuss this on the talk page. And then all hell broke loose and wham, bam, here I am asking to be put into stocks for thinking that a long-term category might just fit enough to hold off on its removal in order to discuss it (We hardly knew ye, WP:BRD). As for bringing me to ANI over this, where are the coffee and donuts? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument" is a good summary of why I brought this here. It's less over whether or not the topics are fringe (that's what FTN is for) and more about them engaging with the process in a way that's so unconstructive. I mean, arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe? What's to be done about that? - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The spin continues. If I was one of those editors who asks for a boomerang then I'd go full kangaroo on this fellow. But I'm not. They quote me above as "arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe?". Where did I say that? What I said is that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fit the description and wording: Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Twisting that around to mean something else seems political in nature. By the way, I've heard a rumor that this entire thing is being discussed off-site somewhere by at least one of the participants - but nobody involved has notified me. Not cool, and doesn't seem like Wikipedian fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this." - this is a sentence from one of your posts above. And you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS now as well about some hypothetical off-site discussion? Either make a definitive accusation or don't. - car chasm (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A sentence taken totally out of context. Again. Making me almost regret I'm not the kind of editor who asks for a boomarang (and if someone else does, I'll defend you against it, but you're stretching the limit of Wikipedian courtesy). I've heard rumors about the off-site discussion but haven't read it (seems you have to be logged-in as a member). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Leary spread the concept of the important role of "set and setting", and that is still current, e.g.:

• Set, Setting, and Psychedelics in 20th Century Psychology
• Set and Setting: Why Preparation Matters
• Set and Setting: A Randomized Study of Different Musical Genres in Supporting Psychedelic Therapy (at NIH.gov!)
• Constructing drug effects: A history of set and setting

... etc. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And please have a look at the tags fringe project editors have added to the page about one of Timothy Leary's main works Eight-circuit model of consciousness since yesterday (notice that the title includes 'model', not theory - it is an encyclopedic article summarized a model about which several books have been written). The fringe wikiproject page is all aglow about how this article should be gone, and about the deletions they have done in categories since yesterday. One of them asked their members to watch for many AfD's. I hope administrators pay attention to the actions of those editors about these subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This, and related issues are currently being addressed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the proper venue for handling these questions. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's move it "in house" so the discussion is tucked away in the place which includes the home turf of the editors who brought this to ANI in the first place. Make accusations about what questions in particular, I really don't know what is being discussed or asked for here, and then only discuss things with the project where accusations are coming from. Sounds like a plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that FTN could be a neutral venue for discussing this kind of topic is itself a bit of a Fringe Theory to my mind. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're asserting FTN is not neutral in this area, you've got an uphill climb to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a clearly a sceptic magnet! Secretlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are quite a few users at FTN who seem to want to right the great wrong of people believing in woo. The practical effects of that are that posts there are the equivalent of a bat-sign. I was not the only user to point this out at the recent AfD on the Alderney UFO case. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement to be provide verifiable facts, and not (intentionally or accidentally) push nonsense to our readers. Promoting woo is not factual, it's lying to people. So yes, FTN tends to be very critical when someone finds a thing saying "this woo is real."

On the flip side, you can definitely find discussions where someone asked "is this woo?" and the consensus was "no, just a notable minority view."

You act like people are on some grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink. That's not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My perception of this behaviour differs from yours. The Scooby gang all descended on the Alderney UFO article, which really did not say "the woo is real", and wanted it deleted, and this is happening again in this article. My impression is of users who want to restrict access to information as they fear it will lead the gullible astray. This often coincides quite well with WP:FRINGE, but other times less so. Also, it would be good to know that the rumours of off-wiki organisation voiced in this thread are completely false. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Only fair to mention that there was actually a historical "grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink" waged by a paramilitary organization (Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) against Wikipedia and that it was shut down by the community. To the best of my knowledge however no such disruption is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Boynamedsue's 'bat-sign' description of FTN is spot on. However, it's very important to point out that none of the individual editors at FTN are responsible for this. Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable to promotion of fringe ideas, and it's only natural that those most interested to fight this should often share a similar POV (scientific skepticism, which by the way is a very specific POV that in no way represents the general perspective of scientists and other scholars). Yes, this does put some pressure on NPOV, but 1) there is no easy solution to that problem, and 2) it pales in comparison to the problems that we would have without FTN and the editors who are active there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Randy is now edit warring at Eight-circuit model of consciousness, re-adding material that was challenged without adding a WP:RS, and insisting that primary sources are sufficient in violation of WP:V. No matter how prolific an editor he may be, he seems to be showing a complete lack of regard for any of our content policies whatsoever. - car chasm (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Carchasm, a single revert is not edit warring. Randy also immediately went to the talk page to discuss the revert, which Steve Quinn moved to its own section, which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to correct the perception by Hey man im josh.

• First I edited, then copy edited that edit, at the article Eight-circuit model of consciousness [3], [4]. Notice in the edit history one of the things I wrote was "Please discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD."
• So rather than discuss the edit, Randy Kryn reverted my edit [5]. Notice in the edit history they are saying "reverted, please respect BRD and discuss on the talk page" as if they are taking the initiative on BRD or something like that. At the least it confuses the situation or seems to muddy the waters.
• Then they come to the talk page [6]. Here they make an assertion that "Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion." This is inaccurate, an exaggeration, and not collegial.
• Then I create a new section and reply [7]. The reply is at the bottom of the diff where I say, please revert your edit and so on.
• Kyrn then replies, [8] saying in part what I did "was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article." This is inaccurate and an exaggeration again. This is not conducive to collaboration. In the same response he seems to say that my article edit "...presents the entirety of the page." Again if he is referring to my edit in the article then this is inaccurate and exaggeration.
• My last response [9] recounted the three inaccurate statements he just posted. And I referred to them as exaggerations.
• He replied to that [10] and then I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation at that time.

• Also, in a separate Deletion discussion they appear to be engaged in bludgeoning Here. They also seem to go off the rails regarding my ivote [11] calling it wp:revenge and saying we had a "major disagreement" (at Eight-circuits). I didn't see it as a major disagreement nor do I see that discussion as productive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's still not edit-warring though, is it? Just seems a pretty run of the mill content disagreement. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And it is not a run of the mill content disagreement. They do not like to cooperate and seem unable to accept other's contributions as valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what perception of mine you are trying to correct. I was pointing out that a single revert is not considered edit warring. Your edit summary, which essentially stated "do not revert without discussion", does not automatically protect your edit from being reverted. They reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO and began a discussion immediately after doing so. It's fine if you want to argue specific points about their editing, but that's not edit warring, that's what's supposed to be done based on WP:BRD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And you're overlooking how they were exaggerating during the discussion, making that discussion untenable - that's a behavioral problem. And also, bludgeoning in another discussion. A behavioral problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Car Chasm did not adequately demonstrate part of the impetus for filing:

• Here CC removes a parent category from another category [12]
• Here Kryn reverts [13]
• Here CC removes the category again [14]
• Kyrn reverts [15] calling this edit warring.
• Here the category is removed again by another editor [16]
• Kyrn reverts that edit [17].
• And the faldaral stops with the other editor [18].
• I'm not taking sides on this other than to show how persistent Kyrn can be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I think this ANI isn't really going to go anywhere. I think it is probably premature and I support closing this thread. For my part, maybe I can think of ways I can communicate better. And my original edit at Eight-circuits may not have been the best decision and it caused upset. I take responsibility for that. I should have opened a dialogue first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts. So, I very nearly took a leap with a NAC a couple of hours ago, because I really think there is very little more to be accomplished here at the moment aside from maybe a few more reminders about process. But I decided I wanted to look into the interactions at the affected articles a little more closely (having already checked up on most the above diffs and the FTN discussion as this thread progressed over the last couple of days. And I think maybe just some comments will suffice, especially in light of Steve's comments immediately above.

I'll start by being honest that I think this filing was a bit premature, as others have pushed about above. Car chasm, I'm not saying I don't think your concerns are all invalid, but honestly, you didn't appropriately avail yourself of community processes for establishing a firm consensus in favour of your preferred outcome, nor did you wait for the FTN discussion to conclude before coming here. And I again agree with others above that many of your reasons presented for doing so are a little exaggerated or seem to not imply as much AGF as perhaps you could. You're only maybe sufficient reason for bringing this to ANX is the initial claim of edit warring, but it's an edge case at best, and WP:ANEW is where such a report belongs anyway. I appreciate the extra context Steve has provided as to all that, which does bolster the case a little, but I still feel the proper course of action here was something like an RfC and then coming here if Randy did not accept consensus. And I say this as someone who shares some of your concerns about the content in dispute. With regard to at least Eight-circuits article, Randy is certainly the one who is better positioned to invoke BRD. Unless I am missing something obvious, Steve removed a pretty significant chunk of the article, consisting mostly or entirely of content which had been in it for years. That is almost always treated as the B in a BRD analysis, and Randy reverting that is hard to swallow as "edit warring". Steve, to esteemable credit, suggests himself that perhaps that could have been discussed first, and I agree with that assessment. That he didn't is also no biggie, but at this point, I think the ball is in the court of those who want to make these extensive changes. Of course, that said, the actual WP:ONUS/burden of proof is also on Randy to justify retention. Again, simple way forward here: RfC.

Which actually gives me a segueway to what I wanted to say next. I have some direct experience of Randy myself, mainly as a random respondent to a couple of RfCs on content disputes he was party too. I know he can me a little fullsteam-ahead and hard to move off his positions at times: as I recall, I had to join with sentiments from other respondents on at least a couple of occasions to get him to slow his roll just a little. On the other hand, the other things I remember about him are that he is a very skilled editor, generally makes a solid effort to justify his position within policy constraints, and respects consensus if he exhausts his opportunities to change it. I agree there might be a patina of OWN here, but I do believe that not only will Randy drop the stick if you put together a strong enough consensus, but that actually there's almost certainly a wide area of middle ground here that is not being explored as yet, and that this got a little more antagonistic than it needed to be kind of fast. There's clearly discussion to be had here (and again, I think Steve is pointing the way on how to accomplish that). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, some observations about the finer details of the underlying disputes. I'm going to keep these comments short because they get into content rather than behavioural areas (not the purview of ANI), but they do intermingle with the nature of the dispute--and as someone who sits at the intersection of having some background in cognitive science and having a lot of experience editing scientific/MEDRS articles in general on en.wikipedia, I think I might have some brief input that could be of some small value. First, regarding the question of whether Leary constitutes a "consciousness researcher". That is a very nuanced question for our purposes here, coming down (as it must) to an analysis of WEIGHT. On the one hand, absolutely the man has been described as such in RS. But honestly, even going back in time to the heyday of his notable activities (and notoriety), probably this label was used more so in mainstream accounts than in serious academic works: he is not really a serious researcher in the areas of cognitive biopsychology that relate to the exploration of consciousness or subjects like the study of qualia, evolutionary psychology, or computational models of the mind, all of which are topics that the pseudoscience contained in these articles touches upon. Nor is he even a particularly influential name in the serious exercise of the philosophy adjacent to this science.

Car chasm is certainly correct that there is a real concern here that association with terminology that today has a particular attachment to specific fields of inquiry in hard cognitive science runs a serious risk of bootstrapping this content to a status where it may be perceived by the semi-informed reader as something mainstream. When the reality is, most of it lands somewhere between "highly dubious" and "hallucinogen-inspired nonsense". On the other hand, the man is, in a sense, a major influence on the non-clinical discussion of these topics in the mainstream. How do we balance these factors? Well, again, pretty clearly and RfC issue. Or issues, rather, as I think this is, unfortunately, going to take a few sequential discussions to dial in all the language in dispute. Meanwhile, I personally think the content removed from/currently re-added to the Eight-circuit article actually serves to demonstrate how wacky these ideas are, and I think that probably comes across for a lot of readers who aren't already predisposed to psuedoscientific concepts of the mind. But I'm aware I'm not exactly a typical reader when it comes to these articles, and the influence this content could have on a subset of readers just barely into an exploration of neurophysiology and mainstream research models of perception might be greater than I appreciate. But again, consensus for those issues can be established in the relevant articles through normal process (and liberal notices at some relevant WikiProjects, if I may suggest).

Well, just as well I didn't NAC this: not even a fourth of that would have fit into a reasonably-sized results box! But my perspective in a nutshell: it looks like the parties here all have fairly reasonable perspective and a generally productive editorial style. They just missed the first boat on hammering this out constructively. Luckily there's as many of those ferries in the day as one is willing to give themselves. RfC, peeps! Or did I mention that already? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this discussion in a day, and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk, growing and growing. Thanks for the many comments. Now someone else has reverted my edit at the 8-circuit page and the article is back to being all but gutted of full-descriptor comment, so I've asked on the talk page for a fuller reason. The long-term language should be returned and then worked on from there, removing it to the extent its been removed is WP:OWN territory (we all own the page apparently). As for the fringe theory project (and please take note that Leary's model exists as a model, and not a theory - big difference, so I don't know why the fringe project is so involved and afluffle about this), there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed. In the 1950s he was acknowledged as a pioneer in standard personality testing, and then he further explore personality and consciousness in his 8-circuit model. And in reply to the concern that I've accused an editor of revenge voting, yes, I did, and no explanation has been given for the coinkidink of the vote. Anyway, this gets long, so again, thanks everyone, pro and con, for expanding this into an interesting and probably useful discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that, because the 8-circuit page says it's a "model", it doesn't fit the defining first sentence of FRINGE which says the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Does that mean you believe sasquatch, Ayurveda, indigo children, etc. are not under the purview of FRINGE because they aren't explicitly called "theories"? What do you think models are based on? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The 8-circuit model page is a garbage walled garden consisting entirely of an in-wooniverse description of the model sourced exclusively to its practitioners and bizarre 90s-HTML-coded new-age blogs like "Earth Portals". It should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed.

The first four circuits concern themselves with life on Earth, and the survival of the human species. The last four circuits are post-terrestrial, and concern themselves with the evolution of the human species as represented by so-called altered states of consciousness, enlightenment, mystical experiences, psychedelic states of mind, and psychic abilities.^{[citation needed]} The proposal suggests that these altered states of consciousness are recently realized, but not widely utilized. Leary described the first four as "larval circuits", necessary for surviving and functioning in a terrestrial human society, and proposed that the post terrestrial circuits will be useful for future humans who, through a predetermined script, continue to act on their urge to migrate to outer space and live extra-terrestrially.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for not trying a NAC - I believe you've misunderstood the nature of this issue if you think this is about the content dispute, as explained in both my original report and below. WP:IDHT is in the header, not sure how you missed that. - car chasm (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Request - Can someone uninvolved please collapse everything from this comment up to Snowrise's? This didn't go anywhere and I'm not sure why they wrote so much but I don't feel they've added anything new to the discussion. - car chasm (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Why is this at WP:ANI? Why can't the Fringe Theory Noticeboard be the proper forum for an editor insisting on taking the fringe view that Timothy Leary is a serious scholar? Why bring this dispute here? I realize that WP:ANI can sanction User:Randy Kryn, but that hasn't been proposed, and I don't think it is in order anyway. So why are we on this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Answered above, and nothing so far from Randy on this topic has given me the impression he's willing to get the point. Several people have now told him the exact same thing and he continues to insist that the fact that Leary has a "model" and not a "theory" somehow makes it not WP:FRINGE! This is a clear case of WP:IDHT, and RfC or other process cannot resolve it, it is an issue of editor behavior and not about the content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  A bit unrelated, but this user is persistent and repeating their own views (by not following the policy or guidelines) despite what has been written about the discussion topic on another page, just like what you wrote above. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now a further pile-on? The dispute at Some Like It Hot is that Nyxaros came by, removed two long-term images, won't allow me to put those back, and, even odder, won't allow the addition of the fair-use Some Like It Hot trailer - and I'm the bad guy? I've asked for help on this at WikiProject Film. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write you are the "bad guy". You recently added these "long-term" files and denied a valid refinement. Instead, you presented your own thoughts and how you think things should be. Although I showed the information page and the guideline, and offered improvement ideas for your additions, I have observed that you have been following a repetitive attitude similar to what other editors have mentioned here. I encourage you to provide reliable info (from a guideline or policy) that supports your views, and to re-read and re-examine the summaries and messages I (and others) have written on talk pages, rather than repeating your views. ภץאคгöร 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "... denied a valid refinement." – Does this translate to: "reverted a non-policy-based deletion of content"? – .Raven  ^.talk 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is clear from this comment alone that you are not following the discussion(s) well and not doing much to contribute to this one's conclusion, so why bother with a snarky remark? No one has time for that. ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  This section and the other page(s) cited above show why the user ignores the comments of other users and adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude, adding what he wants to pages when he could fix the problems. Partially reverted again, his reason is "no reason on Earth or Wikipedia not to include" and completely ignoring all the messages and discussions. In conclusion, these are just what I and other editor(s) here have observed. I hope the user will try to be more constructive and find common ground with others (for example, by reviewing the messages they received as I mentioned above). ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen. We don't hat comments just because you happen to disagree with the assessment contained therein. Nothing I said was not already told to you by at least two people before I commented (with the overall assessment that bringing it here was premature also being reiterated by Robert immediately above: the fourth editor to tell you that). Is Randy clearly wrong about some of the underlying content issues? Yes, I think so. Kind of profoundly, honestly. In fact, I've joined one of the discussions now to tell him as much and add a little bit of extra emphasis to try to get him to moderate his approach. But has he violated policies in such a way that he's going to get sanctioned just for sticking to his guns? No, not as yet. He's verging on tendentiousness, but he hasn't crossed that line. You can't just invoke "WP:IDHT" like a talisman at ANI and expect the community to rush in: editors are allowed to be IDHT with regard to content (i.e. have a different view of content issues and not concede to yours). Only where the IDHT relates to behavioural issues does it become a matter for ANI.

At the point that it was just you, Randy, and another editor (and Randy had BRD on his side, because the version he was arguing for was the longstanding, stable version of the article), your argument for "edit warring" was extremely weak (and involved you violating the policy at least as much as him, if not more). As of now, that has changed, because there are now five of us on the Eight Circuit article talk page telling him his views on the sourcing are not consistent with policy. So now, if he tries to add the content back in (without first forming a new consensus to support that approach), it definitely will be edit warring and tendentious on his part, and I'm sure more of us will be supportive of taking action. But based on what has transpired so far, I'm not sure what you think we would (or even can) do? Especially considering you played the edit war game with him at length to enforce your preferred version, rather than just taking the matter straight to AN3, our hands are a little tied. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for removing the long-term use descriptors from the page on Timothy Leary's model of personality development, Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality tests and studies while at Harvard who then came up with the 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification on which full books have been written. Because Leary's fifty-year-old yet still-read and functional model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature doesn't seem to explain why fringe editors are trying to saddle his legacy with flat-Earth no-Moon-landing bigfeets to justify gutting the long-term use page descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE explicitly requires minority and fringe ideas to be contextualized with the mainstream stance on those ideas. You said it yourself: ...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature. Because Leary's model has only (according to the sourcing in the article) been reviewed significantly by other fringe proponents who subscribe to his beliefs (not to mention co-published with him), it currently fails independence and fails NFRINGE. That warrants at least a major gutting of the article, and if no mainstream academic sources discussing it can be found it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, as noted above, the concept that "set and setting" matter (which Leary popularized) is still current. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok? Is that an integral part of his 8-circuit model? JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No; that was in relation to the issue of Leary's ideas "being discussed in present-day professional literature", the criterion you just cited for not being FRINGE. And that in turn suffices to qualify him for the category "consciousness researcher"... though, BTW, where is it written that this category excludes FRINGE? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

? Read the paragraphs above. We are discussing the eight-circuit model (...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature), not random other ideas from Leary. JoelleJay (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Insisting that Leary himself does not fit Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists is sheerly about the eight-circuit model? Then, my goodness, Einstein's putting down quantum physics (because "He does not play dice") should be enough to remove him from those "physicist" categories, right? We can disregard all the useful contributions if we can find one not useful, yeah? – .Raven  ^.talk 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We're basically oscillating between two different extremes as this point. Randy seems to lionize Leary and wants an exhaustive discussion of the topic, framing it as if it were a mainstream model built on academic work (it isn't). There is a clear consensus on the talk page that the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works produced by Leary and an associate, and that the content overall lacks perspective and appropriate contextualization. Some have called for TNT of the article, but I see no concrete consensus on the talk page for an extensive blanking, or indeed for any specific courses of action: merely an agreement that the sourcing is inadequate for the volume of the coverage and that there are issues with tone. Advocates on both sides should be showing a little more restraint, imo. My sense of the situation with the sourcing and the impact of relevant policies is that the content will ultimately be radically reduced. But I do believe the subject is ultimately notable, so I'm not sure what a temporary TNT really accomplishes. Far, far superior to have a more neutral article which accurately situates and contextualizes the subject as being the product of new-age psuedo-mysticism filtered through the a quasi-scientific looking framework. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works..." – Are we discussing Psychotherapy [later correction: Psychoanalysis was intended, see below], which heavily cites WP:PRIMARY works by Sigmund Freud and associates? Should we blank that article as FRINGE? After all, as Joelle Jay quoted, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." – and the only voices in support are thereby, ipso facto, "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 06:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychotherapy is not a FRINGE topic as a whole, any aspects in the article that are both FRINGE and DUE are contextualized with the mainstream stance, and a scan of the first 50 sources doesn't show a single source by Freud or his associates and very few primary sources. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:PRIMARY. JoelleJay (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please forgive my misnaming Psychoanalysis, which cites Freud as footnotes 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 50; leaving entirely aside his "associates" and/or "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to read over that 135kb+ article, but if it indeed fails to describe Freudian psychoanalysis as a historical and largely deprecated system for therapy and cites only primary literature from proponents rather than critical analysis from mainstream academia, then yes those portions should be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

After three medium-longish lede paragraphs, there's one 3-line paragraph saying in part: "Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline, and its effectiveness as a treatment has been contested, although it retains influence within psychiatry." I'll await your having time to read it and comment. In the meantime, is Freud widely considered "FRINGE"? – .Raven  ^.talk 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. You don't get to demand JoelleJay read & edit a completely unrelated article for their opinion to be valid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand the underlying content issues, but I can read diffs perfectly well and it seems quite clear that the OP's original case was incredibly weak, with a couple of clear misinterpretations being debunked by MJL very early in this thread. IMO, it's a bit concerning that the OP never acknowledged the problems with their evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More stuff

Kryn has a recent history of engaging in tendentious editing. This shows that last December's ANI (as posted by the OP above and here) had no effect on his behavior. The reason for posting this is I think sanctions are needed to interrupt this kind of editing. .

• Most recently they removed the notability tag from "Eight Circuits" [19] which contravenes a strong consensus on the talk page here and here The consensus is that this topic is not covered by independent sources. I requested that he restore the tag [20] but this has been ignored. Also, on the talk page, it is clear he is trying to resist consensus[21]. Also after clear consensus is demonstrated on the talk page, even at this ANI he is asking the Admins if he can revert the page back to his preferred version [22] (in so many words).

• Also recently he has been editing tendenitously at "Some Like It Hot." This dispute has been mentioned in this ANI [23], [24].

-Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [25] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)

-Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [26].

-Nyxaros reverts [27] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

-Kryn reverts [28] trying to change the nexus of the issue without being grounded in WP:PAG.

-Here Kryn restores [29] image and trailer.

-Here [30] Nyxaros removes the trailer and writes "You forgot the talk page discussion AND added unsourced "Faro Island Film Festival" awards (+not notable)? Do not own."

-Here Kryn reverts again [31].

There is no reason for Kryn to keep editing this stuff back in without discussion, when it has been pointed out this is a policy or guideline issue. Obviously, Nyxaros is trying to keep this page in agreement with WP:PAG. And for insight into this - see the talk page discussion Talk page discussion. Also, Kryn does avoid the bright line of 3RR but edits the article to their their preferred version over the period of days.

• As recently as May 18 he has engaged in tendentious editing at Witchcraft.

Here he takes it right up to the line with three reversions:

- First [32],

- Second [33], (Here he cites BLP, but not based on the actual guideline, rather based on knowing "many witches, all fine people [and]....and makes Wikipedia, in its voice, demean hundreds of thousands of individuals and readers who identify as witches.")

-Third [34]

Also, as noted on the talk page, apparently he was editing against consensus [35], [36]. :Also, it appears a group of editors keeps this article in agreement with policies and guidelines, according to those diffs. Here [37] he is admonished to "Read sources and seek consensus on talk. This is about the worldwide definition, not modern redefinitions as found in new religious movements like Wicca."

• Regarding Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow), on May 14 Kryn recieved feedback on his talkpage [38] that says 'm not saying it's not a good gallery, what I am saying is that it is wholly unsourced. And please, as per WP:BURDEN, and please also see the 2nd point in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. This pertains to kryn's editing behavior on this article.

Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article [title=Cliffs_at_] [39] which contains sixteen images.

Here Kryn removes that tag [40]

here the same editor removes images from the page due to lack of reliable sourcing. [41]

Here Kryn restores the images in protest [42]

Here the editor removes the images again [43] and explains: I am saying it is wholly uncited, this is wholly WP:OR, and has been explained to you, as per WP:BURDEN, re-adding without providing a valid reference is disruptive editing.

And there it stops. However, this again shows behavior that is not collaborative.

I can't see going back further than this. There is also what has been posted above [44]. In any case, the reason for posting this is to show that Kryn unpredictably engages in disruptive editing. It seems from the above, there is no set pattern other than it happens. Hence, I am proposing a sanction of 1RR for a period of one month to dissuade engaging in this behavior over time. Additionally, they can continue focusing on regular editing that doesn't involve conflict. I am sorry to say that random editors should not have to endure this type of behavior.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion (Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics)

> "Witchcraft... " – where Kryn reverted the addition of "usually to cause harm" from "Short description|Practice of magic". For some reason I recall what Janet Farrar wrote in an open letter after she and Stewart Farrar had been resettled in rural Ireland for a while: don't worry about persecution, you'll be welcome as a healer and herbalist since doctors are distant and dear [expensive]... but you'd better know where the hemorrhoid-wort grows!

> "Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow)... Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article.... Here Kryn removes that tag...." – You omit what Kryn [correctly spelled] notes there: "removed onesource tag (visual arts pages reach notability on one museum source, and this is already covered by the refimprove tag)"; IOW, the tag saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." remains. He removed what amounts to either duplication of message, or misplaced message if it referred to notability. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your input. I think the other editor was emphasizing that there was only one source for the whole page - which consisted of a number of images not applicable to that one source at that time. So, I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time. Basically, it was Kryn's interpretation of the tags that "onesource" wasn't needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the pre-existing refimprove tag already addressed that need, yes. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Raven:: I don't think the existing reimprove tag already addressed that need. I think in this instance it was important to emphasize that only single source existed. And I think the reimprove tag doesn't clarify that there is only a single source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The pre-existing refimprove tag literally said, verbatim: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If this doesn't address your "I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time", no number of tags could have done so. What the refimprove tag has over the onesource tag is that adding one more source, so now there are just two, won't make it obsolete and irrelevant. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a nuanced case and I'm inclined to agree it is weak tea to imply behavioural misconduct on. But purely for the sake of discussion, it is worth noting that whatever low bar the SNG may employ, said SNG only offers presumed notability/temporary obviation of the requirement to show significant coverage in reliable sources: every article must still establish compliance with WP:N/WP:GNG ultimately. And one short paragraph worth of discussion on the informal website catalogue for a museum is clearly not getting that job done, so just about any tag reflecting the shortfall of sourcing there would be appropriate, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, isn't it nice that there already was such a tag, which wasn't removed? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here: I think Steve's point in raising attention regarding this tag-removal behaviour is that (no matter how you parse the necessity for / possible redundancy of the tag) the removal feels a little reactionary, and possibly part of a pattern of defensiveness of certain content on Randy's part. Now, the reason I don't view that argument as particularly compelling is that we see evidence on that very same article of Randy giving way and ending the revert cycle once particular policy language is invoked. So taken together, the activity there is not great evidence of a behavioural issue that the community needs to restrain. That said, tedious and repeated nitpicking over the applicability of tags can be a sign of a deeper issue. I just don't think the case has been made here that the overall package of behaviours is problematic to the point of needing a sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with much of your paragraph; I also agree with Randy on the redundancy of the 2nd tag. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is long past the point where it's useful to anyone attempting to use this noticeboard, essentially. Please discuss the policy questions in an appropriate place such as WP:VPPOL. There might be something useful to the question of whether Randy Kryn deserves sanction in this collapse box, but I'd recommend that if you think there is, you make a short note of it below the box. Izno (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Eight Circuits...." – I especially enjoyed Joelle Jay's remark: "'The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.' I think Wilson, Alli, et al fall squarely in the realm of 'adherents'." The same argument could be made against the Theory of Relativity, or Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, etc.: everyone who supports them is an "adherent" and therefore not verifiable or reliable. What a boon to FRINGE! > "Some Like It Hot..." - Pics were deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article); Kryn restored them. This is the [WP] Way. – .Raven  .talk 05:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I never cited WP:TRIVIAL. Neither did the editor in that diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [209]"  [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? – .Raven  .talk 06:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Raven's question answered here and here. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) That section is closed, so I can't reply there. JoelleJay says: "Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD". At the link cited (your "209" above), Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)." 1) I don't see IMGDD mentioned in that. 2) WP:IMGDD says things like "Place images in the section to which they are related" and "Don't add images that are not relevant." 3) I don't see how that mandates the removal of images that ARE "related to the film" as Nyxaros admits, thus ARE relevant to an article about it. – .Raven  .talk 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) IMGD is mentioned here by Nyxaros. And that would be diff 203 in my original post about this (not 201). I think it would be best to ask @Nyxaros: about this (I just pinged them). However, I will take a stab at this. I think "related" means peripherally, incidentally, or tangentially related. This does not mean they are necessarily relevant pertaining to the topic. To me, there does seem to be a distinction. Also, WP:IMGDD discourages overuse of images in the article saying: "Don't use images or galleries excessively." Also, WP:GALLERY says "Wikipedia is not an image repository..." and that indiscriminate collections of images are discouraged. I paraphrased there - this "definition" also includes galleries. At minimum discussion should take place to weigh relevance by consensus, rather than impetuously adding images to the article. And it appears to me that Nyxaros was trying very hard to adhere to WP:PAG---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC) So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.) Over and over, Randy has tried to take issues to talkpages rather than to competing edits; is it just barely possible that if you folks had tried meeting him on that level and discussed what changes you wanted and why (in specific words, not just page-links which lead to multiple different statements of which most aren't relevant), you might have persuaded him rather than having such a conflict? Successful attorney Gerry Spence wrote a book, How to Argue and Win Every Time, which suggests getting your opponent to want to agree with you. It's a great book, and I recommend it. For everyone. – .Raven  .talk 22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) For reference, this is the diff sequence in question: -Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [201] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs) -Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [202]. -Nyxaros reverts [203] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." And here is the dispute: You inexplicably interpret Steve Quinn's use of the word "trivial" in diff 201 to be an (unlinked, uncapitalized) invocation of the AfD essay WP:TRIVIAL, which it seems you believe is a policy You dismiss his argument on the basis that WP:TRIVIAL "addresses other issues" When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying When others explain to you that "trivial" is an English word and not just a wikipedia shortcut, you demand Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? I quote diff 203 two items down from diff 201, which helpfully not only provides the info page WP:IMGDD where relevant policy is linked, but also demonstrates that Nyxaros had referenced this page in their edit summary Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Inexplicably you misstate your case: "3. When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying" – No, I quoted Steve himself, not (then) his diff of that edit by User:Nyxaros. Only later did I quote that diff's edit-comment, after *you*, JoelleJay, said Nyxaros had cited WP:IMGDD... which was nowhere in that diff's edit. Then Steve said you were referring to a different diff, and I commented that it would have been nice if you'd so indicated at the time. > "Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along" – Try, paraphrasing a different diff than the one being discussed, and not indicating the fact (as by attaching the link), makes it seem like a misquote or misattribution. The same would happen if the references were two different sections of the same article, two different areas of the same book, two different books by the same author, etc. Failing to indicate a change of context or referent is a failure of the writer, not the reader; and mocking the reader for not reading your mind to realize your change (or know to which diff/section/area/book you'd changed focus) is an attempt at burden-shifting, with insults on top of it. Neither civil nor honest. How disappointing. – .Raven  .talk 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here. I did not say that Nyxaros had cited IMGDD, nor did I paraphrase anything; I quoted the item in the list with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 203. Your statement Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? does not restrict citation of this "policy" to diff 201 itself, to discussion of diff 201, or to any of the diffs and discussions by Steve Quinn at all; I could have eliminated the green quoted text and my answer would have been just as appropriate (as further evidenced by @Redrose64's comment). My inclusion of the quote was a nod at how utterly ridiculous your question was considering the text *you* quoted was just two items above the answer to your question. Stop wasting people's time with captious, misguided, and irrelevant sniping. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) "diff 201" is not mentioned at WP:AN#Request an Admin, which was where Steve had sent me with his above comment "Raven's question answered here and here." I came back from there, mentioned the absence of the purported edit-comment from the diff that Steve had cited after "trivial images". Steve then pointed to a different diff. To that I replied, "So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.)" AFTER that was cleared up, you began suggesting I should have known it beforehand, retroactively as it were, and NOW you say, "If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here." As for "context" – the exchanges between Steve and me had the context of the diff I quoted Steve citing. The paraphrase of Nyxaros you posted on WP:AN neither attributed it to Steve's earlier text on this page nor included that cite/diff. Once again: when a writer fails to include enough information for readers to identify their source, that is the writer's failing, not the readers' for not mind-reading. Your continued attempt at burden-shifting is now also "WP:ICANTHEARYOU". – .Raven  .talk 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Your question was this: You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images" [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? The quotation you provided is wholly irrelevant to answering the question you asked as the P&G basis is self-evident in the edit summary accompanying that quote. Everyone else understands that P&G-based edits can be made without explicitly citing the P&G shortcut in an edit summary, because long-term editors are expected to be competent enough to recognize P&G rationales without ALLCAPS links. If an editor does not recognize paraphrased P&G and requests the justification for an edit, it is assumed they want a link to the relevant page, not for another editor to point out precisely which word in an edit summary is intended to be a shortcut to that page. So your expectation that all subsequent discussion would be directly tied to that specific diff is nonsensical. It is no one's fault but your own that you decided use of the word "trivial" must mean the author is citing WP:TRIVIAL; and then when disabused of this apparently made the illogical leap to believing that a) some other word in that particular diff/commentary must be covertly citing a policy shortcut, and b) everyone would read your mind and realize you were expecting the policy justification to be from that diff. That you also somehow failed to notice that an edit summary containing an ALLCAPS reference to P&G rationale, concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201, actually was provided just two items below diff201 (which again, you quoted, so forgive us for assuming you also read the two sentences directly after it), is utterly beyond explanation. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) > "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201. Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... perhaps through some same-'concern' auto-linking feature? This is clearly, obviously, blatantly not the case. So clearly, obviously, etc., that it takes a great deal of disingenuity to make (then keep making) that argument. By the way, you seem not to have noticed that as old ANI sections with link numbers are archived, the remaining sections have their link numbers lowered; the Nyxaros diff links posted by Steve are now in the low 100s. – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC) "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201.Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... Again, being in any edit summary anywhere was not a prerequisite for answering the question of what the policy basis is for removing trivial images, which is what you asked. Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs? And even though an edit summary diff was irrelevant, of course I expected you to recognize I was quoting the statement two sentences down from the one you quoted, because it was part of a very brief, tightly-linked temporal sequence that Steve Quinn included in his summary of Randy Kryn's other conflicts--a summary you clearly had read based on your address[ing] each of the four specific claims [SQ] made about "tendentious editing" by Randy Kryn. Do you need me to link to that diff too or can you figure it out from here? JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs?" – In the diff under discussion at that time, Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)"... which could easily be the phrasing of an ad hoc argument, as it neither cites policy nor indicates that it is "summarizing" policy. Indeed, you have mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL, but now you're turning 180° by arguing that anyone could or should know this phrasing referred to a policy. Nice rhetorical footwork. – .Raven  .talk 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC) "Where in the specific wording of this specific diff commentary is the editor invoking a policy justification" was not your question. Your question didn't even require that the author had intentionally referenced policy in any diff; just the existence of a policy basis for the referenced action would suffice regardless of the reason for doing it. I mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL because no one would be so clueless as to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale for removing an image, so why would you even think that was an option. Or do you just assume all words in an argument are secret shortcuts? JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale"  [emphasis in original] – Congratulations, you have just restated what I (more gently) said three days earlier, "deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article)". – .Raven  .talk 06:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) You thought there was more than a 0% chance that the word "trivial" in that exchange referred to WP:TRIVIAL, while at the same time ignoring the rest of the diff/comment actually documenting the rationale AND the followup diff/comments that literally do cite the shortcut for that rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) No point my answering someone who keeps playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. – .Raven  .talk 22:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, first I am posting this link to the discussion page on "Some Like It Hot" [45]. This was in my original post. So I have to agree that discussion might have been better. But my experience of discussion with him on the "Eight circuits" talk page seemed to indicate he was not willing to move off his position, or compromise, no matter what. See the "Discussion" section on that page [46]. I'll have to go back and see if we had linked to too many guidelines and policies in that discussion - which I have recently noticed Randy does not relate to (after I posted this). I think it is important to be accommodating if that is possible. Also, a caveat. The discussion does not start out in a good way during mine and Randy's initial interaction. We have since mended fences about that interaction. So after this, a more elaborate discussion takes place. Notice there is a 10 hour passage of time between the initial discussion and Shibbolethink's comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) One more thing, it seems difficult for editors to be "heard" in their interactions with Randy. So, this does wear down editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You might have tried bringing THAT issue (too) directly to Randy before bringing it to 3rd parties. Tell me, if someone has a gripe about you, would you rather they tell you about it first, last, or somewhere in the middle? This certainly isn't an RfC, but WP:RFCBEFORE has good advice. – .Raven  .talk 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Raven Yes. Good point. I would rather someone tell me about it first. In light of this and other considerations I have withdrawn my proposed sanction. Also, I appreciate the conversations we have had. However, I think, for the most part, I will bow out of this section. Hopefully that is OK with you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sure. I'm glad this was an educational experience! :) – .Raven  .talk 01:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Well, it is interesting how it didn't get past you that, for me, "this was an educational experience" without me saying that. Kudos! ---01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views. They are currently mainstream and so we do not treat them as FRINGE topics. If you do not understand the definition of FRINGE used on wikipedia you can start a thread at the Tea House or FTN, but re-explaining it to you here is not productive. JoelleJay (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views." – IOW, following your preferred process those would have been declared FRINGE theories — although they were more correct than "majority" views, as showed by further research (and "paradigm changes" as the older generation faded away while younger, more flexible minds took over). Right? – .Raven  .talk 08:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) .....yes, if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. JoelleJay (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed. Thankfully, it looks as if discussion on the talk pages is starting to turn towards an approach which accounts for that distinction. SnowRise let's rap 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Fringe topics are not notable if they cannot be contextualized by mainstream sources, so the suggestion that "enough coverage exists" for notability is false. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry Joelle, but even as someone new to this discussion by way of this ANI filing, and who has thus only had a couple of days to look into the sources, I can see that this is plainly not true. There are at least dozens and potentially hundreds of WP:RS which establish the WP:Notability of this topic. Not all of them discuss the topic in depth, and fewer still come from the field of academics which this psuedoscience apes, but contrary to what you've implied above a few times, nothing in WP:NFRINGE (or the the related WP:FRINGELEVEL) requires that they be. The closest anything in the policy gets to that assertion is "While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research". And aside from that, there are some academic treatments of this work, as google scholar reveals. I'm not saying that care will not be needed to keep the content tonally appropriate to prevent the article from presenting Leary/Wilson's ideas as legitimate consensus science--extreme care will be needed to that end. But there are far too many sources to credibly argue that this topic is not notable or can't be appropriate contextualized for the reader, imo. A significant reduction and restructuring of the content will be necesary, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not advisable here. SnowRise let's rap 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. If we do not have independent non-FRINGE RS describing how ECM fits in with the mainstream, the article cannot possibly meet the requirements at FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the conclusion that you reach at the end there is just clearly not found in the policy itself, and is pretty massively inconsistent with the vast number of articles we have on psuedoscientific topics that can't be "described in terms of how they fit in the mainstream", because they have no proper role in mainstream science (and yet are still notable topics that it serves our readers to have articles about). If your rule were actually found in WP:FRINGE (and it isn't), then we would have thousands less articles on various types of snake oil, conspiracy theories, and psuedoscience. Again, FRINGE is express about what is and is not required: coverage in scientific literature is not mandatory, even for science-adjacent woo, but rather we are constrained in how we can describe such topics in Wikivoice. But the absence of such sources does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we therefore jetison the entire article as impossible to write. That's just not how notability/inclusion criteria work on this project, even for controversial or fringe topics. Meanwhile, as to all the portions of the policy that you selectively quoted, pulling them out of their full context, there's still not a single one of them with policy considerations that cannot be met with the substantial number of sources available in this instance. And with the exception of the sources Randy was advocating for (which we've now collectively pushed back against as the primary basis for the article), all of the sourcing is WP:INDEPENDENT. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC) How do you propose we neutrally cover a (hypothetical) FRINGE concept that is only discussed by FRINGE sources? We absolutely should jettison an article if it cannot be contextualized with the mainstream, I don't know how it could be any clearer from The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Note that I am not saying this absolutely is the case for ECM, I said if it is then the article should not be retained (and that the sourcing before @TrangaBellam's edits was severely inadequate). If you have found mainstream RS that discuss ECM in-depth and describe its level of acceptance within the relevant mainstream fields, then go ahead and post the links. What I got out of google scholar were some articles (in fields related to ECM only to the extent that the margins of any field can engage with any vague unempirical system of mystical precepts) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of unreliable occult books from people who subscribe to such things. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I also checked out Google scholar and came up with the same results as JoelleJay. There doesn't seem to be anything useful there.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) > "What I got out of google scholar were some articles (...) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of ... books from people who subscribe to such things." – Absent pejoratives, this seems to say "Yeah, GS had sources supporting Leary, but therefore I reject them." – .Raven  .talk 03:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Indeed! Because that is what FRINGE tells us to do: notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. emph mine JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) By that logic, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and the Heliocentric Model could never have become NON-Fringe, because "the proclamation of their adherents" would always have been dismissed out of hand, and they would have continued to be judged only by their doubters' statements. – .Raven  .talk 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC) So you still haven't actually read FRINGE, in particular the section distinguishing it from alternative formulations. Or maybe you just don't understand how scientific consensus works. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC) If every person/publication that "supported" or "adhered to" those theories had been disregarded under your proposed rule, that means they would not have been regarded as forming a consensus. That appears to be how you think scientific consensus should work. – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) That's not a "proposed rule"; if you haven't caught on yet (and this would actually explain a lot), the green text indicates a direct quote. Anyway, you still haven't read fringe/alt, and you're seemingly unaware that scientific consensus changes based on mainstream publications demonstrating empirical evidence. A "fringe adherent" is defined based on how little their fringe idea receives critical support from within the larger academic field. If the fringe idea eventually receives empirical validation, there will be far more "adherents", resulting in the fringe idea being considered not fringe and consequently the "adherents" will just be "mainstream". JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) You'd said Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, the Heliocentric Model, would properly have been ruled "fringe" back when they had "minority support". The rule you're proposing is that a theory/model can be ruled "fringe" (and all its supporters and adherents likewise dismissed) before it has actually been debunked (which likewise requires reliable sources discussing it, and presenting factual disproof/s). That's how the Church treated the Heliocentric Model, hence Bruno's and Galileo's trials... but that's not how science works. Where are your RS citations of factual disproof? Waving your hands doesn't count. – .Raven  .talk 08:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Read what I wrote again (emph added): if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. But the statement holds true regardless that Wikipedia reflects what the mainstream consensus is, and if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws that no one in the mainstream even bothers to acknowledge it, we faithfully represent that consensus by noting the hypothesis is fringe or just not covering it at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "... if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws...." – Again, where in that article are RSs cited for either conditional? – .Raven  .talk 03:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) FRINGE-compliant RS weren't cited at all. That's why it was blanked. And if you're really going to argue ECM is not self-evidently wacko garbage then this discussion is over. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Your problem in the first place is declaring the topic "fringe" without it having been debunked (factually disproved) as had, e.g., Phlogiston theory (but not Relativity, despite many thinking it wacko garbage*). To say "self-evidently" is hand-waving, even WP:OR since you cite no RSs. Where's the disproof? – .Raven  .talk 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Hypotheses that rely on a natural law not existing are clearly FRINGE even if they aren't debunked. Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 1) What "natural law" does the eight-circuit model of consciousness violate? 2) So labeling and categorizing Relativity as Grundsinnlosigkeit, without justification by experimental disproof, was the right move, eh? 3) You think "the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible"? Have you never heard of Newton's First Law of Motion? Escape velocity? Cosmic inflation? Eternal inflation? Ohhhh, you conflate such motion with a machine that tries to exploit such motion... and thereby slows it down. 4) And you think you understand science. – .Raven  .talk 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) ... the text by W. Rauschenberger (Frankfurt), titled “Anti-Einstein,” clearly deserves the label “most cynical.” ... He uses the German term Grundsinnlosigkeit (i.e., complete absence of basic sense).... He surmises that “logic and reason are apparently too simplistic and boring to satisfy people”.... – Arguments remarkably similar to those made here. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Should we also blank or delete Phlogiston theory and Ptolemaic astronomy? Astrology? Alchemy? – .Raven  .talk 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Please stop playing (?) dumb. If you can't understand the difference between discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream and discussing a fringe idea without that context, you shouldn't be contributing to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream" – But this is not what was done to the article. See above: lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — and — The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) If a bit more attention had been paid to getting straight what the opponent's argument actually is, this wouldn't look so much like a collection of Straw Man fallacies. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you. Also re: "opponents", please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you." – IOW, "tu quoque" ? Sure, I'll take that advice. Which doesn't in any way negate my point above. Let neutral readers decide. > "Also re: 'opponents'" – see the definition of that word: 'One who opposes another; one who works or takes a position against someone or something; one who attempts to stop the progress of someone or something.' If being or having opponents were forbidden on Wikipedia, no-one would be allowed to comment "Oppose" (or its opposite, "Support") on RfCs or other discussions. The policy WP:BATTLEGROUND itself refers to "those with whom you have a disagreement" and "if they hold a point of view with which you disagree" — but then advises how to behave toward them. That by no means denies the occurrence of opposition here, it just guides conduct in that situation. – .Raven  .talk 03:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Not playing then, I guess. Please find something better to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You're right, I'm definitely not joining in the game. – .Raven  .talk 00:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I think the Proposed Sanction process was derailed by the gargantuan wall of the off-topic text, which is now hatted by this box. I did participate, but I should not have allowed the derailing of the process to happen in the first place. I take responsibility for participating and allowing it to happen. My original proposed sanction should either be modified to a formal community warning or dropped. If I decide to propose a sanction I will post here, hopefully within the next 24 hours. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• I did further reading of the text that remains outside the hatted portion of this ANI. It appears that there is no consensus pertaining to whether the issues merit an ANI. Also, there is no consensus for proposed sanctions. In light of this, I am dropping the idea that any proposed sanction is appropriate. Also, I note that Softlavender has posted sound guidance below for how to proceed. If there are no objections, I request that this ANI thread be closed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal: Could everyone go back to following standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as BRD, dispute resolution, and avoidance of edit wars? And if problems arise the correct next steps are either WP:RFC or usertalk-warning and then reporting at WP:ANEW if EW persists. Note that even a slo-mo edit war can be reported to ANEW.

  Wikipedia is really very simple when those steps are followed. And what prevents all of this ANI reporting are article-talk discussions based on sources and wiki policies, and if stalemates are reached there then RFC.

  I say all of this because what we actually seem to have in this entire thread are a series of content disputes in which a number of people (not just the named editor) are failing to do these very simple steps. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per obvious. – .Raven  .talk 01:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Propose one month 1 RR for Randy Kryn

Please ivote "support' or "oppose". Also please see discussion section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I withdraw my proposed sanction. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• oppose The main problem here is the fact this even being discussed at ANI. I think that this a case of wikilawfare in a content dispute. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Content disputes, and Kryn seems to be following policy better than his accusers. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems too heavy-handed for what appears to be a content dispute. Also, it's 'Kryn', not 'Kyrn'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think this works, as it's a fixed time frame and addresses the issue of editor behavior, which seems to have persisted since at least the last time Kryn was brought to ANI. I don't think it's overly harsh either, most editors voluntarily end up abiding by a de facto 1RR almost all of the time anyway. - car chasm (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral, torn between realizing that this editor doesn't think his edits stink while at the same time am kind of surprised that every one of the edits being pointed out are actually pretty good and have built the encyclopedia in a pretty good direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There are definitely issues here, largely with regard to Randy refusing the drop the stick, which have the potential to become truly disruptive. But in the current cluster of content disputes over Leary, the mishandling of the situation cannot be put at Randy's feet alone: the edit warring in particular has not been unidirectional by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he been the only party stretching the reading of policy or indulging in an overly-simplified analysis of the sources. As far as I can tell, the entire set of disputes has been characterized by some gung-ho attitudes all around. Randy happens to be mostly alone on one side of the content end of those disputes, but the 'other side' hasn't respected WP:EW any better than he, and to the extent there are any issues with WP:LISTEN, they too are shared by both sides. I don't want to downplay Randy's behaviour here, either: while I don't think it's sanctionable, there are elements of his editorial approach to these facts that give me concern. But nothing here justifies the proposed sanction, when you consider all context and the actions of other contributors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

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

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

Hi I am starting to get quite annoyed with being stalked by @PamD: who I feel is intentionally abusing their edit powers and WP:Stalking and WP: Harassing me. I'm not sure what to do about this but I am wanting to report the incidents here..please note I'm using a mobile to post this. These following sentences are from her and they are to me against WP:Respect.

""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." -

And

"This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often."

On the pages User talk:DragonofBatley and Parade, Leamington Spa.

I really don't know how to feel about this but feel annoyed at being stalked by her and her trying to pick faults with me mostly then other editors. It seems to be only me they have interest in picking fault with on random.articles.and throwing the whole "Damaging the encyclopedia" term at me like I'm the main cause out of millions of editors. I'm tired of it and.just.want to be left alone and not bothered by them further..ive tried before to ask her to leave me alone but she carries on posting reverting and stalking me.

Please can other editors help me with being able to stop this stalking. I've made them aware of this and asked them to respond on this post. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• @DragonofBatley: Isn't the first message you quoted here PamD explicitly promising not to stalk you? And whether or not you're offended by the words in the second quote, are they accurate? Because PamD believes she's found an ongoing problem with your contributions. That means she might be violating policy if she didn't monitor your edits for issues. CityOfSilver 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• There've been numerous times I've run into problems with one editor's contributions, then found another problem, and then another ... and so I've done a full examination of that person's editing history, and sometimes it turns up that the editor in question has committed pervasive errors needing correction. Many veteran editors have done similar examinations many times. Ravenswing 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• By my count, PamD has started 59 new sections on DragonofBatley's talk page since May 2021 (averaging more than two per month over the past two years), and made 158 edits to that talk page in total. I have no doubt these are all in good faith and in an effort to improve the quality of articles, but I think I'd also be quite annoyed if I was in DragonofBatley's shoes. It's not like there are major policy violations at play here that warrant this kind of monitoring – DragonofBatley occasionally might make a mistake when editing articles, as we all do, like accidentally swapping the units in the {{convert}} template, or omitting a single verb. This is normal. It is part of working on a collaborative encyclopedia. It will be fixed in time by other editors and readers. It does not require these bimonthly scoldings, put under section headings like "Carelessness", "More carelessness", "Careless edits", "Carelessness" (again!), and "Careless please do read". Sometimes these aren't even mistakes, like simply PamD thinking that DragonofBatley hasn't added enough links in other articles after creating a new one, or felt that DragonofBatley should have tagged unsourced text with {{cn}} rather than removing it (this is simply a matter of editing preference). Again, I fully believe PamD is attempting to be helpful here and ensure these articles are high-quality. But this kind of long-term observation of other's edits (and repeated talk page posts) only really works when it's a mentor-mentee relationship where both parties are willing, and DragonofBatley is clearly uncomfortable. DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's certainly very strange conduct to repeatedly leave comments at single editor's talk page over a longer period of time. I haven't looked through DragonofBatley's edits, but I agree that PamD is acting in good faith. I don't think much is needed at the moment other than to politely ask PamD to be more careful with her wording in the future. If there are major systemic issues in DragonofBatley's edits, that's a different issue that I am willing to discuss. @DragonofBatley: Would you be interested in a mentorship from @PamD: provided she is willing to do so? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  How could PamD be more polite when responding to an edit (diff) which adds a blatant error to an article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. As I said, I didn't look through the edits by DragonofBatley. If there are long-term issues of blatant mistakes, than I don't think any action is needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi I don't want a mentorship from PamD. I've already got one I feel with editors like Crouch, Swale, Eopsid and others who collaborate with me on geographical related articles. I'm sorry if others feel she is doing things in good faith but please try to understand that I haven't even been bothered by her in weeks and then out of the blue "Just thought I'd see what your up to these days and hope your not making bad edits". I'm not a petulant child 🚸 who needs an editor to hold my hand. I want to be able to edit on articles of interest to me. I admit I at times (not often) remove original research but normally it's the present tense or out dated articles. As wiki isn't written like advertising or storytelling in terms of a towns shops or influences without sources to back them up. Or a housing development was built on a Greenfield with no relevancy.

  I challenge certain editors if I feel they make unfair reverts or completely trample over my contributions without a second thought. Most the stuff I remove is either subjective or irrelevant like for example. I removed United Kingdom from Hereford because we had Hereford Herefordshire and England for it's railway station article. No other city uses UK because it's England the country. And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK and not km like in America or Canada etc.

  I am careful with my edits but I'm being randomly monitored when there's no need for it and I don't see other new editors being as heavily monitored as I know a few new ones from before. Please just ask PamD to leave me alone and id rather not have a mentorship as I've been on here long enough now. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Do you acknowledge that your edit introduced an error into the article? PamD fixed that and alerted you so you would know for future edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  What's wrong with a revert + edit summary? JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I would understand the talk page notes if they were repeatedly inserting the mistake, or had been doing across multiple articles. However, I don't think that's happened. I think all that needs to happen here is that PamG is politely told not to pester him. Revert if they want, but just leave an edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd prefer that in all honesty. I just want to stop the pestering it's not fair to me as I'm just trying to contribute to this site and work well with most editors but PamDs recent comments are just not on and I'll be glad if someone higher could tell her to please leave me alone. I asked her to leave me alone before but she's obviously ignored it and that last post was not on with Witney on Wye on my talk page or the language. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  DragonofBatley, I appreciate that you're feeling harassed; is what you are saying that you'd prefer just a ping in the edit summary when PamD or someone else reverts you? Taken in isolation, that last section on your user talk was quite polite: you made a mistake, PamD reverted it and then went to your user talk to explain why it was wrong and what you can do in future to resolve the issue. They also fixed it in their next edit to the article, as they said at your user talk, so you can see how it works. A revert with a ping is the default output when using rollback, so is usually felt to be a bit brusque, but I do appreciate that PamD has posted rather a lot on your talk page. So would you rather just the revert ping? Unfortunately, it looks as if you don't understand what was wrong with that edit; by switching the "km" and the "mi", you changed the distance from 25 km to 25 miles, which is incorrect. Someone fixing that mistake, no matter who they are, is maintaining the encyclopaedia. And PamD tried to explain it to you. Please instead use the "order=flip" parameter next time you want to fix a convert template that has the km value first. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think I'm expected to reply, but left it a day to see what other responses there were.
  As far as I know I first encountered DragonofBatley (DoB hereafter) in May 2021 when Lincolnshire was on my watchlist and I saw removals of two long-standing paragraphs of unsourced text(diff, diff), which had never been tagged as unsourced. It looked as if this might have been WP:POINTy editing, as an unsourced addition by DoB had been reverted 10 minutes earlier. The text DoB removed was plausible and inoffensive (not BLP, political, attack, etc), though vague and in need of sourcing, but {{cn}} would have been more constructive. I posted on their talk page. It's difficult to trace the talk page history as they don't archive, but just delete, but this version has the "Lincolnshire" post and a couple more below where I spotted problem edits and offered constructive advice.
  DoB is an experienced and enthusiastic editor. All their edits are done in good faith, but it does look as if they don't check what they've typed, or check their links: garbled sentences, CofE churches in RC dioceses, that recent edit which moved Whitney-on-Wye by 9 miles because they didn't understand how the {{convert}} template works. They work mainly on English settlements and railway stations, and our paths cross quite naturally from time to time: see User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek and St Chad's Church, Rochdale. But as Ravenswing pointed out above, when an editor sees a pattern of problematic edits they will often look at the other edits made by that editor. I've used talk page posts rather than just reverting, in the hopes of helping this editor to improve their editing.
  Yes, there were a series of talk page posts last year headed "Carelessness" etc, but "Careless please do read" was DoB's heading, and I backed off from pointing out so many careless edits: the problem has diminished, but it hasn't gone away. My recent posts on their talk page have included suggesting how to increase readership and pageviews of an article they had created, and pointing out (using a "boiler-plate" message I keep in my sandbox) the brilliant gadget which helps prevent one from linking to dab pages accidentally.
  I still think that the habit of removing longstanding article content because it's unsourced, without first leaving a {{cn}} template to encourage other editors to source it, is a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be discouraged. Doing so immediately before taking an article to AfD seems particularly unhelpful. I still think that editors should check what they type to make sure it makes sense, and check their links. I wish DragonofBatley well with their editing but I wish they would, still, take a little more care. I have tried to protect the encyclopedia from some of their poor edits, and to persuade them to edit more carefully.
  I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph of my post about Whitney-on-Wye, though it explains honestly how I came across that article. The encyclopedia benefitted: I corrected DoB's mistake. I stand by the first paragraph: I found and fixed a factual error and explained how to achieve their aim (imperial-first measures) by using the "order=flip" parameter to the template, so that next time they find a similar situation they will know how to do it properly. PamD 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, and please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word: Do you ever check DoB's contributions "out of the blue?" Or do you only view their contributions after 'fixing' one of their edits or otherwise encountering them? In other words, do you ever initiate contact with them by checking their contributions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @GabberFlasted My talk page post quoted above makes it quite clear that I did indeed have a look at their most recent contribution "out of the blue", and thereby rescued Whitney-on-Wye from the misinformation DoB had accidentally introduced. Why would I not be honest ... don't you normally take editors at their word? It's hardly polite to show such a lack of WP:AGF. PamD 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD:I wanted a positive affirmation and not an interpretation, hence asking directly. I understand you may feel frustrated or defensive being the subject of an AN/I thread but please be careful of making such accusations of bad faith. Just as you wish for others to assume that you act in good faith, you should I'd ask you to assume others are acting in good faith. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @GabberFlasted Please look again at your words: "please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word". That reads, to me, as suggesting that I may not be trustworthy (you'll have to take me at my word, for want of any other choice ... meaning, for want of something more trustworthy than what I say), and that I might not be honest unless specifically asked to be. What else can it mean? Perhaps it was a careless choice of words, but it seemed offensive. PamD 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD You might have seen this already, but there have been a few recent Village Pump threads on the question of whether unsourced content should be removed or tagged. It's very much an ongoing debate, with some feeling that WP:V necessitates removing that material, and some arguing that adding citation tags is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road or "making numbers go up." (I don't agree with that one....) Some people (though nowhere near the majority) have gone so far as to argue that every undersourced article should be soft-deleted outright in their entirety. Given all this, I don't think it's necessary or a good idea to tag someone's talk page every time they do something that's allowed under policy and that many editors prefer. 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Gnomingstuff Thanks for pointing me to that interesting discussion. I skimmed through it and note the wide range of views, but don't think I saw much, if any, support for deleting long-standing uncontroversial content without previously tagging it with {{cn}} and without, apparently, trying to source it oneself.

  "every time"? The only time I have mentioned this to DoB this year was when they removed content from my nearby village of Milnthorpe, including sourced content on local industries and material such as "It has one secondary school, Dallam School, and one primary school, Milnthorpe Primary School.": easily verifiable, and providing the only link from the village article to its notable school. Would anyone (OK, would any significant proportion of editors) really argue that removing that sentence improved the encyclopedia? PamD 07:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not. If you want to see why someone needs to correct his edits just look at the page history of any article he has created and the careless editing that has to be corrected after his initial start. He takes offence because he has not followed the advice offered. I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore.Esemgee (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Esemgee, I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that, doesn't make it factual. I'm actually a very nice.editor but I have had enough of being stalked. That's the difference. I didn't ask for a popularity contest. You've so far.broke. your avoiding me and you haven't only just now avoided me. You did so months ago and had a go at me for politely asking you to stop removing sourced articles on Dewsbury like minster town and having a go at me for asking you to stop removing sourced facts. Your language then was quite rude but I didn't make an issue of it cause I'm better than that. And you felt like getting personal on Skegness talkpage so I again did better by asking you and Noswall59 to stop engaging further with me because you got a bit personal and vindictive. but you still have now. So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either. You were vile to me on many talk pages and didn't like I stood against you for it. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've also worked with PamD a bit lot though not much recently. Pam has used the word "careless" with be in 2022 which involved adding a separate paragraph about a topic already covered above. As far as I'm aware its not a common mistake I make so it probably didn't even need pointing out per WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't know too much about the problems with DB's editing but unless serious formatting or grammar errors are frequently occurring its just best to generally just quietly fix the errors. While I appreciate PamD's support/advice these kind of words may put some people off contributing, I don't find it offensive (though it do think its a tiny bit uncivil) but some users may find it offensive especially when Pam has made errors herself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks fso much for your input, @Crouch, Swale. I have worked with you a few times before in the past on Districts, UAs for places like York, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Warrington and Chesterfield among other articles. You know and I know, we both have helped to slightly strengthen the geographical sides of WIkipedia through creating more civil parish and district/settlement/ua articles. I also created articles for the likes of Borough of Chesterfield, City of York and City of Peterborough through thorough research and fact checking.

  It is edits like this that get overlooked and editors like Esemgee choose to ignore in favour of calling me a very nasty editor but don't have the facts to back them up other then their own vendetta. I always welcomed editors like @PamD to help me improve on things and tagged them where relevant for their opinions. But lately, this WP:Stalking and their recent comments which I see above, she has accepted her second paragraph was a bit unprofessional but not the first. I welcome I made an error, which I have to keep saying ain't intentional and if I don't know how to fix it. I happen to leave it to fix later but then she or another editor even a bot fixes it so there is no point in faults being picked over each edit. I don't see this with many new editors or experienced/inexperienced editors.I had a rocky start at the initial beginning blah blah blah. All editors make mistakes from time to time, plenty I know have made errors or anons and resulted in me or others fixing them. Why not tell those anons straight?

  They don't. I'm just sick of the stalking and having editors like Esemgee sticking their noses in business not related to them. I am sure PamD can handle herself like I can myself and I it was a case of asking other editors to step in and help alleviate this situation. Not to point the finger and play WP:Politics on this site. If one had autism like me and kept feeling watched and hounded. It be understandable but no one else is in my situation so I have every right to call it out and ask for it to stop. I am personally tired of it and want it to stop. I am not against PamD offering advice but not like her post on my talkpage of "I was wondering what you were up to these days for some reason" and such. I ain't a petulant child.

  I have over 1000s and 1000s of edits and articles created under my alias for the site. But some don't care to think that but get all in my face for standing up to it and for being a human being who has his limits. As Crouch has pointed out, PamD has made errors before and had to fix them. Same with the unconcerned editor above and myself among others. I have respect for PamD as an editor and advisor but I don't appreciate being like a chew toy for them from time to time with nitpicking minor edits when others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you acknowledged making a mistake regarding the 25 km versus 25 miles link above? It's a very minor point, but the fact that you have posted a lot of text here with no clear acknowledgement that I can see is worrying. Those suggesting that PamD has done something wrong totally miss the point that contributors have to collaborate and work together to improve the encyclopedia. This is more than a hobby where people can pass their time as they want while not caring about mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the edit to Whitney-on-Wye, he said I welcome I made an error right above, so I don't think it's fair to say that it's still unacknowledged. DanCherek (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I’m editing from a phone and it’s problematic for adding diffs. I suggest looking at the 26 April 2023 talk page edits at User talk:DragonofBatley. PamD’s behaviour on that day is sort of, well, odd. Someone posts something to Dragon’s talk page and Dragon just deletes it. PamD then appears from out of nowhere and politely berates Dragon about how to better handle their talk page. Some of the comments are valid but I kept wondering as I read them, “why are you involved in this, now?”, “who asked you?”, “are you just watching this editor all the time?” and “are you the mother-in-law?”

  Check them for yourself and see what you think. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @A. B. The talk page is on my watch list. A post was removed with edit summary "No idea what that's all about". I was curious, looked at it, and found a civil question from a sensible-seeming editor had been removed. I would have been interested to see DoB's reply to the post, as it raised the topic of removing untagged unsourced content, but despite having a talk page heading "Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.", DoB had chosen to delete the post. This seemed discourteous to the user who had posted. I wasn't sure whether they genuinely couldn't work out that it related to this edit (the unlinked mention of Longridge was a good clue): I also pinged the poster to point out the importance of using diffs on talk pages. PamD 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  So this explains why you made the choices you did, but perhaps it would be good to indicate whether you will continue to make similar choices in the future. (Personally I think it would help resolve this discussion if you would commit to stopping the busybodyish talk-page comments on subjects like talk-page etiquette where your input is not necessary or desired, while reserving the right to revert substantively problematic edits to articles.) --JBL (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Dragon's talk page is on your watchlist, Pam? Uh huh. It might be better for everybody if that stopped being the case soon. Policing another editor's talk page is a often a good thing if they're a target of trolls or vandals or the like, but when it appears you're doing it in order to police the editor in question something has gone very wrong. — Trey Maturin™ 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  And while we're here, @PamD: in the middle of a discussion about how you appear to be reviewing every single edit that another editor makes, you make these two reverts [47] [48], the latter of which has an edit summary that could easily be read as outright obnoxious. Why are you doing this? — Trey Maturin™ 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, Trey, by the standards of incivility seen elsewhere on this noticeboard, those diffs are kind of a nothingburger. Not ANI-worthy. Admittedly that’s setting a very low behavioural bar.

  To me, the issue is instead PamD’s overall pattern of edits and their cumulative effect, not any particular edit viewed in isolation. It’s as if she’s playing especially intense man-to-man defensive basketball. I suggest she just lighten up and let others handle things.[49] —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Those diffs are a nothingburger by any standard. PamD was sourcing previously unsourced content instead of allowing it to be completely removed. And the edit summaries are completely inoffensive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, the stuff in article-space has been fine. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't take a dive on this. But, noting in general, having somebody focus on somebody under an ostensible "just enforcing the rules" situation which is actually a "just doing an unusually thorough enforcement of an unusually strict interpretation of the rules and concentrating on a particular editor" can be very destructive. Whether or not this is such, perhaps it would be best for PamD agree to generally step back from this editor let other wiki editors and processes handle whatever is needed with this editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. When you monitor a single editor's actions and constantly badger them for mistakes, more often than not valuable good-faith editors are driven away rather than improving. In some cases this can be warranted, but PamD is leaving talk page messages for minor mistakes that really could just be solved by a ping and explanation in the edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to defend PamD on this. This project is a collaborative effort. With exceptions including topic bans as well as rules violations, any edit any of us makes can be checked, reverted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by any other editor. Nobody's exempt, and we don't have designated moderators whose job it is. One reason nobody's exempt is that everybody sometimes makes mistakes, misunderstands, or writes something in a way that can be improved; the wiki way is that others fix and improve things. Another is that reasonable people can disagree, for example on whether (in a non-BLP) it's better to remove a slab of unsourced text or tag it as needing a citation. Most editors would agree that unless it's obvious trivia, best of all is to insert a source. If something is removed because it's unsourced, our advice on editing disputes is that an editor wishing to restore it needs to supply a source. That's exactly what PamD did in the second edit flagged above by Trey Maturin. How is this edit summary explaining the action "obnoxious": Undid revision 1157950240 by DragonofBatley (talk) - sources found, one describing objections, one confirming that it is being / has been built? That's the rollback edit summary plus a clear explanation. The only way I can imagine softening it up is by not naming the editor. Harassment consists of following an editor's contributions in a hostile manner, but many editors check the contributions of someone who often makes problematic edits; and leaving notes on that person's talk page to explain reverts and other changes is part of doing that constructively. That is what user talk pages are primarily for. Sadly, DragonofBatley's edits here suggest there is indeed a bit of a problem. Some very unclear prose; two denials of being a "petulant child" (I think they mean a "foolish child"); in response to Esemgee making the comparison PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not, an explosion of hyperbole and what looks to me like a personal attack: I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that ... So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either.; and it took two of us asking whether they understood the problem with the change to the convert template to get from And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK to a concession in passing that I'm grateful DanCherek pointed out, because it's not at all obvious: I welcome I made an error. I note that DragonofBatley has said here that they're on the spectrum. But both a certain level of competence and readiness to listen are required to work here (both have policy shortcuts that I won't impolitely link to). Someone's entitled to blank their talk page (although like PamD I was surprised this removal was on grounds of not knowing what the query was about; the article was specified, just not linked), but not to refuse all criticism, or to demand to work only with their friends, and based on this page, it seems DragonofBatley is edging too close to at least one of those. A. B. and others suggest PamD should leave checking DragonofBatley's work to someone else, but who gets to spend the necessary time and get called a bad guy (or a mother-in-law if they happen to have a female user name)? DragonofBatley needs to up their game. This is the big league, publication, and we all look at and work on each other's edits. They do it themself: others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. They see PamD as "nitpicking minor edits", but some of their errors aren't minor. (Some of mine aren't either, of course.) Be more careful—Pam's right, that's the fix—and realise that reasonable people can differ on what's a "nitpick". Otherwise, I'm afraid we will indeed have a problem editor here. (PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? Really, they do appear to me to have been making great efforts to be civil and constructive.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wholeheartedly agree! DragonofBatley seems (here and user page) positively proud of rebuffing and ignoring comments on their work, but given some of the example edits this seems misplaced. There may be a problem here & I don't think it's PamD causing it. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm less concerned that Dragon's editing isn't perfect (or even necessarily very good) than I am with what seems to be prima facie harassment: Pam is giving the appearance of watching every edit Dragon makes, policing Dragon's talk page, taking pleasure in reverting reasonable edits with what can be read as obnoxious edit summaries, dogging Dragon's every step... and whilst this is being discussed here, continuing to do so unabashed.

  If this was happening to me, regardless of the quality of my edits, I would get sick of it rapidly – as would most reasonable people.

  PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? is a horrible metric, by the way. We don't measure harassment by the number of templates issued or how often someone is taken to a dramaboard. We measure it by how someone is editing and interacting. By that metric, Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time. That would drive me nuts and isn't fair.

  It's not asking too much for Pam to disengage for a week or so – if Dragon's edits are as bad as are being suggested here, someone else (lots of someones else) will intervene. — Trey Maturin™ 12:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time.": Just a little analysis here of all of my 2023 comments on DoB's talk page (any omissions are accidental, one bullet may include more than one comment in a thread):

  1. 5 Jan: I can't remember what led me to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Vigo railway station (England), but the text I posted there is some standard boiler-plate advice I offer when I notice that an article has been created at a disambiguated title with no access provided from the base title(Vigo railway station). I also talked about church-name dab pages, having made links to some of DoB's articles. I thought we had a civilised exchange.
  2. 17 Jan: Can't remember what led to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek but I'd been editing a related article and made what I thought were a couple of helpful suggestions about this one, and how to increase its readership.
  3. 6 April: Milnthorpe is on my watchlist: I live about 5 miles away. I noticed another removal of untagged unsourced content, including removing the mention of the local Dallam School which has an article, and commented. (I later found sources for much of the removed content).
  4. 6 April: I had created the redirect from St Chad's Church, Rochdale to the information on the church at Rochdale#Religion, (as it then was) so noticed, and commented, when that redirect was overwritten by an article on the church here which was mostly infobox and omitted all the historically interesting content, as well as having a few other problems. I then went on to copy that content, with attribution, into the new article to improve it, and found a couple more sources etc.
  5. 15 April: After seeing User_talk:DragonofBatley#St_Chad's_Church,_Chadsmoor_moved_to_draftspace I thought I offered constructive comments.
  6. 26 April: See above Longridge discussion. DoB deleted another editor's talk page post saying "No idea what that's all about": I clarified and commented.
  7. 29 May: User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye: I saw an edit which moved a town by 9 miles, corrected it, and explained how to avoid the problem (the useful parameter "|order=flip" in the {{convert}}, a template with more bells and whistles than most of us have learned to use) and, not having been scrutinising their talk page particularly carefully, I noticed User_talk:DragonofBatley#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_30 for the first time and offered my standard boiler-plate advice about the brilliant gadget which helps one to avoid linking to dab pages, as useful information.
     Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. It seems we will never agree on whether or not it is good practice to removed long-standing, uncontentious, unsourced content rather than tagging it with {{cn}}. I think it damages the encyclopedia, DoB presumably sees it as helpful cleanup. PamD 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. And they asked you to stop in this thread. Your response was to continue to go through their edits looking for 'mistakes' and reverting things they did that you didn't like whilst they were here asking for help to try to get you to stop. Please stop. Stop. Stop doing this. Please. Stop. — Trey Maturin™ 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating 'stop' over and over accomplishes nothing except to raise the temperature of the conversation. It is clear that the OP wishes to be left alone. What is much less clear is whether the OP understands the problems with their edits. Continuing to point the accusing finger solely at PamD, which you have done in each of your comments in this thread, is not helpful. Please stop berating PamD so that the discussion may proceed in a civil, reasonable manner. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Trey Maturin: I don't think your reading or characterization of the situation is accurate (eg, labeling this edit-summary as outright obnoxious (!)) or helpful. May I request that you step back from this thread? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi PamD, apologies for repeating my point from above, but it seems to have been swamped and I think it's worth making again: Could you please agree to stop giving unsolicited and unnecessary advice to DoB, as in edits 5 and 6 on your list? Or, indeed, simply agree to leave their talk-page alone in the absence of an unusually strong reason to post there? (You should, of course, continue to make edits in article-space that improve or protect the encyclopedia.) If you would agree to that, I think it would do a lot to defuse this situation. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD: I second what JBL said above. Usually it is a good practice to guide users who make good-faith errors by posting on their talkpage but in this case, since the feedback is not being appreciated, it would be advisable to keep off DragonofBatley's talkpage unless necessary.

  @DragonofBatley: Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one. Keep in mind that we are here solely to help build an encyclopedia and user talkpages is a resource that is provided to aid that effort, in part, as a venue for other editors to provide feedback. You cannot simply label editors providing that feedback (in polite, relevant and non-templated messages) "stalkers" and "harassers", as you have done repeatedly, and hope for your edit/conduct to escape scrutiny. While I have advised PamD to stay off your talkpage, they and others are still welcome to review your edits and report any grievous issues to ANI or other relevant boards. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  You probably should look at how that editor responded to me before and if you think being called not a nice editor is okay not to challenge. then your not offering a fair platform to challenge that opinion. Esemgee is a horrible editor towards me and I won't change my feelings about that. If they can say one thing, I can say another. He began it and I responded to it. "Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one". I thinks the other editors was subpar too. I'm allowed to defend myself aren't I? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  It looks very much like not a niceness issue, but a competence issue on your part. I can appreciate that you don't like having your repeated and persistent insertion of errors being called out, but the root cause is your repeated and persistent insertion of errors - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've run into PamD several times on England-related articles and get the feeling that she is good about watching over them. She is quite assertive but I've never seen her as abusive or unreasonable, or even more than slightly abrupt. I don't presume that she is watching me when I encounter her on another article related to England, I just assume she is watching that article. Looking into someone's edit history when you notice them making a mistake is also not harassing them to my mind. Often times I will notice vandals and severe problem editors in precisely that manner and have to go through their edits and correct them. PamD is a prolific editor and one should expect to encounter her in her topic areas and probably elsewhere. I think most people who deal with high numbers of problem edits and editors will tend to get a hair trigger and become impatient. Sometimes they will make a mistake. A simple apology should be adequate for those cases. I struggle with this myself.

  Of course, once told by an editor not to ping them or not to post comments to their user talk page, it's time to stop, except for mandatory notices, so going forward that should be easy to avoid. I don't think that means one would have to stop watching their edits for problems though.

  Perhaps PamD would agree to be careful about berating editors for mistakes and keep the tone neutral? "Careless" is a term I use at times in these situations but probably not the best choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion, to me, feels quite easy to solve.
  PamD should stop leaving comments on DragonofBatley's talk page that relate to general improvement of the encyclopedia, unless there is a significant reason that a talk page message has to be left. Any short comments can go in edit summaries, and clearly the longer comments are not appreciated.
  Meanwhile, more people are now aware of DragonofBatley's errors, and if they are a problem and PamD takes a step back from reverting them as well, other editors will notice, and then that can be dealt with from there.
  I don't really see what's left to discuss here, if everyone's okay with this (I don't think anyone involved isn't accepting of these terms, and these seem to me like the minimal acceptable terms). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion is quite simple. I've accepted my errors and I'm trying to improve. I want to improve without being dogged or harassed. That's it end of. If others feel what I've added or removed is controversial. Discuss it with me on either the article talkpage or on my wall. But not every little error or odd removal or addition I make. I've been on this site for over a few years and know what I am doing. Might make a slight error every so often and to those who claim I am. "Defensive" about my edits being called out, I am actually not offended but if I am called words like "careless", "not nice" or "a problem". Expect me to defend myself as I won't be hounded or made to look like a fool for defending my actions where necessary. If I've put something so offensive or broken a link to a table. I try to fix it like I did with my new Skellingthorpe (Great Northern Railway) railway station page that I created. I spend a few edits on other articles trying to link the page and after a few mistakes. It managed to get fixed. So it shows I can do it.

  But I like to work at my pace fixing edits and if I can't fix it. I'll normally say in an edit summary I can't fix it. could some else please look at this. If it can't be fixed I'll revert my edits and try again through my sandbox like I've done for my UA articles on many counties. Nitpicking edits does sometimes help but not on a constant barrage of notifications. So yeah I think so far the way PamD has adhered to edit summaries is great but I wasn't happy to see she tried to speak to Esemgee on their talk page about "controlling my edits" and "whether I should be banned". @A. B. And @Crouch, Swale:. That felt a bit like WP: Canvasing. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, here is my recent conversation with Esemgee. I specifically said "I don't (I think) want to see him blocked". Having been brought to ANI I felt it reasonable to have a quiet conversation with another editor who had interacted with DoB. The reference there to "editing-while-under-the-influence" refers to this reply to Esemgee, a response to this group of early-morning edits. PamD 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD:, hi. Of your own volition and consent, are you okay leaving DoB alone for the next six months, till say the end of the year? Wikipedia is a big place and DoB can be monitored by other editors. A person who has contributed to multiple GAs will learn on the way. We can come back in January (or earlier) in case DoB's talk page gets filled with multiple warnings. But for now, for your peace of mind perhaps and so for his, how does this sound? Lourdes 10:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD and DragonofBatley: I have 3 proposed editing restrictions either for say 6 months or indefinite:

  A topic ban for PamD for User talk:DragonofBatley only

  A 1 way interaction for PamD with DOB encouraged also to avoid interaction

  A mutural interaction ban.

  Yes PamD does lave legitimate concerns about DOB's editing and she has helped fix problems with formatting etc but with this interaction problem going on along time it might just be better for both and the whole project if we just have an interaction ban. The interaction ban wouldn't prevent Pam from fixing obvious errors unless of course there were complete reverts. As said above if there are significant problem's with DOB's editing others can deal with it. I'd also be fine if both users can contact me if they really do need to say something about/to the other. I have worked with both editors for years and all 3 of us work in the same areas. If you're both happy with one of these then I don't see why it can't be enacted soon. Thoughts from either of you or anyone else? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would personally prefer the first one. I am okay with PamD discussing with me on talk pages relating to articles like on Rotherham and Skellingthorpe etc...But not always if at all on my wall. Which I would rather be used for either editors asking for my help or pointing out the odd error. Not a constant barrage of talk page messages. I think 1st one would suit me great. Only under exceptional circumstances should PamD post to my talkpage say in certain discussions but not every edit or removing I make. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could only support the first and I think it goes without saying that if someone asks one to stop posting to their talk page (or pinging them) that one must stop doing so, other than notices required by Wikipedia (for ANI or 3RR reports or such). —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think any sort of formal sanction is necessary or advisable. Nor do I agree with the assertion stated a bit above that PamD should step back and assume that someone else will notice DOB's errors. That's a great recipe for letting errors get through. While I appreciate that DOB doesn't like having their errors pointed out repeatedly by the same person, this is an encyclopedia and therefore such errors are a bigger deal than some in this thread seem to realize. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with this. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring this but am working on a reply. PamD 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• I looked to check in with PamD today but wrote nothing and then did a bit of digging. Before deciding what you'd inflict on PamD, read this article. There is a glaring error on the first line. It veers off-topic with a mention of a railway station, first error repeated line 3, then a confusing sentence with four churches. repetition of Grade II. Next para, was the new church really opened "by the Bishop of Chester using the materials of the old church opposite?" Then "the newer church was built on the opposite and enlarged". The last sentence is incorrect according to the ref, the land was donated, not part of the cost. Last para, well you should have the idea by now. Various editors pootled with tags etc. but nobody appears to have actually read it. If this is acceptable as it appears to be to several editors, then I fear for the encyclopedia and conclude it will continue. I could quite easily fix it but why should I? Someone above said it was a competence issue, you judge. Esemgee (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Esemgee Interesting. There's a closely related article St Augustine's Church, Rugeley; both were created by DoB in April this year. They share a lot of content including oddness like "is used for both tourists and burials at the nearby cemeteries.". I clearly wasn't hounding their every move as I didn't notice either at the time, though I see that after being dragged here I quietly added the old church to the dab page at St. Augustine's Church, as DoB had ignored my helpful suggestion about the usefulness of making navigational links to help readers find your articles. If I'd seen the articles at the time I might have tried to improve them: I can't find the energy to do so in the current situation, but anyone wanting to fix them up might like to add the NHLE listing and official website for the 1823 church. PamD 07:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply by PamD

I drafted several paragraphs of lengthy final comments, but decided to leave them out.

I have taken DoB's talk page off my watch list. I note that they say Only under exceptional circumstances should PamD post to my talkpage say in certain discussions but not every edit or removing I make.. I have commented on their talk page 8 times this year, while they have made over 2,000 edits, but I will henceforward comment there even less, trying to recognise what DoB might call "exceptional circumstances". DoB edits mainly on UK places and buildings, an area of interest to me, so our paths will inevitably cross occasionally: if they were editing on, say, American baseball players, Hindi films, places in New Zealand or geology I would take very little interest in their work.

I urge DoB to check their edits: a recent example was this: yes, excellent contribution to add the missing "England" to the lead as geog context; removing "affluent" is fair enough; but did they read the article as they left it, with "an residential"? (I quietly fixed it: was I damaging, or improving, our precious, amazing, encyclopedia?)

I apologise for upsetting them in the past by repeated use of the term "careless" (though I think I always used it to refer to edits, rather than the editor), but I don't think I have used it recently. The second paragraph of my User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye was ill-judged, but was intended as a chatty explanation of how I came to find that article. I remember at the time thinking of signing off with "Take care", as one might to a friend, but realising it was inappropriately ambiguous in this context.

I hope we can all now get on with editing the encyclopedia. This reply is later than it might be because yesterday I got distracted into reverting, amending, or rolling back most of the edits of a new editor with apparently very poor grasp of English (they had happened to edit, badly, an obscure article which was still on my watchlist after I had stub-sorted it 8 years ago and added a talk page, without unticking "add to watchlist"). I worry about how many really poor edits go un-noticed: I would expect a major English novelist to be on someone's watchlist, but some of the mistakes in this horrible edit weren't corrected for a couple of years until I came across a mystifying wrong word inserted by a non-English speaker over-trusting a spellchecker. PamD 07:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Ayya Vaikundar

Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article [50], User:Dl2000 [51][52], User:Chronikhiles [53][54], User:DaxServer [55] [56]. Request a solution to the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article. VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact. I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent, and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, a more appropriate venue for this sort of issue. It will save you the time and drama of a discussion here. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A. B., I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor. Thus, Dispute resolution noticeboard is not the right forum IMHO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor."

If the contributor is the issue not for his contributions, then your issue with the contributor is personal?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

By accusing of myself claiming WP:OWNERSHIP, the initiator of this section here had tactically or unconsciously diverted the core issue.

To understand the issue:

Ayya Vaikundar is a mythical figure and so the article Ayya Vaikundar is primarily based on the source of Ayyavazhi Mythology, the Akilathirattu Ammanai as if the Krishna article is primarily based on Mahabharata, Bagavat Gita and Bagavata Purana. That does not mean that Krishna article is (and should be) solely based on Mahabharata alone. Even though various accounts, interpretations, validations are included in the article, the main narrative of the life, events, character and teachings of Krishna is based on Mahabharata and Bagavat Gita. There are historical perspective for Krishna as well. Those are cut-shorted to one section alone; and even in that section, historical sources is intermingled with literary sources and so the factual validity or historicity is mixed up with beliefs and mythys. Not even a single statement is found in the lead section which explains the historical validity of Krishna. All sources points back directly or indirectly to some religious/literary sources.

Phaethon is the son of Sun God Helios. And this is as per Greek mythology. The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context.

These are not odd cases. Almost all articles on religious figures/god-heads is been presented in a similar way. Likewise Ayya Vaikundar article begins with a forthright statement that this is a mythology article. This is the point I was making repetedly, and I wonder that the level of ignorance in people who couldn't figure out this simple things are unbelievable!

Apart from that, the historical validity of Vaikundar is more than that of Krishna, Phaethon etc for many reasons. The most important among them are that his period is so recent and the impact of Vaikundar (as understood by academics and historians) are immense and vivid; it be social, religious or cultural; so much so that several social reform/renaissance movements across south India had their roots in Vaikundar's activities.

So numerous academic/ historical sources in the past 100 years or so had done research and published hundreds of articles/ books/thesis etc. Those sources, (since most of them are under the disciplines, History/Society/Humanity and very few under spirituality/philosophy) portrayed Vaikundar from the historical perspective alone which runs directly contradicting the religious and literary sources on which the religious beliefs/views of millions of People are based upon. Another important thing is that, the Akilamic narrative is that they are two different personalities. 1. Mudisoodum Perumal (1809-1833) and Vaikundar (1833-1851).

So considering these things, the Historical Vaikundar article is based on Historical perspective and it is mentioned forthright on top of the article. On the other hand the Vaikundar Article is based on mythology/beliefs and that again is mentioned forthright on the leading sentence of the article Ayya Vaikundar. I don't understand what is the confusion here.

And regarding the baseless accusations:

1. "Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article"

I can't understand the logic that reverting undiscussed reverts amounts to claim of ownership! Especially when it is quiet convincing that, two or more users working well aligned with an agenda, completely diminishing the value of arguments and misleading as if they are working with consensus!!

see this edit for example which is mentioned above. Here my revert was called as Vandalism!

2. " According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article."

The context shall only be understood by following the conversation here. It was distorted and narrated in a completely different way by User:Schazjmd, which I suspect was with a clear motive.

3. "VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact."

Mythology is mythology and fact is fact. Nobody is claiming anything which is mythological as factual unless it is factually validated. Otherwise, validate the factual accuracy of each events in hundreds of mythology articles in Wikipedia before expecting it in Vaikundar article alone. Please explain your point with reference to your context for the articles Phaethon and Krishna.

4. "I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent,"

It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users!

5. "and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits."

Best luck and I would be more happy to see it... - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ABOVE ALL... I accept that the article is in a poor shape and that it need a major clean-up. The article was written some 10-15 years back and it is a time consuming process to do a major rewrite and I am working on it. I will be doing it in month or two. And I had told this to you (User:redtigerxyz) back. Despite, I am not sure why people here are in a hurry to either block myself or reverting my edits repeatedly and initiating discussion in multiple forum simultaneously? - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be taken to the appropriate venue. Nevertheless, a comment: Vaikunda Raja has helpfully provided the example of Phaethon, saying "The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context." This is incorrect. The article is written in the context of real-life, constantly relating mythological statements back to those who made them ("according to version", "in some versions", "Hyginus however attributes", "Euripides' version of the story", etc.); by contrast, the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice, and. intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure". When combined with the misleading capitalisation of numerous words and the multiple tenses used, the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles. Once this ANI is closed, I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this is purely a content dispute, given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users! or the odd response to a suggestion VR be limited to talk page comments only (Best luck and I would be more happy to see it). That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"...given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like..."...That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such..."

To understand this, one should go back and look into what had happened in the past 2 decades. I am afraid that somebody shall mistake me that myself "claiming ownership" etc! Please don't misunderstand things. This is just a recall of the past.

Series of onslaught had happened on these articles multiple times in the past; sometimes major ones. And in many cases, which I understood slowly, that their problem is with the content and topic rather than the quality and standards of the content. They are always selective and expect every policies be strictly followed in these articles alone. See this version; One user went to the extent of placing template 90 individual spaces across the 32Kbyte article. This happened in 2006, during a time when inline citation is not used/expected frequently in High and Medium important articles. I was new to wikipedia then, and it took time for me to figure out what was happening. Then, We worked out and began adding inline citations. We were required for citing almost every sentences and even words multiple sometimes here. And few years later I remember somebody even complained that the article is "over referenced", then! completely unaware of what happened in the past, and I was expected to explain in paragraphs about what those past happenings.

Then back in 2014 or so, The Portal:Ayyavazhi was deleted without notice and I don't know on what ground it was removed. I think Portal:Ayyavazhi is one among the top/first 200 portals in English Wikipedia(then). The Wikiproject:Ayyavazhi was removed citing lack of participation (that is acceptable) and the project page is now been redirected to WikiProject:Hinduism.

Then in 2020/2021 Few important pages, History of Ayyavazhi, Etymology of Ayyavazhi, Ayyavazhi and Hinduism etc were deleted without proper discussion. All these decade-old-articles (not less than 15-20 Kbytes each) were deleted hurriedly in a very short span of time! And 3 months back proposal was made to delete Historical Vaikundar Article altogether and was suspended after a debate later.

All these events show a clear direction; I feel that there are quiet a number of users,(some of them well co-ordinated) who are unhappy with this topic Ayya Vaikundar/Ayyavazhi itself and not about the quality of the content. They, I feel, work synchronously with goals as mentioned above. Nonetheless I am not arguing that every thing is perfect with the articles. The tone and language of the articles need attention and dedication. That is a continuous and progressive process and should/will be done overtime like every other India related article as mentioned by User:AirshipJungleman29 Thanks, - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 04:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

" ...the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice..." "...intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure" "

I agree that, the tone of the article is misleading and confusing as somebody told some days back that the difference between the mythological and historical statements in the article is undifferentiable. This issue settles on a major rewrite of the Article, which I have planned to do within a month or so since it is a laborious process.

"...the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles"

As told earlier I agree to this and that's why I feel that it is appropriate to do a major rewrite rather than copyedit sections or add/remove statements.

"Once this ANI is closed I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article."

Thanks for that I would like to request you to do it once I do complete a major rewrite. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS. Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures. The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son. Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures."

  It seems that Redtigerxyz ^Talk confuses between academic sources and reliable secondary sources; And assumes as Historical Vaikundar is written based on academic sources and religious article is based on scriptural sources. Both the articles carry academic as well as religious secondary sources which are reliable. Scholarly sources are available for both mythological as well as historical views over Vaikundar and all of them aren't essentially belief oriented.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Case of Vaikundar is not exactly the same a Jesus. In the case of Jesus, (whether its mythological or historical view) it is only about Jesus, from his birth to around 35 years. But here in the case of Vaikundar it involves two (and even more) different personalities. The first one from the birth to age 24, the second one from 24 to 42, another one from the end of dwapara yuga to age 42. and another one personality right before the creation of universe and exists eternally. All these characters/personalities exist distinctly in parallel within Vaikundar.

  But anyway, The jesus article is comparable at least partly.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Vaikundar article shall be rewritten in a month or two and will be done by considering your suggestions.

  "Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS."

  "Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD."

  The points raised by user The Hand That Feeds You had been addressed in my previous reply with explaining the context;

  The selective assault the Ayyavazhi articles had faced in the past; The Portal, Project Page and few key pages (most of them more than a decade old) deleted silently with in a relatively short span around 2020/2021. Again user Redtigerxyz ^Talk addressing me as "owner" in a prosaic tone just for remembering and recalling the series of systematic assaults the Ayyavazhi pages faced in the past.

  I had informed earlier that I am planning for a major rewrite several times and despite few users are in a 'hurry to do something'. It suggests a strong communal/sectarian agenda who are more concerned with the 'topic' rather than article in selectively targeting these pages disproportionately under the cover of wikifying, cleaning-up, validating the article's NPOV etc mindless that I was about to rewrite the article in a few weeks time - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion is expected selectively in the Vaikundar article to be followed in its sharpest form. I would like to request Redtigerxyz ^Talk to take a look into the Rama and Krishna articles (atleast the lead section alone) and hundreds of other mythology articles in wikipedia which are clearly dominated by mythological overtones. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Law of holes seems to apply here... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de

EDIT: This post has been here for 2 weeks, but only attracted 1 reply, by Mitrayasna. I believe M's behaviour and contributions are mostly harmful to Wikipedia and wasting many people's time. Can any admin please take some appropriate action or comment on the acceptibility of these concerns? I'll see how long I can be bothered keeping this post alive, and may therefor keep updating the text under M's reply (while the text before that should probably stay intact, if only to show how M tends to deflect the issues raised, or only wants to concern themselves with certain personal convictions).Joortje1 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mitrayasna and User:Ashkan3de both insist on inclusion of a text that contains obvious interpunction problems, an unreliable (probably WP:CIRCULAR) source, and a misrepresented source: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] etc.

They mostly responded WP:Listen to my and 3 other users' comments about this text and related illustrations on Talk:Animation, and to my comments, suggestions and questions on User talk:Mitrayasna, User talk:Ashkan3de and Talk:Early history of animation.

Also note behaviour that seems to indicate:

WP:TAGTEAM (if not WP:SOCKPUPPETRY): Ashkan3de only started editing on the English pages after a dispute about Mitrayasna's edits, and mainly kept placing the disputed text and related imagery. While Mitrayasna has stopped this after a 24h block, Ashkan3de continues.

WP:NOTHERE apart from insisting on inclusion of obvious interpunction errors, from glancing over Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna, this editor seems more concerned about a nationalistic/ethnic agenda than about proper encyclopedic information. Much of this gets reverted back and forth and causes disputes, see for instance: [64] [65]

WP:PLAGIARISM see [66]

Misrepresentation of discussion: [67]

Joortje1 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is about the difference of images on a cup. There was information about this on this article's Wikipedia page before my edits, I just expanded it. And I cited a book by Giannalberto Bendazzi, one of the most famous researchers in this field. I find it very strange that he is determined to exclude the views of one of animation's greatest historians.

I hope they have no racist motives.

Mitrayasna (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have actually used Bendazzi's work as a source for several contributions to Early history of animation, while the disputed misquotation seriously misrepresents his view, as explained to Mitrayasna multiple times by at least 3 others (see: [68]). The suggestion of racist motives is strange and quite offensive imho. Joortje1 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Updates/edited statements: NOTHERE/NPOV: –nationalistic agenda: many of the contributions by Mitrayasna (M) that I checked are about Iran purportedly having pioneered whatever an artcile is about, e.g. trousers [69], the necktie [70], or ice hockey [71]. Iranian history could very well just be M's favourite topic and Iran is actually home to one of the world's oldest civilizations, but M seems to approach it as some kind of contest, where Iran has to be the first and to be as prominently represented as possible, naturally causing many disputes. –ethnic suppression: I know little about the tensions concerning Kurds in Iran and will try to keep a neutral pov (despite my strong gut feelings). Some of M's edits look very much like M wants to suppress certain claims about Kurdish culture, by erasing them or claiming them as Iranian. M was very much involved in trying to get rid of Kurdish aspects from pages about the Death of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent protests, ignoring a clear (hidden in-article) warning not to erase the name without consensus, and ignoring the near-consensus on the talk page [72], [73][74][75][76][77][78][79] (and dozens more diffs to be found in Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna) The background of this ethnic suppression was more clearly discussed on Talk:Death of Mahsa_Amini#Name Also note M's edit on Gorani language[80]: there are 3 citations that purportedly back the claim "since the 20th century, most orientalists and linguists consider it a northwest Iranian language, which is separate from the Kurdish language." It's far from what I can gather from these sources. It's as if M. just googled for sources with the terms "zaza gorani non kurdish" (see the cited google book urls) and didn't care about what's actually written there. (Unfortunately, disagreeing users didn't come up with a better solution than to change the text into "But since the 20th century, some orientalists who are not linguist, neither have any language about the Kurdish or any other languages in the region consider it a 'northwest Iranian' language, which is separate from the Kurdish language.")

WP:LAWYERING and deflection of raised concerns: M claimed the Kurdish name of Mahsa Amini's was "controversial content"[81]. When asked why, M mostly maintained that this name has no place outside her biography (apart from claiming "it just makes this article ugly and unreadable")[82]. There seems to be a clear pattern of M ignoring questions or comments, instead replying by wikilawyering, raising the authority of M's misquoted sources or the purported unreliability of other sources.[83][84] Also note that M often accused others of edit warring,[85][86][87][88][89][90][91] while engaging in them as the main edit warrior.

sockpuppetry: On 3 June, M and A received indefinite blocks on fa.wikipedia, more or less simultaeneously and with each other's names mentioned in connection to the reason for the block. Apparently this is for sockpuppetry, but google translate isn't always clear enough (see: [92]). I asked PhilKnight whether the Persian block was enough reason for a block of their en.wikipedia accounts. After Phil felt reluctant due to the uncertainties in google translate, I asked to investigate with CheckUser. To my surprise, Phil couldn't find any connection [93]. I looked a bit further into the Persian block, and from what I can gather through google translations, Ashkan3de admitted to also have the account Sasan3de. When the Ashkan3de account was inspected the Mitrayasna account popped up.[94] I could not find any previous suspicion of a link between those accounts on the Persian pages, so I still believe sockpuppetry is extremely likely.

Edit warring: [95],[96], [97] and [98], [99], [100], [101] and [102], [103], [104], [105]). For the edit warring on the Animation topic (mostly with me, I confess I initially got carried away and didn't know what better to do then to revert M and A's problematic text), M received a 24h block [106].

WP:PLAGIARISM see [107][108]

Almost every time I check some of M's contributions (which I feel I have done way too much), I find more problematic elements (I have seen more than I have reported here). Although some of it intrigues me, it's not something I really enjoy doing. I understand it may come across as a spiteful reaction to an irrelevant bit of edit warring, but I believe that the patterns that I notice in M's edits seems too structural and harmful to just let go. Joortje1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Problem with user

I need to raise an issue with ČugaĎ, a user who repeatedly goes around adding "[Country] films" and "Horror films" categories to films that are already in "[Country] horror films" categories, in defiance of duplicate categorization rules. Even more importantly, they've now ignored three prior requests to stop doing that — they stopped for a while after I threatened to take it to ANI the third time, but then they started up again yesterday. In addition, they're sometimes also adding films to questionable genre categories that aren't properly supported at all, such as filing Comedown in Category:Comedy films and Lead Me Astray in Category:Fantasy films even though neither the articles' text nor their IMDb profiles suggest that those genre labels would be accurate in any way.

Basically, it's becoming tiresome to have to clean up after them, but asking them to stop clearly isn't making them stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban on categorization is warranted. CugaD seem to be an otherwise productive editor who just cannot grasp categorization guidelines. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, edits otherwise identical to ČugaĎ's, adding "[Country] films" and/or "Horror films" categories to films that are already in the appropriate "[Country] horror films" intersection, are now happening by the hand of logged-out IP 204.68.105.89. So clearly ČugaĎ didn't get the message, which was "stop doing this" rather than "log out and then keep doing this". Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Elelch

Elelch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA engaged in blatant WP:BATTLE behavior, obviously WP:NOTHERE. They edit only a limited number of Peru-related articles.

Their first editing conflict occurred on the Shining Path article where they attempted to place a WP:LABEL on the guerrilla group to describe them as a "terrorist organization" (despite the controversial background of the group, this is inappropriate amongst many groups on Wikipedia that may be described as "terrorist organizations"). The user then attempted to use WP:IPSOCKs to place the information back, though they were reverted by a different user. The user was then warned that they would be blocked for their edit war and sock behavior.

The user again engaged in edit warring behavior on the controversial 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. I attempted to ask about their edits, which were messy (included an old article title and strangely had two background sections). They in turn accused me of trying to "skew" the article's information. I personally review their concerns and made a list of edits for them in an attempt to calm the situation. They again accused me of "skewing" information. I attempted one last time to defuse the situation and reminded them of WP:CIVIL. They continued to place the messy edit into the article and accused me of misrepresenting the sources (which I can easily disprove).

In summary, this user does not appear to be here to construct an encyclopedia and is instead participating in WP:BATTLE behavior.--WMrapids (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the civility issues, but a block for edit warring is definitely warranted. They used sockpuppet accounts and continued edit warring even after being warned.

Also, User:WNrapids really should be renamed to avoid confusion. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps: Yeah, I’ve reached out about the username and heard nothing. Thanks for bringing that to attention again. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A suspicious edit that may have been performed as a WP:IPSOCK. WMrapids (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is that he continues to delete duly referenced paragraphs, despite having been warned to abandon this behavior. For example, he insists on placing the in the intro that "...and the majority of Peruvians showed support for its creation in the weeks following Castillo's actions" (in reference to the intention to convene a constituent assembly) despite the fact that the majority of Peruvians do not support a new constitution or the call for a constituent assembly in 2023 (as many references support). Also, he insists on deleting the final paragraph of the introduction that, duly referenced, informs about the current judicial status of Pedro Castillo and is putting in its place a paragraph referring to a ruling by the Constitutional Court on the power of the Peruvian Congress to appoint officials that have nothing to do with Article which is about the coup attempt. I have reverted those edits because they have been arbitrarily placed without prior consensus being reached in the discussion section.--Elelch (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted dialogue and edits to help with these issues. Instead, you continue WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE and using socks in edit wars. WMrapids (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I know it takes two to edit war, but user has continued edit warring behavior [1][2][3] while placing manipulative comments on the talk page and edit summaries, making false statements about the content of sources.--WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned IP seems to have only a few edits, the behavior seems to have stopped after being warned, and there's already an open sockpuppet investigation request to address any remaining concerns regarding socks. I'd also watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG regarding recent edit warring in the WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources page, which started indirectly due to the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs

This is a Chile-based dynamic IP who for many months now has been changing details in many film articles against consensus, despite advice and numerous warnings. They change billing block and cast list entries; change the title/headline of citations/references; change wikilink targets; over-link (etc). By the time action can be taken against them, pages are semi-protected, or a proxy bot blocks them, they've already moved on to another article or another IP address, then they return to repeat the same reverted edits over and over and over again, denying the charges against them, even when presented with diffs as proof.

You'll see that the majority of their contributions have been reverted by other editors, and yet they persist with making the same or similar changes. Latest response to another editor's level 4 vandalism warning: "Yeah yeah, whatever you say."

I do wonder if this user is on the spectrum, and I appreciate that allowances are made for such users.

Update #3: Current IP is now 201.188.147.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Back after previous IP's 3 day p2p proxy block.

Previous incarnation 201.188.135.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Back after previous IP's 3 day p2p proxy block.

• Example Edit difference (Making changes to the film's billing block; ignoring and removing hidden HTML note. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (Deliberately, repeatedly and persistently ignoring hidden HTML note about ENGVAR spelling. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (One of several reverted edits. Yet again, way down the source code, citation/reference titles/headlines have been changed, not indicated in edit summary).

Previous incarnation 201.188.134.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed and updated", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed; Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas is a TV show and starts streaming this year", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

Previous incarnation: 201.188.149.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Stop redoing the same edits over and over when they are reverted for a reason").

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Also unreliable, now considered intentional disruptive editing as previously reverted changes were done yet again").

Previous incarnation: 201.188.143.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference. Incomplete and deceptive edit summary "Fixed". Actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines.

Previous incarnation: 190.21.163.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous incarnation: 190.21.168.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "rv disruptive editing". Repeated changes to citation titles, followed by increase in page protection).

Many incarnations before this, especially editing four Fantastic Beasts film-related articles.

Some (but certainly not all) earlier incarnations are here: Edit summary search.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a block should be placed. Whether on the spectrum or not (personally it doesn't seem like they are), the user is being repeatedly disruptive, ignoring consensus, and being dismissive, with comments such as Dude stop with your drama ([109]) in response to your ANI notice. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

All the edits are film-related, and it's like playing whack-a-mole with so much IP hopping. Would a topic ban be appropriate, and would it span across future IPs, making it far simpler to pursue as block evasion? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the course of action is with disruptive dinamic IPs. Range block? Temporary individual blocks for these specific IPs? So far, it seems those IPs have only been used by the same editor. —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of reversion by multiple editors, gentle advice, increasingly stern notices, range block, increased page protection, waiting for proxy bot to block have been used thus far, but the user still persists. Your WP:AIV went stale before it was even looked at. That's why, not knowing myself, I brought the issue here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Update #3: Current IP is now 201.188.147.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant range here appears to be 201.188.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Would be worthwhile to block as there is little collateral wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Incivility from Gwillhickers

I would appreciate some guidance in dealing with some chronic incivility from Gwillhickers. I have found it difficult to interact with him without him personally attacking me and accusing me of acting in bad faith.

• In March, he engaged me in a long discussion about how to present the Constitution of the United States. After I argued that we should avoid the phrase the people without qualification, he said that I was bent on the effort of casting aspersions on the U.S. (I am not.) After I said that the United States was not the first democracy in America, he repeated that I was bent on slighting American history. I asked him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks.
• On 22 March, in Headbomb's AN/I thread, Gwillhickers referenced what he called my obvious SJW behavior. I asked him to stop calling me names. His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack.
• In the same conversation, he described my apparent attempt to obscure the discussion and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. and my hope that we will forever be going over these things (Neither of these characterizations are accurate.) I reminded him to assume good faith, but he responded that good faith went out the window sometime ago.
• On 27 March, in an unrelated discussion at Talk:James Madison, he tried to canvass more editors into the AN/I discussion about me, describing me as an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk. After I warned him to stop canvassing, he deleted the warning without responding.
• On 6 April, I argued that Allreet's proposed text was not neutral because it favored a nationalist point of view, which is inherently subjective. Gwillhickers responded that I was making an assumption, that a "nationalist" point of view is somehow erroneous or less than accurate. This strikes me as tendentious, suggesting that Wikipedia should take sides on controversial issues and prioritize the "accurate" point of view.
• On 25 April, Gwillhickers deleted one of Maxxhiato's comments. When I showed him the diff and referred him to WP:TPO, he denied it and accused me of acting in bad faith. When I suggested that he read H:DIFF for help reading diffs, he accused me of harassment. I eventually convinced him that he had deleted the comment.
• On 17 May, I suggested that we should not limit the scope of Constitution of the United States § Influences to Gwillhickers's European examples, citing a source about Indigenous democracies that served as an inspiration for U.S. government. He accused me of making content decisions on the basis of race. (I never make content decisions informed by racial discrimination.) I reminded him that Wikipedia considers an accusation of racial discrimination to be a personal attack. He replied that his characterization of me was an academic criticism rather than a personal attack. I tried to clarify my position, citing another source about Indigenous influence on the U.S. founding. He repeated his accusation that was making decisions based on race.

As you can see, I have repeatedly confronted Gwillhickers about his inappropriate conduct. I have been trying to follow the WP:RUCD policy, but it has been exhausting and ineffective, and our interactions continue to be unpleasant. I would appreciate any help, whether it is something more that I can do, a second voice that Gwillhickers might listen to, or a good reason for me to simply suck it up.  — Freoh 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see repeated longstanding disruptive behaviour, but I looking at the actual diffs and not the cherry picked quotes, I don't see that behaviour from Gwillhickers. Being criticized is not the same thing as being subject to uncivility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• "His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack." It certainly does not sound as a compliment. He/she is trying to discredit all of your suggestions and to portray you as an extremist of some kind.Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why in the world have you formatted the diff links in this way? It makes them nearly impossible to follow. jp×g 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't yet looked is to the rights and wrongs of this post, but I see nothing wrong with the way diffs are presented, which looks clearer than in most reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, totally trivial issue, but I disagree, as now the reflist section is below the extended "Comments from Gwillhickers" section and one has to scroll down to find the actual link. Freoh seems to be averse to including an https link[110] but also to be avoiding excessive piped links to e.g. to the special:diff for the same diff... Freoh has been taken to task for their linking habits so perhaps they are just trying to find the best solution. There are basically six possibilities:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1144040967
  2. [111]
  3. diff
  4. Special:Diff/1144040967
  5. diff

  Personally I think #2 is the most appropriate for what is being done here, but I don't want to try to dictate to anyone what formatting styles they use. Freoh is being knocked around enough in all this (rightfully so or not) and I feel they are probably acting completely in good faith in attempting to meet the community's concerns. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll simply state that anyone calling another editor "SJW" or "social justice warrior" is absolutely violating WP:NPA. The term is only used to belittle others and dismiss them as insincere or ignorant.

I won't delve into the rest of this report, but that alone is not cool. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc, To demonstrate this, examples include accusations made to ErnestKrause on his talk page See: User talk:ErnestKrause#No personal attacks'.  Here Freoh also accused numerous editors of bias, including ErnestKrause, Cmguy777, BusterD, Hawkeye7, Indy beetle, Ceranthor, Epicgenius, SNUGGUMS, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor and myself. See: User talk:ErnestKrause#Canvassing This is not at all good faith.

• As one can hopefully see, the above claims made now by Freoh are tainted with a lot of opinion. While the discussions in question are not of a friendly nature they do not involve outright incivility or "personal attacks", or anything that amounts to disruptive behavior, for which I have been repeatedly accused. The latest issue began on the U.S. Constitution Talk page where Freoh said

If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.

To which I replied — "Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters".

• For this Freoh came to my Talk page and accused me by saying "I do not appreciate your accusations of racial discrimination", and for "systemic bias" on the Constitution Talk page. No one ever said that we must only include European, or white, influences only, and in several instances I invited Freoh to provide content on any "non-white" influences if such content was covered in reliable sources.

• Freoh has engaged in similar matters on the Constitution Talk page, once accusing Allreet of presenting a "nationalist point of view", in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources were cited, historians Freoh also accused of having a "nationalist perspective".. Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. Instead he engages in endless talk for which he has been taken to task for here at ANI, by numerous editors in the recent past.   In an RfC which began on Feb. 2, lasting approximately six weeks, he made numerous and ever-changing proposals and again filled the discussion with endless talk involving spurious POV's for which he received no consensus by the time S Marshall closed that RfC. Now it seems he is about to make the same attempt here with lengthy talk, as his claims above are highly exaggerated or simply distort what has actually happened.

• If there is anything that can be considered truly uncivil or a personal attack, I apologize for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. It then expanded in scope to several different conduct issues, including the ones that Gwillhickers has described in their disputes with Freoh. I have not seen any evidence that Freoh has learned from that discussion, and if anything it appears that the behavior for which Freoh received a logged warning has increased. The worst offense committed by Gwillhickers here is that they have been far too patient with an editor that has wasted an inordinate amount of other contributors' time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I was the uninvolved closer of the well-attended "Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh" ANI commenced by User:Headbomb mentioned in the OP's opening comment. As I mentioned in part one of my closing statement there, User:Freoh did not then deny being a clean start account. WP:Clean starts usually are provided either for victims of egregious harassment or truly repentant contributors, behavioral offenders who have been blocked or banned for cause, and promised a trusted somebody their poor behavior would change. I'll quote the fourth sentences from both the opening paragraphs of that policy page: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny."
  Normally I'd wish to see a truly odious ANI reporter trouted. In this case, the BOOMERANG may be more appropriate. For my part, I'll concede it's possible I misread that ANI discussion and closed it incorrectly (as merely strongly warning a frequent WP:Civil POV pusher). Based on behavior raised in that ANI and the OP's behavior since the resulting warning, it seems likely the clean start agreement (if any) has been violated many times. In my opinion, this contributor (whatever their current username) has abundantly demonstrated themselves a net negative to the project and should be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for regularly violating the civility policy and the terms of their clean start. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not violate the WP:CLEANSTART policy. I created this account because my previous account exposed some personally identifiable information. WP:SOCKLEGIT indicates that this is a legitimate reason to create a second account. If it would please you, I can privately share my previous account with a checkuser, who can confirm that I did not return to previous discussions. It seems strange to me to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without filing a sockpuppet investigation or even identifying the suspected account in violation. Could you explain (with a diff and a WP:CIVIL quotation) how I violated civility policy?  — Freoh 00:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having a legitimate reason for creating a second account (no matter that reason) doesn't excuse the contributor from violating the parts of CLEANSTART I quoted directly. I contend the behavior of this new account has told me all I need to know to make an informed decision about the contributor. As to diffs (even ignoring everything linked in the ANI thread) let's just observe two threads on your current talk, shall we? First, we have a thread in which admin Doug Weller tells you he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. Then we have a thread in which I try to explain that accusing an editor of not getting the point (by misleading piped link in your edit summary) is a personal attack. I'm finished answering questions from this editor. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BusterD, [add: about clean start issues -- not a sock, however, imo] but I believe the major issue was that Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. Shortly thereafter he went to ErnestKrause's Talk page and accused numerous editors of bias. The other day he has accused me of "systemic bias". My last comment to Freoh was on the US Constitution Talk page where for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. He ignored that and instead came here and filed this ANI, and now he is accusing multiple editors here for spreading "falsehoods", and intends to come back in 48 hours and address all the statements with the apparent attempt of further compounding everything in the discussions, individually. Along with the ANI of last March, and his behavior on ErnestKrause's Talk page, one only has to look Freoh's Talk page to realize that this pattern of behavior is wide in its range and is persistent. Freoh at virtually any one time is always engaged with editors over the sort of behavior outlined here, and we're supposed to assume in "good faith" that all these editors are somehow wrong .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal - User:Freoh is banned from Wikipedia for violating WP:Civility and WP:Clean start

• Support as proposer BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. They are therefore a net negative to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. By allowing the possibility of a clean start, the community extends AGF to the maximum, trusting that the editor will no longer cause the previous disruption, and the encyclopedia will retain a valued contributor in return. Violating a clean start is therefore a very serious offense against the entire en.wiki community, worse than mere vandalism or disruption: it is a gut punch that rewards a magnanimous gesture with total disdain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a cban for civility and clean start violations, but also more generally for disruptive editing. I think the close of the previous ANI discussion was reasonable at the time, as it gave Freoh an opportunity to reconsider his approach and become a more constructive editor. Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. He has engaged in the same behavior that resulted in a formal warning, in some cases continuing the same disputes for which he was warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F58A:A000:66B7:FFE6 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support; I remember watching the previous ANI discussion unfold. This pattern has to stop. I'm unsure on the clean start question; we don't know the circumstances of the previous identity. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the clean start, Freoh is simply too combative. From their own presentation of diffs, it seems clear that they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors and then follow-up with condescending warnings. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT. I still maintain that this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. Tamzin, perhaps you remember this discussion from last time? He should have been flushed the first time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do continue to think that it's quite a lot of similarities to Mrbeastmodeallday/Awolf58, but of course if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Either way, I'll push back on the argument below about "unproven allegations of sockpuppetry": regardless of whether Freoh has ever been blocked before, "misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I endorse Tamzin's views. I'm making a case that Freoh has violated the spirit and the wording of WP:Clean start policy by failing to follow community norms and by demonstrating through their frequent poor behavior in this new account that even a fresh start has not enabled Freoh to learn to act in a way acceptable to the community. I hate to lose an active contributor to Wikipedia over behavioral issues, but Freoh continues to have their wrongdoings pointed out and then they keep acting in this civil POV pushing way, despite the warning at ANI just weeks ago. BusterD (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: It surprises me to see so many people casting aspersions about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48 h.  — Freoh 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC); fixed 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Freoh has once again chosen to use a misleading piped link ([[WP:CA|casting aspersions]]) in the body of his comment, demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit. For the record, the link WP:Casting aspersions recommends using an appropriate forum (like this ANI thread commenced by Freoh) in which to discuss bad user behavior, and the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. BusterD (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit" The misuse of a link is no justification to descend to the level that you believe he is on. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yet Freoh is quite an artful link piper, and is frequently decried because of their misuse of misleading piped links, which seems confusing to some and deliberate to others. I came to this subject as the uninvolved closer of the ANI thread linked by Freoh in the OP; I spent an extensive time reading over the evidence presented, then several days just looking through Freoh's contribution history. I didn't do this reading for my personal pleasure, but to better understand the context of that previous gaslighting thread. I had no dog in that hunt. I came to it with no expectation, as neutral as I could. Here we are ten weeks after my closure and warning to Freoh; Freoh is now on ANI gaslighting us in this thread about Gwillhickers's not taking his gaslighting very well. I'm disappointed. That's my opinion, but it's based on my reading of Freoh's behaviors since the warning, which I have followed closely. In his reckless use of a bad piped link, Freoh makes my case for me. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to me that if he fires a volley of these links, then someone steps up to feed him the ammunition. Stating that there is a possible "lack of competence" is a bold way of demonstrating that his reasoning is not unfounded. Others have made similar remarks. He says there is uncivility and disparaging remarks, and so we treat such concern by being uncivil? Maybe he is saying such things because people are making negative comments about him. This is not to preach about his innocence, but I am awestruck as to how some can cast such heavy stones while bearing such egregious sins. Please, retract the comment. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is not the display of gross incivility that you seem to think it is to question the competence of an editor who continually finds their behavior scrutinized at these noticeboards. Indeed, questions of competence are regularly raised in the course of these discussions. Such questions are undoubtedly unpleasant for the editor being scrutinized, but that does not make them uncivil. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation, whereas you have not. I would encourage you to tone down your stern rebukes. Your intentions here are clearly good, but you've let your words run ahead of your knowledge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Allow me to list the number of reasons where such a comment is appropriate: Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  A quick overview will show that the list is empty. This is because by the policy of civility: "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other."

  Furthermore, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond the same way."

  This doesn't say "One is allowed to question the competence of the editor has a history of being scrutinized." If you @Lepricavark can show me a policy that suggests otherwise, then I will bite my tongue I guess.

  Either way, I don't want to be the person who points out the specks in everyone's eyes or fight other's battles, but I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the that there is merit to Freoh's claims that people are making negative comments about him. This happened on a proposal for banning him for violating WP:CIVIL that came from the person who started the proposal no less. His claims are not baseless. Your seeming agreement that such a comment is acceptable is demonstrative and serves to only prove Freoh's claim that people are indeed casting aspersions.

  Typically, in such a case, this would not be demonstrative of innocence. That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent. However, in this case, it sort of does, since, if people are calling into question his use of the terms and invocation of good faith/civility policies, and then are demonstratively making comments that violate such policies, then it can be shown that his assumptions are not unwarranted, disruptive, or assume a lack of good faith. In other words, he is saying that people are being discourteous, and others are willing to prove it for him.

  There's still a lot that goes into this. For instance, on the ErnestKrause "No Personal Attacks" section, Freoh accused them of making a personal attack. The comment in question from Ernest:

  A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself into a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions."[112]

  This isn't a random assumption of someone making personal attacks. Maybe it's reasonable to want to not be called an SJW, which is a negative remark. I find it important to mention that this comment also came on a thread about Freoh's behavior.

  Such comments are indeed undoubtedly uncivil, and it is not such an outlandish or alien expectation to see them not be made, and least of all on a page about the subject's civility being called into question. As I have said before, if anyone believes Freoh -- or anyone, for that matter -- is uncivil, then why venture to deign and fall to the level they believe he is on? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that calling editors SJWs is not helpful and can reasonably be seen as uncivil. Retinalsummer (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose the question lies in whether one considers questions about competence to inherently qualify as attacks. I would contend that they are not inherently attacks, and I am not concerned with persuading you. The snide comment was unhelpful; if you're going to join the ranks of the civility police, you'll have to start holding yourself to a higher standard than that. I do agree that the SJW comment was uncalled-for, but that doesn't really change the clear and obvious problems with Freoh's behavior. They have a battleground mentality, as has been clearly demonstrated yet again below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless --JBL (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then would you defend asking someone whether they're inadequate, inept, unqualified, and useless? – .Raven  .talk 22:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Probably not, but can you point me to a diff in which those words were used? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) If you click that link, you'll see they're synonyms of incompetent. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) According to a dictionary that has no knowledge of the nuanced meanings terms can come to have within distinct communities such as Wikipedia. I do not think it is appropriate to replace another user's words with synonyms and then to imply that the synonyms are what the user meant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I do not think it is appropriate – I can't believe you just called Raven tasteless irrelevant garbage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC) AN/I thread to follow. [not really] – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) That was a thesaurus, whose other synonyms include incapable; amateur; bungling; unfit. Only amateur there might not be a put-down, and only if used as "not taking pay". The associated dictionary entry for incompetent contains even worse: "4... a mentally deficient person." – .Raven  .talk 22:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Still not interested in synonyms, and I'm even less interested in using a dictionary to tell me what words mean in the specific context of Wikipedia. Discussions of editor competence are a staple of these noticeboards. If you have a problem with the terminology, you're going to be correcting a lot of people. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies if it came across as snide. I meant it to be more humorous than anything else. At any rate, the SJW comment was indeed uncalled for, and since it was pointed out, there is indeed merit to his concerns. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'd be a better mood for humor if it weren't for your insistence on Zapruder-level analysis of critical comments directed towards Freoh while at the same time you wave a dismissive hand at the extensive evidence of that user's own problematic conduct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have I been dismissive?

  "This is not to preach about his innocence"

  "That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Brief acknowledgment is not the same thing as meaningful engagement. The bulk of your focus has been on the SJW comment and BusterD's use of the word 'incompetent'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is a slight misunderstanding. For instance, you see the use of "incompetence" in this context as being not outside the realms of civility. In this same sense, I don't see problematic conduct from Freoh. I see him responding to the conduct of comments and behavior. If you want something that isn't about competence and SJWs, then I did say this in my original post:

  From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August."

  This isn't any sort of deep analysis, either. This is just clicking on the links provided. I only brought up the comment on competence because, well, it kind of proves the point. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 00:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, it didn't prove any point because the comment on competence was not uncivil. Your obfuscation will help Freoh to get off here with a very light sanction if any, but I'll be shocked if they aren't back at ANI sooner than later. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  My obfuscation? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] I should add I deliberately chose to mention WP:Clean start at the beginning of my closure of the gaslighting ANI thread. There's absolutely nothing wrong with fresh starts and the reason for any editor's fresh start is not even our business. As wikipedians we extend fresh start editors, even formerly blocked and banned editors, the same good faith we extend first day contributors. I did not paint Freoh in my closure as a new account in order to tarnish that account, but to put him on notice that his future misbehaviors would be viewed through the fresh start policy lens. My expectation is (again, quoting CLEANSTART): "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny." That's the policy. Freoh was notified and warned. Now he's accountable for his actions in that light. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - From my observations, Freoh is not disruptive. He displays a creditable degree of curiosity and eagerness to examine potential biases. Although some might perceive these as real, and others imagined, I see Freoh approaching it with brazen determination, and I would never say he wields force or disruptive tactics. While there is a degree of stubbornness, I do not believe he has ever sought to scourge or lame pages and discussions after a consensus has gone against him. I cannot view every alleged attack Freoh has supposedly made. Even in the material linked that is supposedly against him, I don't see anything stand out as being particularly "disruptive". From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August." This one example suggests, to me, that his accusation was not bad faith and appears to be founded in some logic or evidence. Again, I cannot view every instance of this, and I am not exactly a judge on this or anything. I cannot in good conscience puff and trumpet to others that Freoh's comments and approach are from malice or ill will, and such a declaration on my part would, I feel, be an unwarranted condemnation. In the other example provided (no personal attacks regarding ErnestKrause), Freoh had left the comment because he was called an SJW and had SJW opinions. Let any charge that Freoh is against the spirit or goodness of the project be carried out with the same verve to the peers who make comments such as these. — Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maxx, and... I might easily not have !voted at all, but to see "Support"s based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry and misusing a Clean Start is upsetting in itself. The subject offered to privately provide their prior ID to a CheckUser; surely the conditions of the prior account's closure could also have been confirmed at that time. But none of these "Support" !voters are asking for that confirmation. What to think when people neglect an offer of proof? – .Raven  .talk 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs to be educated on civil behaviour, not beaten to the ground with a ban. If they're a sock, take them to the board; if there's a clean start violation, let them know that's a problem. We can consider interaction or topic bans though, if that helps. Lourdes 06:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Having first-hand experience with Freoh's behavior, including unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring, I support the proposal per above. Pizzigs (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment My instinct is that I don't wish to see Freoh banned because I think they bring some balance to the POV presented on these articles, and at the least raise some good topics for discussion, but I am quite dismayed that Freoh has not taken the opportunity of the last ANI to tone things down, drop the stick, and avoid generating so much friction and conflict. When a formal warning is issued, the thing to do is avoid the conflicts that lead to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose if the CLEANSTART was to avoid sharing the user's personally identifiable information, it is obviously and clearly irrelevant here. Accusing a CLEANSTART account of sockpuppeteering purely because they are a CLEANSTART account and without any knowledge of the underlying case smells of prejudice to me. No opinion on the rest of the case. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I have not accused Freoh of sockpuppetry. Freoh used the terminology himself, not me. I have pointed out that Freoh is a clean start account and he is not following those rules. Wikipedia has given Freoh an enormous grant of good faith by offering them this restart. Freoh is not keeping their end of the bargain. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: Above you "endorse[d] Tamzin's views" which DID accuse Freoh of WP:SOCK. If you do not join in that, perhaps you might amend your comment to say so? – .Raven  .talk 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have misread Tamzin, an editor whose reputation for boldness, agency and good judgement is well-founded. She says: '"misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets.' I subscribe wholeheartedly to those views. But as to accusation she writes: if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Tamzin wouldn't merely accuse. If they have sufficient evidence they might just block. So you've clearly misread Tamzin's actual words. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I suppose it's a bit of semantics. I don't think there's enough evidence of "outright sockpuppetry" to justify a block, but I do think there's very straightforward evidence of a violation of a different part of the sockpuppetry policy, namely misuse of a clean start. Violating that provision is still sockpuppetry, just not the sort that first comes to mind when one hears that phrase. It's no different from when we say an editor may not have engaged in outright socking but then still block them for meatpuppetry (a kind of sockpuppetry). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If the previous account was closed due to a release of PI – as stated, with an offer to verify prior ID (which could also verify the conditions of closure) – then "misuse of clean start" isn't an issue, because it wasn't due to misbehavior... and isn't any kind of "puppetry". So it's really odd that we keep having this brought up, without anyone taking up Freoh's offer. – .Raven  .talk 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support for lack of civility, disruptive editing and generally NOTHERE. This user's combative relationship with other editors is made plain on their talk page, which features an autobiography mostly made up of spats with others that this user is clearly proud of. There has been no change since the ANI and zero sign that they are willing to change. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I can understand and appreciate many users' concerns about a WP:CLEANSTART violation but I believe .Raven brought up an important point about such discussion. Freoh states that their clean start was due to Personally Identifiable Information cropping up adjacent their original account. Without a checkuser to confirm or reject this claim, or even someone claiming they recognize this user from their behavior, We have no reason to not believe them per AGF. I think most Support !votes so far are not completely predicated on the clean start violation, but it has regardless affected this proposal. Personally, I would suggest an understanding that a clean start for PII concerns is functionally a different mechanic than a clean start to distance oneself from past behavior. The latter is meant to distance one's present editing from their previous work/reputation on WP, while the former is distancing one's present editing from their real life identity, something which should never matter on WP, COI aside. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, there just seems too much confusion about the good faith clean start, which may or may not actually be a formal clean start but a volunteer action. Maybe an admin can work with Freoh to clear that up (especially since it's given as half the reason for this indef nom). Aside from that, Freoh seems to walk the line with civility issues but, although I don't follow their edits, might be improving over time and as long as the improvement is in the right direction then that's a personal judgement (remember, indef is serious, so the reasons to apply it seem like they should also be very serious without a chance of a light at the end of the tunnel). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : It seems we're getting a bit side tracked here. One editor introduced the idea of a sock, and I don't think that's the case with Freoh, even though there may be other Fresh-Start issues - I can't say off hand. I was the victim of sock vandalism in several cases (as Tamzin can attest to), and hiding behind a sock doesn't seem to be Freoh's style. The real issue, imo, is the prolonged gaslighting, refusal to drop the stick, and compound accusations to multiple editors time and again, esp after being warned at the ANI of last March. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers. My comment was not about a sock but about Freoh's offer to prove his change of name was legit, which, please notice, is half the accusation against him. Comments below indicate that nobody has yet to take him up on this reasonable offer. Maybe in the light of that you can cut your suggested ban to 16 days, because half of the question may be inaccurate and lots of editors have based their support comments partly on that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the sock part of it. Only a couple of editors put that on the table. As I've indicated I'm not suspecting anything to do with sock issues, and from what's been posted here, neither are most folks, including BusterD.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think Freoh has done any specific thing that warrants the "capital punishment" of expulsion. While their behavior in prolonging arguments tends to create a toxic environment for other editors, a shorter ban, 48-72 hours, for example, seems more appropriate. It would also serve as a warning to Freoh to "put down the stick", as Gwillhickers expressed it, rather than going on interminably in content disputes. Should they fail to heed the warning and we find ourselves back here in a few months, then the case will be "open and shut", that is, much easier for other editors to decide. My advice to all, including both Freoh and Gwillhickers, is to try to think about "the other guy" once in a while and with that, do whatever you can to make Wikipedia a better place to be. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, given the ANI warning of march, that a temporary block would be more in order. An Indef is usually meted out for sock issues, serious threats, repeated vandalism and such, which is why I abstained from casting a Support vote, though admittedly, yesterday I came close to doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to support a second formal warning, maybe just a simple one like "Freoh is admonished again to tone it down, dial it back, and when appropriate, to drop the stick." —DIYeditor (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh already got the formal warning. Failure to sanction obvious violations merely communicates that the warnings are toothless. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I admit I have been avoiding looking into details of this dispute since the warning because it simply became annoying to me, which is why I left my !vote above at a "comment". Now I feel obligated to look more closely at it. I can see what you mean about ignorance of a formal warning being the last straw before a block. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Enough is enough, The fact they edit talkpages more than contributing to the project tells me all I need to know about this user. Nothing of value will be lost by blocking them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  People whose edits are disputed, but do NOT discuss them on talkpages, are called edit-warriors, a deprecated behavior. Instead Freoh engages in article-talkpage discussions slightly more often than editing articles (39% vs 36%), and this is blockable behavior? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 02:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has asserted that Freoh is an edit warrior, only that this individual has repeatedly been the subject of gaslighting and IDHT behavior, here at ANI and elsewhere, compounded by incessant accusations to many editors on all sorts of Talk pages. As Davey2010 points out, the amount of edits on Talk pages compared to constructive contributions to articles is glaring, and is no coincidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm seeing "incessant accusations" right here, unproven accusations, by other people, of misuse of a clean start, and sockpuppetry – despite Freoh's offer to have his prior ID confirmed (and with that the opportunity to confirm the conditions of its closing), an offer which nobody is even trying to take up. If this sort of treatment had been directed at me, I'd be complaining about it too, and I expect the stress would cut down on my editing time. Does no-one take responsibility for their effects on others any more? – .Raven  .talk 03:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that this subthread, which was opened less than 30 hours ago, has probably caused Freoh some measure of stress. But I don't really see how that explains this editor's editing patterns over the preceding 10 months. Mind you, I don't agree that a high rate of talk page participation is inherently problematic, but in this case the evidence has shown a pattern of battleground editing. If you can get an admin to confirm Freoh's claims regarding their previous account, that's well and good, but it won't negate the behavioral issues which IMO are sufficient cause for the community to part ways with this individual. By the way, with regard to that parting shot in your closing sentence, I'm not seeing any indication that Freoh has taken responsibility for the effects of their battleground behavior. You appear to be applying a harmful double standard by minimizing Freoh's own ABF approach to editing while rebuking those editors who are justifiably skeptical about the validity of this cleanstart. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't wrap my head around the fact that several editors are ignoring (if not outright denying) a documented history of disruption because they got caught up on some wording about how clean start editors are expected to hold themselves to a high standard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"unproven accusations"?? – that everyone is just spinning matters out of thin air? The issue, as I've clearly indicated above, is not about sock issues, at least with almost all of us, but prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations. The record(s) speaks for itself. Suggest you look into matters more thoroughly. Thanx . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations." – What I see at Talk:Constitution..., for instance, is a sad show of two sides talking past each other. Freoh looks at the influence of the wealthy and powerful on and in state legislatures, which chose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and how the Senate (with 3x longer terms than the House, and originally chosen by, thus answerable to, state legislatures, not direct popular elections) represented and embodied privilege; and he pertinently wonders which "We the People" did this structure chiefly serve... especially given who was excluded from the newly guaranteed rights and liberties. He's met with insistence that the idealistic language of the document answers him, and that he must be anti-American for doubting it. Gaslighting, WP:IDHT, and accusations, indeed. The ad-hominem fallacy, I should add. – .Raven  .talk 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Raven, Why are you posting on what seems to be every ANI/AN thread here? I had to close this thread yesterday because you were bludgeoning it to death and you're now here doing the exact same thing. There is more to Wikipedia than AN/ANI in case you didn't know. Go do something productive and worthwhile with your time. –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is always an orchard to judge except one's own. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What??? EEng 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support a temporary block of at least 30 days, over endless gaslighting mostly. Another warning, on top of the last ANI warning, would be sort of senseless and sends the wrong message to other editors. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support block of 72 hours - 30 days such as the closer may find consensus for, but I do not yet find reason for a community ban. If this comes up again, at that time I would say third strike and you're out. What swayed me from merely "comment" to supporting a block was a quick investigation into the allegations about race. Gwillhickers, while I don't completely agree with his position, clearly did not make any uncivil accusations about racism, but instead merely observed what I also observe, that Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories, in a case of the desired conclusion seeming to drive the selection of evidence and citations, rather than the reverse. I think Freoh actually has some good points (which makes it more difficult to support a block), but to just blankly deny that they are making some assertions based on race is disingenuous, and to try to spin that 180 degrees into faulting Gwillhickers is problematic. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose. See § Response from Freoh.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block (E.C.). First, I do want to make clear that I think this original posting probably should never have been posted here. I think the edits Freoh has presented to show a degree of incivility, but nothing near egregious enough to warrant action here. Sometimes talk pages get contentious and editors get frustrated. I also think some of the discussions mentioned have involved weirdly forumy tangents, but that's also to be expected. Relatedly, I also think Freoh has been a bit uncivil and also has shown a hypersensitivity (and propensity to come back with strong reactions) that seems to exacerbate that issue, but snappiness should be sympathetically seen in the context of the discussion. As both the diffs provided and as Maxxhiato pointed out above, there is relevant context here.
  Second, I'm somewhat alarmed at how quickly people have embraced the indef ban here. I consider myself a decently article-focused editor, but my main space edits also constitute a up a minority of my contributions (partially because I've worked on a few RFCs and a particularly contentious article where discussion is usually required for changes). I also think the WP:CLEANSTART accusations are a bit weak. There's no real evidence that Freoh created a new account to "evade scrutiny". Frankly, the precise nature of the CLEANSTART accusations are a bit difficult to understand: Is it really being contended that the "expectat[ion]" line imposes the threat of an indef block for any violation of community guidelines? I don't actually think that follows from the policy, and, moreover, I think it'd be bad policy: in a discussion full of uncivil remarks, one editor, who created a new account for legitimate reasons, can face an indef ban for their particular uncivil comments?
  I can understand how Freoh's discussion pattern might be frustrating to some editors—one user expressed frustration that Freoh had made several proposals that ended in no consensus [113]. But while divisive proposals might be bigger time drains than proposals in which every editor disagrees with the proposer, but I think the fact that other editors agree with the proposer actually suggests that further conversation should be had. From what I've seen, Freoh is a good-faith editor whose input should be valued even if it's rarely followed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, minimum 30 day block. The last ANI thread provided Freoh with a chance to modify his behavior, and he apparently did not take it. Enough is enough. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I lack the time and inclination to wade through the laundry list of complaints, but I have become involuntarily familiar with Freoh's behavior thanks to their frequent-flyer status at the admin noticeboards and other prominent discussion boards. This is not a good thing; there aren't many editors with 1700 edits whose names I recognize despite not sharing areas of editing. I suggest that regardless of the outcome of this thread, they take the criticism here seriously, engage in self-reflection, and attempt to moderate their behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a block of some kind -- the only interactions I've had with Freoh were tedious and seemed to result in constant failures to get the point; it almost felt like I was arguing with someone who was sealioning. In lieu of a total block, perhaps an indefinite topic ban on anything related to America could suffice for now. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't use the word explicitly, but sealioning is exactly what came to mind for me observing Freoh's conduct. I think a topic ban on the U.S. would be a reasonable second choice after an indef, as it covers most (though not all) of Freoh's tendentious activity. And I emphasize that it would need to be U.S. broadly rather than AMPOL, because a lot of this is relation to earlier U.S. history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am conflicted about a TBAN. The problem I have with it is that Freoh, even if problematic behaviorally in specific areas, is also bringing a perspective that may be underrepresented on Wikipedia. I would like to see Freoh (him?) and any other editor branch out from certain "preferred" topic areas that to my mind may be excessively focused on, but I think we should address Freoh's concerns about systemic bias. Then again, the discussions do seem to be lingering for quite a while. I have not kept up with them because I found the entire thing tedious to be honest. All that said, BusterD pointed out that a TBAN was the sanction I had originally suggested myself if the warning was not heeded. I think it would be unfortunate if that had to happen. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  {{pronoun|Freoh|sub[/obj/pos]}}: he / him / his. – .Raven  .talk 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I haven't read the diffs in detail, the WP:CLEANSTART accusation is so obviously bogus it makes me very suspicious of the other ones. And any indef would be based on the CLEANSTART accusations, as I don't think anyone alleges that Freoh has crossed a bright line regarding incivility. Loki (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Had you "read the diffs in detail", you'd know that Freoh had previously declared the account as a clean start, and that his editing since then has violated the "Editing after a clean start" section of WP:CLEANSTART. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having read and re-read that section multiple times, I must note: the warning "If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s)" does not threaten punitive charges for ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛed accounts' misbehavior over and above what other users face for the same misbehavior – it purely warns that continuation of the old account's behavior may expose the connection, negating the point of the ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛ. Likewise the section warns: "... returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. For this reason, it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." 'Returning to a favorite topic' is of course not an actual offense ("violation") in itself. – .Raven  .talk 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly what Raven said. The idea that Freoh has committed any sort of violation of WP:CLEANSTART is a blatant misreading of WP:CLEANSTART. Loki (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have to say, scanning through this thread, this proposal doesn't seem to follow from what's above. Presumably other people have more experience with Freoh than I do, but what drew my attention was the WP:CLEANSTART stuff. If someone abandons an old account because it revealed personal information and accidentally calls that move a "clean start", that doesn't actually make it a WP:CLEANSTART. The entire premise of WP:CLEANSTART is that there's some behavior, arguments, etc. that you don't want to be associated with anymore. In those cases, yes, it's not appropriate to do so if you're just going to resume the same activity. This isn't a clean start, though -- it's just a rename without the privacy-inhibiting paper trail. I don't think we should be penalizing people for this sort of rename, even if they step into a gotcha by calling it a clean start. I've looked at the opening complaint and a few of the diffs and would probably just suggest no action on this whole thing (on the stuff at the top, calling someone a "SJW" is obnoxious and says more about the person using the term than the target, but doesn't rise to the level of action, and that's about the worst diff in the bunch -- not seeing nearly sufficient evidence of a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything in the above that merits such a severe measure. I don't have knowledge from history but just read the constitution talk page and don't see anything severe. I even saw somethng backwards in the above arguments. Whenever there is contention it is supposed to get handled in talk, yet they are getting derided for doing just that (proportion of talk to editing in the article.) The OP complaint did seem a bit ginned up and I'm firmly aginst all-too-common weaponizing of our systems. And they do seem a bit too combative overall. Some evolution/course correction to be less combative is probably needed. But I see nothing that merits such a severe measure. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for violations of WP:CLEANSTART, and I don't exactly know what to call the behaviour issue, but a mix of WP:WALRUS/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:NOTHERE is at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : — The above proposal by BusterD should have been more inclusive, as there seems to be too much focus on Clean Start which tends to ignore the idea of prolonged gaslighting on multiple Talk pages, where many editors have been routinely accused of several types of bias, bad faith, making personal attacks, etc, (examles with links posted above) and in the process repeated arguments and WP:IDHT were commoin place, which has become an issue, with or without the Clean Start issue. Now he is more than suggesting that other editors are simply bullying him, further compounding matters. While an Indef ban is excessive, another formal warning would otoh be dismissing the accounts made by many editors over a good number of months, where this sort of behavior has already been brought to Freoh's attention in an ANI of March -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should have focused on the disruptive editing rather than the clean start issues. But I don't know if it would have made a difference. The previous ANI thread was linked to several times, and Freoh's talk page and contributions are not difficult to access. For whatever reason, there are a handful of users that are totally fine with Freoh's fringe POV being forced through months-long arguments, as well as the frivolous warnings and gaslighting that occur any time someone disagrees with him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, I don't see how Freoh violated the clean start policy or made personal attacks, and the proposed sanction is overly severe for what they have done wrong. Hatman31 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: the allegations for violation of a clean start are obviously unfounded. And Freoh is no less civil than other editors, as demonstrated by statements made against Freoh in this discussion (per observations by .Raven). Larataguera (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Response from Freoh

First, some apologies:

• BusterD, you are correct that I misremembered the shortcut for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. My daughter started crying just as I finished the post, which distracted me. In my rush, I did not double-check the link. I also forgot to sign that post until a few minutes later, after my daughter had partially calmed down. I apologize for misleading you.
• Gwillhickers, I am sorry that my most recent user page warning was more accusatory than it should have been. In retrospect, I realize that I was not clear about what frustrated me, so I will try to explain (more politely) here. The way that I see it, there are two different kinds of bias on Wikipedia: intentional (bad-faith) editor bias in opposition to Wikipedia's second pillar, and unintentional (good faith) editor bias that is to some extent unavoidable. By suggesting that you expand the Influences section to include non-white examples, I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others on the basis that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. When you suggested that I wanted to include other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white", I interpreted that as an accusation of intentional race-based bias on my part. I see now that there are multiple ways to interpret these comments, and I should have aired my grievances more politely.

A few points on my editing philosophy:

• There is a difference between being combative and confrontational. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages the latter. I agree that I am more confrontational than most editors, and I am not afraid to confront others when I feel that their behavior is out of line. Ultimately, I am not doing this to pester others, but to encourage others to strengthen Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
• There is a difference between disruption and disagreement. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages discussion when the latter arises. I have focused my efforts on areas which I believe could better adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policies, pages where I disagree with the existing content. As far as I know, this is not forbidden, and this focus falls within the scope of the WP:CSB WikiProject. I am not trying to be a pain, but I do end up in more content disputes as a result of my focus. I suspect that ownership tendencies play a role in the way that other editors defend their content (but I do not accuse anyone of egregious ownership behavior).
• Every editor is biased, and everyone is welcome to share their opinions about content, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. As I explained on ErnestKrause's talk page, I did not mean to accuse all of those editors of bias; rather, I intended to point out that ErnestKrause's selection of notified editors was significantly skewed toward those who had previously expressed favorable opinions. This seems like a clear-cut case of votestacking, and I still do not understand why people are more upset with my warning than the canvassing itself.
• I agree with GabberFlasted that a user who had a clean start because of personally identifiable information should not be penalized for it.
• "Wasting time" is far too subjective to be a blockable offense on its own.

I feel that my behavior has changed since the previous AN/I thread.

• I have not edit-warred at all.
• Looking at the XTools breakdown, it should be clear that I am not the only one prolonging the discussion at Talk:Constitution of the United States.
• I reached out to BusterD for help, hoping that I could better understand the line between an "uphill battle" and a discussion that is officially dead. Ironically, I had to drop the stick in that discussion, as BusterD seemed to lose interest in actually explaining this distinction, pointing instead to my lack of support among AN/I participants as his evidence of disruption. I would still appreciate someone clarifying the official policy surrounding this distinction.

Several people have cast aspersions against me in this discussion, and I worry that people responding to the survey may change their minds in light of the facts:

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc. These user warnings are not my resort. They are real concerns, and I send these warnings for incivility even when my civility is not in question.
• Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. False.
• Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. I am not aware of any warnings I have sent without good cause, except for the one mentioned earlier, which was unintentional and I retract.
• Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. I have never gaslit anyone, and I have not ignored any well-reasoned points.
• ... he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. I made no personal attacks on Headbomb.
• ... misleading piped link in your edit summary ... The edit summary had no piped link.
• ... for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. No, you did not. You asked me to present reliable sources after I had already presented two.
• Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. No, my main purpose is to help articles adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and tendentious editors end up wasting my time in this process.
• The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. I did not misuse a clean start.
• Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. I did, as explained earlier.
• ... they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors. If I did this, it was accidental, and if you feel that someone's meaning was distorted, then let me know so that I can fix it.
• ... this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. No, I am not.
• ... the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. No, I have always acted in good faith, and the only POV that I push is a neutral POV.
• ... it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation. No, they have not. As mentioned earlier, when I asked them about the specifics, it seemed they were basing their decision mainly on the comments of others.
• ... unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring ... All of the warnings I left at your page were accompanied by diffs that substantiated the claims.
• ... spats with others that this user is clearly proud of ... I am not proud of these spats. You are the first person who has taken offense to my user page, and I just deleted it.
• Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories. No, I was not. I was making content decisions based on reliable sources.

Some things that I will work on:

• I will spend more time editing articles and less time on talk pages.
• I will tone down any future user warnings so that they are friendlier, more specific, and more helpful.
• I will be more proactive in starting RfCs when it is clear that a discussion is not going anywhere.
• I am open to other questions that you would like me to answer.

TL;DR: I am not perfect, but I am improving, and far too many people here are casting aspersions against me.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It was the best of apologies, it was the worst of apologies. While I sincerely appreciate that you have apologised, the fact that you immediately followed those apologies with a laundry list of grievances and a frivolous attack on BusterB (that you only withdrew because no one supported it) suggests to me that you are not truly willing to change. The main issue for me is that you have a combative relationship with other editors, and your response does little to show that you are either willing or able to move beyond this kind of hostile interaction. I noted above that I think you have been subject to some mild incivility, which is of course wrong, but that does not excuse your behaviour. I suspect that the likely outcome will be a temporary ban, and I sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong and learn to participate in this project with the spirit of cooperation. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I opposed the ban as overkill. But a common complaint has been that you are generally too combative. IMHO for your own enjoyment in Wikipedia as well as what happens in venues like this it would good to genuinely acknowledge this and outline a genuine shift in this area. Second, I don't know the overall background but from a review of the constitution talk page, IMHO you were really seriously bludgeoning it and IMO acknowledging that specific issue for the same reasons and benefits and outlining a general change there would be a good thing. Finally, at the constitution page IMHO you put in an immense amount of effort to get in wording which IMHO was simply more negative sounding that really didn't add information. Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that but if this is representative, perhaps outlining a shift in efforts farther away from value-laden additions (which IMO will always be more contentious and less useful) would be good thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with North8000 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

North8000, I hope that friendlier user warnings will help others feel less attacked. I do admit that I was commenting a lot at Talk:Constitution of the United States [114], but I think that I have changed significantly on that issue since the last AN/I thread [115]. Most of my effort at that page was spent trying to remove (or at least qualify) Allreet's value-laden additions about the people, so I am not sure what you mean about your last point.  — Freoh 11:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a sidebar after my two main points and I also added the disclaimer "Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that" and I'm afraid that I might take this too far afield by getting into what would be a content discussion here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what article talk pages are for. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. . . Freoh, re this statement: I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others "on the basis" that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. This idea has already been well explained for you, here, here, and here. Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue. It's like you're complaining that an account about the formation of the Japanese government focuses on the Japanese. If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none, let alone any that would compare to Montesquieu, Locke and other such political philosophers. As such, your complaint suggests that you have more than a passing bias against whites. I'm sorry, but it seems you are only giving more credence to the concerns over the repetitious Gaslighting and WP:IDHT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none..." On October 4, 1988, during the 100th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 331 (H.Con.Res. 331) on to the Senate by a vote of 408–8. Then, on October 21, 1988, the Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 76 (S.Con.Res.76, identical to H.Con.Res. 331), by unanimous voice vote. The joint resolution reads, in part: Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including, most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself… RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (THE SENATE CONCURRING), That — (1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations to the formation and development of the United States;… You were saying? – .Raven  .talk 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue." Fun with synonyms! I know this game! But Merriam-Webster defines "skewed" as: 1) distorted from a true value or symmetrical form     problematic polling methods that resulted in skewed data 2) deviating from what is normal, direct, or accurate     The treatment will later attempt to correct the anorexic's skewed [=distorted] perceptions about her body. Both clearly allowing for inadvertent, unintended distortion. – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)e Thanks for your take on word usage, but you might want to refer to Webster. The issue is over the founding era, not 200 years later, and who was of major influence. No "game". Yes, Franklin and others were impressed by the Iroquois Confederacy, but as to what extent this factored into the drafting of the actual Constitution is a matter of opinion and is often contested by a number of historians and archeologists, since the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples. The notion of Iroquois influence assumes that the ideals of independence, separation of powers, already in place with a Parliament and the King 100s of years ago, unalienable rights and such were solely the idea of the Iroquois is unfounded, given the history, and is only supported by coincidental and circumstantial evidence at best, misinterpreted The philosophers mentioned were frequently referred to by Madison, Franklin and others before and during the Constitutional Convention -- no mention of the Iroquois Confederacy. I've no issue with mentioning the Iroquois, as I've already covered in the Constitution article, but compared to the philosophers mentioned, covered by numerous reliable sources, there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable and so covered by reliable sources. Just general accounts that assumes much. There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders. In any case, all this is getting off point. Freoh complained that the account "skewed" things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) To look into this further, start with Exemplars of Taking Liberties: The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidence, Philip Levy, 1996. JSTOR 2947206 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "... the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history..." – To say that Confederacy (also called the Haudenosaunee, or the Five Nations, then the Six Nations) – which still exists – is "largely in the form of oral [or any other kind of] history" is as meaningless as saying the USA is largely in the form of [any kind of] history. There are histories about them, but they themselves are not histories of any form. This appears to be a case of category error. > "... and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples" – You may be thinking of the Great Law of Peace, which did and does keep peace between the member Nations, but also set the structure of their shared government... not that of "the Indian peoples" in general. > "compared to the philosophers mentioned,... there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable" – I suppose then we must delete the articles about such Haudenosaunee individuals as the Great Peacemaker, Jigonhsasee, and Hiawatha; or (some 5½ centuries later) Canasatego, who in 1744 told colonists "We have one thing further to say, and that is We heartily recommend Union and a Good Agreement between you our Brethren. Never disagree, but preserve a strict Friendship for one another, and thereby you as well as we will become the Stronger. Our wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations; this has made us formidable, this has given us great weight and Authority with our Neighboring Nations. We are a powerful confederacy, and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore, whatever befalls you, never fall out with one another." Benjamin Franklin's 1754 Albany Plan, like the Iroquois government, even featured a "Grand Council". > "There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders." – Were they time travelers, then? The Great Law of Peace was composed, and those three co-founders of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy lived, in the 1100's, before the Enlightenment or the Magna Carta or Columbus's voyages. > "Freoh complained that the account 'skewed' things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error." – You mean skewing things toward white individuals is entirely correct? – .Raven  .talk 07:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for trying to cover one side of the story, but I haven't asserted anything the sources haven't covered, and stopped reading after the first few sentences. This is turning into a wall of text discussion. Freoh's focus was finding "non-white" influences, and as of yet has not produced any individual that compares to the political philosophers mentioned, and thus far all we have are general and accounts about the Iroquois from which much speculation has been based, which continues to be quite debatable among historians to say the least – nothing in the way of uncontested established facts in terms of what significantly influenced the founders, and to assert anything otherwise would be skewing the account. If you'd like to continue with this topic in depth it should occur in a different forum, not in the middle of an ANI. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "stopped reading after the first few sentences" – How utterly convincing: IDIDNTREADTHAT. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This is a content discussion and I don't see the direct relevance to behavioral issues. Please take it to the relevant article talk pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the above 00:32 10 June 2023 response by Gwillhickers, entirely a content dispute, was the first in a subthread hatted by administrator JayBeeEll – but then Gwillhickers moved his own comment (alone) out from under the hat, breaking the subthread. In case anyone still wonders how well Gwillhickers follows WP protocol.... – .Raven  .talk 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This is coming from someone who ignored WP protocol with a wall of text content dispute, appropriately hatted by JBL, as he did with another of Raven's comments -- nothing to do with behavioral issues.. Raven, please sign you comments. I was addressing Freoh's "non-white" concerns -- it wasn't a lengthy take on content, per you apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue. Please don't further compound the ANI with another lengthy message any more than you have already. If you have any further comments about me, please talk them to my Talk page. This is not the forum to go on about such matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) > "appropriately hatted by JBL" – JBL hatted the subthread starting with your 00:32 10 June 2023 content dispute response; his edit-comment was "hat off-topic for this forum", his hat-header was and remains "This is what article talk pages are for." You moved your own comment out from under that hat, but call a direct rebuttal to your claims an "apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue", and say "This is not the forum..." – well, then, it wasn't the forum for you to make those claims, either. Or do content disputes belong here only if you make them? – .Raven  .talk 08:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal: BusterD boomerang

This discussion has been closed by Freoh. Please do not modify it.
This is an attempt to avoid future disruption, not a revenge filing, but I will withdraw it per WP:SNOW.  — Freoh 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
BusterD has demonstrated an inability to assume good faith. When I asked them for help, they indicated that they were basing their decisions on comments made about me, and was unwilling to consider the possibility that these other editors were misrepresenting me. They threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions, and less than 35% of their edits are to mainspace, so I think that a six-month topic ban from WP:AN/I would help BusterD contribute to the project in more helpful ways.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Yes this is definitely a good way to show you are not combative. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) References  Support as proposer.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose — massive wall of text, in addition to the fact that this proposal makes little sense. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose: I do think BusterD has been a bit quick to jump to conclusions here, but if that behavior is deserving of a block, then I'm not sure how the proposer's behavior does not. To be clear, I think neither should be blocked. Also, I have to add: above, I mentioned that Freoh seemed to have a hypersensitivity and, more serious, a propensity to retaliate in uncivil ways. Those traits aren't helpful. Unfortunately, I think this proposal is an example of those traits in action.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Reading the diff for "threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions" shows a disturbing misrepresentation of BusterD's comment. Schazjmd (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose the tide seemed to be turning against a cban for Freoh, but I suspect they may have just turned it back. This revenge filing was ill-advised to say the least. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahem. Not just gaslighting anymore, we see. Thank you, User:Freoh, for your BOLD. Bold is a great starting place for a wikipedian. Unfortunately CIVIL is a pillar. Allow me to wax BOLD: If you can't bring civil to your game, you can't play here. I should offer User:Freoh and the community an apology. It might have been wise if I'd merely proposed what DIYeditor offered during the gaslighting discussion: if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. DIYeditor — (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) In any event, we still need to deal with this user, not just decline to sanction them. I'm perceived to be involved now. So I'll let the community wrap this up. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll deign to add: we might need to start asking the block and ban question to admin candidates again because a number of editors in the discussion above are using the terms interchangeably. If I wanted to block Freoh, I've already seen sufficient bad behavior and presented adequate evidence to defend myself from bad block charges. Any admin could block. Anytime. I have stubbornly chosen not to block. I have instead proposed the community sanction with some form of ban. A ban derives from consensus, not one rogue sysop. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Gaslighting is a serious offense, one that I have already denied, and one that Levivich has described as an aspersion. I have asked you to provide a diff where I was uncivil, and the only one that you gave was because I used the WP:LISTEN shortcut. If it is a ban-worthy offense to use Avanu's shortcut, then you should discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing, rather than trying to ban its first-time users. I am feeling bullied, and I do not understand why you continue to be so disrespectful.  — Freoh 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable and unfortunate that you feel bullied. I am surprised more editors haven't come to your defense to be honest, both in the articles and at ANI. As I said above, I am also dismayed that you did not take the opportunity of the formal warning to chill out a little, maybe branch out into some other discussions or topic areas. Having systemic bias addressed is a legitimate cause, but I think your approach is alienating a lot of people. To try to turn this around on BusterD was peculiar. What I would do in your situation is issue a mea culpa rather than blame others. Whether you feel you are in the right or not is less relevant than navigating the social environment here on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Closure proposal

Freoh's apology has the pluses and minuses; but it shows involvement and a commitment to try and work with the crowd. We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all; but that is not required here in my opinion. This ANI is documented. If the issue repeats, we see past issues in context and take a decision thereon. Freoh seems to have understood the context. And I believe (given their statements) that they will use a more congenial and collaborative format of interacting with editors in the future. I propose we close this ANI report with a simple statement,

• "Freoh is formally warned and advised to be CIVIL in all their interactions. The community strongly expects Freoh to take various comments on this ANI proactively and to collaborate congenially going ahead. In case of future infractions, administrators will have the leeway to undertake escalating warnings and/or blocks, if required."

Lourdes 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Works for me.  — Freoh 11:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per all discussions above. – .Raven  .talk 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I resent Lourdes' choice of words: We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all. That is a very poor characterization of the legitimate concerns stated in this thread by several editors, myself included. Too many of you got too hung up on the clean start thing and didn't pay attention to anything else. As for the statement that this ANI is documented, so was the last one. This user has already received a formal warning, quite recently in fact. A second warning is pointless, and would – in my opinion – because worse than nothing because it would amount to an acknowledgment that the issues have continued but that the community simply does not care enough to actually do anything. Besides, we already have a proposal above that can be closed in accordance with whatever consensus the closing admin finds; we didn't need yet another subthread. Close the proposal above, close the megathread, kick the can down the round, and them blame yourselves when it ends up back here again in a few months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as phrased: the warning is not strong or specific enough. It's not incivility so much as combativeness, not dropping the stick, and a special variety of wikilawyering (vis à vis this ANI thread and the overly zealous warnings issued to other editors). IMO Freoh should "chill out" but I am not sure how to word that and I have already tried. I definitely don't think Freoh should be banned, and a block could be seen as more punitive than preventative, but this warning doesn't quite do the trick. I'd say: Any admin (barring being involved in a direct dispute) may block or indef Freoh at any time if the behavior does not improve. I don't think any further warning or escalation is really necessary. Let admins do their thing and handle it like a discretionary sanctions situation. At that, does that even need to be said? Isn't that the prerogative of admins already? This is a very unfortunate situation because we have a most likely good faith attempt to address real concerns about bias in some important articles, but which are being approached in the wrong way. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Another proposal unnecessary — It seems this added proposal is unnecessary, as many people who already chimed in have expressed opposition to an indef and have opted for a warning. Given the abundance of votes it seems this ANI is close to closure anyway. This proposal will mostly, if not entirely, involve the same people chiming in all over again with the same vote and opinions. Indeed, the four votes here thus far were submitted by users who already voted and expressed their opinions in the above proposal. This redundant proposal is only going to drag this ANI out even further, and should be closed by an administrator. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• IMO what this needs is a tough thoughtful thorough warning and close and a record that there was a consensus for it. We've already invested a large amount of time and input on this, doing a little more to make sure it isn't all for nothing would be worth it. IMO the warning should include that there needs to be a substantial reduction in amount and severity of the behaviors which were the primary subjects of this discussion. I think that Freoh's apologies, self-reflection and statements were pretty good. However, regarding addressing of the combativeness the comments were so narrow / smaller scale that I don't think that they understand what the broad issue is. Degree of combativeness refers to dozens of areas. One might include how much severity it takes to go to a noticeboard and how they go about it such as the OP that started this here, another would be the frequency quantity and size and stridency of content debates (including bludgeoning), the degree that those are over what could be construed as a "cause" / value-laden material, the nastiness or friendliness of conversations. The latter would be worded as guidance and recommendation for a general evolution in that area rather than a structural part of the warning. I could try to draft one if folks want it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've no objection of other discussions occurring if they're not redundant and made by the same editors who chimed in above, but it seems most of us have been down that road and back again already, regarding warnings, temporary blocks, infef's and so forth – the ANI of last March notwithstanding. Any additional input or new votes can be effected with the above proposal. Splitting up the discussion is not going to help resolve anything and likely will only compound matters more than they have been already.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems this entire 'action against Freoh' discussion is a reprise of that 'ANI of last March' (archived without action, last post 27 March 2023) – ironic, since this overall thread's header topic is "Incivility from Gwillhickers"... that discussion being sidetracked by complaints about format of diffs, and left hanging. Hijacking it to revisit a less-than-three-month-old thread, repeating many of that thread's complaints and diffs, may or may not violate any WP rules (there's none against double jeopardy), but it doesn't look good to me. Ignoring the incivilities Freoh documented, to turn and warn/advise him to be CIVIL, looks awfully like a tu quoque. Where are the same warnings/advices to others? Or is there simple majority rule, where the majority can ignore all rules to which the minority is bound? It seems to me that isn't truly "consensus", since it lacks "the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all." – .Raven  .talk 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Alternatively, we can wait till this gets automatically archived, or an uninvolved administrator closes it as a no consensus reached issue. It would be prudent to close this on our terms with a strong warning being issued. If this gets archived, this discussion will not be documented as having warned Freoh. The advantage of having this here and documented is so that next time when we reach here, the chances of a full scale block would be much higher. Ergo, whether we like this close or not, a prudent consensus should be sought. Lourdes 06:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "with a strong warning being issued." – To whom? Do the incivilities first documented not merit warning? – .Raven  .talk 07:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously not because only you and your buddy seem to care about it. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:BD04:DF2D:37C2:D202 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not personally acquainted with any of the above, but you seem to say only one other commenter than me. Would that be Maxxhiato's "He says there is uncivility and disparaging remarks, and so we treat such concern by being uncivil? Maybe he is saying such things because people are making negative comments about him."? Or DIYeditor's [to Freoh] "It's understandable and unfortunate that you feel bullied."? Or Larataguera's "Freoh is no less civil than other editors, as demonstrated by statements made against Freoh in this discussion"? Or Freoh himself? Whom are you designating my "buddy"? ... Oh, never mind, you're an IP with only two edits so far, this was your first, and the second (five minutes later) was a technical point on a talkpage, which shows familiarity with WP. Just forgot to sign in, or what? – .Raven  .talk 06:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously the warning would be directed to Freoh per the discussion above. The community clearly does not feel that the original report has merit. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Another "Obviously", despite four commenters other than Freoh appearing to disagree. – .Raven  .talk 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's what happens when you ask a question with an obvious answer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I guess we're all chopped liver, then. – .Raven  .talk 01:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose-Freoh was warned once already. Settling for a warning after the behavior has persisted sends a message that their problematic behavior is fine. If not an indefinite block, then a block of some length needs to be implemented. Display name 99 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Display name 99 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) – I see that your most recent block, last September, for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: perennial disruption at both the article and talk page", took place during your own AN/I complaint against Cmguy777. Yopienso, who asked for your unblock, joined your complaint by saying (in part) "Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites." – to which post you replied, "Yopienso, thank you! Finally, a voice of reason." (It is notable that a similar complaint is being made against Freoh.) On your talk page, WannurSyafiqah74 mentions, "Freoh warned you about some of the messages you've sent. Not all, some"... which leaves me wondering whether this is a revenge !vote. – .Raven  .talk 21:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My personal interaction with Freoh has been minimal and not nearly so extensive as that of some of the other editors who have contributed here. I did not jump to conclusions and took a careful look through the ANI thread before voting. Him trying to turn the discussion around by getting another user blocked was what did it for me. Display name 99 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

After that other user 'tried to turn the discussion around by getting' the thread opener banned — including the charge of "violating... Wikipedia:Clean start", of which there is no actual evidence, and the accused's counterproof offer has not been taken up? – .Raven  .talk 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Freoh, unlike BusterD, has clearly been a major problem on multiple Wikipedia pages and was formally warned once already for this conduct. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

He was warned that he "should refrain from overlong talk arguments, avoid ignoring discussion consensus, and expect direct administrative remedies including blocks or topic bans if they continue to refuse to acknowledge their mistakes in the future." So here, other than lists of diffs, he has not posted long comments, has paid attention to thread consensus, and has acknowledged his mistakes.

Meanwhile, those who made unfounded accusations of "violating WP:CLEANSTART" and even sockpuppetry have not retracted after that unfoundedness was pointed out (nor taken Freoh's offer of counterproof); those who charged him with incivility have not pointed to examples – though some commenters have been uncivil to him.

Really, warnings should be directed elsewhere. – .Raven  .talk 23:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as written Freoh has already received formal warning only this March. Simply warning him again without this notice acknowledging the previously ANI warning seems pointless. The language should be a lot sterner and acknowledge the previous warning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment of 23:46, 15 June 2023, just a bit upthread. – .Raven  .talk 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Moves against consensus by Buaidh

Buaidh moved List of populated places in Colorado: A–K to List of populated places in Colorado and moved List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z to List of populated places in Colorado-02 with the summary "Perform requested move, see talk page". On the talk pages, the only requested move is from last year, where there was consensus for the pages to exist at the titles from which they were moved yesterday, a consensus that Buaidh supported at the time. I assume good faith in that Buaidh may have forgotten about the existing consensus rather than blatantly making a series of page moves against it. Instead, I see this more as a competence is required issue. As a page mover, this user should know to ensure moves have consensus and/or are not potentially controversial before conducting complex round-robin moves. Moreover, this series of moves involved 3 pages being requested for speedy deletion when proper use of suppress redirect could have afforded these moves without need of involving admins. This user suppress-moved the redirect List of populated places in Colorado/02 to Draft:List of populated places in Colorado/02, the latter of which was speedy deleted per G8, essentially improperly employing suppress-redirect to delete a valid {{R from move}} redirect. Similarly, this user requested List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z, another {{R from move}} redirect, be speedy deleted per WP:G7, which it improperly was; generally redirects from page moves should not be speedy deleted per G7. Buaidh recreated the redirect when I pointed this out but otherwise defended the moves by stating "List-02...is the format used for a great many extended lists". However, searching intitle:/-02/ combined with intitle:List reveals the only split lists using this scheme are the aforementioned List of populated places in Colorado-02 and the related List of places in Colorado-02. The naming conventions at WP:NCSPLITLIST do not advise numbering split lists sequentially in this way and instead recommend use of the A–K and L–Z format, where these pages existed previously per consensus at the RM. I come to ANI because rather than risking wheel warring with a fellow page mover by reverting these moves made against consensus, given the above, at a minimum I feel this user should not be trusted with page mover rights, as they are using them to make moves against consensus (or at least without sufficient due-diligence to ensure the moves are not potentially controversial) and are not taking sufficient care with related redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this really an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, yes, this is the most appropriate forum for addressing this. Urgent in that there is a desire to avoid need for further reverts of complex moves, and this is not the first time this user has been involved with issues regarding page moves. WP:MR is not an appropriate forum because it is limited to outcomes of move discussions. I could contact the admin who granted page mover rights, but that could be construed as admin shopping. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of sequential numbering of extended lists is used extensively in the WikiProjects namespace. The advantage of sequential numbering is that the the component lists can be rebalanced when additional entries are added by moving letter groups around without the need to rename the sequential sublists. The first of the sequential lists is given the name of the List and subsequent sublists are numbered List-02, List-03, List-04, etc. This means that a user can go directly to the name of the List without having to be redirected. This has been a very useful solution to this problem. Thanks for your interest,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - Please link to that guidance, so that we can find out why it differs from other established guidance. - jc37 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that makes sense for project space, but is not used in article space. The scheme you seem to favor (but went along with last August) is essentially to use WP:SUBPAGES, which are not allowed in main space (as we discussed at the RM). Articles in mainspace, including list articles, need to have a precise title indicative of their content, hence "A–K" is favored over the ambiguous "-02" per WP:NCSPLITLIST. Regardless, there was existing recent consensus in this particular case, and a discussion such as a WP:RM would be needed to change it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the best venue for this, but we're here, so whatever. (shrugs)

The "previous consensus", appears to be Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - which had 3 contributors (and a closer).

That aside, the syntax that Template:A-Z multipage list appears to use is: colon space letter (or letter range). Which also appears to match the guidance at WP:NCSPLITLIST, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#Article_growth_and_splitting.

Is that best practice? I don't know, but it seems to work. And happens to also be what the contributors to the aforementioned discussion seem to have agreed upon.

I'll drop a note at User_talk:Buaidh, to see if they would consider updating their edits. - jc37 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting these moves is appropriate per the various and sundry other stuff Jc37 links to above, without prejudice to some other more-preferred name established at a move request. Izno (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, as an aside, Buaidh is apparently splitting the analogous county list from two pieces into three (why? I have no idea, seems unnecessary) but is still leaving the same erroneous justification in the edit summary of the move of "Perform requested move, see talk page". What requested move?! There is nothing about the move on the talk pages. You need to leave an edit summary that describes the justification for the move, linking to the pertinent discussion if there is one. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did it because I'm an inherently evil person. The requested moves are from the discussion above. While I don't agree with the discussion above, I'm happy to have completed the following moves:

• REDIRECT List of places in Colorado
  • List of places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado
  • List of populated places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of populated places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado by county
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z

As the current coordinator for WikiProject Colorado, the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group, and the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West, I do try to stay on top of things. If anyone objects, please let me know. Thanks again for your interest.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting of with sarcasm when your actions are questioned (with good reason) won't help you at all. You claim that these moves are "requested" "from the discussion above", uh, where? I don't see anyone asking for this either in this discussion or on the talk page? Your reference to your positions in meta-Wikimedian groups comes off as an argument from authority, such groups have no bearing at all on our content. And I have my doubts whether someone who doesn't seem to understand or care about standard practices and recently closed move discussions should be the coordinator of a wikiproject, but that is up to you and the members of the project. Your status there doesn't give you any extra authority though, and doing these moves with dubious claims in the edit summaries and while this discussion here is ongoing shows a serious lack of clue. Fram (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel the personal attack above is warranted. While I am elderly, ill, curmudgeonly, and on occasion sarcastic, I try to cooperate with all members of our community and abide by the will of the consensus of our community. I truly regret that I have offended any members of our community. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 11:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You "try to cooperate" by making moves against common practice and against a RM discussion you participated in first, by making some false claims, and then by making new moves / splits because of some request only you can see. You claim a personal attack was made when none is apparent, you claim that "If anyone objects, please let me know." but have no intention to actually undo your splits even though people have objected, you ignore my question about where the split or move was requested... Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my slow response to inquiries about list changes. I help maintain hundreds of lists, articles, and templates and I often get ahead of myself on documentation. Please see Talk:List of places in Colorado, Talk:List of places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L, and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You added things like this after my above post, as if they are justification of your moves of before that post which you claimed were already requested. You could just have said "sorry, I was mistaken, these weren't requested, my fault", but instead you strongly give the impression that you try to hide lies behind a bunch of links. So, one final time, you replied to Mdewman6 that "The requested moves are from the discussion above." you claimed in your edit summaries as well that these were requested; just give us a link or a diff to show us who requested these and where, or admit that you made this up and tried to obfuscate it for some reason. Fram (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just merely as a point of clarity, I think this - Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - is the "discussion above" that he's referring to. It doesn't explain the "-02", "-03" edits, but his explanation above seems to (ease of further splitting, apparently), though that still doesn't explain why, when asked about it he did a "vague wave" to some WikiProject.

In the end he did undo the edits, which is a positive, though it might have been better if that had happened through discussion. Especially since nearly all the example links I provided were also in that RM discussion which he participated in, and that he seems to continually refer to.

I wonder if there is some automated tool involved here, which could explain the seeming copy-paste edit summaries. - jc37 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I went to look at the discussion again, and see that the talk page was moved. It's now at Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado:_A–F#Requested_move_31_August_2022. - jc37 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Page Mover right from Buaidh

As suggested by the OP, User:Mdewman6, in their opening post above, and as evidenced by the later actions of Buaidh, they can't be trusted to perform page moves according to consensus and best practices, even during a discussion of such moves: so I propose to remove the Page Mover user right from user:Buaidh. Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this highly offensive. I'm not sure what has inspired this kind of vitriol. This proposal is being made by a user who has been previously banned from the English language Wikipedia.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand why people take issue with you moving pages without consensus (in fact, against previous discussions) and refusing to undo them when people object? This isn't vitriol. This is basic responsiveness to concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think per User_talk:Buaidh#What_have_you_done_with_List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado?, which predates this AN/I thread, shows that he does respond to requests, and he was willing to address at least some of them.

My concern is that it seems like he didn't actually read the guidance that the other editor provided in that thread. If he had, he might have seen that what he said that had been "...discussed at length over the years", was in conflict with current guidance, and perhaps the two of them could have taken a look to see if that discrepancy between the two guidances could be resolved.

In looking at Wikipedia:Page_mover#Criteria_for_revocation, I think we could maybe be looking at #1 and #4. To me, it just depends on if this is a "one-off" incident, or if this turns out to be a pattern of behaviour. - jc37 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as OP). I want to reiterate that I do believe Buaidh generally acts in good faith, and that their contributions are valued. And this is most certainly not a personal attack. There is more data about Colorado on enwiki than exists for any other state due to this user's efforts. It's just that they lack the ability to always try to go about things in a manner consistent with existing consensus, policies, and guidelines, and this takes up time of others. In addition to the issues detailed in my first post above (making page moves without checking for past RMs, or ignoring their outcome; using suppress-redirect to get a valid redirect deleted, even if inadvertent), I am especially troubled by Buaidh continuing to use the same false edit summary even after it was pointed out to them why it was a problem (twice!). Now any user in the future wondering why those pages are at their current titles will be misled or confused. To me, it seems this user either can't be bothered to come up with a more accurate edit summary, or lacks the attention to detail to notice what edit summary they are leaving; either way this says to me "just let me do what I want to do here, and however I go about it is fine". It seems to me this user pretty much marches to the beat of their own drum, doing whatever they think is necessary or best at the moment (which they themselves may decide is different a day or month or year later), and are hesitant to change what they are doing when someone questions their edits for a valid reason.

Though indirectly related to page moves, this user also seems to have problems adhering to guidance in WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as noted by me on their talk page and in an AfD and another AfD, in addition to concerns about copy and paste moves raised recently at ANI.

WP:BOLD is all well and good, but continuing along a path after someone has pointed out that the edits/moves are contrary to existing consensus or in conflict with guidelines or naming conventions is not acceptable. This is especially true in cases of round-robin moves that can only be reverted by a page mover or admin, and thus cannot be addressed through the normal WP:BRD cycle. I am glad the pages above now once again use the format recommended by WP:NCSPLITLIST, but rather than simply moving all to the A–K and L–Z format to address the issue originally raised, Buaidh also decided to split all the lists from 2 pieces into 3 while this discussion was ongoing. On its own, this is fine, if not perhaps unnecessary, but was this really done just to show that they could make good use of the page mover tools? To me, this is just another example of this user's editing whims. I would not be at all surprised to wake up in a month or 6 or 10 and find in my watchlist that List of populated places in Colorado: G–O has been moved to List of populated places in Colorado: 02 (with a colon this time around instead of a backslash or hyphen) and we go through this all over again. Removal of page mover rights is not a punitive outcome, it means we are merely saying that it would be net positive for the encyclopedia if all page moves this user wishes to make go through WP:RM to establish consensus or WP:RM/TR where another user will confirm the move is uncontroversial and has a reasonable justification. (I don't think this user should have template editor or autopatrolled permissions either, but that's not my call and seemingly beyond the scope of the current discussion.) Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(To be clear, removal of page mover permissions would still allow simple page moves (where the move target is unoccupied or occupied by a redirect to the same page with a single edit- i.e. those that can be easily reverted) to be done boldy, as is the case for any autoconfirmed editor). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have always abided by the decision of a consensus of users. I made multiple mistakes in renaming these lists which I have now fixed. Since their creation, I've performed over 95% of the maintenance on these three lists which are under the primary purview of WikiProject Colorado. I have no ulterior motives. I don't feel I deserve this rebuke. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • You have been handwaving about some discussion to rename and split these lists in three parts, where you first used your unsupported naming system, and then made the split anyway: despite your claims, these weren't discussed or requested. The actual discussion from 2022, now at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, was for a two-way split, not for what you did afterwards, and for which you have given no explanation or factual answer. Fram (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, single incident of just a single family of pages. Definitely worth discussing, but moving straight to rights revocation seems highly premature. There's been a mistake, not abuse. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I currently maintain more than 300 lists, 2800 templates, and hundreds of articles. Occasionally, I screw up. I am human. I do try to fix things and resolve issues with other users. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Fram#Colorado lists. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Where you still couldn't answer any of the questions raised here again and again. You claim to be so helpful all the time, here again you "try to resolve issues", but you have shown no evidence of this at all in this discussion. Instead of humbly proclaiming what a helpful editor you are over and over again, next time try to act like one. Fram (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much prefer to edit rather than debate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - I can understand that. However, I think you are not hearing the main concern here. I'll agree that sometimes you engage in discussion. But oftentimes you are dismissive even when there really are issues with your edits. Throughout this AN/I post, I've been trying to decide if - in the spirit of preventative not punitive - whether I, as an admin, should remove page mover from your account. You are a prolific editor and may do great work. But if it takes an AN/I thread to get you to respond to whether you are following established guidance or just your own sense of "what's right". then maybe you may need to work on explaining yourself better. To be clear - this isn't about whether you split a page into 2, 3 or 12. It's about your (lack of) engagement when questioned about your use of these extra tools. Sometimes you do. But as we've seen here. Sometimes you don't. And yes, sometimes editors can be jerks to each other when questioning others' edits. And so engaging with such editors may not seem to be productive. But, that's not what I saw in this case. You were presented with existing guidance, and you didn't address that at all.

Part of my concern is, even if Page mover is removed, you still will be able to move pages. And I would rather not see you back here - or worse - being sanctioned, in the future, due to such behaviours.

So please, I think everyone would appreciate something from you showing that you understand the issue(s), and will do better at engagement in the future. - jc37 21:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the issues here very well. I will attempt to be more communicative and participatory. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. To be transparent, I'm not thrilled with the "non-answer" in the first part of your response.You've said that repeatedly, but your actions have only partially been supporting that assertion. But I am going to WP:AGF here, and accept that your statement is sincere and that you will work on this. Because, to be clear: If this behaviour continues, you may find that an uninvolved admin, may do more than merely remove the page mover tools. And I'd rather not see you blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned, in the future.

I'm not going to close this request, however. I think this can wait at least another 24 hours to see if there is any additional comment, and then someone uninvolved should be able to make a determination. - jc37 21:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My non-answer neatly side-stepped any acknowledgement of my personal wrong doing. I answered the inquiry of User:Mdewman6 within 56 minutes with a defense of my actions rather than an acknowledgment of my mistake. (I didn’t fully or properly read the Mdewman6 post until the following day.) When Mdewman6 filed this AN/I 13 hours later, I continued to defend my changes until I finally acknowledged my mistake and repaired the lists almost six hours later. This all could have been avoided by posting my intentions at Wikipedia:Move review and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations. I often get involved in very long maintenance sessions and frequently fail to fully address legitimate inquiries and requests. I need to change this behavior which does neither me nor Wikipedia any good. My abbreviated responses often come across as arrogant which is certainly not my intent. I'm not a "my way or the highway" person. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Some of the moves, which sometimes rely of the page mover rights and can be particularly hard to undo, are a concern by themselves. But my main reason for supporting the removal of the right is the dissembling/filibustering by Buaidh when asked multiple times to provide evidence (in the form of simple diffs) to support the claims in their edit-summaries that the moves were supported by existing talk-page consensus. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the overwhelming consensus expressed on this AN/I. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding it right:

• The first time you moved the page on Jun 4 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk-page discussion didn't really exist (this was the actual RM that had already been acted upon 10 months back)
• The second time you moved the page on Jun 6 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk page referred to this ANI where your judgement about page-moves was already being questioned. And you still think the above discussion represented "overwhelming consensus" for the page moves you implemented, even though that was not even the crux of the discussion and most editors interested in the lists are unlikely to be even aware of it?

Frankly, given the unilateral disruptive moves, false/misleading edit-summaries, and the aforementioned dissembling, I am struggling to see an argument for why you should retain the page-mover right. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I screwed up. I've quite obviously learned a hard lesson. I really don't wish to be called up on AN/I again. After 16 years, 6 months, 18 days, and 285,095 edits this is a total embarrassment. Since I'm the one who maintains these lists, I'm the one who had to make all the repairs. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Would it kill y'all to treat Buaidh as a colleague with which you have a disagreement, instead of ... whatever this is? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: And what's especially disturbing is that Buaidh appears to have done about 99% of the work in creating these pages. And now they are dragged in front the wider community, where a bunch of us who didn't do that work get to vote on whether the fact that they changed their mind about how that work should be organized is deserving of a demotion. WP:OWN, WP:SHMOWN, I'd be getting much more snippy if I were Buaidh's place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not curmudgeonly enough. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Let's keep this in perspective. We're talking about changing a user's tools, that only 386 users other than admins currently possess, that were given at the discretion of a single admin based on evidence of both ability and need, when now we have multiple admins and other users questioning whether continuing to possess those tools is in the best interest of the project. We're not talking about a block or ban or anything punitive. I'm not seeing evidence this user can improve. To the edit summary issue, when fixing the moves originally at issue (while also splitting them from 2 parts into 3) they omitted edit summaries when copying and pasting content between pages, thus not providing any attribution for where the content being moved/duplicated came from per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, something I have pointed out to Buaidh before as noted above. For example, 121,730 bytes of content were removed from List of populated places in Colorado: A–F with an incomprehensible edit summary, and this material was copied into List of populated places in Colorado: G–O without saying where it came from. Similarly 125,331 bytes removed from List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E and then added into List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L with no edit summary. In short, Buaidh is always responsive to concerns, and does try to fix things, but for whatever reason, they keep doing the same problematic things. That is my concern. But if there is ultimately no consensus here for a permissions change, I am fine to see how things go. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In purely self-interest, I'm more than happy to change if it means I can avoid punitive actions in the future. You learn a great deal in 75 years. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – no bad faith (or incompetence) shown; clearly, discussion was the path to resolution. – .Raven  .talk 07:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

no bad faith (or incompetence) shown- well it's clearly one or the other (or a combination, but in my view, mostly or all the latter). Since the above, this user appropriately draftified Draft:List of schools in Adams County, Colorado by moving it from List of schools in Adams County, Colorado, but did not suppress the redirect, which was then speedy deleted per WP:R2. A page mover should have suppressed the redirect (WP:PMRC#6) and avoided involving an admin. This combined with the above demonstrates that either this user does not understand when suppress-redirect should be used and when it should not, or pays inadequate attention to whether or not the redirect is being suppressed. Either way, I maintain there is no justification for this user to continue to have page mover permissions. But it looks like we are heading for no consensus here, unless an admin chooses to exert their discretion over user rights. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

> "but did not suppress the redirect"

1) I'd be more worried if he'd suppressed it incorrectly; deleting a redirect is less of a problem than having to spot the absence and then recreate it.

2) I think he and I have the same user rights; I've never seen an option (button, checkbox, or whatever) for "suppress redirect" when moving a page – and just now I went through most of the motions on another page with option "Draftify" chosen, but still no "suppress redirect" option appeared.

3) The "Page Mover" flag gives options over and above what "extended confirmed users" get; are you sure you're not assuming Freoh gets options he doesn't actually get? – .Raven  .talk 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It flatters me to know that you are thinking of me, but I think that you may have gotten your wires crossed.  — Freoh 23:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I was looking at the wrong user, and wrong user rights. That's what I get for following a notification to mid-thread, and not checking which thread. – .Raven  .talk 01:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not have the page mover right according to the list linked from WP:PAGEMOVER. Regardless, I agree not suppressing a redirect and instead requesting speedy deletion after the fact is not a big deal, but it just contributes to showing that this user is not properly using the page mover permissions. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Missed a button/checkbox, did he? How often? – .Raven  .talk 01:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Taluzet at Berber languages

Taluzet keeps edit warring at Berber languages disregarding attempts at constructive discussion and consensus-building. They keep deleting sourced content and replacing it with outdated unreliable ones that suit their personal bias, such as ones from the 19th century and mirrors of Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR), even trying to cite images in the talk page. They have also cited a journal from 1986 [116] but I am not sure whether its reliable or not. I have tried solving the dispute by combining all sources in a neutral tone, but this user continues to claim that the word Amazigh was used as an ethnonym for the Berber people, despite his source only suggesting that outsiders used similar sounding words (Mazacs/Mazighes/Mazazaces) to refer to them. They completely misinterpeted it and claimed that Berbers called each other Amazigh [117]. They misinterpreted another source to claim that the word was historically used in North Africa, despite the source being in present tense and talking about modern day usage, not historic. Their assumption [118] just shows that they're just spreading original research. In my talk page, they declared their intention to edit war and made personal attacks, consequently breaking the 3 revert rule in the article. [119] In other related pages, they make unsourced edits. [120][121][122] Skitash (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, but User:Taluzet is showing an unwillingness to settle things cooperatively with this edit. Maybe an admin with a block hammer would be "official" enough? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like SOMEONE doesn't know how the Wiki works :/ (and really doesn't want to learn). Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

He was unwilling to accept the fact amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past and call themselves amazigh in the present demonstrated by Salem Chaker's paper he is still trying to ignore because "its from 1986" the reason why I said that is because he kept reverting my edits and sending me messages that seem professional in my talk page to stop me from reverting his, I was the one who asked for a third party... Taluzet (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You have to combat misinformation. He is just trying to discredit my perfectly reasonable sources because one of them was from the 19th century, in what way is that a problem, the source is for the etymology of a word. The only images I sent in his talk page were extracts of works I've sourced that I assumed he didn't have access to, I don't see why it would cause any problem if I didn't use images as sources in the actual article?

In North African politics, it is very common for racist people to call Berbers Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication, he did a personal attack as well.

I don't see why I should be sourcing a claim like "the letter gaf is used in Shilha", are people sourcing their claim that Jawi uses the Gaf? Matter of fact, nobody sources any claim of usage of the letter in that article. Taluzet (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war and say that you will continue edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I discussed the issue on his talk page, I invite you to read it. Taluzet (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already refuted your claims yet you continue to make the same assertions. Your source does not support "amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past". It only mentions the exonyms which foreigners referred to them as, but you are misinterpreting this and claiming that Berbers called each other with endonyms which is completely false. This only shows your intentions to POV push as you deleted sourced content which clearly said Berbers did not have a collective endonym for themselves, and you continue to edit war to delete this from the page. To address your false accusation, I have never called Berbers "Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication". Your remark trying to indirectly refer to me as "racist" is another personal attack. Skitash (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Here, the word Amazigh was used AS AN ETHNONYM by amazigh people in Antiquity https://www.cairn.info/revue-strategique-2009-1-page-129.htm?ref=doi#no5, amazigh people used the word Amazigh in the middle ages (Van Boogert 1997 in the sources I put in the article), and use it today (Kossmann 2020 in the sources I put in the article). How is it a Berber nationalist fabrication? Taluzet (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That source doesn't support your claims either, nor does it mention any specific ethnonym. Could you provide a direct quote? If you are referring to "Masax", it appears that you are misinterpreting sources again. Using a translation of a word by Van Boogert does not prove that the word was used either. Please do not go off topic, the focus here is what they referred to themselves historically, not the present. It is interesting to note that you previously cited the same present-tense source to support your claim about the historic use of 'Amazigh' as an endonym. Skitash (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash @Phil Bridger Would a block proposal for @Taluzet be necessary at this point? This user's constant disruptive editing and personal attacks clearly warrant a block. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that implementing a block would be necessary in this situation. Taluzet appears to be an ethnic pov-pushing account that is clearly WP:NOTHERE just like you said. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We'll see what mods decide to do.

In the meantime it would be lovely of your to answer my question. Taluzet (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It does prove it though? Van de Boogert's book contains a transliteration and translation of a 17th century Shilha Book, where the word "tamazixt" is used to refer to the language, and "imazighn" is used to refer to "Berbers".

Did you read my source? "Corippe emploie le terme grec et poétique d’“armée massyle” pour qualifier l’armée des tribus maures. Il utilise aussi le mot “Mazax” que les Maures emploient pour se désigner". A Latin author from the 6th century reports the word "Mazax" that they use to self designate.

Now a question, do you believe the word imazighn is a 20th century invention? Taluzet (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In what way is "Maxax" the same thing as "Amazigh"? And in what way does a single word in a 17th century book prove that it was widespread and used all over the Maghreb? To answer your question, I do not make up facts but I will let you read what the source I left on the talk page says [123]. The point of this discussion is not for you to repeat your same arguments, I will leave this conversation for the administrators to decide. Skitash (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh, gh and x in Tamazight are interchangeable (hence the variant tamazixt used by Chleuh), of course a Latin author would not write "Amazigh" and will corrupt the word a little, it happens for all ethnonyms transcribed to Latin.

The multiple times Amazigh/Tamazixt are used in modern and Medieval books shows it was in use in the Middle Ages, and since it's used now all over Morocco as well as by Tuaregs, we can conclude there's a contuinuity in Amazigh as an autonym. Taluzet (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's called original research. Like Phil Bridger said, you're still misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Skitash (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Britannica: Berber – "By [the 14th century], however, the Berbers were in retreat, subjected to Arabization of two very different kinds. The predominance of written Arabic had ended the writing of Amazigh (Berber) languages in both the old Libyan and the new Arabic script, reducing its languages to folk languages." – In other words, Tamazight had earlier been the dominant spoken and written language of the Imazighen.
• National African Language Resource Center (NALRC). "Tamazight (Berber)" – "Berber is viewed by many as a derogatory term and Berbers therefore refer to themselves as Imazighen, or Amazigh in singular form, which means free men."
• Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, at Harvard. "Imazighen - Amazigh Aesthetics & Symbology" – "Amazigh arts, like the Tamazight language, have coexisted with other North African forms of expression since pre-Islamic times." [emphasis added]
• Abdelkader Cheref (2021-06-23). "Don't call us Berber, we are Amazigh" – "Apart from ethnic identity, the Imazighen have also been focused on preserving their language, which dates back to at least 2000 BCE and has over time been called Tamacheq, Tamaheq and Tamazight. The preference these days is for the appellation Tamazight although, depending on where they live, they would say they speak Takbaylit, Tarifit, Tashelhit, Tuareg or Tumzabt. Few native speakers would refer to their language as Berber."
• See Libyco-Berber alphabet, and Tifinagh – "The word tifinagh (singular tafinəq < *ta-finəɣ-t) is thought by some scholars to be a Berberized feminine plural cognate or adaptation of the Latin word "Punicus", (meaning "Punic" or "Phoenician") through the Berber feminine prefix ti- and the root √FNƔ < *√PNQ < Latin Punicus; thus tifinagh could possibly mean "the Phoenician (letters)" or "the Punic letters"."
• The adjective "Punic" of course refers to Carthage, destroyed by Rome at the end of the Punic Wars, 146 BCE. In the usual theory, Carthaginians were western Phoenicians. But maybe not so much:
• Hannah M. Moots, et al, Stanford University (2022-03-13). "A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean" – "The contribution of autochthonous North African populations in Carthaginian history is obscured by the use of terms like “Western Phoenicians”, and even to an extent, 'Punic', in the literature to refer to Carthaginians, as it implies a primarily colonial population and diminishes indigenous involvement in the Carthaginian Empire. As a result, the role of autochthonous populations has been largely overlooked in studies of Carthage and its empire. Genetic approaches are well suited to examine such assumptions, and here we show that North African populations contributed substantially to the genetic makeup of Carthaginian cities."

– .Raven  .talk 06:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Taluzet, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this discussion. Issues of what source says what should be discussed on the article talk page. This discussion is about your behaviour in editing the article before a consensus is reached, and saying that you will continue to do so. Once again, I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, and this is not the place to discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to reach a consensus, but all he kept repeating was "your sources aren't reliable" and "your source is from 1876". When he called it a French nationalist invention I understood that his motive wasn't to reach a consensus. Taluzet (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I never called it a French nationalist invention. Do not spread false information about me. Skitash (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh my bad, I was refering to this quote from your talk page "The term Imazighen was introduced by Berber nationalists in the 20th century to counter the image that they were a collection of diverse tribes". Although this is also a factually wrong trope used by Anti-Berbers, since the word is very well attested. Taluzet (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  But please, even if you block me, don't keep that false remark in the Berber languages page, it is such a recurring theme in Anti-Berber discourse and so easily disprovable, just read the talk page. Taluzet (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  This just shows that you didn't read any of the sources I sent. [124] "To counter the image that Berbers were a mere collection of disparate tribes speaking mutually incomprehensible dialects, they introduced an indigenous term of self-referral–Imazighen". I did not make up anything or misinterpret anything like you did. Skitash (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, tribes, that each speak a separate language, definitely accurate and has no undertones.

  Anyways, I added a remark that Berbers were not culturally unified, but to say they didn't use the word amazigh is false. Taluzet (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is true that imazighen as a term that applies to all Berbers wasn't the reality, as most Berbers weren't even aware of the existance of their relatedgroups, it was simply a shared word most Berbers used to refer to their own group. You're mixing self-referral and united identity. Amazigh in the modern day was expanded to mean all Berber groups, because it is a well attested word in practically all of the Amazigh languages, that aren't limited to tribes Taluzet (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Propose partial block from the article for both users due to the straightforward comparison of article history to talk page history, which reflects well on no one. Then, after you've both had a good long read of Wikipedia:Civility, you can move on to the steps described at WP:DR. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  We discussed it on my talk page. Skitash (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Block proposal for Taluzet

Taluzet has been disruptive editing, edit warring (and when confronted about it, dismissively continued to edit war) and personal attacks. I propose an indef block on Taluzet's account. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Deleting sourced content, source misinterpretation, ethnic POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted the source yourself, she said "they do not refer to themselves as Berber", and you wrote "they do not refer to themselves as Berber/Amazigh", when did I attack you personally? Taluzet (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not, and this place isn't for you to repeat the same arguments. Go and have a look at the talk page. Skitash (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment noting that I've seen this Amazigh thing elsewhere, [125], there may be a broader WP:ADVOCACY issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's a pretty well known issue in North African politics, Amazigh is the word Berbers prefer to use to refer to their people, since the word Barbar in Arabic means Barbarian, and that a lot of Berber languages share variants the word "Amazigh" to refer to their people, or Tamazight to refer to the language, but some people, non-Berbers mostly, don't like using it, so they justify it by saying it is a modern invention and that Berbers never used 'Amazigh' to refer to themselves,

I don't mind using Berber for terminology, but I was perplexed at the claim that it wasn't used, me myself being a speaker from a group that uses it actively. Taluzet (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, sounds plausible (and quite human). The basic WP-solution is to use what sources generally use, and perhaps try to add Amazigh sometimes on some sort of WP:PROPORTION basis. It may be productive to attempt a WP:RFC on "How should we mention Amazigh in Berber-related articles?" at someplace like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind usage of Berber to be honest, what I reverted was a claim that the word Amazigh isn't traditionally used by Berber people.

It'd be a good idea for people seeking usage of terms with less undertones to go through this procedure though, I'll contact more active Amazigh Wikipedians to see if they'd like going asking for a more proportionate use of the words. Thanks! Taluzet (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Upthread, about mid-thread, I just posted multiple [brief] citations on Amazigh/Imazighen/Tamazight/Tifinagh. Please feel free to adapt them to updating Berber languages or anything else if they're at all helpful. – .Raven  .talk 07:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have integrated these as cite/refs to existing text in the article. They're listed in the References section raw text, and can be cited for other text by just using their refnames. – .Raven  .talk 01:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Request action against a long-time disruptive user

I have decided to report the user @SLBedit for improper conduct and offensive remarks. I will start by presenting the case that impelled me to take this course of action and I will follow with some considerations about the user, in order to provide more information for the best judgment possible.

On 28 May, after I removed some content I deemed irrelevant from a Benfica related page, I was once again accused of censorship by him. I explained what happened here, and two other users agreed with me that the information deleted was not particularly relevant and could be stated elsewhere. I thought that was the second time it happened and I told the user I would report him if he did it a third time, a warning he disregarded with a silly reply. But, to my surprise, after reading the other comment he wrote towards me, I found out I had miscounted and the episode of 28 May was, in fact, the third time he made similar suggestions. The other two times were here and here.

I do not mind being called a liar. I do not like having my contribution being constantly reverted but I understand that my opinions can be and sometimes are wrong. I have accepted that if I do not take the higher road with this user, by ending or avoiding conflicts (meaning refraining from replying/contributing), these will not be solved peacefully. I am a tolerant person. Now, what I simply cannot consent to is being accused of censorship. I consider these injuries directed at me to be extremely offensive when freedom of speech is the civil liberty I value the most (for those who are not aware, Portugal lived under a dictatorship for several decades in the 20th century, a period that ended on a day that is now celebrated as Freedom Day). I value what was achieved in 1974 and I find it insulting to speak in such a frivolous way about censorship. I warned the user I would report him at strike three, so here I am.

Now, concerning the character of the user. When I started editing Benfica related articles, he was friendly towards me, to the point of expressing gratitude several times. Unfortunately, once our visions started to differ, there was a behavior change and he got more hostile. A few examples of this range from playing the "I already did this before you even edited Wikipedia" card, reverting first and creating the discussion sections in the talk pages later (while telling others to proceed the other way around), erasing without justification a link to an article I created, or simply reverting a contribution previously made only to add that information moments later (example: instead of adding the source here at 14:12, he discarded my contribution just for the very next edit at 15:16 to have the updated info reinstated with the source).

Due to the constant arguing with this user, I stopped editing several Benfica pages: the most recent season page I collaborated on is the 2017–18 one; my last edits to S.L. Benfica, S.L. Benfica B and S.L. Benfica (youth) articles date to January 2018, August 2017 and December 2018 respectively, etc. After a while, in which there were more limited but civilized interactions, that made me think that this user had changed, I am once again confronted with his defamatory remarks and his over-the-top posture.

It is not for me to evaluate, but I truly believe this user cannot and will not change his disruptive and impulsive attitude, specially in articles where he considers himself an authority and believes he has carte blanche to do whatever he wants (the disdain he showed when I warned him of a possible report supports this statement). He constantly accuses other users of having multiple accounts (to me, it happened this time and this one, among others), he edited the user pages of two other users without their consent (here and here), and he engaged in two other unacceptable personal attacks: he called me a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia) and he called another user "fdp" (short for "filho da puta", literally "son of a bitch" in Portuguese).

I am pretty sure he will try to deconstruct my case and clear his image by showing that I also did several things wrong in the past. With that in mind, I only want to point out that I do not recall having a single altercation with any other user, and he has already a conflict history with several users, which granted him a one month blocking at one occasion.

With everything I presented here, I believe the moderation has reasons to intervene and I hope they do. Besteirense (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR. All I know is that, since P3DRO (talk · contribs) got permanently blocked, for harrassing and insulting me for years, Besteirense become more active again (what a coincidence) and started conflicting with me until the creation of this report. While Besteirense has been complaining, I've been improving Wikipedia. Goodbye. PS: you don't own the "2017–18 S.L. Benfica season" article. SLBedit (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

SLBedit, looking at Besteirense’s edits, it looks like this editor has been consistently making about 20 edits per quarter for at least 2 years. I don’t see much (if any) an increase after P3DRO was blocked in January 2023.

We don’t routinely and repeatedly accuse others of being sock puppets.

You should assume Besteirense is independent of P3DRO unless proven otherwise. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The feeling I have is that he started editing more Benfica-related articles after P3DRO got blocked. BTW, "a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia)" is a complete lie; it wasn't "blank file", but "BlankFile", which is a user from serbenfiquista.com SLBedit (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, Be QuietAL728 hasn't retired; actually, he continues very active in Portuguese football-related bios (it seems he can't quit Wikipedia), the only difference is that he gave up on his previous accounts, and exposes his IP addresses like he did before the account creation. PS: User is back with another account since December 2022. SLBedit (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: I find it very odd that Besteirense knows so much about my interactions with P3DRO. It's pretty obvious the two are related (otherwise, why would Besteirense be so interesting in defending PEDRO?), and I'm not saying they are sock accounts! SLBedit (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As for the "thanks", so what? I also gave them to P3DRO and other users. SLBedit (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "long-time disruptive user" (LOL) has contributed more to Wikipedia than many other users, and has reverted vandalism (and reported it) countless times. Calling me that is an offense. SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was Besteirense who accused me of wanting to have the "last edit" (sic) on articles – a way of trying to limit my contributions to Wikipedia – while he did/does exactly that in the 2017–18 S.L. Benfica season, article which he created. SLBedit (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This report is the perfect example of cherry picking. SLBedit (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out three things: first, the accusations of being a sock puppet only stopped after A. B. called the accuser to reason. I guess that is already a tiny win.

Second, I was not defending P3DRO or his behavior; I just used his example (one of many) to prove that the target of my report does not always contribute to this environment with good content, or calling someone a "fdp" is a positive interaction? What is the excuse that justifies and leaves unpunished the author of this personal attack? What about vandalizing Be QuietAL728's user page, is that quality content?

And third, moving right past from the nervous attempts to divert the attention from what is really important, I will make the goal of my complain crystal clear: I did not wrote that SLBedit did not had an overall positive contribution to Wikipedia; I have shown, through my example (again, one of many) that his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions, namely in Benfica related pages, either by having their words reverted by someone who does not assume good faith or by lack of participation (I mentioned my self-imposed ban on several pages).

Post-scriptum: six years from 2017 to 2023. So, yes, it has been a long time; no offense there. Besteirense (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions" is another lie. If a contribution is perfect, I'll leave it. If it's good and can be improved, I'll improve it. If it doesn't improve anything or is vandalism, I'll revert it. You are simply digging up the past – all that was settled a long time ago – because you can't stand me improving your contributions. SLBedit (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything wrong there, but I will fix that for you. Here's a 2-in-1 example of what a lie is: you wrote you knew I had become more active when another user got blocked. You clearly did not knew because it was not true, yet you consciously chose to write that.

I had to go to the past fetch examples of your misbehavior because I do not know when will be the next time you will accuse me of censorship or what pieces of content will you remove. Like Wikipedia, I too cannot predict the future.

Adding information with no real encyclopedic significance is not making an improvement, and neither is reinstating the same information you previously deleted (guess what, x-y+y is still equal to the value that was already there). Removing the link to the page I created from the Taça de Portugal article is the perfect example of what you call "improving [my] contribution" but, in reality, was just a pointless and revengeful revert. Besteirense (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• SLBedit, hi. You both are long-term contributors. It's not conducive to proactive editing if you allude to another editor as a possible sock. I don't want you to get me wrong, but either take the report to SPI or immediately stop these accusations and consider this a final warning. Once again, please don't take these words negatively. My intent is to ensure you guys discuss proactively. To issues of content, I see both your sides and would tend to encourage further proactive article talk-page discussions that lead to consensus. Dispute resolution is a good way to go if you both don't succeed in gaining consensus. Start with this and let's see how it goes. Once again, no sock accusation any more please. Thanks, Lourdes 10:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes, thank you for your reply. I noticed you and A. B. focused mainly on the sock puppet accusations, which to me were the least important points of my argument because I know he has no case there. After "[seeing] both sides" do you really think that finding a consensus in the other subjects is possible here? If I suggest this user should be temporarily blocked for offensive remarks (accusing me of censorship, calling "son of a bitch" to someone, vandalizing user pages, comparing me to a random user from a den of fanatics, etc) do you think he will agree with the penalty? If I argue this user should have a permanent zero-revert rule so that he learns to respect other user's contributions should I expect him to just accept the punishment? Or none of the above justifies any kind of (severe) intervention from the moderation and it is I that should agree with that? Besteirense (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked. While you might not realise the import of this, SLBedit would. Also, this discussion is fruitful to document that we have advised you both strongly to resume discussions with no personal attack and with civil behaviour on relevant talk pages, and to take the dispute resolution steps in case of lack of consensus. In case the conversations between you and SLBedit turn significantly negative again in the future, or results in edit warring, please come back here and link to this discussion. That is all for now. Let's hope it improves... if not, we cross the bridge at that time. Thanks, Lourdes 04:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this discussion was important, since the user finally stopped those silly accusations. But, since the only point taken into account by the moderation was the sock puppet one, I will remove from the report the information that was not addressed. If that is not allowed, and I am not aware that it is not, then I would ask you to revert my last contribution to this section. Thank you. Besteirense (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is removing, in good faith, a retired template vandalism? From Template:Retired: "Retiring implies that you will not resume editing at any later date." That user is just gaming the system by creation accounts, "retiring" and coming back with another account(s) and/or IP address(es). SLBedit (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, does Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked apply here? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I'm talking about another user, Be QuietAL728, which "retired" years ago (the account is retired but the person/user isn't). I was accused of vandalism because I removed a retired template from that user's page years ago. In short: "99.9% of your edits aren't vandalism, m'kay. You edited another user's page? Block him!" SLBedit (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes DIYeditor. But which diff are you referring to? Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps vandalism is not the right word but you removing the template is clearly inappropriate. I'm not going to read the long discussion above nor any of those that lead up to it, but I assume someone has told you it was inappropriate so it is concerning IMO that you still don't seem to understand you should not be removing the retired template from another editor's userpage without their explicit permission or community consensus.

Personally as a strong believer in the 'indefinite doesn't mean for ever, just until it's no longer needed' mantra I see no harm indefinitely blocking you, if you've made it clear you're going to continue to remove the retired template from other editor's userpages inappropriately although I know others will feel we should wait until you've done it one more time.

Either way no matter how good your other editing is, if you're going to continue to edit inappropriately occasionally you shouldn't be surprised when you're blocked. A fair number of blocks are over that small percentage of an editor's edits which are bad which we can't stop them doing otherwise when their other edits are good.

In the unlikely even no one has told you yet, if you feel the editor should not be using the retired template since they are still actively editing then you are welcome to talk to them about it. If they refuse to remove it then you can bring it up somewhere perhaps here although frankly editors significantly editing while they've marked themselves as retired is something ANI tends to treat as 'not good but not worth taking action over' from the few times it's came up that I can recall.

You may have more luck if it's not actually the retired template that is a concern but an editor using an account serially which is also complicated but can lead to illicit WP:SOCK concerns if the editor is perceived as trying to evade scrutiny. Of course you will need good evidence they are the same editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Lourdes, his modus operandi revolves around accusing other users, who disagree with his view, of having multiple accounts. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Here, he accused a user of having 18! sock accounts, and got an " Unrelated to each other" reply for 17! of them. He shoots everywhere with those remarks to see if any accusation sticks. And why does he do it? That is simple: if he gets into conflicts with three or four users (each of them with multiple accounts), it's possible that it's them who are at fault, but if instead of only three or four he has problems with fifteen or twenty unrelated users, then it is the constant that should probably be blamed.

Regarding the general agreement of content: if you check the FC Porto article's revision history, you can find 16 reverts to this user for "no consensus". He did not care about the outcome of the talk page discussion and consistently re-added information, twice with the biased summary "Restored facts about the most corrupt club in the world". Hoping to reach a consensus with this user is, in my opinion, a futile exercise. Besteirense (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Theonewithreason's behaviour on Talk:Serbia, WP:STONEWALLING, either dishonesty or competence issues, making false claims and baseless accusations

I made this edit on Serbia adding a link to crime in Serbia under the ″see also″ section, which was reverted by Theonewithreason with edit summary ″rv per Wp:undue, see lack of this assertion in other countries i.e USA,Russia,United Kingdom,Germany etc″ here.

I was a bit baffled how a mere link could be ″undue″, so I started a discussion on Talk:Serbia, mentioning that in fact their examples of countries used in their edit summary do contain links to their respective crime articles, with the exception of Russia (which at the time did not have such a link, but now does). Soon after making the edit and starting the thread, I discovered the existence of a ″law and criminal justice″ section that I had previously missed, and changed my stance to that being the location the link should go to, which would be only logical for readers given that law of Serbia is also linked there. The discussion then turned to Serbia's amount of crime with TOWR claiming low rates of certain crimes means the link is undue, and that including it means ″giving a false weight to an article that crime in Serbia is something way more common than in other countries″, with me pointing out that even taking WP:DUE in account Serbia does have notable instances of crime, such as being behind only Russia in Europe when it comes to organized crime rates, and two highly reported on mass shootings recently taking places within days of each other etc.

I rather quickly sensed the discussion wasn't going anywhere, with TOWR claiming it is already ″covered″ because the Serbia article contains a link to Index of Serbia-related articles at the bottom of the article, that in turn contains the link to the crime article, which I argued is the opposite of easy access for readers per MOS:BUILD when there is already a relevant section on the article. Because of this, I started an RfC in hopes of more uninvolved input. Eventually another editor responded and made the same point I had made above about the ″law and criminal justice″ section and ″law of Serbia″ link, I respond to them confirming that is how I was thinking as well, and that was the point where for whatever reason TOWR decides to claim that I was not, instead insisting I was still advocating for the link to be added to the ″see also″ section at the bottom″. Like most others, I don't like people misrepresenting what I say, and thankfully Wikipedia has an excellent page history feature making it easy to fact check who said what, so I replied that they're wrong and my stance has been from almost the beginning that the link should go to the relevant body section, when they doubled down it started to become increasingly difficult to assume good faith but I figured possibly there's language issues, which they also denied and threw in a baseless false accusation of ″gaming the system″ (for adding a link to a crime article in a section covering law and criminal justice, seriously?). If it isn't a language barrier, it's either lying or competence issues, so when I continue to call out their false claims about what I am advocating for they start accusing me of ″personal attacks″. I find it bizarre behaviour to lie about what someone is saying, and then suddenly victimize yourself and accuse them of personal attacks when you call out their lie, then again the whole situation is bizarre in general.

Overall, I suspect nationalistic motivations are getting in the way of easy access to relevant content for Wikipedia readers, which is what it should be the priority, not pretending countries are crime free. This behaviour over a link I think is a sign of a WP:TENDENTIOUS approach to editing the article, not to mention interacting with others during content disputes. I have included the more notable diffs but I think the full discussion(s) should be read for a full view of the gymnastics being performed to keep the link off the article. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This should go as WP:Boomerang and that is why I am countering with report against Tylerburden who obviously has intentions to clear away people with other opinions, first things first I am entitled to cast my vote on RfC without getting insulted and attacked, which Tylerburden did, second TylerBurden first posted crime in Serbia on see also section, then started a RfC trying to push their agenda, I have clearly stated that there is a balancing problem since we do not have this on other articles, and opposed my vote, editor then continued noting that I am lying and "defending" Serbian image, which I find ridiculous. Overall I have right to cast my vote on talk page if RfC is opened without getting insulted or casted WP: Aspersion against me. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:22, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

User TylerBurden personal attacks

TylerBurden has started a RfC on Serbia talk page [[126]], which I respond with oppose, since then editor obviously has some issues with my objection, which I clearly stated why I am against it, after which they started to attack me, calling me a liar few times [[127]] and that I am falsely victimise myself [[128]], I have repeated several times that my vote is because of balancing issues, since we do not have this on other countries i.e Sweden but editor has some opinion that I am "protecting" image of Serbia [[129]] or that I have a language barrier. I believe that this includes several WP:Personal attack issues, since I am entitled to add my vote however I choose without being attacked so I would like that someone addressed this. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:23, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

• Theonewithreason, let the RfC continue. Let others comment. TylerBurden, if you don't mind me saying, this is not so egregious as to warrant an ANI visit. Your issue is in a standard dispute resolution space.
• I would suggest to both of you to take it easy, let the RfC continue. Discussing about why crime (or a link thereof) should or should not be included in a country's Wikipedia page, is an editorial decision, not administrative. Don't use terms like lying, tendentious, nationalistic, unless you mean to evoke a negative response. There are alternative terms that can be used diplomatically to convey the same meaning. But you know better Tyler. Come back, any of you, if the issue escalates to the level of ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes I don't make accusations lightly much less reports, it is not so much the content dispute itself that is the issue but Theonewithreason's attempts to misrepresent the situation and accuse me of "gaming the system". Those are both behavioural issues, and then playing victim and complaining about personal attacks when that behavour is called out is problematic also, especially on an article like Serbia that is under contentious topics. Note how TOWR in response to this report simply continues the same behaviour, not actually addressing their misrepresentation of my suggestion and instead doubling down on their "victim of personal attacks" approach. If they had apologized when they made false claims about my suggestion, this escalation wouldn't have been necessary. But it is one thing to make a mistake, it is another to double down, deny it and make more false claims when confronted about it. TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TylerBurden, you were accused of gaming (or a reference to gaming was given) after you made this remark. You alluded to lack of language skills, CIR, lack of ability to read the title...etc all in one go against the other editor. You are an experienced editor and your RfC is well-placed and logical. You also know why we should comment on the content and not character of people. At this point, if you had come to this desk with clean hands, where your discussions took the higher ground and the other editor was the one throwing accusations, the discussions out here would be different. But that is not the case. I will again suggest that take the higher ground in discussions; don't verbally duel or accuse other editors of being liars (character) but call out lack of factual basis (content), don't accuse other editors of being not able to read (character), but perhaps mention that they may have misunderstood the focus of the RfC (content). And so on. I am not trying to patronise you as I am no guru of executive communication. But the next time you come back here and we are able to assess that you followed this guideline and the other editor did not, we'll take appropriate warnings/actions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes I am not sure if you are actually looking at the situation, because I did try to assume good faith and brought up the possibility of a language issue being the cause of misunderstanding, which was denied straight away. Why does this editor have a right to misrepresent me? Do you see that the editor openly said the link shouldn't be added because "it makes Serbia look like it has more crime than other countries"? That is maintaining image, which if anything would be "gaming the system" through tendentious editing. I never called them a liar, because I don't know them, I said that they lied in this instance, which is what appears to be the case since they denied misunderstanding it. So what else are they doing then? Please provide diffs if you are going to support this editors accusations towards me. TylerBurden (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

DRN and the RFC

User:TylerBurden submitted a request to DRN, which appeared not to be a request for moderated discussion, but for more participation in the RFC. I have closed the DRN request because this WP:ANI thread is also active. Neutrally worded mentions of the RFC at WikiProject Serbia and WikiProject Crime would probably be helpful. Do User:TylerBurden and User:Theonewithreason want to resolve a content dispute via an RFC, or to argue about conduct? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC should not have been started. TylerBurden is obviously correct about including the link, but it's always possible to encounter opposition, even when doing obviously correct things, and he didn't know how to deal with the issue more constructively. This led him to start an RfC about something that can't realistically be decided against (editors simply can't form a consensus on an article talk page to essentially censor a relevant internal link); instead he should have pursued more discussion and sought help from other editors. He then requested a DRN which doesn't normally work with an ongoing RfC (but DRN could have, perhaps, been a reasonable thing to try down the line), and then started this ANI section. But in reality, the issue here is the idea that it's possible to enforce removal of this link from the Serbia article. It is not a possibility, and not a normal editorial decision.—Alalch E. 23:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E. Thank you for actually seeing the issue at least. I did consider first going through the third opinion channel but figured a single opinion could just as easily summon someone arguing along the same lines as the editor above, so several might be better. In a perfect world it shouldn't be possible to block obvious minor improvements like links, but people abuse the system and policies like WP:DUE, WP:ONUS etc to keep content they don't like off articles, even if it's something as simple as a link. That is made even easier to do when you can just start talking about personal attacks in the hopes for some hasty administrator call the moment that behaviour is called out. But yes you're right, obviously relevant links isn't something you should need to jump through hoops to add, it's against everything this website is meant to be. TylerBurden (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Thank you for stating obvious fact and giving us an advice, I have listened it and let the RfC run, but as you can see I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden, editor continues with their own passive aggressive behaviour, accusations etc. As for you TylerBurden, I am not the one who is abusing the system, since I know the rules of Wikipedia, you were rushing to remove me with this ANI report, instead letting RfC does it′s job. Frankly I don′t see what exactly you were trying to achieve with this since you were the one attacking me, and yet again I am going to repeat, my opposition was based on several reasons, balancing being the first, since we don′t have this link on other countries, another fact was posted by other editors in the meantime which I did not noticed because I did not read Crime in Serbia article, that it is poorly written, with lots of opinions, outdated sources etc. I don′t see what does this has to do with nationalism and so on. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

All of your arguments, including the article being "poorly written" were debunked by myself and others in the talk page. There is no reason from a policy or guideline perspective of censoring the fact that the article Crime in Serbia exists, and it really doesn't matter how much you claim that I "attack" you. Your misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant and the reason for my report here, something you still have not addressed. TylerBurden (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No that is were you are wrong, nothing is debunked by you since others also gave opposite opinions. As for me addressing your report, it was addressed with counter report, please stick to the subject not a character, something that was also already explained here. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is no point in interacting with you, to the admin, consider these remarks from TOWR such as "I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden" when taking into account their accusations of personal attacks. TylerBurden (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Same thing I can write to the closing admin, please see above comments, that my comments were 1."debunked", that my 2."misrepresentation and denial of any misunderstanding is blatant" and also indirect ones such as 3. "people abuse the system and policies like WP:DUE, WP:ONUS etc to keep content they don't like off articles, even if it's something as simple as a link. That is made even easier to do when you can just start talking about personal attacks in the hopes for some hasty administrator call the moment that behaviour is called out" - all stated against me.Theonewithreason (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• As discussed, Theonewithreason, TylerBurden, both of you are coming of badly out here. Tyler, you for repeatedly inflaming the matter ("people abuse the system and policies", "just start talking about personal attacks" and so on) and TOWR, for ensuring you follow the same path ("I don′t see any productivity from TylerBurden", "you were the one attacking me", and so on). You both do realise that being civil means you comment on content and not the character of editors. I don't want this to look bad -- but consider this the final warning to both of you. The next negative/offish comment on character by either one of you, will get you blocked. The question of who-started-it-first would not matter; nor would matter the correctness of your editorial logic. There is no excuse for any continuing comment on character, TOWR and Tyler. You are strongly advised to let the RfC continue (Tyler, you could have gone to the NPOV noticeboard to get inputs on this link and stuff... or a simple consensus poll on the talk page would have been enough. RfCs are a bigger weapon... But that's for another day, now that this RfC has opening (or has it? Have you listed it as per the RfC process?). You are both strongly advised to maintain the civil decorum on other pages too. Please do not take this lightly. Thank you, Lourdes 05:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV edits by Poiupoiu80

Poiupoiu80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account is being used purely for unexplained deletions with an apparent nationalist POV. This includes

• Removing mentions of defeats relating to Libya's predecessor states; e.g. [130], [131], [132].
• Removing or replacing mentions of other ethnic terms; e.g. [133], [134].
• Other nonsensical deletions like this and a truly ludicrous edit-war over deletion of the word "Roman" at Severan dynasty: [135], [136], [137].

Two warnings on their user talk page have gone ignored and they haven't provided a single edit summary this whole time. Their edit-warring continued today, after the last warning: [138], [139].

Other context: this also looks like a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVADE related to blocked sockpuppet Las Davas and their sockpuppeteer Samira819. I reported it to SPI two weeks ago with evidence, along with other suspected socks, but unfortunately things there are so backed up that many cases haven't been touched since. I'm hoping this account, at least, can be blocked in the meantime, given the clear pattern of vandalism, which is getting tedious. R Prazeres (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• R Prazeres, for the sock thing, please raise at SPI. For now, I have blocked for a week pending a response that they understand the issue. Thanks, Lourdes 07:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, that helps. The SPI is already open, I'm hoping for a long-term solution there. R Prazeres (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Extended to indefinite until they respond on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 06:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)a

  By the way, can this IP be blocked as an obvious case (in my opinion) of WP:BLOCKEVADE? Or does that still require an SPI? They're literally repeating the same deletions (compare [140], [141] with [142], [143]). Even their attempt to justify it after breaking silence ([144], [145]) is nonsensical and misleading. R Prazeres (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Done for 2 weeks. Thanks, Lourdes 06:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious IP

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

---

• 142.189.112.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also used 184.147.108.166)

This user inserted original research into LGBT rights in Ukraine, then edit-warred against multiple editors reverting their spurious and controversial edits ([146], [147], [148], [149]), and proceeded to accuse other editors–including an admin–of gang vandalism for reverting their material. They doubled down on this accusation despite being warned not to and suggested that the other IP they're using is someone else despite geotagging to the same neighborhood. I told them to stop tagging me twice; they did so again while accusing me of edit warring for reverting them once for separate content. This user is a classic time sink exhibiting a significant lack of competence (repeating the same link and not knowing one editor from another). Requesting action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that at WP:DR and will watch LGBT rights in Ukraine for a while. I did not see quite enough to semi-protect the article but it is not far off. I can't take action now because your latest edit (diff) missed the point of the IP's edit summary, namely that "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples ..." is confused wording. My advice would be to not worry too much about responding to the IP's every move. I will protect the article or otherwise prevent the SPAs from overwhelming it if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I linked edit warring, spurious accusations, harassing tagging, and incompetent edits. Saying you can't take action now does not make sense: the IP deleted material from the lead that is well-sourced and even has its own article, so I added it back. Not sure what point I missed in the IP saying "Confused concept of same sex marriage and marriage. Illogical." You can absolutely act now and you have well more evidence than you need. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Limited to" here clearly contextually means "exclusive to". I will assume you meant "trivial" and that same-sex marriage being prohibited in Ukraine isn't trivia on the article LGBT rights in Ukraine—to not do so would be pedantic. Please act on the abundance of existing evidence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is in the combination of "same-sex" and "heterosexual". The sentence is paradoxical; Johnuniq is right. Step back and re-parse it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

While it's technically theoretically possible that same-sex marriage could remain limited to heterosexual people, I don't think any country has ever done that since it makes little sense. It's clear this isn't the case in Ukraine where same-sex marriage isn't allowed even when the people are heterosexual. Note I avoided the term "couple" since there may be some debate whether two people getting married should be considered a couple if there's no romantic or sexual pairing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Marriage is limited to a man and a woman in Ukraine in article 51 of the constitution.

Same-sex marriages are banned. This is exactly the problem with the entire article.

Why insist it be written in such an obfuscated manner? 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae@Johnuniq@

Hello and respectfully, thank you for your time.

LGBT rights in Ukraine is a needlessly long article and should be divided into subpages. It seems to be obfuscating plain facts about UA and its LGTB community with a bias towards protecting practices of discrimination attribution of fault towards a party with whom UA is currently at war as opposed to the current government who is not making the changes because of popular sentiment. Human Rights Watchers would struggle to find highly relevant and referenced justified content in the page that is worded clearly and concisely.

In a neighborhood discussion, one of my neighbors of Ukrainian descent and member of the community discussed in the article, pointed out the edit they had made on this site. Their comment was that Wikipedia is extensively being targeted by propaganda or biased editing with the effect of covering up the plight of LGBT community in UA. We both have extensive experience in matters of Diversity. Assuring them to take a look, that is when I became aware the information being deleted from the page. Including the information from 184.xxx.xxx.xxx which was a summary with 5 key takeaways. Perfect, in my view, for the top of the lead.

The content added was thoroughly checked. References were added to the European Union funded Rainbow Europe research, which includes research by the EU on Ukraine's constitution, legislation and practices in this regard. It is the organization consulted for LGTB matters when considering entry in to the EU as I understand it.

Concerns consistently and politely responded to, however, rather than fixing formatting issues an edit war was kicked off by repeatedly deleting the addition of the factual 5 takeaways. It appears the use of revert was triggered by the inability to separate emotional bias from logic and facts. I ask that the article be restored to the last post before Ponyo reverted for the last time. I will help to ensure any edits after that time readded if the edits were legitimate.

Please review the article talk page for the timeline I provided.

Also, please review my IP talk page for the threats I received.

Thank you. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If you try to add the 5 key points again you're likely to be blocked or otherwise stopped from editing the article. It's not something suitable for an encyclopaedia article. As I mentioned on the article talk page, you're welcome to include the information in a Rainbow Europe information article where such a thing might be more suited but if you're going to edit here, you need to write content suitable for encyclopaedia articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As an additional point, content should not be added to the WP:lead if it isn't already in the body. While it's sometimes still helpful to add add references to the lead, this means it's should not be particularly important whether you added RS to support whatever you were adding as you should not having been adding it unless it was already the body. If it was not already in the body you needed to add it to the body with references either before or at the same time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please consider the policy direction here.Summary style and Wikipedia:Writing better articles need to write for multiple readers.

"The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."

These comments are specifically counter to the direction given by Wikipedia. Repeatedly threatening with blocking people for following the guidance of wikipedia in a contentious topic, should have consequences. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the text you cite in any way supports the addition of numbered points to the lead section. If you read the guideline properly it clearly says

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead.

A numbered point is clearly not a well-composed paragraph. I suggest you take a look at at our best articles, our WP:Featured Articles for examples of how articles are meant to be written rather than reading some text, mis-intepreting it, then edit warring over it. If you're going to WP:edit war because you've misinterpreted something a guideline says and continue to misinterpret it and insist you're right even when every experienced editor is telling you you're wrong, yes you will be blocked. New editors who make mistakes but recognise they are new and so are willing to learn are welcome here. New editors who make mistakes but think they know everything and refuse to learn are not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 14:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae you are engaging in exactly the kind of pedantic and prolix application of formating as a justification to remove relevant concise factual material in Wikipedia:Writing better articles. You are also uncovering that citations as you point out to @Pbritti, that her revert for not having citations in the lead is against recommended practice. "although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." and yet @Pbritti was likely Stonewalling with this technique with the assistance of the group including an admin. Essentially using bullying to deny relevant concise information to which no content objections have been suggested or could be supported. The "better articles" specifically calls for "an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements" You measure human rights policies by the statuses in the five key points. This was repeatedly pointed out as an objective of the content. An objective to help measure human rights status in UA. That is consistent with bullet points and the concise and clear wording.

I suggest to find consensus, the wording in the first paragraph be changed as follows. Heading to be used "5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status".

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family.

This suggestion is consistent with 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind people posting here, that it was during the first world war that woman's suffrage made large gains because their treatment was exposed. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

...what the hell is going on here. Gotta love arguing with people who are invested up to their armpits, to the point that they can't grasp grammatical problems anymore. IP, here is the dumbo version: let a homosexual couple be represented by AA. Let a heterosexual couple be represented by AB. The original sentence "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" thus reads "AA marriage remains limited to AB couples". That's ALL I'm saying. This is clearly not what is meant, clearly a minor grammatical screw-up that can be resolved by replacing "same-sex marriage" with "marriage", and not an invitation to write a page's worth of finger-pointing and high dudgeon. Now please calm the fuck down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That is what I was saying. Pbritti insisted on the illogical wording.

Here is what they wanted deleted.

5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but then that's just WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You're insisting on a non-standard summary style to influence public opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, c'mon, I told them not to ping me and there it is again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is insisting on illogical, obfuscated, factually incorrect content to influence public opinion?

One may not like what it says about Ukraine, but it is the truth and the truth should be the only thing that takes the spotlight on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the content it is within your rights to find and support opposing views of equal or greater weight. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

142.189.112.124 is clearly a disruptive editor who is trying to invent a new format for lead sections and trying to claim that is complies with MOS:LEAD when clearly that is not the case. They are trying now to suggest propose a consensus that boils down to "abandon MOS:LEAD and do it the novel way I've been trying to argue". Given their only edits on this whole encyclopædia are unconstructive, I would suggest we just ban the IP and semi-protect the page for a while rather than spending further energy on a disruptive editor who has no interest in consensus and who has an inventive approach to wikilawyering. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggested reformatting as a paragraph. Not inventing something new, just following Wikipedia:Writing better articles

5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Are those all key points mentioned elsewhere (and sourced elsewhere) in the article? If so, then the sentences could, with editing, be added to the intro. The "5 key facts…" fragment does not belong in the intro.

However, the way to get the sentences added is through collaborative discussion at the article's talk page. I share the concern raised by other editors that the IP has neither demonstrated that sort of collaborative behaviour nor that they understand the Manual of Style and other guidance for writing articles. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thank you and agreed the sentences should be added as they are referenced from material in the article, although they appear to be unclear in their sentence structure.

Regarding the use of the title 5 key facts, this comes specifically from the Wikipedia:Writing better articles guidance. Here is a quote ""The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."

I leave it to the group to express their views on how that might help with the guidance given in WWBA guidance. I suggest it does. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would further suggest that the articles passages which contain these facts be clarified to be consistent with the suggested clearly stated 5 key facts from the article. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It now sounds like the IP is more insistent on pushing in this "5 key facts" text than actually improving the article. The behavioural issue is now sufficiently demonstrated that, if they continue to disrupt the article, sanctions are in order. (To be clear, these would be "ordinary" sanctions for disruptive, tendentious editing, not anything related to a contentious topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Your comment is completely bogus. I specifically said I leave it to the group whether that should follow the Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I cannot understand why this group is so against making the plight of the LGTB community in Ukraine unclear. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

As I originally said: tendentious. We will never convince this IP that they aren't right. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti your comment is disingenuous, dishonest and flat out wrong. You have been told over and over again by others yet you continue to insist and flasify the record.

Johnuniq told you on June 10th, you were wrong and you argued with him.

Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. @Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of not being to lengthy, I will not go in to additional evidence. should I need to take the next step to make sure the article has relevance to the plight of the LGTB community in Ukraine, I will. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, see another editor's comments on this, as they indicate my sentiments (in full). How is pinging someone a half-dozen times after being told to quit it not merit a block on its own? ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that even now you cannot acknowledge the error is a concern. Someone writing a screed about the IP's rants says nothing about the fact that you restored a junk sentence. Everyone makes mistakes. The trick is to acknowledge them so we can all move on. If you are not willing to do that, please at least stop responding to the IP. Clearly the IP has strong opinions and likes to talk about them. Passing the time of day with them will only drag this out with more pointless waffle. If I miss any disruption at the article or its talk, let me know and I will stop it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I acknowledge that I missed the grammatical error someone else inserted (and I inadvertently reverted late at night) by linking the relevant diff. If an IP says "I'm going to vandalize" while harassing another editor, you should act. Your failure to act on the IP's repeated bright-line disruption is a concern. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This is again unfounded. I have no idea on what basis you are claiming that I intended or did vandalize the article. I tried to defend the very clear and concise key facts added by 184.xxx.xxx.xxx . Calling for action, should have consequences. You have threatened blocking as a consequence of your repeatedly deleting things admins told you were wrong.

I agree with the admins, this process is frustrating. My only goal is clear accurate information on the status of LGTB in Ukraine. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The last edits at LGBT rights in Ukraine and Talk:LGBT rights in Ukraine were nearly three days ago. Everyone makes mistakes—it's not a big deal and you don't have to worry about it. No one is going to print this ANI report and hang it on a wall—it's going to disappear as soon as everyone stops bickering and there is no need to respond to the IP or anyone else. Focus on the article and let me know if there is any disruption (in the future, not the past). Bear in mind that this report has been on a heavily watched page for three days and I don't think any other admin has made a comment. WP:NOPUNISH is a core policy and the IP will not be sanctioned for something that may have happened more than three days ago. Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family."

Please add the above to clarify the status of the LGTB community in Ukraine. No one has made any objections to its inclusion on the basis that it is untrue. The information is verifiable and accurate.

Should anyone like to propose improvements, I look forward to those.

@C.Fred @Johnuniq 142.126.93.175 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: An IP that promised to continue disruption within the last 24 hours certainly merits a block under WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Also, do you consider C.Fred to not be an admin? Because they commented fewer than three days ago. Just above you in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Maliciously wrong and unsupported. I ask that every accusation and request to block be investigated and the evidence from these comments be vetted. This behavior is unprofessional and negligent. 142.126.93.175 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Request to block user: “thenightaway” due to vandalism on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page

Sulaiman Al-Fahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Administrator,

User “thenightaway” is removing informative writing and credible sources on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page. This is vandalism and has been done so by this user before on this page. Please may i request to have user “thenightaway” blocked from making edits on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page as they are removing texts with no plausible reason or cause.

Thank you for your time and assistance, awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmicheal232 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Thenightaway has reverted your edit once, and neither of you have yet discussed it on the article's talk page. You posted on their user talk page about fifteen minutes ago then came here. Please try to resolve your differences through discussion first. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jacobmicheal232, I also see that just about every edit you've ever made to that article has been reverted (not just by Thenightaway), yet you've never tried to discuss your concerns with the article at Talk:Sulaiman Al-Fahim. That page is where these disagreements should be discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jacobmicheal232, I have informed Thenightaway about this thread as you appear to have forgotten to do so. — Trey Maturin™ 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jacobmicheal232's edits were reverted because they added poorly sourced puffery to the Sulaiman Al-Fahim and removed reliably sourced content. The editor bears all the hallmarks of a paid editor or WP:COI editor. The Sulaiman Al-Fahim page has a history of extensive COI editing. Thenightaway (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Thenightaway that Jacobmicheal232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a SPA with a probable COI. They've only ever edited Sulaiman Al-Fahim, despite their editing spanning over a year. The edits have an obvious promotional tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at User:Roxy the dog, and WP:POINTy stuff as a result

I have two issues that admins should take a look at. They are two different things, but the first leads to the second, so I hope it's OK for me to make a single section about it.

First, there is some edit warring going on over tagging User:Roxy the dog's user page (tagging as CBANed). I originally reverted, but at this point it's just going on and on, and I think it's best for an uninvolved admin to decide how to handle it, whichever way that is. Just whatever the right thing is, tagged or not tagged, policy-wise.

And the second is a mean-spirited and WP:POINTy reaction to my reverts by User:Horse Eye's Back, which just seems like retaliation rather than a sincere attempt to improve anything. See: [150], [151], [152]. If someone wants to disagree with what an essay says, that's OK (and I'm fine with some constructive edits that he made after that), but putting something on it asking readers to look for misconceptions is not constructive, and reverting it back in crosses a line into disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Input from admins has already been requested, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin needed to add template. I'm sorry to have offended you, I did not mean to do so... I'm also confused, are you actually questioning whether the idea that lemmings commit mass suicide is a misconception? I don't believe that reverting a misuse of rollback is disruptive, wouldn't the disruption be the misuse of rollback? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to your own question. My concern is not over lemming behavioral ecology. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just remove the second sentence? You removed both, including the one which was purely about lemming behavioral ecology. You didn't mark the misconception or correct it in any way (were you at some point intending to? Or did you intend to continue misleading readers of the essay?). I also asked two question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As someone not involved, I can see horse throwing around a straw man argument to muddy the waters. Editors should strive to be honest and civil. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what the straw man you see is? I don't believe I've ever had significant issues with either honesty or civility (nor do either appear to be at issue here) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. They were concerned about potentially pointy behavior, but you are pretending they argued about the behavior of lemmings, and challenged them to continue discussing something about the behavior of lemmings. None of this is about how lemmings behave. Very Average Editor (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The addended sentence was "Lemmings act as a group, sometimes with self-destructive results. Wikipedia editors should think for themselves." and it served as a caption for an image of a lemming. As you will find if you go to the linked article the idea that lemmings act as a group with self-destructive results is a common misconception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish took offense to an edit made by Horse Eye's Back. HEB apologized. Unless someone has concerns over the Tryptofish's use of rollback, is there any reason to keep this open? Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification of the user page tagging. And I think that uninvolved admins should evaluate for themselves what they think about the "apology", when taken in context of the subsequent comments here, and the conduct that surrounds it. (And don't frame it as me taking offense. The issue is whether the conduct was appropriate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting that User:Lettherebedarklight jumped on to RtD's user page in this diff. Not so much the revert, however unnecessary, but see my user name as in the edit summary. Childish trolling, I agree, but it's worth nipping such behaviour in the bud early. SN54129 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  it was a typo lettherebedarklight晚安 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nice try, but that's a negative. When you hit undo, you would have seen: Undid revision 1159648081 by Serial Number 54129 (talk). You would have physically needed to change it yourself to achieve: Undid revision 1159648081 by serial bumber 54129 (talk). In markup: Undid revision 1159648081 by [[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|serial bumber 54129]] ([[User talk:Serial Number 54129|talk]]). And there you have it. SN54129 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  i was trying to change it to lowercase lettherebedarklight晚安 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why? — Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  gah! i type in all lowercase! lettherebedarklight晚安 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but you see that this vanity has caused you to insult another editor deeply and you promise to stop with this nonsense in future, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  i make one typo and you both harp on me like this. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think this shows why it might be a bad idea for editors who were not directly part of the ban enactment to go around adding or restoring the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  well, i'm done here. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  like a steak, lettherebedarklight :) SN54129 20:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Are we having a "see who can assume the least good faith" competition? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, the essay in question is about ANI threads that get off track, so I'll try to get this back on track. (1) There is starting to look like the beginning of a consensus at WT:Banning policy#Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars that the tag on Roxy's user page doesn't need to be there. I'm not going to touch it, at this point, but maybe an admin might want to remove it, at least for the time being. (2) HEB does not need to apologize for offending me, but do they understand that Can you find any other misconceptions on this page? is completely inappropriate outside of talk or user space? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that humor was banned from essay space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You think that was the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That is what you are currently objecting to unless I'm missing something. You didn't think that an edit explicitly marked as humor was funny, now we're at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Going back over it, I see that there's something additional. After falsely accusing me of WP:OWN on the essay talk page, I explained to HEB that his edit was POINTy: [153]. He then did this: [154], removing something that clearly did not need to be removed (and which I had added in response to another editor asking for it on the talk page), for no apparent reason other than to say "seems a bit pointy" as a sarcastic edit summary. He's going to a lot of effort here at ANI to pretend that he is simply confused as to what I want, but I think it's very clear what is really going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Bold font added in response to the comment just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It was not sarcastic, in light of your recent spirited defense of our mutual friend Roxy it did seem a bit pointy. This page was linked in that discussion so it seemed that you were trying to insert something which supported your behavior and POV there "Don't hesitate to refute a flawed argument. Don't shy away from defending and comforting a good-faith editor who was unfairly maligned." appears to be incredibly relevant to what was occurring on the drama board. "Then did this" is also not accurate, perhaps you mean "later did this"? There are numerous intervening edits. What do you want Tryptofish? A ban? A block? A more groveling apology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the section where the text "Don't hesitate to refute a flawed argument. Don't shy away from defending and comforting a good-faith editor who was unfairly maligned." was proposed, is it in the archives or on another page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see that lettherebedarklight has just self-reverted the user page tag. I hope that we can let that be. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I updated the text to WP:BAN, per WP:SNOW of the talkpage discussion. Then also as an uninvolved admin, I added the userpage notice. The user has an active talk page, and, as far as I know, still has talk page access, and so per the guidance, we should not confuse incoming editors. If User:El C (the admin placing the ban), wants to revert, they are of course welcome, with no need to let me know. - jc37 19:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: Reverted WP:SNOW implementation. Some other uninvolved admin, is welcome to determine consensus, per WP:SNOW, or otherwise. - jc37 00:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think everything about the tagging of Roxy's user page has been successfully resolved. What I still have not seen is HEB demonstrating that he understands why the look-for-misconceptions edits were disruptive. This isn't about apologizing to me, and my feelings are not the issue. The issue is disruptive editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Drop the WP:STICK 2603:7000:C00:8B66:D568:EAD5:4869:DEB6 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

One could almost predict that ^ would happen! Anyway, what I see is HEB continuing to edit, and I've seen arguments about the fact that anyone can edit an essay, which was never the issue, about the need to correct a myth about lemming behavior, which was never the issue, about the fact that humor can be permitted in essays, which was never the issue, that this is about my supposedly hurt feelings, which was never the issue, and who knows what else that was never an issue. It isn't difficult to understand why inserting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" on something that is intended as a serious discussion of editing culture is inappropriate (thought experiment: imagine doing it on a serious policy page). And it shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate that one understands that. This ANI thread could be brought to a close and everyone could move on, with just a simple acknowledgment of understanding that, in order to demonstrate that we don't need to prevent it from happening again. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that HEB's "humorous" edit to the essay was inappropriate and would like to see them recognize that. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 18:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty apparent HEB has a WP:POINTY demeanor going on here. It's fairly hallmark WP:TEND for someone to deny they are badgering someone while continuing to do it. HEB is clearly casting aspersions in a back-handed way in their recent comments there towards Tryptofish too.[155][156]

If it were really about lemmings, a non-pointy editor would have just simply said the lemmings aren't a great analogy IRL (though good from a story perspective) and been done with it without this degree of badgering and pinging going on. If they can recognize that and right course, then there's no reason left for this thread, but it is very fair to say this needs to be nipped in the bud now since it's been perpetuating up to today's comments even. KoA (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I've been watching the discussion at the essay talk page that KoA links to, and I've been intentionally staying out of it. Unlike KoA, I am not reading it as aspersions against me. But what does give me concern is that HEB, who is obviously aware of this ANI thread, has not responded, while continuing to comment at the essay talk page, and appears to be doubling down on the claim that this was just about lemmings (something I dealt with by this: [157]). Just now, HEB actually posted this: [158] (sort of sounds like he admits that he never thought there were "other misconceptions" but just thought it was funny). I appreciate that it can take editors a bit of time to come around (been there myself recently), so I'm willing to give HEB a little more time, but I really think the burden is on him to show that he gets it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Why was there no notice on the essay talk page that this had escalated to AN/I. I was attempting to deal with HEB on the talk page unwaware of a simultaneous action here. I think we've all wasted too much time on this nonsense, irritable behaviour, rollback misuse, edit warring over "humour", AN/I escalations and so on by both editors. Suggest it be closed and both Tryptofish and HEB take a break. -- Colin°^Talk 15:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Because everyone who would be subject to administrative intervention was already made aware of it. No one has been contemplating any actions towards you. And I think that you already know that you are the wrong person to be telling me to take a break. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I think that we have our answer, and it's a disappointing one. With my thanks to jc37, who directly asked HEB at HEB's talk, HEB has answered that he is actually proud of the "other misconceptions" edit, and sees it as a matter of standing up to my supposed "fringe POV pushing": [159]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop this, it means I am proud of my overall conduct which includes apologizing to you for any offense caused by my edits. I'd also note that I've been accused of both badgering and failing to respond enough putting me in a bit of a catch-22... Unless anyone new has a question for me this will be my last comment here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and I know that you apologized for any offense to me, and I've said that. I also appreciate that it's unpleasant to be caught between criticism over failing to respond, and over responding too much, and in fact have been there myself. But multiple editors here, not just me, have been posting a specific question to you. I really hope that you will answer it, and if you do so in a self-aware way, I'll be delighted to drop this. Do you understand that posting "Can you find any other misconceptions on this page?" was inappropriate, especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions? Not a matter of pushing back against fringe content, and not a matter of hurting my feelings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate in what sense? Was it WP:INAPPROPRIATE? No. Was it disruptive? No. Was it mean spirited? No, certainly not my intention... I had actually intended the exact opposite, you will note that the AGF implication of "especially when you knew that there were no other misconceptions?" is that I intended to get people to actually read your essay through not that I intended to insult you. As I explained on the talk page I meant it to be fun and textbook-esque which is appropriate for an essay in mainspace. Was it in hindsight the best choice of wording? Of course not, thats why it isn't currently the wording on the page and we've gone with something else (but importantly not the original text). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If you've gotta ask, you'll never know. But I'm actually going to read between the lines, and take account of human nature, and conclude that you really do know, because I think that you are smart enough to know. In my opinion, nothing good is going to come of drawing this out any longer, and nothing good would come out of any sanctions against HEB. In my opinion, HEB has read what I and others have said here, and is unlikely to do this again, regardless of what he keeps insisting. It's fine with me if an uninvolved admin closes this thread now, with no action. But I do have a strong request to the closer. I would like for the closing statement to say explicitly that HEB is cautioned against making such WP:POINTy edits in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with closing this myself, so I really hope that an uninvolved admin will read what I said ^ . This discussion has been quiet since I posted that, so I don't think anyone else wants it to stay open. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Blaxoul

• Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blaxoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would usually give more WP:ROPE in this instance. But then I had some sort of epiphany, as you would 2 AM at night; this type of stuff is really not okay, and should really be less tolerated. I guess I'll let you guys be the judge of that. For some reason, the Armenians got thrown under the bus in the second attack, unless the user thinks I'm also Armenian...

Using armenian sources to push your agenda is pathetic.

Wiki policies are outdated, don't you think? Also I don't recommend you to argue with Persian and Armenian chuvanists

I did already warn them before they made the second attack [160]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit history is full of WP:POV pushing, largely consisting of leaving talk page messages. They've only done a few minor edits that were actually constructive. I suspect WP:NOTHERE is in play. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran, thank you for getting this to our notice. Just out of curiosity, why is it that Bournoutian is quoted so many times? Not my place to understand this deeply, but Blaxoul's makes his arguments worse off by using tendentious words -- although the point he is making is strong. Lourdes 10:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's because the majority of works about the Karabakh Khanate (including publication and translation of primary sources to do with them) is from him, and his work usually provides the most details, and he's also arguably the author with the best credentials in this field. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That is how a non-NPOV view develops. I would suggest take heed of the suggestion being placed by Blaxoul and other editors. On the talk page, while other editors are opposing this author, you are (very strongly) backing the author. I don't want to get involved in editorial deliberations, but it's just a suggestion that prudent editors like me view your argument as being sub-optimal (I may be wrong). Rest, we shall wait for the other editor to respond here before taking any further step. Thanks, Lourdes 10:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to derail, but I would like to say this as a final comment: I get what you mean, but with the current avaliable literature it's unfortunately the best I can do. It's still a pretty obscure field, largely being only taken care of by Bournoutian. Without him there is barely any literature about the Karabakh Khanate, perhaps it could be compared to the importance of Herodotus for understanding the Greco-Persian Wars. For example, the only English publications of the 1823 Russian survey and History of Karabakh are by him. Imo it would be helpful for the other users to say what precisely they find problematic, then we could take it from there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks HistoryofIran. Using one source so many times is problematic, which is what others have already mentioned multiple times in majority on the relevant talk page. Like I said, I'll leave it to your discretion to make this better. Thanks and best, Lourdes 11:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize from you guys, first of all from HistoryofIran for being emotional. I am not an active user so I didn't really know the community rules. Blaxoul (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think majoritiarinism can speed up the editing process and allow for quicker resolution of issues. If most people here think that Bornotunian is biased, why is the opinion of the minority accepted? Blaxoul (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEMOCRACY. And you need to have an actual good reason on why Bournoutian is allegedly “biased” and how, not just because he’s “Armenian”, which is in itself a biased statement. Also, you dont have to know the rules to have good manners against your fellow human. EDIT: It seems that every sourxe Blaxoul doesnt agree with is “biased”, this is concerning [161]. HistoryofIran (talk) HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Virtually, there is little to none Azerbaijani sources regarding topics about Azerbaijan. In the contrary, there's plenty of Armenian sources used both about Azerbaijan and Armenia. That's what's concerning, not me saying that Bournoutian is biased. If you want to balance things out, you should allow both sides to express their views. Blaxoul (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I cant speak for other articles, but that’s not a requirement in the Karabakh Khanate. This article is ultimately not about Azerbaijan, as neither it nor the Azerbaijanis existed back then (User:HistoryofIran/Sources#The ethnonym Azerbaijani). Either way, we ultimately follow WP:RS, which makes it hard to use Azerbaijani “sources” (User:HistoryofIran/Sources#Historical negationism/revisionism). HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How an Armenian source is more reliable than a Azerbaijani one? Both sides tries to falsify the history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some WP:RS that says Bournoutian falsifies history? If he was still alive, you would have violated WP:BLP at least few times by now. And Bournoutian is still not "Armenian", he's Iranian-American. The fact that you keep focusing on his ethnicity is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

He has an Armenian ethnic background. I have criticized Arakelova as well, but she is not Armenian. Still, the people she worked with were Armenians. Which makes her more credible for you, apparently. Blaxoul (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, It is related to Azerbaijan. These khanates were referred as "khanates of Azerbaijan" by multible credible academicians. Azerbaijanis also did exist, a nation of this size did not suddenly appear on the stage of history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So you've no got WP:RS, I'm not surprised - and please don't put words in my mouth again - if anything, being Armenian clearly means that they're biased according to you, it's literally here for everyone to see. As for the rest; That's a very weak argument; Azerbaijanis did not exist, that's a fact and general consensus amongst scholars [162] [163] [164]--scholars you keep dismissing and even randomly accusing of being "biased". I think I have wasted enough time here, I think this behaviour is extremely concerning, and I've seen users blocked for less. What do you guys think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

In your response you are calling Azerbaijani sources "sources" which shows your intention. I criticized these scholars for being biased, you are saying that all of Azerbaijani sources are not credible. You have not made a single valid point. You are the one who must be blocked, not me. You are trying to get people blocked for not agreeing with you, I don't see how that's a good behavior. Blaxoul (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Tone down the rhetoric please, both of you. Please resume discussions on the talk page of the article and please ensure you conduct civil discussions. And this is a guidance to both of you, not just to Blaxoul. HistoryofIran, as I mentioned earlier. the discussions on the talk page of the article should not be aggressive; if a majority of editors are viewing your pov as mistaken, take a step back and ask for third opinion (seek dispute resolution). Blaxoul, rather than using nationalistic terms and pointing out ethnicity of authors, focus on the content and the reliability of it. A scholar who has dispassionately documented his research may be accepted as a reliable source; but again, the editors' consensus on the talk page of the article should decide this. Please do not let this discussion take both of you down an aggressive path, which finally does not have a good ending. Thank you, Lourdes 06:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. @Blaxoul: I would recommend you read WP:NPOV and do some content creation. All that you seem to have done is leave messages on talk pages, which often isn't a good look. @HistoryofIran: Please remember to be civil in your interactions. Potentially both of you could seek out a third opinion for the dispute about the Bournoutian dispute. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I will certainly try do more content creation. Thanks guys for not blocking me. Have a great day! Blaxoul (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I checked the edit history of @HistoryofIran and he seems to dislike anything that praises Turkic peoples. He calls every article about turkic peoples Pan-Turkic. There was an article about historical Turkic dynasties that included dynasties in India, China etc. And the article is now apparently deleted? Why? This guy has so much power, I am literally done with Wikipedia. I will mind my own business. What you can clearly see that he is pushing Pan-Iranist narrative. Just look at the talk pages of any article related to Azerbaijan. He is ignoring sources that oppose his ideas. Blaxoul (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blaxoul, your comments such as "I checked the edit history of HistoryofIran, "he is pushing Pan-Iranist narrative" will be considered disruptive statements and tendentious unless you can support them with a list of diffs that can support these attacking points, or these statements should be removed/scratched. Even if you have/had such diffs, it would have been better if you had focused on the edits than on the editor. Do not continue with this aggressive tone. Lourdes 07:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I wasn't expecting this. This is what I deal with almost daily. I'll be blunt; I think they have received enough WP:ROPE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, these are some of the things that I found: "Azerbaijanis are Iranians that speak a Turkish language and i have added sources"; "Removed the Turkic dynasties category, because this was not a historical Turkic empire, but it was ruled by Turkic people who later became Persians"; "Removed Pan-Turkic nonsense"; Stop deleting information with no reason or you will be blocked"; and so on and so forth. Also I have pretty strong suspicions that @HistoryofIran actually created sock account @Şahanşah of History who got banned in 11 may 2022 . Their names are pretty similar (Şahanşah is related to Iranian history as we know). You just change the word "Iranian" with "Şahanşah" and change the order of words. Now, you have got yourself a new name. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qajar_dynasty&action=history. Blaxoul (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks. Let's see how it goes from here. Thanks, Lourdes 05:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

False copyvio allegations by User:זה לא יצחק

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

---

• זה לא יצחק (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xpbuild2504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Undelete/Draft:Windows 95 build 116 (admin-only link)

User:זה לא יצחק has been creating false copyvio allegations against me by accusing me of plagiarism. I did no such thing, I don't know what vendetta they have against me, as all I have done is create draft articles for builds of Microsoft Windows. I have done nothing wrong, and I have ensured that I did not violate any copyright, so what זה לא יצחק is doing is that they are trying to get me falsely blocked. Please block them for harassment. Xpbuild2504 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears that material copied from https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_95_build_116 was added by Xpbuild2504 to an article they had newly created. Someone nominated Draft:Windows 95 build 116 for WP:CSD#G12 deletion as a copyvio, and User:Anthony Bradbury carried out the deletion. Whatever actions may eventually be taken against Xpbuild2504, it appears that the copyright complaints about them are valid. These copyright violations might be cured by proper attribution but we would need the editor to understand the need for it. A second question is how many of the early builds of Windows95 are important enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Xpbuild2504 was already indef'd by the time I saw this thread for spam/username. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 05:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Both OP and reported editors have a connect with betawiki. Both accounts created within a week of each other recently. Both dabbling in Microsoft related articles. Both found each other out, ANI and the likes within this time... We need a new term aka BKFIP for possible tag teams taking our time out here. Coincidences are possible too though... Lourdes 05:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to do with that editor. 2 days ago, an IP posted on my talk page asking if I was 763004 on Betawiki. I've had quite negative interactions with other accounts that I suspect to be sockpuppets of the IP. It's likely that they have stalked me on Wikipedia and are trying to harass me. Note: Another editor has made an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winbytedemo Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

So now you're bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry? Judging from your contributions on BetaWiki, you're the one who's harassing Xpbuid2504. Winbytedemo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I never accused you of sockpuppetry, nor was I harassing Xpbuild. But given that both accounts were created within days of eachother, make the same edits and have similar usernames, it looks quite suspicious. Instead of discussing it here, go to the SPI report. Please don't raise WP:ASPERSIONS on me like that. Yitzhak | זה לא יצחק (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well 763004 replied to that IPs question and they said that they aren't you. Winbytedemo (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this CSD tagging. WP:CSD G12 states: This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license[ emphasis mine], where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Looking into the licensing of betawiki.net according to https://betawiki.net/wiki/BetaWiki:Copyrights they appear to use CC-BY-SA 4.0 as their content license, which is the same content license we use since the recentish TOS update, and so can be reused here with proper attribution. Xpbuild2504 has been notified of the attribution requirement after the draft creations, although I am unconvinced they understood given this. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting that BetaWiki still counts as a self-published source as it is freely editable by others. Furthermore, it is not as thorough in keeping track of references and a big part of its content base is original research, so any reuse of its content should be examined to make sure that it is backed by reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [disclaimer: I am BetaWiki staff]

• Blocked a series of suspected socks including Xpbuild2504, Winbytedemo and Tetadřvo. זה לא יצחק has been added to the suspected sock list at SPI. Holding off on blocking them pending final confirmation. Lourdes 11:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Mwholt, casting aspersions, vandalism accusations, and taking the disagreement to Twitter.

So here's the jist:

• I start a cleanup on Caddy (web server) due to what comes off to me as heavily promotional content, and upon further investigation find that the author of the software was a major contributor (and is still involved!)
• I have to go for a bit, and forget about what I was doing (this is my fault and I take full responsibility.), but when I come back, I'm greeted by vandalism accusations by the software author for removal of said promotional content, alongside lying about their involvement with the project (which is evident by the account name and also Matt Holt's recent activity on twitter with them publicly calling me a vandal. This is likely where the surprise IP editors came from.)
• User:Mwholt makes statements like `I noticed you are a contributor to the Apache web server Wikipedia page. That's interesting.`, showing A: They went through my contribution history over this and B: They're looking for ways to discredit me, in this case presumably implying I have ties to Apache (I do not, I'm a game developer and have minimal web development experience).
• User:Mwholt made statements on Twitter about this, like (Redacted), which I believe fall under WP:CANVASING as campaigning against me on external media, which is not appropriate wiki etiquette. I was made aware of this by a friend on Discord, as I do not follow Caddy's development, userbase, or developers. _{also fun sidenote most of the replies misgender me heavily, but this has no real bearing on the complaint here.}

I am unsure of how to approach this but I am quite certain Mr. Holt here is not acting in good faith, is in violation of WP:COI and likely even WP:PAID (I may need to bring this over to COIN instead?) It's been a hot minute since I've been active so feedback from other users is appreciated on the matter, and I'd like to see this resolved in a way that doesn't involve someone dragging the issue to social media. I have a feeling their behavior falls in violation of WP:HARASS too but I'm not certain about this. —moonythedwarf 13:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting: I am currently dealing with some health issues, and may disappear for a few days. If something needs my immediate attention, an email is appreciated. —moonythedwarf 13:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well at a minimum Mwholt, who is self admitted to be the same user that created Caddy, should be COI blocked from the article. Whether money is exchanging hands or not right now, they're clearly unable to be neutral and impartial in this having gone off to complain of vandalism (hint it's not vandaism) to their Twitter followers because their clear unencyclopaedic content was removed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Involved editor, I recently put this article up for deletion and the few arguments to keep were based on the now-removed (unreliable) content. Should the AfD go back up? Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Id recommen waiting until this is resolved first, but yes. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone check to ensure that all that added Corp wasnt in violation of copyright policies? Usually when that much BS goes into an article it’s lifted verbatim from someplace else that has a big copyright disclaimer for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B18F:4946:9DA5:3602:9E0D:30C6 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't locate anything. Looks like legitimate first use wording here to be honest. I understand the concern, but I can't find any copyvios in there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The posts on Twitter are absolutely unacceptable. It's unfortunate to see people with these platforms misusing them. It's definitely in violation in WP:HARASS, and could escalate to doxxing if we're not careful. IMO, this guy should be immediately indef blocked. Caddy (web server) should probably also be semi-protected to deal with anybody that tries to restore the content. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indef done... and some more Lourdes 11:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Waiting till the guy complains about being blocked on Twitter... JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Mwholt was renamed to User:Experiment77. And yes, he complained on Twitter. SWinxy (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wallacevio: LTA Editing History of Adding Misinformation to Airport/Airline related pages

User Wallacevio has a history of adding malicious content to various air transportation aritcles. I noticed this after he changed the IATA code of Chittagong Int'l Airport to CHI for no reason. This is not true. Additionally, since August of 2020, this user has been warned three (four including the deletion of a bogus redirect) other times for problematic edits, as seen here. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The user made related bad edits at both CHI[165] and List of airports by IATA airport code: C[166] on the same day as that one, May 30. I just reverted them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Wallacevio has been introducing alternative facts into Wikipedia for quite a while. Three years ago they created a new article, Palermo, Argentina, based entirely on the fantasy that the Palermo sector of the city of Buenos Aires was a city in its own right. That page now redirects to Palermo, Buenos Aires, as is appropriate, after I'd posted a merge tag, and Wallacevio overrode that by redirecting the title outright. (I decided that was fine as it was the author themselves opting not to have any content merged, assuming that any of it was suitable for merging.) Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• No evidence of responding ever in their time out here. LTA behaviour. Blocked indefinitely till they respond clearly on their talk page. Lourdes 10:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This editor has 405 edits we should probably check for hoaxes. For starters, these may or may not be legit:

• Manhattan, California
  • see Manhattan Beach, California
• Japão - no corresponding article exists on pt.wikipedia

Wallacevio created one of the deleted copies of the now-salted Thon, Pennsylvania hoax article.[167]

This previous version of an article also seems suspect but I can't tell. It was an under-referenced article about the founder of a pseudo-scientific physics theory:

• Ricardo Carezani - now redirected to Autodynamics since 2021 [168]

An earlier version was deleted in 2007 and a redirect created to replace it . In 2017, Irehdna (talk · contribs) recreated the article. Irehdna and Wallacevio worked on it in 2017. This was their final version. Later IPs trimmed the fringiest stuff out before XOR'easter (talk · contribs) redirected it again in 2021.[169]

Irehdna (talk · contribs) has similar interests; there may or may not be a connection. Irehdna and Wallacevio both edit airline and airport articles. Irehdna created an article similar to the dodgy Manhattan, California article above:

• Harriton, Pennsylvania - there's a Harriton High School but no town where this Philadelphia suburb is reported to exist.

Irehnda created Thon 2019 which was subsequently PROD'd and redirected.

Irehdna reverted one of Wallacevio's edits, so maybe they're not related and just share some interests. Maybe they're friends at Penn State University and are just bored.

If these are bad faith edits (and I think they probably are) then they're subtly so.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan, California prodded. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The link to the redirecting seems broken; see Special:Diff/1006240255 for the edit I made in 2021. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Building Wiki pages for POC who do not have much existing press in order to create citations

I would like help building a Wiki entry for a musician of color—Willie Cantu, drummer for Buck Owens and His Buckaroos at the height of their fame.

The issue at hand, is that, because he has historically been overlooked in Country Music, he doesn’t have much in the way of existing press to cite/reference back to.

I have been interviewing him across two years. I’ve recorded our video interviews. I am now in the process of editing and transcribing several hours of interviews.

How can POC build wiki pages for POC who do not have much in the way of press for information confirmation? Once I have all of the video footage up, it will unfortunately be the only media I can cite to build the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maehem (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this is the appropriate venue for this. Please try a help desk such as the WP:TEAHOUSE. Heart ^(talk) 04:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. But I predict the reply will be "you can't". Interviews mean little for notability in and of themselves (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 04:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Maehem. The notability guidelines for musicians of color are identical to the notability guidelines for white musicians. Wikipedia already contains a massive number of articles about notable musicians of color worldwide. Notable musicians of any color are those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent published sources. Find the coverage first, and then write the article. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources I put on Maehem's talkpage. Might be doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

For the interested, Willie Cantu. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

cheers! --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User @Lightlylove keeps harassing me

User @Lightlylove has received multiple warnings from multiple editors, but she hasn’t stopped her behavior even after taking a break from Wikipedia.

On June 12, she sent me a warning on my Talk page, falsely claiming that I engaged in edit warring. [170]

When I responded to her, she argued that I accused her of edit warring last month. Lightlylove also made accusations that I am engaging in disruptive editing on the List of best-selling girl groups article. [171] She even went so far as to accuse me of playing the victim and being a hypocrite. [172] However, what I said last month was not an accusation but was based on what other users noticed about her. [173] She also received multiple warnings that substantiate her actions. [174] [175]

To emphasize, the “accusation” that she mentions occurred last month. It’s unfair for Lightlylove to use that as an excuse to retaliate and falsely accuse me of edit warring this month.

Despite multiple complaints from users, she shows no concern and continues to harass any editors who oppose her behavior. Solidandrewsister (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Solidandrewsister, if you continue reverting without starting talk page discussions, your editorial behaviour will be assumed to be disruptive. Start doing that. Instead of reverting, open talk page discussions and let the community reach consensus. If you have a dispute, use the dispute resolution process. Lightlylove, you are a more experienced editor. You yourself could have started a talk page discussion once Solid reverted you. But you didn't... Please be WP:CIVIL and open up talk page discussions and stop issuing warning letters to each other; rather, discuss these issues on the talk page. I hope this is crystal clear. Lourdes 09:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I was wondering if you could let me know what I can do if she keeps doing the same things, not just to me but to other users too. Any suggestions or ideas? Solidandrewsister (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Solidandrewsister, please read my response above. You both need to take the higher ground and be civil in interacting with each other, even if the other party crosses the line, and you both need to initiate talk page discussions in article talk pages and not just leave edit summaries. Thanks, Lourdes 10:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Lightlylove's personal attacks, accusations of edit warring (after one revert on an article) and incivility is ridiculous. After multiple warnings from multiple editors, I think the best thing to do is what Lourdes said, try to sort everything out on the talk page and/or/if failed block Lightlylove for violating WP:NPA. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 14:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I never violated WP rules or personally attacked him, its such an incredible a nerve the way he's portraying himself as the victim, he's been wanting to ban me from WP ever since i created my article in fact i've never had problems with him, he got involved in a conflict regarding me months ago which wasn't his problem but he got there to insult me and defame me, this time i simply left a warning message of edit warring on his talk page and he didn't like it despite being well intentioned and accused me of harrasing and now he's victimizing himself, how can you defend this behavior Lightlylove (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

And he had the nerve to ask you what he can do if i keep on doing these things? Doing what? I have never ever accused someone here on WP of something they have never done in fact its all the opposite, ever since i started here its me who has been accused plenty of times of doing things i have never done, you can confirm this by reading my talk page, its him who has been accusing me since along ago and i never did anything about it cause i was always well educated and tried to keep it civilised, in fact he's the first user i have ever left an advice message on a talk page and see how was my first time. Lightlylove (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your understanding, i simply left a well intentioned edit warring message on his talk page because he was reverting edits that other users were contributing ignoring the fact that those edits were well researched and backed up with reliable sources, but he didn't like the advice and replied telling me that i was accusing him without evidence but on the page List of best-selling girl groups you can clearly see him reverting back to back and edit warring with user @Flabshoe1 who simply made a good contribution to the page and discussed kindly with him and never re-added her edits back after being reverted by him multiple times, that's why i left an advice message on his talk page but he didn't take it well and now he's saying that i am harrasing him like what, i have never crossed word with him other than this time and other time where he said that i deserved to be banned and that i cause chaos here on WP which are all defamatory claims against me, he said that trying to defend two other users i had a conflict with months ago but thankfully the conflict was clarified and we all agreed with each other that it was just a misunderstanding, yet he's using that to defame me and said that i keep on harrasing him which is a blatant lie, "harrasing" is a big word and holds a big meaning, this can even get to me in my personal life and he doesn't realize the danger of his words, he's trying to harm me but the evidence that is not true is well archived here on WP. Lightlylove (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lightlylove: I'm not really sure what edit you're referring to as a good edit, but from Talk:List of best-selling girl groups#Blackpink sales figures, it seems another editor has disputed at least one of Flabshoe1's edits. Also another editor has found one of their edit's problematic [176]. Flabshoe1 themselves admitted they missed out a source in one of their edits. To your credit, you have engaged in discussion on that talk page as has Flabshoe1 which can't be said for Solidandrewsister. However you need to continue with that discussion, giving time for other editors to respond. Potentially you could try pinging Binksternet if they haven't responded in a few days and you're sure that your figures add up and are supported by the sources you are using. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Lightlylove, Solidandrewsister, thank you for your points above. Let me reiterate the obvious here. It's actually quite easy to be civil to each other. "Comment on content and not character", is the golden rule, which will mostly keep you both free of any action from us. Unfortunately, it's easier to be uncivil to each other too. I am sure both of you have had your say out here. So please take this as a final advise. If there is any disparaging comment on each other's characters by any of you, and if you leave unrequired warning notes on each other's talk pages without first starting talk page discussions on the actual article talk pages (and/or without waiting for the other party to give their clarifications), you will be blocked. Like I said, please take this as a good-faith advise rather than a warning. Lightlylove, please do note that I have blocked a sock that was supporting you and attacking Solidandrewsister. I would request you to be careful here, without mincing any further words. I hope you all the best -- but do come back if there is any infringement to this advise. Thank you, Lourdes 05:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Romanian/Turkish IP addresses edit-warring

Page: Ferrari 499P

Focus of dispute: Power output in infobox, parameter | Power =. Romanian IP(s) insists on re-adding incorrect figure (939 bhp (952 PS; 700 kW)). IP is not communicating.

Attempt at communication: Special:Diff/1160012300

Context: This page in question is attracting a lot of traffic recently due to it winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans. These IP addresses have taken it upon themselves to add in what they believe to be the correct power output for the car. On first glance, it seems to be correct, 671 plus 268 is 939. However, as stipulated by FIA regulation (Le Mans Hypercar regulations Appenxdix 4b, Maximum Power Train power), the maximum output of the entire powertrain (motor or engine) cannot exceed 500 kW (680 PS; 671 hp).

Suggested remedy/course of action: Temporary page-protection.

Other notes: I did not take this to AIV as I did not feel like this was a clear-cut case of vandalism, it needs more context that what can be filed in an AIV report. I also accept that I may have violated 3RR and whatever sanctions that may bring. I also did not notify the IP as there are several of them. Below is a list.

• 79.114.77.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 185.53.198.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.114.77.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.2.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.251.223.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any assistance would be nice. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 01:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If you’re after Page Protection, wouldn’t this fit better at WP:RFPP? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it still is :). Anyway, the disruption is stretched out over some days, and all in all not really heavy enough to warrant semi-protection. Dispute resolution might be needed, and I wouldn't shy back to use the IPs talk-page(s). Communication via edit-summaries is rarely productive, if it is seen at all (Wikipedia being the complex thing that it is, regular and oldtimers like me tend to forget that others might not be used to its nooks and crannies). Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by SurferSquall

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

I have concern on SurferSquall editing behavior, since he has started numerous edit wars in just a couple of months according to his talk page and edit history, keeps reverting changes eventhough consensus was made, and I don't think he bother the read explanation or source when provided. He also reverting changes that he himself has agreed to. I believe those are signs of disruptive editing, as he are:

1. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. as shown in the discussion in Talk:List of active Brazilian military aircraft#Regarding C-390 / KC-390 and Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force.
2. Rejects or ignores community input, whereas he insist on using non-RS source (planespotter), eventhough other editors have pointed out as shown here and here
3. willing to engage in WP:EDITWAR if other editor edits didn't align with his views.

Please also note that his talk page is full of multiple warnings and he was also blocked twice for edit-warring. At least there are two administrators (Ad Orientem and Daniel Case) who have concerns on his editing behavior. And I am really considering that the issue are he is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Although he did says that he will abide to policy and guidelines in his unblock request, his after that statement action proved otherwise. Hence IMO he is WP:NOTHERE for general disruptive editing behavior. Kindly please look up on his edit behavior. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The source I provided for the Brazilian page was form Jane’s, one of the most highly regarded military sources in the world. You seem to be the one continuing to ignore consensus, at both pages, not me. Also, as I stated on the Brazilian page, there are certain international aircraft designations which apply to all air forces in the world, ones that those governments cannot change. This is because the designations in question come from ICAO and other military treaties. As for the accusations you make towards me, it seems you are projecting quite a bit SurferSquall (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It was me who said Janes is reliable source for military topics as stated here and it was you who said Janes is wrong as stated here. Again, you contradict yourself. It seems Ad Orientem was right that you might be a case of WP:CIR. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence. An ANI was hardly needed- you could've just discussed it- as on the Indonesian page, you seem to insist that you are correct, based on older, factually incorrect sources. not to mention your numerous grammatical errors. SurferSquall (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR was suggested by other editor on your talk page, but I second that. And yes, it was already discussed. But, the fact that we have lengthy discussion of simple issue on Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force and Talk:List of active Brazilian military aircraft, is reinforce my believe that this is WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. (Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting, especially if they can't understand what the problem is). Ckfasdf (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I understand, it's that you keep making those changes while entirely ignoring anything I say or add SurferSquall (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the unnecessarily long and tedious discussion on the Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force, I can vouch Ckfasdf. Despite having pointed out multiple times that the source SurferSquall using was incorrect or outdated, or even when more up to date sources were provided, he still won't budge for around a week, even if a 3 to 1 consensus was reached. He even revert edits that uses his own source and/or he agrees with. He also revert an edit without a good reason (seemingly just because if not out of spite). EvoSwatch (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You continued to refuse to add newer or better sources than mine. The article STILL does not have these sources cited. It is not that hard to add them if they are as readily available as you claim SurferSquall (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert war

There is a difference between the indic alphabets ड and द and I have told Kwamikagami about it - see this and this and had mentioned the correct pronunciation as per the Hindustani phonology (see this and this), yet he has re-instated the wrong approximations for the indic alphabet द at the Help:IPA/Marathi and Help:IPA/Sanskrit IPA help pages - see this and this and at the Help:IPA/Hindi_and_Urdu Hindi and Urdu IPA help page, he has re-instated the wrong approximation for the Indic alphabet थ - see this. I asked him to self revert them, but he refused - see this and this. This calls for some sanctioning as these guides for pronunciation are used by many and it has to be as accurate as possible and he is likely going to re-insert (he already has, as of now) his wrong approximations if he remains unsanctioned.-1Firang (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

While waiting for Kwamikagami to respond, 1Firang might do well to read WP:BOOMERANG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hate to say it (and I'm generally not quick with this), but WP:CIR is also applicable here. I actually have been in this content dispute with 1Firang for a longer time than kwami and have also asked for community input in a related WikiProject[177].

I have over and over explained (starting here) why certain of their proposed approximations don't work, with detailed references to scholarly works that form the base of Help:IPA/Hindi_and_Urdu (they're cited in Hindustani phonology), but 1Firang insist on their proposals mostly based on arguments that betray an egregious infamiliarity with general phonetics, IPA and the different realizations of certain sounds in various accents of English. I assume good faith on their part, but not much willingness to listen and to read reliable sources; they have picked random websites in support of their proposals, and when they use reliable sources like the Cambridge Dictionary, the content of the latter totally contradicts what they try to "prove". I know that CIR is not sufficient grounds for a TBAN (an option I'm considering to propose here if things don't change) if not paired with disruptive behavior, but some of their edits (i.e. when changing content claiming "consensus" even when no consensus has been reached yet) are bordering on the disruptive, also when they do micro-edits and reverse the principle of onus, telling us to explain why their edits are wrong, but without giving a substantial argument as to why we should change the status quo in the first place. –Austronesier (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What you describe there would appear to be more or less a repeat of similar behaviour regarding e.g. the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article: Persistent use of poor sources, claiming a 'consensus' that clearly doesn't exist to justify edits, etc. And note also a similar tendency to make demands that contributors edit on their behalf. Given that 1Firang had moved on elsewhere, I took no action at the time, but if this is part of a recurring pattern, in someone who has been given advice on appropriate behaviour by multiple experienced contributors, it may need to be taken into account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For your information (to the admins), I accepted the edits by Austronesier and did not edit war with him. I have not even reverted the last edit of Kwamikagami as I know that he will revert it again and instead brought the case here.-1Firang (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You haven't brought a 'case' here. Or at least, nothing recognisable as such. Instead, you have pointed to a content dispute with an experienced contributor. One you seem to be attempting to win not on the basis of anything they have done, but instead on the basis of what you think they will do. Which is not only absurd in of itself, but indicative, in my opinion, of a general lack of cluelessness on your part. One that might well lead people to ask whether you are competent to edit here at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure any response by me is required. 1Firang made a series of BOLD edits, and was reverted by Austronesier. They then started an edit-war based on TRUTH, and I stepped in and reverted. They then continued the edit-war. They did start a discussion, which is good, but their proposals have been rejected by everyone involved, yet they continued to edit-war. Their idea seems to be that if they repeat the same rejected (and disproven) claims, we must concede they're correct and allow the changes. Granted, they didn't break 3RR (unless you count making the essentially the same edit on 3 similar articles and then implementing it on a fourth), but the onus is on 1Firang.

BTW, I did make one non-revert change (to "width") that was a compromise with 1Firang, one that Austronesier accepted but later reverted as part of a restoration to status quo ante. I'm happy with whatever Austronesier chooses here. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the illustrious Mr. Grump that there are serious CIR problems with 1Firang's contributions. I've seen them in a few places around the project, at a minimum I don't think they should be editing in the India/Pakistan topic area, though the quality of their contributions elsewhere is also lacking.

They repeatedly try to present Islamophobic conspiracy mongering and pro-Hindutva propaganda as "truth", see this ridiculous, biassed, suggestion for a plot section [178], this attempt to present the movie as a "real story" [179] or this attempt at loading up a sentence with as many attacks on Muslims as possible [180].

They have gamed extended confirmed rights in order to edit in this topic area, at the end of May they made hundreds of edits to inflate their edit count, copyediting articles one letter/word at a time or doing utterly useless stuff like removing whitespace from articles [181] [182] [183].

They have repeatedly stated that articles should include information portraying Muslims in a negative light because they are "pissed" about it being removed [184] [185]. "I'm pissed" obviously has no basis in content policy and is not a valid reason to restore material, especially when other editors have raised BLP concerns about the content.

They have repeatedly attempted to canvass support and bring other editors into disputes that agree with them [186] [187].

Their edits outside this topic area also seem to have problems, e.g. this edit introduced a factual error [188] (PM is not an honorific suffix) and this edit is ungrammatical [189] (who is serving as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since October 2022. is not correct). 192.76.8.93 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I.P., I can report you for logged out editing - see WP:LOUT.-1Firang (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Firang, that is blatantly untrue, you technically could open an SPI over it but I highly doubt that would move forward with no more evidence than "this ip is making comments I disagree with", in addition, LOUT does not in any way, shape, or form state anything about reporting IP editors. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Under what part of WP:LOUT would you report me? That part of policy says nothing about reporting people - it's instructions on how people with accounts can deal with accidental logged out edits. We don't block people just for editing as an IP, and I've never used an account. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As an editor who has been dealing with firang for a few months ATP I agree with everything you are saying here IP, however I am especially concerned about the mass minor (seemingly intentional) copyedits, I thought of those as weird a few times while checking page histories but never connected the dots. I recall seing them make an edit on a talk page, then follow up by making three or four minor copyedits, obviously this could be a coincidence, but when it is repeated that often it seems unlikely. If any passing admins notice this post, would you mind letting me know if working around the EC in a manner like that is permitted? Googleguy007 (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Googleguy007 I'm not an admin, but no, it's not permitted, it's called gaming of permissions (WP:PGAME). 192.76.8.93 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some notes here. In Indian English, "an alphabet" refers to an individual letter in a script (technically a "glyph"), not an entire alphabet. Writing about phonology without an understanding of International Phonetic Alphabet would appear to me to akin to writing about chemistry without an understanding of the periodic table.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Kwamikagami, hi. You have significant editing experience and I can understand the frustration when you are faced with edits you and others may disapprove. But you need to be calmer in your discussions, especially with editors who are new here. I appreciate that your addressing of them as "stupid" was redacted by you, but usage of words such as "nonsense" is tendentious (I know, "bullshit" is bullshit, but you address that to someone's work multiple times -- that will come off bad). I am confident you understand that this advise is not to take any credit away from your work here. It's just that on this Board, we strongly suggest calm negotiations. Please do take this to heed for the future and please don't repeat this again.
• 1Firang, thanks for raising this. This is predominantly a content issue. You can read up on our dispute resolution process and follow the steps written there, in case talk page consensus is inconclusive. If you face any personal attacks, please feel free to come back here. At the same time, I appreciate your not re-instating anything that has been reverted by the other editors on any of the pages. Edit warring will not lead you to anywhere good. But am confident that you understand this. Thanks again for the report. Come back for further administrative assistance later. Warmly, Lourdes 06:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Where did I use the word "bullshit" on this board? I don't see it. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  While reverting. Not on this board. I don't see your addressing the issue of aggressive discussions. Please address and confirm you understand. Lourdes 06:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I know I should be more diplomatic. But there's a difference between a newbie who doesn't know the rules, and someone who insists against all comers they're correct even when their own sources prove them wrong. That has nothing to do with being a newbie, it's a matter of basic competence. What 1Firang writes is nonsense (I see now that's the word you were objecting to), and it's entirely appropriate to call them out on it.

  And BTW, 1Firang has edit-warred over these items. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Kwamikagami, thank you for your response. While I am not conversant with the editorial bent of the topic, you have to confirm you will not use tendentious statements like "nonsense" again. There are other diplomatic words to push your point. Please don't consider this badly, you need to now confirm that you will not use tendentious words again. To the point of Firangi's edit warring, we have warned him and if their are repeat issues from any editor, administrative action may be taken. At the same time, we do not respect any editor meeting out bad treatment to even incompetent editors, not that I am alluding to Firangi as one. Sorry for pushing this point of your behaviour -- but we are at a crossroads where you choose the path. Do please respond. Lourdes 06:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't promise I won't use a particular innocuous word in the future. That's ridiculous. (Or is that word also banned?) Others have also used the word "nonsense" for this editor, because what they say is demonstrable nonsense. Can I say they're "wrong"? Because if I say they're wrong about something they believe is right, I'm implying they're stupid. To what level of euphemism do I need to descend when calling out nonsense?

  If words like "nonsense" are banned on WP, then we need a guideline of banned words. Then we can argue over which words should be on the banned list, so that people know where the line is. — kwami (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  The usage of such words is not banned. However, and unfortunately, using words such as "bullshit" while reverting and using words such as "nonsense" repeatedly only ensures that the interaction environment becomes toxic. If others follow the same path to make the collaborative environment regularly negative, there may be administrative action against them too. Your aggressive opinion about what is nonsense and what is not nonsense is not something that everyone may subscribe to; others may believe the edit to be a good-faith editorial mistake (if at all it is an error). You are free to question editors on CIR and request for action on that. You are not free to bring down people's contributions by asserting your opinion that something is bullshit and another is nonsense. I am blocking you for 48 hours, and will hope you choose the more collaborative discussion path. Thank you, Lourdes 10:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes This is an utterly ridiculous block.

  WP:No personal attacks states Comment on content, not on the contributor. Kwamikagami was quite clearly commenting on the content of the edits, not the editor who performed them. A personal attack or harassment has to be directed at a person, the content of an edit cannot be harassed. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Agreeing with the IP editor above. Assuming we're talking about the edit summary for this revision—rv bullshit—it doesn't address the editor who put that on there in the first place. Is there a less crass way of putting it? Absolutely. Could it imply that kwamikagami thinks that the editor is an idiot or a moron? Possibly. It's a grey area, but it doesn't fall under the types of comments that are never acceptable (emphasis in original). There's an argument to be made for a block under WP:CIVIL, but not WP:NPA. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Kwami is a former administrator and knows how to behave and how not to. Despite this, Kwami has a long history of being aggressive and edit warring, having been blocked quite a few times and warned against it other times. To be frank, I think they've gotten more chances than most would have, and I think the short block is appropriate to remind Kwami that they need to consider how to appropriately communicate with other users. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  How does using the edit summary rv. nonsense justify a block for personal attacks? What part of that edit summary was an attack on another user? Criticising the content a editor adds is not an attack on that editor. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  This block is absurd. No, strike that, this block is bullshit. It is self-evident that the thread here was started by a contributor that has a history of trying to game the system. A contributor who has repeatedly invented bogus 'consensus' to try to push through POV-pushing edits, A contributor who's entire concept of 'consensus' revolves around intentionally misrepresenting what others say. A contributor who started this thread by asking for Kwamikagami to be blocked not for anything they had done, but to prevent an imagined 'edit war' that had yet to occur. A contributor who's continuing presence on Wikipedia is a net negative. This block rewards improperly-motivated rulemongering to the detriment of Wikipedia. We aren't here to be 'civil', we are here to create encyclopaedic content, and if telling those who clearly aren't that their edits are nonsense or bullshit is necessary, we should do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Unblock. The content is bullshit, which is what they indicated. If that's the barometer for an NPA, I think we'd lose all editors to a block. I know I've referred to bullshit as such.

  Star Mississippi 16:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add on the pile, this block was a direct violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE which states that blocks should only be to prevent disruption, not as punishment. This needs to be overturned now, not later, and User:Lourdes needs to brush up on proper admin conduct. These kinds of censorious actions undermine the ability of editors to have open and frank discussions about content and conduct. Calling out nonsense content as "nonsense" is not a personal attack. A personal attack is directed at the person, not conduct, not content. Same thing with "bullshit". I can call this block "bullshit" and it is not a personal attack because it is directed at egregious conduct that flies in the face of basic Wikipedia policy. The fact that a person so unwisely engaged in that conduct does not make it a personal attack any more than calling out the horrors of chhaupadi are an attack on a particular person that practices it. Unless we are going to start a wide-ranging RfC to become the word police and start up a list of censored words, editors need to be free to call nonsense "nonsense" and bullshit "bullshit", even when it might be intemperate to do so. This was a pure act of retaliatory punishment, and is just plain wrong. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 16:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: I too think your block of Kwamikagami was incorrect. I don't have the expertise in IPA that kwami and Austronesier do but even I could see that this was a Wikipedia:Randy in Boise situation. Would recommend an unblock. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: You nailed it. –Austronesier (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:SummerKrut

SummerKrut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engages in uncivil/battleground behaviour and edit wars, in particular in the contentious topic of Eastern Europe. On Talk:Dnieper, SK accused another editor User:Mzajac of promoting Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda [190], later calling MZ a pro-Ukrainian propagandist [191]. When challenged by MZ, SK barely changed anything [192], not following WP:REDACT

When I asked SK to consider striking uncivil comments, instead of showing that they understand policy, they doubled down with Truth stings.[193].

In SK's defense, most uncivilities happened before MZ made SK aware of EE being a contentious topic. However, SK has refused to strike out uncivil/battleground comments after having become aware and they have doubled down with Truth stings., which suggests that SK will not change their behavior. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

SummerKrut has been made aware that they are editing in a contentious topic.[194]  —Michael Z. 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In talk:Dnieper#Requested move 7 June 2023 SummerKrut has approached the subject from a WP:BATTLE perspective. Initially they voted with the sole rationale “pro-ukrainian POV-pushing,”[195] although they soon modified that,[196] and again later. But they continued to argue that the proposed title “is a transliteration from Ukrainian, which means that it promotes a specific point of view”[197] (ignoring that the current title, while historically more common in English, is derived from Russian). They seem to have not only disagreed with but took offence at my arguments, and made blatant accusations of bad-faith editing against me personally, and using labels associating supposed bad behaviour with Ukraine or Ukrainian nationality.

• “Thanks for proving that your only goal in Ukrainian topics is promoting a pro-Ukrainian point of view”[198]
• “please stop trying to promote Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda”[199]
• “This is exactly why arguing with Ukrainian propagandists is pointless,”[200] quietly modified to “pro-Ukrainian” after I expressed my disapproval.[201]

This crosses some lines. This person doesn’t don’t stick to discussing the topic but extends the rhetoric to personal comments and personal labelling. They seem to be aware that some language is unacceptable, yet double down on personal comments that are not clearly acceptable.

The article is subject to WP:CTOP (Eastern Europe and the Balkans), and is peripheral to WP:GS/RUSUKR, especially since in the proposed move being discussed, a major point of evidence is that a large proportion of current sources on Russia’s war in Ukraine are using the name Dnipro. —Michael Z. 20:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway the discussion is now closed with, expectably, retention of the status quo. "that the current title ... is derived from Russian" — I am sorry but it's not just me who has already told you that it's your own WP:OR. "a large proportion of current sources on Russia’s war in Ukraine are using the name Dnipro" — once again, WP:RECENTISM. Summer ^talk 07:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

SummerKrut is already aware of the consensus text in Dnieper#Names:

In English, Dnieper derives from Russian Dnepr, and Dnipro from the Ukrainian.

I don’t think this discussion about behaviour need get sidetracked by content matters. SummerKrut rejects the cited source which contradicts their POV, but hasn’t presented evidence to challenge it.  —Michael Z. 14:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week pending their talk page response. Pinging Ymblanter for their comment here. Please urgently provide the diffs so we can see the other parties' issues too here. Thank you, Lourdes 05:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes: I am not sure what you are asking me for. If you read the whole discussion, you would see that Mzajac badgers all opposes, and despite the outcome clearly not going to what they want it to be they insist on being absolutely correct with some arguments which are weak but policy-based and a lot of arguments which are not policy based. Even in this very discussion (ANI) above, they cite their own opinion [202] based on a biased source and call it "consensus". This is not the first discussion they behave like this and in fact this has been ongoing for years. They were previously topic-banned for similar behavior in Kyiv. If you insist that I collect all the diffs, this can not be done urgently, it could easily take me a few weeks - mind you, I have a full-time job and I do not have a file with links ready, I will have to search for them - I will go straight to the Arbitration Enforcement to ask for a topic ban. However, to be honest, this is not the highest priority for me. --Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Noted with thanks Ymblanter. I appreciate the response and the demands on your time. Please take your time in going to AE. Till that time, I would request you to please not repeat your accusations on any board against these editors, unless you have taken the time to prepare your diffs. I am confident you have your case strong, but there is no leeway on accusations. Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is fine with me, but we should also make sure that the behavior like the one in this RM does not continue. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I do not expect that ANI would be able to deal with this behavior (or with my behavior, if someone wants to). EE is a contentious topic, and we have year-long patterns here, whereas ANI can only deal with things like outright incivility (basically on one-diff level) Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Ymblanter for understanding. Warmly, Lourdes 06:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Ishaq Dar: edit warring and potential sockpuppetry

1. Edit warring.
   1. I made a fairly substantial edit to Ishaq Dar (some copyediting, some removal of puffery). The edit summary linked to a comment I had made on the talk page explaining my thinking. The IP user 119.157.101.51 reverted them reverted without discussion. I subsequently invited discussion on the talk page (22:53, 11 June; all times UK time for ease of reference).
   2. Fiction2Facts then reverted again again on 12 June at 3:21, and at 6:08 replied on the talk page. I reverted their edit again and pointed out that
      1. their comment did not refer to any of the content of my edits or any policy, so it wasn’t a meaningful attempt to engage; and
      2. it appeared that Fiction2Facts was using 119.158.101.51 as a sockpuppet: in particular, both used the term ‘mala fide vandalism’.
   3. Fiction2Facts then replied on the talk page, again without any specific reference to the content of the edits, but promising a 'detailed response' later. They then reverted again at about midday on 12 June.
   4. I replied that a promise of a ‘detailed response’ wasn’t a response itself, and that they had still failed to meaningfully refer to the content of the edits in dispute and/or policy. I then reverted again. I also said I would take this to ANI. I did not have time to write this up for a few days.
   5. Today, IP user 202.165.236.224 (another sockpuppet, I believe—see below) reverted my edit in turn. There was no justification in the edit summary or on the talk page; I therefore reverted it.
2. Potential sockpuppetry. The reverts in question were made by IP user @119.157.101.51, @Fiction2Facts, and IP user @202.165.236.224. The vast majority of Fiction2Facts’ edits are to Ishaq Dar. Fiction2Facts also has a history of reverting other edits on the page Ishaq Dar: e.g. [203], [204] which arguably amount to edit warring. All of 119.157.101.51’s edits are to Ishaq Dar and reverted my edits. Both use the term ‘mala fide vandalism’. All of 202.165.236.224’s Special:Contributions/202.165.236.224's edits were to Ishaq Dar. I therefore judge that all are the same user. None of the users in question has directly responded to my questions under Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery.
3. Aside. It has proved impossible to elicit explanations for their edits, for which reason I have reverted each edit. Obviously if there had been a meaningful dispute about the content of the edits I shouldn’t have made these reverts. It would also be helpful to have more comment, so I shall request a third opinion at the same time.

Docentation (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I find it quite suspicious how both IPs geolocate to Pakistan. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I left a strongly worded message at Talk:Ishaq Dar#Puffery reinforcing all that Docentation has already told him.

@Docentation, you've done a great job dealing with this guy!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the editor, Fiction2Facts (talk · contribs), ignored A. B.'s warning/advice and continued the edit war (this time using 103.197.47.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have semi-protected the page for two weeks and blocked the user from the article indefinitely. They are welcome to use the article talkpage to propose and discuss changes to the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn by proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal: TBAN on all three accounts/IPs linked Fiction2Facts and his possible IPs have been edit warring with Docentation on the page Ishaq Dar, and after discussion on the talk page, it's obvious they aren't going to stop soon. For that reason, I propose a topic ban on all three users for WikiProject Pakistan (if not the same user). Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Comment - No opinion on the facts of the matter, but it seems a bit precipitous to propose a TBAN after the very first ANI report - or have there been previous complaints against these editors? And it is only about a single article? Why not request semi-protection for the page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC) True, however after multiple reverts and a failed attempt at consensus at a talk page, it's come to a conclusion that they aren't going to stop. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 19:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Please do not delete comments once they have been responded to. Striking through your comments is the proper way to show that you withdraw them. I've done that for you here, after restoring and hatting the section you deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations, aspersion casting, and edit warring by User:AlanS

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

Yesterday, I came across the page Ben Roberts-Smith (the subject has been in the news for a few days), where multiple users are engaged in an edit war over whether he should be referred to as a "war criminal." I reported one edit-warring user to WP:AN3RR, where they were later blocked.

• Another user (the one this report is about), AlanS, was blocked for edit warring on 5 June at the same page, Ben Roberts-Smith. He was also edit warring when I came across the page (08:40, 13 June 2023 and 12:56, 13 June 2023 and 09:15, 14 June 2023). I decided to not report him, though, because he hadn't violated 3RR, (even though 3RR doesn't have to be violated for a user to be considered edit warring). I decided instead to warn him for edit warring at his talk page. AlanS, however, seemed to be a bit too unhappy with my notice, and decided to comment at the AN3RR page (where I had reported that other user). He denied edit warring (which wasn't really necessary since the report wasn't about him anyway): "Nythar might have thought I was up to three reverts myself if they disregarded the fact that one of my reverts was reverting a sock and therefore I was up to two." It is true that one of the reverts he made to that page removed a sock edit. However, at the time, there was no evidence that the user was a sockpuppet, and his edit summary didn't show he was aware of that: "Discussion is taking place in talk and sources were removed that were identified as not supporting lead. Edits were performed in line with discussion". Even if that edit is entirely not considered, his behavior on that page (trying to force his preferred version into the article here and here days after being blocked for edit warring) can still be construed as edit warring.
• He also accused me of sockpuppetry, specifically being a sock of Gugrak, a now-blocked sockpuppet who was edit warring at that page: "Nythar decided they would drive by tag my usertalk for edit warring or I wouldn't be aware of this. can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak." He did not present even a bit of evidence to support this claim. AlanS later stated, "I have just had a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and I have not seen a single comment in there from User;Nythar. I note that when they made this report they falsely claimed that they had tried to resolved this dispute on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and that in fact has not occured." I'm not sure why AlanS thought I was required to engage with him before reporting 3RR violations to AN3RR; both he and the other user were edit warring simultaneously as they were discussing the topic with other users at the talk page.
• AlanS also accused me of "abusing [the] process", and stated "I find their accusations of me and others edit warring and them engaging in drive by tagging when they made no attempt to enter into dispute resolution to be offensive." The "drive by tagging" was simply an edit warring notice to their talk page, and I hadn't claimed that I had engaged in dispute resolution: in my report, I simply linked to places where dispute resolution was taking place. Nothing that I did violated any policy, and yet AlanS continued to accuse me of abusing the process: "This report is an abuse of process and I request admin sanctions on User;Nythar." -- "I do find you coming from nowhere and bringing this up quite abusive" -- "Their claim to have attempted to enter into any sort of dispute resolution at all in any sense of the word is false and misleading. Admin sanctions are required for lodging a report containing false information." -- You should reframe from your abusive claims of edit warring. ... I suggest you drop your abusive claims. After I warned him to refrain from referring to my claims as "abusive" (along with an explanation for why you don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring), he again referred to my claims as "abusive": "You shouldn't be so fast to throw around abusive accusations towards other editors".
• These accusations of abusing the process are blatant aspersion-casting. WP:Casting aspersions states "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." AlanS didn't provide any evidence that I had abused any process, instead relying on the notion that 2RR or 3RR somehow are not edit warring (see the relevant diffs). I do not have the ability to deal with such behavior. I will also note that this is not a content dispute: I am reporting AlanS to this noticeboard because he is edit warring, accusing me of sockpuppetry without a shred of evidence, and is casting aspersions of bad-faith actions. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As per the preceding report, user has been edit warring to include contentious BLP material into the article and has been blocked for the edit warring.

I would like to add the following points.

• User has a history [205] of edit warring, having been previously blocked three times for edit-warring. While the blocks were from 2014, I note that user has made very few edits each year between 2014 and now [206].
• I was involved when the user initially started to edit on the article.
• In the below edits [207], [208], user refused to address their edits by claiming that the reverting user was required to gain consensus for content removal ("Take it to talk if you disagree"), violating WP:ONUS. User only went to the talk page after a second user reverted. Afterwards, user made multiple edits in other sections related to similar BLP issues.
• In two edit summaries [209] [210] used by user in the above diffs, user made personal attacks against the reverting editor by casting aspirations. While the user "withdrew" the first PA, they made a second PA in the following edit summary.
• The user returned to the page right off his first block, making the same edits [211] during the edit war for which he was blocked for. The user has claimed that there is consensus for the edits, despite replying to another users substantive objections just a few edits prior [212]. While the edits were not discussed in the same conversation, but the issues/concerns are essentially the same between the two conversations [213][214].
• I further note the borderline uncivil tone which the user uses in his replies. In summary, I find this users WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to be of concern.

Carter00000 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Was writing something similar to this, but no point restating things. I also don't like the look of Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith. I propose a 1RR rule for AlanS and a block of some length, perhaps 1-2 weeks. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It is almost 24 hours since my last edit on the page and that edit was a minor edit. Any accusation of edit warring towards me is quite stale, particularly considering what accusation there was consisted of me undertaking 2 reverts with my accuser liking to throw in another two which were undertaken against a sock. Continuing this on now is abusive especially considering some of my accusers have unclean hands in regards to not following WP:BRD themselves and engaging in what they accuse me of. If there is to be 1RR apply at all it should be to whole article for all users. I propose this either be closed with nil outcome or there be 1RR imposed for the whole of article. AlanS^talk 09:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not accuse User:Nythar of being User:Gugrak, I asked if an admin to undertake a check because I had had Gugrak stalk me accross different wiki namespaces for a couple of days and then appear with another sock. The thought did cross my mind as to the possibility but I made no accusation. I made this clear. Making this accusation is in bad faith and false and misleading information. I find the use blatantly false and misleading information in this manner to be abusive. AlanS^talk 09:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak

In what world is it misleading or bad faith to say that is an accusation? It's as obvious an accusation as you can get without opening an SPI! 37.245.41.86 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

IP lookup says that your location is UAE. Your new hobby is stalking me now is it User:Gugrak? or do you prefer User:Orchomen? AlanS^talk 10:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have evidence, file a report at WP:SPI. Noting an open SPI at a behavioral noticeboard is okay. Making accusations (and I concur, those WERE accusations) is not okay. Continuing to accuse, imply, or question whether a user is a sock without evidence is casting aspersions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think random IPs which geolocate to the UAE randomly showing up in Ben Roberts-Smith and other places I'm editing including in other wiki namespaces cuts it? AlanS^talk 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

He's not talking about your response to me is he, he's talking about your earlier behaviour 37.245.41.86 (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: the IP has been blocked, it turns out it was actually a banned user harassing AlanS. Maybe we should all try to give them a little bit of the benefit of the doubt? They are clearly being harassed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

When one enters a report of edit warring at the Administrators Noticeboard/Edit warring the form specifically states "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" followed by "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:". User:Nythar you clearly admitted that you did not do this at all. When you admitted this admin should have sanctioned you. I propose sanctions against User:Nythar for abuse of reporting of edit warring for not carrying out the required dispute resolution". AlanS^talk 09:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Any person with a reasonable understanding of relevant policies will know that AlanS doesn't seem capable of engaging with others in a non-battleground manner. I don't think even a 2 week block is enough. Their block from 10 days ago didn't prevent this disruption, so a 14-day block will probably do nothing. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

pot kettle black. Again this is all very stale and I've substantiated you not following process when you lodged the edit warring report. AlanS^talk 10:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for moving my comments earlier. I'd realised that I'd put them under Carter's comment when I'd intended them to be above. As long as you can logically follow, I guess it doesn't really matter. AlanS^talk 10:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Stating that I have made very few edits is false and misleading information while I may not edit as much as I did at one point in time I casually edit. Bringing up what happened in 2014 is stale in the extreme. You have unclean hands in this regards User:Carter00000 editing against consensus when you have being making next to no attempt to engage in the talk page. Stating that I am including contentious BLP material is again false and misleading information and certainly not the consensus that had been formed on the talkpage if you had an alternate view you've had every opportunity to engage in consensus building and yet you have not. AlanS^talk 10:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• AlanS, hi. Thank you for controlling your edits to the page in question post the last block. Also, thank you for engaging in discussions on the article's talk page. Having said that (and without commenting on the actions of other editors here), I want a confirmation from you -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? (That means avoiding words accusing others of being "abusive", having "unclean hands" etc). Don't get me wrong -- I believe your one-minded editorial drive to title the subject as a "war criminal" is something I would have supported emotionally, but sadly, it goes against page consensus (I don't know how you read page consensus, but your reading could be different from mine). Whatever has been reported above is not a blockable offence. And fortunately, you did not self-destruct in your comments above. But you would need to move away from the edge; and that is where comes the question I have asked above, which I request you to please answer in a straightforward manner -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? Thank you, Lourdes 10:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi User:Lourdes, I wasn't particularly concerned with the "war criminal" bit in the first sentence, particularly given it straight up duplicates what is said in the second sentence. X is a war criminal (first sentence). X was found to have committed war crimes (second sentence). Saying the same thing in different ways. I might have been taking a for war criminal position in the talkpage but I think my editing if anything was mostly in other places (second sentence and elsewhere). I haven't looked at the talk page in the last 24 hours and it may very well be the case with one particular user shopping around in other places to draw in users that consensus has moved on but when I was last looking it seemed like 2/3rds were in favour of the "war criminal" stance and certainly there is abundant RS to support that. I'm ok do as you request and discuss things in a more non-aggressive manner. AlanS^talk 11:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, so no word on the multiple times you've accused me of being a sockpuppet and the multiple times you've accused me of abusing Wikipedia processes? No word on the aspersion-casting? Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock. AlanS^talk 11:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's a terrible apology. You did accuse effectively accuse them of being a sock with: "can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak" - asking an admin to CU check them (additionally in an inappropriate forum) obviously carries with it the assumption and presumption that they are a sock, and you were saying it to their face. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nythar, please stay off this discussion without inflaming it further. AlanS, "it may very well be the case with one particular user shopping around in other places to draw in users" is a personal attack in the very line that you wrote you are okay to do as I am requesting. Please confirm you understand the question -- Are you okay to confirm that from hereon you will discuss issues non-aggressively with other editors? Do let me know. Lourdes 11:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi User:Lourdes, I'm sorry I didn't mean that aggressively and I understand how it may have come across that way. I can confirm that from here on out I will discuss issues with other editors in a non-aggressive manner. AlanS^talk 11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you AlanS. That solves it. All you need to do is not be aggressive. It doesn't matter what your pov is; just don't revert consecutively and always discuss issues as you would with friends. Look at the nice conversation you have had with me, over a block that you just avoided. Please do understand the power of words, and go edit productively. Nythar, thank you for bringing this to our notice. We'll keep a watch. Let's close this discussion here. Warmly, to both of you, Lourdes 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is not an adequate response. In the comment you quoted, AlanS was referring to a specific user who took the page Ben Roberts-Smith to multiple fora. That is not the reason AlanS was reported here. AlanS has not retracted their claims of sockpuppetry and abuse, and is instead insisting that the comment "can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak" isn't a sockpuppetry accusation, which it very clearly is. So, no retraction of the aspersion casting, it seems. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nythar, don't come off at the wrong end here. My reading of the situation sees the grey area that AlanS was in when he asked admins to check sockpuppetry; and claiming abuse is a knee-jerk reaction, which AlanS has confirmed they won't do. If you want anything more, it is not happening here. Thank you, Lourdes 11:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  AlanS has not confirmed he won't claim abuse; I will repeat, his comment above were about the multiple discussions pertaining to Ben Roberts-Smith; he has not retracted his aspersion-casting. He continues to claim the sockpuppetry accusations were acceptable. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nythar, you are now sounding odd. " I can confirm that from here on out I will discuss issues with other editors in a non-aggressive manner." is all you're going to get here. This is enough for tracking future intransigence. Thank you, Lourdes 12:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll wait for another administrator to chime in and see if AlanS' defense of their sockpuppetry accusations can be construed as a defense of the aspersions they cast. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure Nythar. Thank you, Lourdes 12:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• This type of argument and edit[215][216] is WP:POINTy. AlanS WP:BLUDGEONed the discussions on the talk page and BLP noticeboard and is just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Noting that AlanS is continuing to WP:IDHT by claiming that he had "aspersions cast" on him due to his "good faith discussion" in talk [217], while continuing to litigate his previous contentious BLP edits and opening a RFC. Carter00000 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please put your signature after your comments please?AlanS^talk 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I've now signed my previous comment. Carter00000 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• AlanS has not retracted his accusations of sockpuppetry and has demonstrated that he does not believe the comment "can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak" is a sockpuppetry accusation, stating "Apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock." His comment that he "can confirm that from here on out I will discuss issues with other editors in a non-aggressive manner" was not a retraction of his accusations of sockpuppetry and accusations of abuse of Wikipedia processes; he was referring to other disputes surrounding Ben Roberts-Smith (which is indicated by this comment where he discusses the content dispute and also states "it may very well be the case with one particular user shopping around in other places", where he is referring to this discussion at WP:BLPN, where a user accused Iskandar323 of "WP:FORUMSHOPPING"). AlanS is clearly aware that his discussion is taking place, and even after Iskandar323 informed him that his comment of "apologies if you took it as me accusing you of being a sock" wasn't a good apology, AlanS seems to have ignored it, instead responding later to a different comment. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Large-scale misuse of the PROD tag

The user Homechallenge55 (talk · contribs) incorrectly used the PROD tag on 50 redirects to the same target, Suikoden#Story, with a copy-pasted rationale Insufficient notability for a fictional character. Also cannot find their name anywhere in the page it redirects to. For these, I have initiated a new bulk RfD covering all of them at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_15#50_redirects_from_fictional_characters. I have requested at WP:AWBREQ that all the PROD tags be removed and replaced with RfD tags. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at a talk page comment left by SnowFire (talk · contribs), it seems that there may have been other redirects that were PROD-tagged, but should have been sent to RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I found only one additional redirect from WP:PRODSUM. However, they also PROD-tagged List of Suikoden characters, List of characters in Suikoden IV, and List of Suikoden IV characters with a different rationale; all are now reverted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Did this really need to be sent to ANI? I think it would have been better to reach out to the user on their talk page and explain that, per WP:PROD, Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Block repeated offender and user that isnt learning The History Wizard of Cambridge

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

---

• In this edit to Lauren Southern, he made sweeping edits to terms used in the article, and added that Southern is thought to have influenced the the Christchurch mosque shootings which killed 51 people without a source. Saying that someone influenced a massacre, without offering a reliable source, is an egregious violation of the biographies of living persons policy.
• In this edit to George Jackson (activist), he added personal POV commentary inside the article.
• In this edit to Robert Conquest, he stated that Much of Conquest's work was covertly sponsored by the Information Research Department (IRD), a propaganda wing of the UK Foreign Office which he also worked for. While Conquest worked for the IRD until 1956, where is the source that "much of his work" later was sponsored by them? In another [218] edit he called him an "IRD propagandist". That is not neutral language.
• In this edit to Black Panther Party, he claimed that the core policy of the organisation was open carry copwatching. This sounds dubious, and again presented without a source. Later, in the lead, it is cited that their core policy were social programs (not copwatching). He also claimed, without a source, that FBI infiltration was the sole reason for in-fighting in the organisation.
• In this edit to Halford Mackinder, he added that Mackinder is a "serial killer" to the lead and said that Halford became infamous after murdering eight of his Arican porters during his expedition of Mount Kenya. While Mackinder died more than 50 years ago, strong words require explicit coverage in reliable sources. Who classifies him as a serial killer? Also, is it not inappropriate to say he murdered eight porters, when he ordered or may have ordered their execution? Calling him a serial killer and using the word murder would imply he did more than just order their execution.

Mass killings under communist regimes is under discretionary sanctions stipulating (among other things) that "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article," per the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page, a restriction that you have blatantly violated ([219], [220]). Please self-revert this violation or it may be reported to WP:AE, where you could be sanctioned by an administrator. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

At this point Mass killings under communist regimes has such a terrible reputation for editors edploiting wikipedia's guidelines as a tool for silencing others that I welcome the attention of more administrators. I edited wikipedia for over a year with few problems until the very hour I first made edits to that terrible page I was falsly flagged for breaking wiki guidelines and forced to change my username, with my ban (the first I have ever had on wikipedia) lasting almost a week. A quick look at the talk page shows many other editors who have had similar experiences. So I'm not at all surprised by your bullying tactics. For any administrators readng this TheTimesAreAChanging has the worst habit of randomly undoing people's work, upholding blogs and historians which vae already been widely discredited by other historians such as infamous Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and making it near impossible to make any positive change. I'm considering just deleting my account because I know that people like TheTimesAreAChanging can successfully tie me up in a web of complex jargon and a machine gun of tricks and accusations that will waste everyones time as a method of blocking change. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

On further looking at his talk page; there is a repeating history of warnings, bans, the user being reported on the admins noticeboard, for edit warring/ biased editing/ slander/ not referencing. It seems he has an agenda, and is extremely aggressive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CptJohnMiller (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The user consistenly violates our WP:UNDUE policy, our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, and our WP:NOCRIT, as seen on his edits on 'British Army Training Unit Kenya', '40 Commando', 'British war crimes' and 'Duke of Lancaster's Regiment'

His edit of Denzil Dowell at 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC), linked here, was highly inappropriate. He made an unsourced change to the article to say Dowell was murdered. Murder is a crime. Wikipedia should not declare people guilty of major crimes unless a predominance of independent reliable sources can verify the accusation. In this, case, as far as I know, there are no sources at all that support your edit. He didn't even provide an edit summary. —⁠ ⁠

The users edit history is consistent edit-warring, agenda pushing and just general aggressive uncooperative behaviour. He deletes words such as terrorist for being "not very encyclopaedic language", yet makes slanderous claims of people being serial killers, inciting mass shootings and being far right.

‎ He also deletes information that is critical of communism, saying "The Black Book of Communism is not a reliable source for history articles" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimes_against_humanity_under_communist_regimes&diff=prev&oldid=1140084339

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge

• @CptJohnMiller: You certainly seem to have read an awful lot of policies since you signed up 12 days ago. Unfortune Wp:SIG does not seem to have been one of them! Please use four tildes (~~~~) to do so every time you post on a talk page. Thanks, SN54129 11:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do that now CptJohnMiller (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• In other news, while it's excellent that you are concerned with potential BLP violations, your talk page suggests you... Dislike communists and lefty snowflakes. Of course, that's better than it has been, and it's equally good to see you have decreased your ire against weaklings and scroungers, compared with previously. SN54129 12:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't we all dislike them haha. Don't see how that's relevant though CptJohnMiller (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked as a  Confirmed sockpuppet of Militaryfactchecker. Courcelles (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  *facepalm* I don't know why I bother. Thanks Courcelles! SN54129 12:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Unblock review - Timmy96

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

---

Last month, I unilaterally unblocked Timmy96 who was arguably WP:CBANed under WP:3X. 109.144.21.141, who is in a range partially blocked for evasion as WP:LTA/BKFIP, raised this as a concern here and so I bring it to the community in case the community believes my unblock was inappropriate. I will notify 109.144.21.141 and will notify JBW, as they placed the block on Timmy96 prior to me placing the checkuser block. I don't believe it was inappropriate for me to lift my block but am certainly open to community criticism. --Yamla (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking into this, having seen the IP's comment on your talk page. I didn't find an associated sockpuppet case, and only one confirmed sockpuppet. There's apparently an IP range the block evading editor was using as well [221]. I presume this was the combination of two that was needed to support application of WP:THREESTRIKES? I note that at the time you applied the three strikes rule, you didn't make a post at WP:AN, which is suggested per a vague definition of "substantial" at 3X. I don't see anything improper/inappropriate in your application of 3X. Unblocking? I don't know. You're the one that applied the 3X, and undoing it yourself doesn't seem all that problematic, but technically you didn't following the CBAN procedures which should have been in place. I don't see a big problem here, in part because Timmy96 hasn't returned to editing since shortly after being unbanned. At least, not on this project. I certainly don't see any reason to re-block given the lack of editing, and then have to send this into an WP:UNBAN discussion. That seems rather pointless. I think at this point, I would continue to monitor the editor's edits to see if the problematic editing resumes. Otherwise, I don't see anything to do here. In the future, I think I would deny such unblock requests and instead redirect them to WP:UNBAN for how to proceed. Also, you haven't logged the topic ban they agreed to at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Happy to log the topic ban. Thanks for pointing that out. --Yamla (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this, Yamla. I have looked into the history of this, and I have some concerns, but right now I am short of time, and rather than posting a hasty and possibly misleading account of those concerns, I will try to get back to it when I have more time, which may be in a few hours. JBW (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that the requirements of 3x were met. The master and User:VietnamJ25 were CU-blocked by you at the same time. That would be the "initial" block. There's nothing to indicate any subsequent CU blocks, and even if IPs were CU-blocked, AFAIK, they can't count as "confirmed" as to do so would be a privacy violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

They were already indefinitely blocked when they evaded using VietnamJ25. They also evaded their block on June, 2022. I noted that, but without specifics (for privacy reasons). They also self-admitted to evading, as 2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64. This is not an obvious case where WP:3X unambiguously applies. My position is that a checkuser can confirm block evasion via logged-out editing without specifying which IP address was involved and that I did not specify the IP address(es) involved here (though Timmy96 did). --Yamla (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not an obvious case where WP:3X unambiguously applies. You would have saved yourself some grief had you not done so. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Yamla's assessment here that the editor self identified the IP editing [222], not Yamla. I think the conditions of 3X were met with that self acknowledgement. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally view WP:3X as a concern, whether the criteria were satisfied or not, but I have other concerns. Firstly, an issue which is not relevant to whether Yamla's unblocking was right or not, but certainly relevant to whether the block should be reinstated. Yamla unblocked on the basis of an agreement from Timmy96 to a topic ban on footballers. Timmy96 had previously, at least twice, admitted to block evasion using the IP range 2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64: see this edit. Since the unblock on the basis of the topic ban, that IP address has made 13 edits about footballers: Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64. I don't think anyone could reasonably doubt that this is Timmy96 blatantly evading his topic ban by editing logged out. As far as I am concerned, that is enough for both the account and the IP range to be blocked again, the account indefinitely and the IP range for a long time. I would do that myself right away but for the fact that this discussion is taking place, so it's better to see what others think.

There is another matter, of far less importance, but I still think it worth mentioning. In his post starting this discussion, Yamla said "I don't believe it was inappropriate for me to lift my block" (my emphasis) and subsequent comments seem also to be based on the view that he was merely reversing his own actions. However, Timmy96 had been continuously blocked since I applied an indefinite block; what Yamla had done was to change the record of the block to mark as a CU block. To me, that means that Yamla undid my block: undoing his own action would merely have been removing the mark as a CU block, thereby restoring the status of the block as I had placed it. Do the other participants above disagree with that view, or did they merely not notice in the block log that the block was placed by me? Above, Yamla said that he would notify me "as [I] placed the block on Timmy96 prior to [Yamla] placing the checkuser block"; I would have liked to have been at least notified when the block was removed, if not consulted before it was removed. As I have already said, this is far less important than the matter of ban evasion which I mentioned above, but I would be grateful for any other opinions as to whether I am right, or whether my interpretation is considered mistaken. JBW (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

JBW, I concur with you that we have to assume the edits at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:899B:801:0:0:0:0/64 are indeed Timmy96 and on that basis, the block should be reinstated. I say this without using checkuser data. I am not immediately reintroducing the block so as to allow for further discussion. You also raise a good point. In hindsight, I should not have lifted the block without consulting you, the original blocking admin. I am sorry I did so and will be more careful in the future. I agree, my block modified yours rather than superseding it. On another topic, I did monitor this user's contributions (but not those of the IP address range) after lifting the block. Of course, that doesn't help if they are doing logged-out editing. --Yamla (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur that we have to assume the edits from the IP are from Timmy96. I don't see anything in the IP's edits that would lead me to believe they are not the same person. However, I disagree that the block should be re-applied. This is now a nearly week old topic ban violation. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. There is no ongoing disruption to prevent, and none of the topic ban violating edits have been reverted as problematic, nor can I see that they are in fact problematic. That doesn't justify the topic ban violation, but it does support that there is no ongoing disruption that needs to be prevented. Timmy96 should be given a final warning that any further topic ban violations...on any account or IP that they use...will result in a restoration of their indefinite block. Overall, was this a perfect situation? No. Were errors made? Yes. But, let's not let the medicine be worse. We don't have to sanction Yamla, we don't have to re-ban Timmy96. We do have to monitor for resumed disruption. Barring any such resumption, this matter doesn't need further attention to protect the project. Ultimately, that is our goal, is it not? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hammersoft Almost everything you say there is true, but there is one point where I fundamentally disagree. That is your belief that a block at this time would be only punitive, not preventive. We are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of dishonesty, including repeated block-evasion. He has indicated that this time will be different: he will accept a topic ban, and will not repeat any of the unacceptable practices of the past. The very next editing that he has done has been contrary to those assurances. Yes, he has made sure that the block-evading edits are not in controversial in their what they do, but that is what editors in this situation do: gently push the boundaries. A small step that you hope nobody will object to this time, a bigger step next time. Time and time again over the years I have seen this pattern. You say whatever it takes to get unblocked; then you very gently step over the edge of what you know is acceptable, such a short distance over the edge that you hope nobody will take any action. Sure enough, nobody takes any action: they let you get away with it, because it was only a small technical violation, and didn't really do much harm. That confirms your belief that you can get away with flouting your ban and anything else. A previous time you got away with it by IP block-evasion, before that by using sockpuppets, now by making false promises about your future editing. Next time, you will try to get away with it by... well, who knows? We are not dealing with an editor who once stepped slightly out of line, we are dealing with an editor who has an extended history of flouting policies, blocks, etc. Much as I would prefer to be able to take the optimistic view that if we tell Timmy96 nicely that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he may get blocked, then that will be the end of the matter, unfortunately experience over the years has shown that it doesn't work that way. He has already been told that he mustn't do it again, and if he does he will get blocked, and that was after so many other times when he got away with it, at least temporarily. Repeatedly finding from experience that no matter what people say, you actually can get away with ignoring what has been said, does not teach you that if someone says to you yet again "don't do it again or this time you really will be blocked" then this time they mean it: what it teaches you is that you can in fact get away with carrying on with the same dishonesty, and next time push a bit further, rather than barely stepping over the edge. On the other hand, finding that if you blatantly ignore your ban then you won't get away with it is the one thing which stands any reasonable chance of persuading an editor with this kind of history to stop. It therefore very much does stand to be preventive, not punitive. JBW (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to me that any editor who has been disruptive long enough to have 3X applied to them (or considered to be be applied to them) is an ongoing problem, and that it is preventative and protective of the project that they be re-blocked. Looking at it another way, if Yamla hadn't unblocked, and the editor had filed an appeal to the community to have their block lifted, I am pretty darn sure that such an appeal would have been turned down flat. In this situation, a return to the status quo ante is the proper response, and Timmy96 should be re-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Reblocked as reinstatement of the CBAN. There’s plenty of evasion of the condition, which I can’t link to for obvious reasons, but CUs can, of course, look at my checkuser log of the last 15 minutes to see. Even if Yamla’s unblock was valid (I don’t think it was), Timmy96 has been logged -out socking significantly to avoid it, more than the edits non CUs will see documented above. Courcelles (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yamla, thank you for bringing this here. Community bans cannot be lifted unilaterally by a single administrator, as per policy and procedure for appealing community bans. JBW hi, your block was not what Yamla overturned. Yamla overtuned a community ban unilaterally, which is perhaps an understanding mistake because of conflating with WP:SO, rather than a deliberate oversight. Rest, Courcelles has done the packing up of this discussion, which can be archived possibly... Lourdes 05:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Just an afternote to this; perhaps this should have gone to Wikipedia:Administrative action review rather than here? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably have been the right venue. Thanks for pointing it out, I've added that page to my watchlist. --Yamla (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Talkpage Vandalism from blocked IP 144.121.246.250

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

---

This IP 144.121.246.250 keeps vandalizing his talkpage. This IP has been blocked before and his talkpage access revoked previously. Somehow he is now able to access it and persistently blank the page. Would recommend revoking access to his talkpage

𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

IP continuously adding false information to mockbuster articles

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

---

User:87.242.213.130 have been repeatedly adding misinformation to mockbuster articles. This IP have already been blocked multiple times for the same reason. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

IP vandalism and personal attacks

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

---

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

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. One edit including incorrect nonsense ([223]), two repeated vandalizing edits on the same article ([224], [225]), and two personal attacks against another editor on the user talk page ([226]) and in their second vandalizing edit ([227]). R Prazeres (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Keenlyme227

Obviously not the user who created the encyclopedia here. (WP:NOTHERE). Disruptive and alternative uploading of files, because this behavior is blocked indefinitely in common. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, but will keep a track. Thanks, Lourdes 10:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also deleted the AIV report I made about persistently re-adding copyvio images to articles. See Special:Diff/1160389682. Also was indef blocked on Commons for not following Commons rules, were he also deleted AIV reports. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Evading block by editing as Special:Contributions/172.116.29.35 Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Twinkle1990

Twinkle1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has a limited understanding of WP:GNG, is aiming to become a new page patroller. First, they nominated a notable topic for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilqees Khanum), then dismissed all coverage in Pakistani media as being just a memorial only, and then scrutinized Insight3's article creations/edit, made another provocative nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent (film) and tagged Charlie Ottley ([228]). This user has a history of involvement with UPE, as evidenced by their vote of "Speedy Keep" on spam page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotique and some other issues identified by @MrsSnoozyTurtle: on their talkpage. We should thoroughly examine this user's history and stop the disruption (and hounding) they are causing. It is unacceptable to treat a regular contributor, like @Insight 3:, in this manner. 180.200.221.5 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this and other issues, I'd suggest to remove their AfC reviewing right. 180.200.221.5 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

But why this? Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec)I hadn't noticed their retaliation against Insight_3, but am worried about both their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilqees Khanum (showing a significant lack of knowledge of a number of basic policies one should know if one wants to be a NPP and AfD regular), and some of their recent AfC rejections like Draft:Gharib (film), one of the big winners of this year's Fajr International Film Festival awards. The article had sources like this. Fram (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Fram you first commented for speedy delete and then you triggered CSD. And now you are blaming me under cover of an IP user? Sigh. I am just feeling annoyed. Please be civil. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am not that IP, that's a different editor. Fram (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've spot-checked Twinkle1990's AfC log (which in itself shows an astonishingly high decline rate) and found almost every single entry to be questionable, to put it mildly:

  Draft:Giovanni and the Hired Guns – declined as not notable despite a reference to full-length feature in Rolling Stone

  Draft:Wojciech Sumliński – declined as per WP:COIEDIT, nonsensical given that COIEDIT tells COI editors to use AfC (since accepted by Fram)

  Draft:Sheila Hill (writer) – declined as not notable despite several references to reviewers of her work (WP:NARTIST)

  Draft:Battle of Malandari Pass (1586) – perfectly valid stub declined for providing insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter

  Draft:The Archies (film), Draft:The Great Indian Rescue, and Draft:Shadow Force (upcoming film) – all declined with the comment please do not re-submit until the movie released, inventing policy on the fly.

  Draft:Ayodhya (2005 Telugu film) – declined with the comment please bring more sourcing than single source [...] try to pull minimum 3+ reliable sourcing, but the draft already cited precisely three reviews in reliable sources

  Draft:Vera (novel) – declined as not notable, cites ~6 reviews in reliable sources

I stopped there. Taken together with the bizarre argument at the above AfD (WP:NOTMEMORIAL means that we should ignore obituaries as sources), I get the distinct impression that they're looking for reasons to get rid of articles rather than actually reviewing them. I'd support pulling their AfC pseudoright, and honestly wouldn't be opposed to a WP:CIR block given the damage they've already done to new editor retention with ~250 declined AfCs. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And now I see they're move warring with Fram over Gharib (film)... – Joe (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Does Gharib (film) pass WP:NFILM? If so, then I was bad in reviewing. Not bad, but worst. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990 Yes, it is obviously notable. WP:NFO point 3 states that The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking is an indication of notability, this film won multiple awards from a major Iranian film festival. The article also has full length pieces of coverage of this film as sources, so it obviously passed WP:GNG. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@163.1.15.238 the Synopsis section is empty, awards section has no reference. And you all are arguing that it's valid for inclusion? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The page needs cleanup/improvement, not deletion IMO. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990 When you are reviewing drafts you should be accepting anything that has a reasonable chance of being kept at AFD (WP:AFCPURPOSE). Drafts are not expected to be perfect in order to be accepted, Perfection is not required is a part of core editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT).

The synopsis section does not contribute to notability and can be added at a later date. The awards are referenced in the text of the article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Just on this comment alone I'd support revocation of your AfC reviewer right. Would you care to point out to us what part of relevant notability criteria requires a film article to possess a synopsis section, or that there must be references linked to an awards section? (The references to the awards are plainly in the lead.) That kind of sloppy nonsense is a disqualifier, sure ... but not of that draft. Ravenswing 16:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Twinkle raised this on my Talk. I have had minimal interaction with them so don't have a broad familiarity of their editing. However I wanted to raise that in addition to the copyvio tagging @Primefac: raised on their Talk (processing, not writing), they have an incomplete understanding of how re--draftification can be handled (User_talk:Twinkle1990#Draftifying_articles_that_are_at_AfD). If the article had been eligible, I'd have draftified it myself. Suggest the probationary right be removed until they have a firmer understanding of policy. This is a question in my mind of not being ready, not that they couldn't ever be one. Unfamiliar with NPP requirements, so no comment there. Star Mississippi 15:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why lying? I restored here. Not you. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say I restored it. I said you draftified it when it wasn't eligible.

  Please do not accuse me of lying when you misread what I said. Star Mississippi 15:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is really unfortunate that someone nominates my article for deletion just because I disagreed with their AfD rationale for Bilqees Khanum. I hope senior editors will take a good look at the matter. Insight 3 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• In my defence, I am asking only why this invitation was sent? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  What’s wrong with it? Just asking a user to comment on a ANI post is fine. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. You shouldn't advocate per WP:PODIUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Twinkle1990, the invitation is a courtesy notification because MrsSnoozyTurtle is mentioned in the opening. The WP pages you cited have no relevance to the situation. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Twinkle1990 How are either of those policies relevant to that talk page message? it is completely appropriate to leave a neutrally worded notice on the talk page editors involved in a situation. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those have any bearing on asking someone to comment at ANI. The issue would potentially be WP:CANVASS, which neither you nor the IP violated. Between this and the replies above re: Gharib (film), you're making it clear you're not familiar enough to be reviewing articles at AfC or NPP. I'm honestly beginning to wonder whether additional action is needed. Star Mississippi 16:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  seconding @Illusion Flame. @Twinkle1990 you also pinged me and at least one other editor. You and the IP were both neutral so there's no canvassing issue. The IP should log in, but that's neither here nor there. Star Mississippi 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi I am logged in with my username and password. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe @Star Mississippi was referring to the IP that started the ANI report. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent (film). We're having enough issues getting input at AfD anyway this time of year, we don't need to spend time and eyeballs on one that is clearly going to be kept. Star Mississippi 15:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's 2 am here on my end and a very late night. I should go to bed. I request for no action in my inactivity where I can't defend myself, which is similar to prosecuting a death man who can't defend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkle1990 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Only for those given to outrageous hyperbole. Your possession of a modest right, which you've demonstrated yourself not competent to correctly exercise, is scarcely comparable to a person's life. Ravenswing 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed Twinkle1990's probationary AfC rights as there is ample evidence in this thread and elsewhere that they are not able to use them competently. Their battleground conduct here isn't helping either. They've actually had the right revoked once before, following this discussion. I don't really understand why it was granted again, but it appears that nothing has changed since the first revocation. I'm not going to honor the request for no action in my inactivity where I can't defend myself as the AfC page is clear that probationary members can be removed from the list at any time and frankly, I don't think further "defence" from the user is likely to help their case. Spicy (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith that they had actually improved. I was going to require that they post their first ten reviews at WT:AFC for review before continuing, but I was mildly concerned they would pick the easiest and most obvious of the litter (intentionally or not) and it wouldn't actually tell us anything. I have no issue with revoking again given the above discussions, with apologies to the community for enabling them. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

See also:User talk:Twinkle1990#Brian Slocum Article. Twinkle1990 tagged a prolific, well-established editor's draft as created by an undisclosed paid editor. If Twinkle1990 had taken more time -- checked out the author's other edits and checked out the article refs, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think Twinkle1990's intent was mean-spirited but this sort of thing is demoralizing for other editors.

@Jack4576.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I also experienced retaliation by Twinkle1990 after they were removed from AfC the first time, a discussion in which I participated (linked above by Spicy). Immediately after they chose my most recent AfC accepts (end of February/beginning of March), nominating Clement Richardson for deletion, tagging Roger Ressmeyer with notability, and prodding Demian Saffer. Why they went after me I don't know but this is clearly a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s definitely not a coincidence. There may be some WP:CIR issues here to, given some of their responses here and actions elsewhere. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Willbb234

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

---

If you have ever interacted with be before, you will know that the last place I ever want to be is ANI. I hate it. But this is important. Willbb234 has displayed unsatisfactory behavior for awhile now, but their most recent post on an RFA was very out of line. It shows a lot of prejudice about IP editors and is very condescending. diff. In contains statements like “ Everything you said is wrong.” and “We don't need you to tell us.” Given the users large history of edit warring and uncivilized behavior, (see block log), I believe some action is needed. And I know someone will come for me with something like “Oh they just do this for the oppose voters, but the supporters get off fine”, which is entirely untrue and not why I started this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's smarmy, certainly, but very far from ANI-worthy. You see a fair bit more caustic comments just from regulars here in ANI threads. For someone who claims to hate ANI so much, you've picked rather a threadbare complaint to take here. Ravenswing 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame: I would recommend re-reading the comments here before proceeding with this. I don't think you are in a position to be commenting on my RFA behaviour. Willbb234 15:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

At least I can remain civil in my remarks. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that there are so few eyes at WP:RfA that you need to haul editors here to complain? Or is this a way of getting around the multiple requests that you stop bludgeoning Novem_Linguae's RfA? The IP expressed their opinion and Willbb234 disagreed with it. Why is this here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism-only account/ WP:CIR problems with User:Parmin_khosravi

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

User contribs

I came across this account after noticing this long-standing bit of vandalism, and looked into their contributions. Basically every one of their edits have been reverted either for being poorly-source nationalistic claptrap, or just outright terrible english.

Examples:

Aina-kari

Baklava

Karim Khan Zand

Sardis

Even if we AGF and assume the user isn't a vandal, their nationalistic editing and inability to write in proper English is a liability and are probably long overdue for a Wikipedia:CIR block. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:ED79:1427:B28:5B1A (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from an IP address

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

---

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

Can any admin look into this IP address's behavior? Clearly WP:NOTHERE and violated WP:NPA [229]. Requesting a long term block and revoked talk page access. Thanks. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 16:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm crying sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for my misbehaving 146.0.20.171 (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. And anyway how can a font be illegal? At the end of the day this is just basic run of the mill schoolkid vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Lets.Custodio making paid/ChatGPT edits

• Lets.Custodio (talk · contribs · logs)

I can't tell if this is a breach of WP:PAID or something stranger involving ChatGPT.

User:Lets.Custodio declares on their user page that Dylan Bodkin has paid them to edit 22 specific articles on food, cinema and other topics. When told that they should follow WP:PE on this, they suggested that Bodkin has no relationship with the created page and has no interest/conflict of interest in the content and left me free to choose which articles to edit (he didn't directly tell me to do this or that on this or that page) - as such, they have declined to follow WP:PE, instead continuing to add magazine-style writing and recipe blog links to the panini article they are being paid to edit, and retracting their paid declaration on Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church after it went to AfD. A plain reading of WP:PAID suggests that even if a mysterious benefactor is rewarding you financially for making edits of your own free will, for whatever unknown reason, you still have to disclose that and you still have to follow WP:PE.

Concerningly, the user has also been citing ChatGPT as a source for text or to "confirm information", and after being challenged on this, adding back the same text but with a recipe blog or a film site instead of ChatGPT as the cited source. Discussion is here. Some of their edits look extremely ChatGPT and I wondered if the nature of the paid gig was a third party wanting to know whether Wikipedia would accept AI-generated content. But assuming good faith they are just writing in an extremely inappropriate tone citing inappropriate sources. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier to User Belbury, the use of ChatGPT to confirm information was done in only 2 articles, only 1 of them being paid - the Panini article (sandwich), in which I ended up forgetting to add the sources from which I got the information . However, I re-added the same text in the Panini (sandwich) article, because the fonts have already been corrected, (which are related to the written subject). Note that I added the same text because it was written by me and not by ChatGPT (as I said, I had only used it to confirm information). All my texts were written by me, therefore, the statement of the user Belbury is only because he thinks that the text is not in good tone for wikipedia. Lets.Custodio (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Obvious question. Who is Dylan Bodkin, and why is he paying you to edit Wikipedia? A mere name isn't 'disclosure'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If you hear a strange noise, then I apologise. It's my mind, boggling. How are you using ChatGPT to "confirm information"?—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I used DALL-E to confirm for me that Godzilla argued a case before the United States Supreme Court. There's photographic evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)