Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:04, 2 February 2024

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Ethnic slur at ITN

RESOLVED

Everyone already said their piece and moved on. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ouro has used what appears to be an ethnic slur against Russians at ITN: Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine (diff). I confronted them about it, saying that the ethnic slur was inappropriate and should be struck (diff), to which they responded simply I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term (diff). Considering the doubling-down I consider this beyond my capalities to solve, so I believe that it should at least be brought to the attention of administrators. WP:CIVIL is a pillar and I'm pretty sure editors aren't allowed to use ethnic slurs, regardless of our takes on the Russo-Ukrainian War. JM (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post to a user last May about an ITN issue [1] "Hello, Knight! Didn't mean to bite, but I just ... get negatively emotional when it comes to that country beginning with r, You know... Will compose myself in the future. Cheers! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Same ITN post ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1156145521] "*Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Although I think Russia is a threat to the West, it does look as though this editor can't edit Russian or Ukraine-Russia related articles without pushing their pov. And ever since their first post in Nov 2009 all their edits are marked minor. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asked them to stop marking edits minor, gave them a General sanctions notice for the topic area of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the CT alert for the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the notifications. As for the marking of my edits as minor, I will refrain from doing that. Promise to read into WP:MINOR. As for any other topics that might be mentioned, rest assured I will not make any edits to topics surrounding the Ukraine, because I know that I have a particular point of view. You need not worry about that. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard the word used in movies but never looked it up. I just did. Dictionaries seem to agree on "disparaging" and "offensive". If this were about any other country/ethnicity, the response would be an immediate indef. So, I hope we can at least get an acknowledgement of the problem and assurance to stop. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgement of the situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the use of the word "situation" instead of "problem", and no assurance to stop. JM (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already stated your concerns. Let the community vet the situation; otherwise, it will appear that you are overeager to get Ouro punished. By the way, the Wiktionary link you provided in the OP doesn't actually say that the term in question is a slur; it states that the term is "usually derogatory;" I consider that to be a substantial difference in nuance (and yes, our article does describe the phrase as an ethnic slur, but you didn't argue based on our article). It is best for all editors, including Ouro, to refrain from using that term; ~~it would also be best if you, JM2023, would refrain in the future from making strong claims without proper support.~~ (One could also question whether this incident really belongs in the category of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; hopefully you won't make a habit of running to ANI every time you disapprove of something.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The link actually does say it's an ethnic slur: (usually derogatory, colloquial, ethnic slur), so your concerns about "strong claims without proper support" and "substantial difference in nuance" are moot;

2) My account is about a year old and I've brought something to ANI only once before, four months ago, when I was specifically told to do so, and which resulted in an (unlogged) warning against the person I made the case against and an apology made to me (see here), so I don't have a "habit of running to ANI every time [I] disapprove of something";

3) Someone just brought an IP to ANI in a similar case last week and it resulted in a month-long block of that IP (see here), which is what motivated me to go here when I saw someone double-down on an apparent ethnic slur after being called out on it. JM (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who brought up the previous IP, I can agree that this one should also be blocked, ethnic slurs shouldn't be considered acceptable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree they should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt observation.--Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is ruskee an ethnic slur? I don't know. I thought it was simply a short/nick for Russians. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup according to the article we have on the term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language is confusing. Isn't it the Russian word for Russian i.e. русский? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish word for themselves is "polak". Go to downtown New Britain, say that, and see how many people jump you. I don't get it either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slurs depend entirely on context. Use by the in-group is fine, as it's usually either self-identifying or an attempt to "reclaim" the term. Use by out-groups is pretty strongly rejected as reinforcing the insulting use of the term. At the very least, it's impossible to tell if an outsider is simply unaware of the insulting use of the term, or is relying on "I didn't know" as a get out of jail free card. Either way, best to avoid it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how about those times I'm now remembering where I said it as a single word greeting to new neighbors I was seeing for the first time while out walking the dog and thought might be Russian (and were). Do I need to move? Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you haven't been beaten and thrown into a ditch yet, you're probably okay. They may just have put you in the former category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or the later, I mean even if someone used a slur, most people are just going to minimise future contact etc. Some might be used enough to it they're probably going to forget it happened, so depending on how long it's been there might still be no point bringing it up.

Getting back to the original post I think an important point here is we're not simply referring to a case where an editor used the term to refer to someone with no reason to think anything was meant by it. It's possible that this editor thought "I want to refer to criminals but I'm going to use the most neutral term I can for them". But let's be realistic, there's a very good chance this isn't what happened and they chose the term precisely because they intended it as a slur.

I'd also note that there's no indication from the editor's responses above that they were not aware it was a slur, I mean even their assurances not to repeat it are decidedly lackluster.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Relating to my other post below, my impression is Russki, while generally seen as a slur has far-less use and recognition as such that say a word like Jap or Paki. So I suspect people offended by being referred to as such are far more likely to just think maybe they just didn't know. For that reason I'd probably often not necessary to do anything about it later.

Jap and Paki however are well recognised as slurs nowadays, so very people who actually use them especially Jap when used in the US and Paki when used in the UK, are not going to know. So if someone did use such terms without realising, it's probably well worth considering whether as uncomfortable as it may be, it's worth bringing it up and apologising next time you see these people.

I'd note that especially with things the way they are now, it's probably quite risky to make assumptions anyway. If you refer to Ukrainian even a Russian speaking one as a Russki, you might very well find you cause great offense but for different reasons. I'm reminded of the joke about someone in the UK calling someone who looks British Asian a Paki and the person who's from modern India not Pakistan responding something like, "I'm not a Paki I'm from India, I hate Pakis!"

Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also emphasise it's important not to get distracted by the origins of a word. This can sometimes be the cause of a word being a slur, but the way the word has been used historically is often far more important as to whether it might be a slur. And yes, a term which is perfectly fine in one language may be a problem when translated or transliterated to another. And even within the same language, it can depend on region etc.

Jew is a term that can be used even by outgroups without being seen as a slur, but can also be a slur or pejoratively depending on how it's used etc. Edit: Jew (word) goes into this a bit as well as the history of the word which makes it clear it was not originally intended to be offensive but given a long history of anti-semitism has also long been used in offensive ways. Paki (slur) might be short for Pakistan or Pakistani but because of the way it has been used, it's well accepted as a slur. Shortened forms of accepted edit: words are often used as slurs e.g. Jap is another one. I suspect, but have never looked for evidence, that is in part because slogans etc work better when shorter, e.g. Japs out or Pakis go home. Flow may be another factor, and I wonder if this is partly why Ruskee is a slur.

The n word, negro and black all ultimately come from the terms referring to the colour black. But the first one is well recognised as one of the worst slurs to the extent many people just do like I do and use the euphemism even when simply talking it, when used by outgroups. And even when used by ingroups is generally spelt and pronounced different. The second one is often consider at best antiquated in much of the English speaking world. The last one can still be acceptable when used by outgroups depending on context and group, although as mentioned by our article, some groups historically found it more offensive than negro.

Gay has a complicated history, you still get the odd person insisting it should only have the original "happy" like meaning. But while it has been used as a slur or pejoratively at various times and there is a a more recent rise of it's use in a new pejorative manner (I think this trend might be dying down a bit, but I suspect it's something many people who played games with online chats are familiar with), it's often still acceptable even by outgroups depending as always on how it's used.

Queer meanwhile is sometimes considered a reclaimed slur and does have a fairly long history of being used as a slur. It's use especially but outgroups is often still controversial. However while it has been used as a slur for a long time, the perception of it being clearly a slur is as I understand it, more recent and indeed it was used by ingroups non pejoratively before it became to be seen as a clear slur let alone reclaimed Queer#Early 20th-century queer identity.

I think there are very few people who would say 'I'm fine with gay because it it's fine to be called "happy" but I don't like queer because I don't like being called "strange"'. That's nothing to do with the reason why the terms are seen as they are now.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Edited at where marked 04:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I apologise to anyone who dislikes seeing any of the terms I used spelt out like that, but I felt in the interest of clarity it was my best choice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have three problems with the way you spelled the first three words of paragraph three, but they're all minor capitalization, hyphenation and frankness concerns. On the whole, good explanation! I'll note that the R-word (in question here) is quite prevalent in American media, especially from the "Cold War era", and a lot of that shit still gets played in Canada (at least). You hear people use the P-word often enough, but not the mainstream media. I'm pretty sure the J-word has fallen out of fashion everywhere since Japan (and all its J-Stuff) became cool in the capitalist sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Yankee is a particular interesting one since in contemporary usage to refer to specific people it can often be a slur or at least pejorative. But precisely which specific subset it's used against varies depending on who's using it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case it seems reasonably clear from the responses elsewhere and in this thread that Ruskee was specifically used as a pejorative slur, "honestly and openly". CMD (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and based on that, I'd say a NOTHERE block is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so did I. Learned something today. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this discussion has totally died down. I'm not trying to act like an admin or be punitive or anything, but here's a summary: there's three people explicitly supporting a block, and four others explicitly finding the behaviour problematic, without including me in either. The rest never expressed an opinion on Ouro's use of the slur. And in all this there's been no apology or retraction of the slur, or even an acknowledgement that it shouldn't be used. What happens next, if anything? JM (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, admins are still volunteers, so none of them is required to do something just because it may need doing. I imagine it does not need explaining just why admins may not be acting here? And, I wouldn't go so far as to say admins didn't do anything. One of them posted notice on Ouro's talk page about Russo-Ukraine CTOP. I think that means that if they repeat the same behaviour, you could report them to WP:AE, which is generally less forgiving.
Once upon a time, you were supposed to think it was just not actionable and forget about it, if no admin did anything before the report got archived. But Wikipedia has changed a bit since. So, you can probably afford to make a post to AN asking that an admin review the discussion. Of course, it depends how much you care. And it would make more sense to request review/closure at AN if you actually proposed something here formally and turned it into a !vote. Personally, I would let this be. They didn't acknowledge it but we can assume the message has been received. You can always start a new report if they do it one more time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next is that it doesn't happen again, and if it does, then it'll be brought back here and then perhaps some sanction will be needed to prevent further disruption. But if nobody does anything and it doesn't happen again then this thread will have served its purpose, without the need for apologies, retractions, or sanctions. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Activist editing by NoonIcarus

In a previous ANI report it was detailed (perhaps too detailed) that NoonIcarus was engaged in activist editing in support of the Venezuelan opposition and attempted to make things personal by deleting an article I created. If you would like to jump into their editing history in that report, it provides a thorough background on their civil POV pushing behavior. This disruptive behavior has, unfortunately, continued. As a disclosure, I have said before that it takes two to be involved in edit warring and I have acknowledged my previous misbehavior in disputes with this user, but please allow me to provide information on how NoonIcarus continues to be disruptive.

NoonIcarus persists with making things personal by WikiHounding my contributions, removing [2][3][4] or driveby tagging [5][6] (a user has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging)(Edit:--WMrapids (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)) information minutes after it is placed. It was this revert here that was the last straw regarding the continuous hounding; NoonIcarus removed the information (minutes after it was placed) based on previous discussions they had with Storm598, a blocked sockpuppet user who provided inappropriate references (such as opinion articles). This is similar behavior to NoonIcarus' "stable version" argument where NoonIcarus inappropriately enforced a "stable version" by reverting any new content that they didn't deem "stable". In the past, NoonIcarus has justified WkikiHounding behavior by saying that an article is on their watchlist, but when such behavior happens constantly for every edit (especially within minutes) and even devolves into defining a shakedown, it becomes plainly disruptive and makes editing feel hopeless.[reply]

In addition, NoonIcarus does not seem to have learned from their previous sanction regarding block deletions on the United States involvement in regime change article, blanking material and moving the goalposts once more by demanding opinions from users on the inclusion of Venezuela in the article (this same issue has been going on for over 4 years) after other users adequately laid out the scope of the article on the talk page.

A previous WP:0RR sanction and the most recent ANI report has done nothing to remedy NoonIcarus' behavior, so something else has to be done. As I have said before, Venezuelan articles already have limited participation, and it sure doesn't help when you have a user like NoonIcarus hounding, removing and stonewalling the work of other contributors.--WMrapids (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a diff/section of the details of NoonIcarus's WP:0RR sanction please? When was this placed, by whom, and has it ever been violated? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: You can see this in a previous ANI where the closer says about restrictions placed on NoonIcarus:

essentially, this custom restriction limits [NoonIcarus] to 0RR when they have been reverted, absent consensus, and 1RR otherwise.

This restriction was placed by User:El C in January 2020 for a period of one year. As for if the restrictions were violated, I have not gone back that far as interactions with the user only began within the last year. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Edit--WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: I was careful not to violate the restrictions, asking El C whenever in doubt (1, 2, 3), and later I started being less active in that second half of the year. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reviewing the closing comment from January 2020, I noticed that User:El C notes:

this note by Jamez42 was probably the wrong call. I'm not sure I would call it canvassing outright, but it certainly skits its boundaries.

Well, it seems that NoonIcarus did not learn from this warning either and has continued their apparent borderline canvassing by listing POV tags they placed on WikiProject Venezuela's talk page. Most of these tags were placed by NoonIcarus shortly after edits I performed.[7][8][9][10] This not only shows possible attempts at canvassing (NoonIcarus could have always listed POV tags in a sandbox or user page so they "can remember") but also that NoonIcarus is attempting to maintain a particular POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll try to come back later with more time, but SandyGeorgia, who I linked in the last report and was also accused of COI and hounding, offers a good overview: I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics).

WMrapids wishes to include a section about Venezuela at the United States involvement in regime change article, but another editor challenged this two months ago ([11]), ReyHahn. Last week they started a discussion about scope, asking about threshold and definitions but never about Venezuela, and yet another editor, BobFromBrockley, said that the section should not be included until the discussion is sorted out ([12]). WMrapids clearly doesn't have consensus for the inclusion and omitting this information is deceptive.

I should also warn about not throwing stones, since just this week I also warned the user against blanking ([13]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus, I will respectively only reply to you once in order to avoid bludgeoning and another wall of text.

I shared concerns with both you and SandyGeorgia about your editing. Other than being frank, it was in no means an act of intimidation as we needed to clear the air at the time following months of disputed edits.
"another editor challenged this two months ago" Yes. The editor used the same argument ("explain how verbal support is regime change") that you have also been trying to make since 2019 ("neither of them go into depths about any actions (which and how), only intent"). Clarifying this concern about "verbal support" occurred in this discussion where it was determined that reliable sources saying that the US was involved in soft power or hard power tactics to enact regime change was sufficient for inclusion. This is why I placed the information back and later cited the snowball clause since I genuinely believed the dispute was over. You, ReyHahn and Bobfrombrockley were the few who opposed the inclusion of Venezuela and the consensus of the scope for inclusion (such opposition has been persistent since 2019) while 6–8 other users support the inclusion criteria that would allow the placement of the Venezuela section. So accusing me of being "deceptive" is casting aspersions and is more evidence that you are taking this personally.
If we want to talk about omitting information, why did you not provide my rationale on why this information was removed (undue and possible conflict of interest) and instead provided your diff accusing me of blanking? Also, why did you omit that a separate user supported my rationale for removing such information?[14][15]

It's clear that you have taken your interactions with me as being personal, which is evidenced by you nominating an article I created for deletion without any rationale, WikiHounding my contributions, placing questionable tags on my edits and now calling me "deceptive". Honestly, you simply stopping this behavior would be enough for me, but given your pattern of ignoring warnings, we are beyond that. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't explain why you haven't had issues using the same sources in the past (1, 2), other instances of blanking in the article (3) and that the discussions that you refer to actually recommended trimming and not expansion (see this response here). That being said:

Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids

I was really hoping that less interaction with WMrapids would mean less conflict, but it clearly hasn't been the case, so I will be detailing their own disruptive behavior while I have the chance.

There's hardly been any pushing, at least not from my part. While they started editing in 2014 and originally focused mostly in Peruvian topics, last year WMrapids quickly shifted to edit about Venezuelan ones after a move discussion that I started was closed with an outcome they opposed. The move was closed (24 May 2023), and in two hours they start two move requests on articles I have been involved with with the same rationale (1 and 2). I cite an essay I have contributed to in said discussions, and then they proceed to label its listed sources as biased.

"This opposition deputy led an auto theft gang", "this journalist served as a foreign agent", "this political party is a terrorist organization", "these protesters usually strip naked to ask for attention"... with such controversial edits it shouldn't be a surprise that the changes are contested, and cleanup tags have been the only way to prevent edit wars. Case in point, WMrapids violated the 3RR a few days ago at the Guarimba article (4 5 6 7), until I warned them about it. These issues have been broughts up at ANI and the NPOV noticeboard, but remained unanswered: ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda, WP:NPOV/N#Venezuelan opposition and WP:NPOV/N#Guarimba. If I challenge the edits, then it seems that it is "POV-pushing", but if I don't and raise the objection with a tag, then it is "driveby tagging". Either way, any criticism apparently is disruptive editing and the only satisfactory response is not to interfere at all. In other words, the message seems to be: "Do not disagree with me".

This pointy and contrarian attitude has been ongoing for eight months now, as I will point out later, and it is unbearable. While in the previous thread the editor vaguely accused me of driving away editors, I have pointed out to editors saying that they have unwatched articles because of WMrapids' editing (8), becoming so stressful that it even gives head and stomach aches (9) (and I can say that it has been definitely been very stressful for me too). The bludgeoning against editors that have disagreed with them is common (10 11 12 13 14 15), and being the only editor that hasn't abandoned editing because of this is only natural that this ANI is filed against me.

There are many issues at hand, but I will focus to detail two LTA patterns: filibustering and hounding. During this time, WMrapids has had the habit to bring back or relitigate settled or old article discussions, coincidentally also nearly all of those where I have participated and some with similar positions to those of editor ZiaLater (talk · contribs · logs). Interaction between both users shows a clear overlap in topics about Peru, Venezuela, and Grand Rapids, Michigan (bear these articles in mind when I detail better the hounding examples below). While sockpuppetering by itself is not forbidden, using multiple accounts to game the consensus certainly is. While it has been too long to demonstrate a connection with a checkuser, a duck test should certainly give a clue:

2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt Move to "2019 Venezuelan coup attempt" proposed on 1 May 2019 (supported by ZiaLater), no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, not moved.
Operation Gideon (2020): Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by ZiaLater on 8 May 2020, no consensus → Move to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" proposed by WMrapids on 24 May 2023, no consensus (move to "Bay of Piglets Invasion" proposed later on 19 July, procedurally closed).
Rupununi uprising: Drastic expansion about "Venezuela's involvement" by ZiaLater on 18 January 2020 ([16]) → WMrapids continued reinstating this point of view starting on 25 November 2023 ([17])

Regardless of the original user, those are not the only examples:

Other filibustering exampes

2002 Venezuelan coup attempt: Discussion about sources in April 2023 (#Non-NPOV article). Relitigated by WMrapids six months later, in November ("Terrible article").
United States involvement in regime change: (mentioned above) Inclusion of Venezuela's section, hotly contested and last discussed in early 2022 (Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 5#sanctions against Venezuela). Proposed again by WMrapids in October 2023 ("Venezuela"), and recently again last week ([18])
National Democratic Institute: Use of this Jacobin article as a source:[19] First brought up here, and WP:RSEDITORIAL issues were discussed at the WP:RS/N talk page by November 2023. WMrapids proceeded to use the source for new sections at the 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections and 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election articles a few days ago ([20] and [21])
Popular Will: (mentioned above) Changing party's ideology to "right-wing", last mentioned in early 2021 (Talk:Popular Will#Political position). WMrapids brought this issue again a few days ago ([22]), describing the party as a "terrorist organization" before [23].
Colectivo (Venezuela): Discussion about neutrality throughout 2020 and 2021 (Talk:Colectivo (Venezuela)#This Article is Very Troubling). Relitigated by WMrapids two years later, in late 2023, and cited it as a justification to carry out a string of contested edits [24].

WMrapids has also accusing me of hounding in articles where I have already edited, that are on my watchlist, and sometimes even created, failing to see that this says more about them than it does about me. SandyGeorgia also sums it up very good ("#Followup: intimidation, COI, and BLP concerns"): You claim hounding above, based on me editing articles after you that I've edited for almost two decades, and in one case, you even claimed that based on an article I created. And yet, you fail to mention the times you have clearly hounded my edits, and gone right after me to articles I have always edited and you have never edited. Examples include the following (please note how all of these cases happen after 24 May 2023, when the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article move discussion was closed):

WP:HOUNDING examples

Article - Date last edited by NoonIcarus → Date first edited by WMrapids
Internal enemy 23 January 2024 → 24 January 2024 (a day later)
List of massacres in Venezuela 12 January 2024 → 21 January 2024 (9 days later)
Resistencia 27 December 2023 → 27 December 2023 (14 seconds later)
Template:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute 5 December 2023 → 5 December 2023 (24 minutes later)
Schomburgk Line 5 December 2023 → 5 December 2023 (an hour later)
Simón (2023 film) 4 December 2023 → 4 December 2023 (22 minutes later)
Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute 21 November 2023 → 22 November 2023 (a day later)
2024 Venezuelan presidential election 14 November 2023 → 17 November 2023 (3 days later)
Ben Emmerson 8 November 2023 → 8 November 2023 (53 minutes later)
Protests against Nicolás Maduro 3 November 2023 → 4 November 2023 (15 hours later)
Bassil Da Costa 3 November 2023 → 12 November 2023 (9 days later)
La Salida 27 October 2023 → 30 October 2023 (3 days later)
Hugo Chávez 20 October 2023 → 24 October 2023 (4 days later)
Daktari Ranch affair 12 October 2023 → 17 November 2023
2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 12 October 2023 → 25 November 2023
Llaguno Overpass events 12 October 2023 → 25 November 2023
United States involvement in regime change 9 October 2023 → 26 October 2023 (two weeks later)
Juan Guaidó 8 October 2023 → 9 October 2023 (a day later)
Rafael Acosta Arévalo 8 October 2023 → 20 October 2023 (two weeks later)
President of Venezuela 4 October 2023 → 11 October 2023 (a week later)
Foreign involvement in the Venezuelan presidential crisis 4 October 2023 → 24 October 2023
Colectivo (Venezuela) 10 September 2023 → 13 November 2023
Globovisión 6 August 2023 → 24 October 2023
Venezuelan presidential crisis 29 July 2023 → 7 September 2023
Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis 26 July 2023 → 18 October 2023
Shortages in Venezuela 23 July 2023 → 17 November 2023
Crisis in Venezuela 15 July 2023 → 16 July 2023 (5 hours later)
Alberto Federico Ravell 6 June 2023 → 25 November 2023
Armando.Info 3 June 2023 → 15 June 2023 (two weeks later)
La Patilla 15 May 2023 → 6 June 2023
Caracazo 13 May 2023 → 17 November 2023
Fernando Albán 11 April 2023 → 16 October 2023
Nicolás Maduro 31 January 2023 → 29 June 2023
Telesur 27 January 2023 → 6 October 2023
Carlos Andrés Pérez 26 November 2022 → 15 November 2023
Puntofijo Pact 26 November 2022 → 17 November 2023
Operation Gideon (2020) 4 November 2022 → 27 May 2023
El Politigato 19 October 2022 → 20 October 2023 (proposed deletion)
El Nacional 27 July 2022 → 28 June 2023
El Pitazo 14 July 2022 → 28 June 2023
Plan Ávila 12 June 2022 → 6 September 2023
2021 Venezuelan regional elections 9 March 2022 → 20 October 2023
Runrunes 27 November 2021 → 6 June 2023
Últimas Noticias 16 September 2021 → 12 August 2023
David Smolansky 13 September 2021 → 24 October 2023
Efecto Cocuyo 8 July 2021 → 15 June 2023
Rupununi uprising 13 March 2021 → 25 November 2023

If I'm allowed to quote SandyGeorgia one last time, because she has put all this dispute more eloquently than I can:

I want to make sure it is very clear that if these behaviors continue, you should and can expect a very long list of similar incriminating diffs to show shortly at ANI. By "these behaviors" I mean, BLP breaches, continued harassment, continued misrepresentation of diffs, continued hounding of me to articles I edit, and continued persecution of NoonIcarus along with your busted AGF-ometer which leads to the aforementioned onslaught of aspersions that made me unwatch a page you followed me to. I don't mind cleaning up your POV edits, as that's part of the process, and it's clear you don't yet recognize how deep your POV and your failure to consult best sources are. Please make no mistake that my politeness or patience with you do not mean I am willing to let these serious behaviors go on indefinitely. Yes, a fresh start would be good and I am willing to continue being patient, but my patience is not unlimited. (9 November 2023)
— User:SandyGeorgia

I'm truly sorry for the long text, but it was necessary to condense the disruptive behavior. If there's any troublesome behavior that has not changed, it is clearly WMrapids', and at this point probably only administrative intervention will solve this. At the very least, an admonishment should be considered. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither editor is doing themselves any favours with wall of text presentations of content disputes.

BUT: I am also concerned about Noonicarus' edits on Venezuelan and Latin American articles. In particular Noonicarus is terrible at identifying/evaluating sources, and engages in tag-bombing as a first resort. In a recent edit they removed or tagged text cited to peer-reviewed scholarly articles 1, largely because they did not like the information that was sourced to them. Upon doing this they stated: Last but not least, as with other disputed edits, the content largely depends on English language academic papers, instead to mainstream media outlets, which suggests that the majority points of view are currently not being reflected. If we take this at face value, this is a bizarre statement for en experienced editor.

Similarly, when I suggested that claims from a report commissioned by the OAS, an organisation which has a political position and a recent history of making false statements on politics, should only be included if attributed, their response was: Please see the comments above about addressing the substance instead of the character. In other words, are there facts stated that should be questioned? Why? ... You might also want to take a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

Noonicarus is a productive editor but their commitment to ensuring their political point of view predominates in Venezuela articles risks them entering an ANI death spiral. What is to be done?

Boynamedsue(talk) 20:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

I haven't edited in this topic area. My involvement was that I began mediating a dispute at DRN over La Salida, a Venezuelan opposition organization, on 18 December 2023. As User:WMrapids noted above, User:Ultranuevo filed a recent previous WP:ANI report here on 5 January. WMrapids then provided a wall of text and proposed a WP:TBAN against User:NoonIcarus with respect to all political articles for at least one year. I failed the DRN because it was pending in another forum. The previous WP:ANI was then archived without action.

But here were are again. I think that some sanction is needed, or we will continue hearing these conduct disputes between these editors every few weeks. Has anyone reviewed their edits carefully to verify which of them is enough at fault to warrant a topic-ban? Or do we topic-ban them both from articles on Venezuela? Or do we conclude that these are two editors who do not like each other and impose a two-way interaction ban on them? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Interaction ban

I propose a six-month two-way interaction ban between User:WMrapids and User:NoonIcarus, with only the usual exceptions.

Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an interaction ban but would also recommend a Venezuelan politics ban for Noonicarus. There has been bad behaviour on his side here.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Boynamedsue became involved after I posted in the reliable sources noticeboard a week ago asking about the reliability of the Organization of American States (WP:RS/N#(OAS) Panel of Independent International Experts). The discussion afterwards can be found at Talk:Guarimba#Pejorative term. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is over behaviour not content, and my use of the first person above already makes the fact we have had past contact clear. Since you mention it, you took this to RSN, then when you didn't like the answer you were given you chose to ignore it. Again this shows your problematic behaviour with regards to Venezuelan politics. I don't think this is deliberate, but unfortunately your strong pro-opposition beliefs are pushing you into WP:COMPETENCE territory here if you can't even accept mild suggestions like "attribute this" or accept scholarly articles are valid when you don't like what they say. --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boynamedsue - I see that User:NoonIcarus went to RSN on 22 January and posted an RFC, but the RFC will run until 21 February, and has received very little feedback so far. Is your issue that NoonIcarus asked for comments and then went ahead as if the comments that haven't come in yet agreed with them? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'm not entirely au fait with the rules of RfC's. I was reading the RSN post as a general request for others input rather than a vote intended to validate their viewpoint. As I read it there is consensus on the talkpage for text they want with attribution, but they seem intent on dragging on discussion on in two forums and making personal attacks as they do it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide diffs if you accuse me of personal attacks, Boynamedsue. I posted an RFC based on this constested edit that I made: [25]. I have not reinstated said content afterwards, and I'm not opposed to it being attributed. -- NoonIcarus (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided a diff of the personal attack, and that edit is absolutely not the subject of the RfC as there is no link or reference to it on the RfC. An RfC for that edit would be well beyond the scope of RSN. The recent edits on the talkpage only discuss whether the claim that Gaurimba is a pejorative term can be sourced, not the particulars of the above edit which would involve questions of detail, levels of attribution and relevance per WP:DUE.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Is it possible as an involved user in the dispute to support this? While I feel that reviewing the edits is really important, I think this measure would definitely help with the situation (and is a measure that I would voluntarily agree to). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing topic ban for WMrapids. Patterns such as edit warring and blanking have continued even after repeated warnings ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]) and reports at this ANI ("WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS" (August 2023), "WMrapids (blanking)" (November 2023)), and the diffs I provided above show that the editor has already had the same issues with several other editors in the past (1 2 3 3 4 5). The repeated changes without consensus, even weeks or months after first disputed and as recently as today ([35]), demonstrate either an unwillingness or inability to work collaboratively in the project, and a topic ban would be a step towards a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I suggested a one-year topic ban on all political articles in the previous ANI, though a more targeted topic ban on Venezuelan politics is necessary as suggested by Boynamedsue, especially since it is clear that NoonIcarus will remain disruptive editing such a topic. As for the interaction ban, it may be helpful to assist with maintaining information on the topic, but this action is futile if a topic ban is not implemented due to NoonIcarus' lengthy history of gaming the system. For example, a user may place information in an article, NoonIcarus inappropriately removes such information (as done before multiple times with WP:BADPOV editing) and I would not be able to comment on the disputed information or even report potential misbehavior to other users, creating a false consensus. With this gaming behavior, there is also a high probability of retroactive editing disputes (adding/removing information previously placed/removed by either of us), which would only prolong disruptions on such contentious Venezuelan topics. Because of NoonIcarus' activist editing history, evidenced by their years of gaming the system and performing BADPOV edits, my support of an interaction ban (if even possible) would be conditional on the implementation of a topic ban on Venezuelan politics as this is the primary concern here.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP from France

This IP keeps coming back. While most of their edits seem to be genuine some of their edits involves adding false cast members such as retired actress Babita [36]. Here they add three actors that definitely are not in the film: [37].

This weird behavior first started at Gulabi (1995 film). Upon watching the film, all of the cast members in the film are already in the actor but the IP goes on to add [38] more actors. See Talk:Gulabi (1995 film), where User:Archer1234 has been reverting unsourced edits. It is unclear what their motive is as they are making Wikipedia both reliable and unreliable at the same time.

A problematic edit is shown here where they add Bengali actor Tarun Kumar Chaterjee to a film he was definitely not in [39].

The IP should either respond to talk page requests (Archer1234 tried at Gulabi talk page) or stop making false edits. Basically when two people have the same name, IMDb links the popular one even if they didn't appear in the film. I think the IP is sourcing their edits from a database because it is highly unlikely that they have access to every low-key Telugu film.

Here [40] the IP adds a film more than ten years before the actor debuted. There is no way to verify this since the film is not online. The IP has been using different IP addresses but most of them are similar [41]. DareshMohan (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the lack of communication, the IP does not appear to source any of their edits. And they often (always?) forget to italicize film titles.

These are the IPv6 ranges from which I have seen them operate actively:

2A02:842A:1BF:1901:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
2A01:E0A:21:130:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Plus this IP4 range:

81.65.88.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) going back to at least August 2023.

They are very prolific, so it will take a lot of effort to scrutinize their edits to separate the wheat from the chaff. It appears that a block on their ranges would have little to no collateral damage. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits cross into Bangladeshi cinema and bring to mind sock Symon Sadik. — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another 19 edits today at 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B. None are explained. Some are correcting errors (good), but many are introducing new claims with no sourcing. Here's one of the unsourced ones adding a film to an actor's filmography: [42] (note, as usual, they do not italicize the film name). Still no communication. Can we get a block with the purpose of encouraging them to discuss our concerns with their edits? — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now they have also jumped over to 81.65.93.69. Same MO: unsourced additions to filmographies and film cast lists. All of the IPs used (IPv6 and IPv4) center around the same metropolitan area. — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Archer1234: I don't think they understand the fact that 2 people can have the same name and 1 of them isn't on Wikipedia. Here they added three films to someone who wasn't in the industry till 2006 and here they added a 1990 film to a man who debuted in 2008. DareshMohan (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a few days off, they have returned t 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B with dozens of unsourced edits and unexplained content removals.

Can we get a short-term block on the /64 to encourage them to WP:ENGAGE about their editing? — Archer1234 (t·c) 19:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:842A:1BF:1901::/64 for two weeks per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange editing from Uskudar University

Both Asmahadad23 and Lenah_aldalati claim to be editing on behalf of Uskudar University [43] [44]. Both have been adding walls of text that appear to only have a single source at the end, and often that source has no bearing on the subject.

Asmahadad23, on Diagnosis of autism, added a whole paragraph about misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with percentages and reasons and it was referenced by an article about misdiagnosis of hernias in children.[45] Nothing at all to do with ASD. Another paragraph on the same subject was referenced to a paper on "Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcoma" which, again, has no bearing on ASD.

Lenah aldalati, on Nervous system disease, removed sourced material and replaced it with four paragraphs that had a single reference at the end to an article entitled "Wound infections: an overview" that has nothing to do with nervous system diseases.[46]

I don't know if this is an actual school project or how many editors may be involved but the edits aren't actually helping the articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at WP:Education noticeboard#Student assignment at Uskudar University editing medical articles. That may be sufficient management for now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose content disputes are handled on article talk page, unless it’s suspected that the students are acting in bad faith? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's less about the students being in bad faith, and more that they may be told to edit Wikipedia with no guidance, and their grade depends on it, so adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities. The entire education program can wind up here on ANI when it becomes clear there's no real mentorship going on, and whatever program it is needs reined in.

Otherwise, normal content disputes should be handled on the article talk, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“So adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities” I can’t agree with this assumption. If they don’t adhere to the rules, their edits will get reverted and they may even be blocked, how can they get good grades? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way is it Wikipedia's responsibility to determine what grades the students get. And we cannot let our content suffer out of concern for that. It's the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the students understand what the rules here are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sentence you wrote, but would like to modify it. If we're talking about responsibility,

It's the ___'s responsibility to make sure that the old Wikipedia users understand what the rules (WP:CIVIL, WikiBullying, etc.) here are.

It's ___'s (and old users) responsibility to make sure that the new Wikipedia users understand what the rules here are. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dislike the sentences you wrote, not because I disagree with the need for mutual responsibility and respect, but because you seem to be naive about how these things really play out here. But how about we say that it's your responsibility to clean up after the student edits here? I suspect that once you go through that, you'll change your tune. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences I wrote were based on the sentence you wrote ... I don’t know whether I should (strongly) like or dislike your description of me as “seem to be naive”. Perhaps I’d better view it as a compliment? After all it’s really not easy to stay naive after one has seen or got involved in all those not-so-pleasant discussions and users’ interactions here at Wikipedia (e.g., [47] [48]). I don’t think it’s anyone’s “responsibilities” to do any clean up (and whether “clean up” is needed can also be very subjective, and sometimes it’s actually content disputes between editors who disagree). I’m not sure if I should change *my tune* ([49]). IMO the discussions have gone somewhat too long and scattered, and are difficult to follow. Maybe it’s time for me to move on.. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC); 17:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I don’t think I see any student violating the rules *deliberately*. All I see is, *no one* bothers to tell them the rules.

They might have completed the “ Wikipedia training modules”, I don’t know much and can’t comment on that. Anyway, I believe medical editors can do a better job to guide our new comers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC); 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the big problems with student editing in general. They're often given requirements by the instructor that do not match those of Wikipedia. (In this case the instructor has apparently told them that anything and everything they find on PubMed is usable, which is clearly wrong). When they get told otherwise they stick with the person who is grading them. And no one should blame them personally for this - they are being put into an impossible situation, where their grade depends not only on their own work and their instructor's beliefs, but on the actions of third parties (that is, every other Wikipedia editor). MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I don’t think the instructor is suggesting that *everything* in Pubmed is usable. If the instructor really *do* think so, I think it’s time for us to review our wording in WP:MEDRS to see why it gives users such an impression. Again, all these don’t belong to ANI IMO. I don’t see there are any conflicts between getting good grades and making great contributions to Wikipedia.

Agreed that no one should be blamed personally. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I believe our usual practices to safeguard the accuracy of our content are still essential. There are absolutely times that reverts are needed. Just that I think students shouldn’t be labelled as more problematic than other new users. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a side-effect of having seen this happen repeatedly with poorly run education projects (aka the "Ah, shit, here we go again" phenomenon). It happens often enough that people immediately bristle when a cluster of students start editing against policy, because they know it's going to be a mess to fix & the educator likely won't have their backs.

It's well and good to not WP:BITE the newbies. It's incredibly frustrating when this keeps happening because of a project that has no controls & no recourse for correcting the inherent problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily “poorly run education projects”, it’s probably about “how good Wikipedia is run” (by us?).

How do we welcome new medical editors

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely poorly run education projects. If they were well run, it would nip a lot of this in the bud before it became a problem, or at least the educators would be the ones cleaning up the messes. Instead, it's left to us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see much evidence in the problem or “messes” you mentioned. Perhaps you mean these problems of Wikipedia? E.g.,

[50] [51]
[52]

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking a bit, it looks like Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts is a pretty good help sheet (notably discussing WP:MEDRS) that could deserve to be linked somewhere. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Thanks! That page looks great. I hope we have more constructive and forward-looking comments like yours (perhaps in a different venue other than ANI though ...) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructor is Flower of truth. I will also notify her, on her talk page, of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusSholto, if you're talking about the second source cited in that diff, which talks about "functional neurological disorders" instead of saying "autism", then you might be interested in PMID 35511383, "Clinical overlap between functional neurological disorders and autism spectrum disorders: a preliminary study".

I agree that some of these are not relevant sources, but we also know that anyone can accidentally paste the wrong thing in the wrong place. I hope that someone added the {{failed verification}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: The second source in that diff is "Misdiagnosis of scrotal and retroperitoneal lymphangioma in children" and I don't see where it mentions "functional neurological disorders" anywhere in the text.

If you mean the first source added, "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", that reference is about misdiagnosing autoimmune encephalitis not misdiagnosing ASD as the text Asmahadad23 added would lead one to believe. The only mention of "functional neurological disorders" in that source lists it as a correct diagnosis instead of the incorrect diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis, so again it is not about "The misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in neurodevelopmentally typical children" as Asmahadad23 claimed in their edit. They are using references that don't say what they claim they say. That isn't a mere failed verification it is borderline vandalism. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at "Autoimmune Encephalitis Misdiagnosis in Adults", which says that AEM in adults is sometimes diagnosed when FND (which can include autism) should have been.

Wikipedia:Vandalism is intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. Trying to make things better but screwing up completely is not vandalism, and neither is pasting the wrong source into the wrong place.

Misdiagnosis is a significant problem in ASD, and while these sources don't verify the statements made, the fix that's needed is primarily pasting the right sources in, rather than removing the contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FND isn't autism, it's medically unexplained neurological symptoms. Secretlondon (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paper I linked suggests that the division may not be quite as clean as that, and the context in which the FND paper was cited was about misdiagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shutting it down?

As others have observed, this keeps happening. Is there a way the English Wikipedia could suspend support for these student assignments (at least in the medical area), as they seem to be a net negative for the Project as currently set up? Bon courage (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia doesn't "support" these student assignments, so we can stop what we're already not doing.

We could incentivize students to hide the fact that they're engaged in classroom-based assignments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s a “net negative” to the project. We are talking about around 27 postgraduates here. I didn’t review their edits one by one. I see none of the more positive contributions are being mentioned in all 3 discussions.

People tend to focus on problems. Further, whether an edit is a “positive contribution” can be quite subjective, for example formatting or prose problems maybe viewed by some as very negative, while others may think they’re just minor issues that can be fixed.

As for “this keeps happening”, as I’ve said in the other discussion, I believe Wikipedia has its responsibilities as well. Very often users are not well-informed, but they are *supposed* to know what they are *not* told. And it seems to me that many of us are accustomed to using warnings (and reverts) as the very first and only means to “communicate” with our new users.

IMO if new users are more well-informed at the very beginning, much less problems and cleanup will be needed. (E.g. if someone never knows a rule but we keep saying that she/he is violating the rule, of course there will be much conflicts). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner keeps harassing me

It started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[53]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[54]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Scolaire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's solved in real life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with the direction this thread has taken but I don't blame anyone in specific, not even User:Dante4786 and certainly not User:The Banner. First, we're in the wrong forum. I'm wondering why this conversation isn't taking place at WP:Redirects for discussion, for example. Nobody in this discussion has made that suggestion. Am I incorrect? Next, it appears to me Dante4786 is having significant difficulty being understood correctly in English, and they've confessed the language issues have been part of the problem. I'm seeing a bunch of conflation issues which might be approached with different wording satisfactory to all. Because Dante4786 is the OP and because they raised behavioral issues, we're here now so we should try to solve this. ANI is a bad venue in which to give behavioral assessments unless a contributor is willing to bring diffs and Dante4786 doesn't have that experience. IMHO, this thread has amplified the problem instead of solving it (because we're not dealing with diffs or sources, this all comes across as personal disagreement, and not a redirect for discussion). I'm inclined to suggest to Dante4786 that they take an apologetic tone here, and then start a RfD. Several editors here are capable of helping Dante4786. I'm of the opinion that if The Banner (or another editor) were to assist Dante4786 neutrally in creating that appropriate discussion, this thread would be unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are incorrect. The problem is not the redirect, the problem is Steaua București and the mess around ownership of the club, a split, renaming, reforming of the split off and countless court cases. The fact that even the court cases are not consistent, makes it even more difficult. In the past a whole bunch of sockpuppets and aggressive IPs were disrupting discussions. The Banner talk 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the entire Steaua București subject matter must be frustrating to edit, for all the reasons described. And Dante4786 certainly is responsible for their own edits, whatever they may be. Their unfortunate habit of personalizing discussion does not play especially well at ANI. I don't think they mean other editors ill, or even intend to personalize. When Dante4786 says "intellectual property infringement", I believe they are speaking of the limitation already imposed on FCSB (the result of such changes via court judgement), and not an accusation of any wikipedian. Without speaking ill, there's a lot of unnecessary heat involved with this discussion and most of it comes from the OP, despite their good-faith intention. That's my reading. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes, you are incorrect^[FBDB]. I suggested that they try to formulate an argument for their position adhering to WP:REDIRECT and not invoking irl legality, and if they succeed, put forth that argument first on the talk page, and failing that at RFD. They replied that it was "literally impossible" for them to make that case without making legal arguments. Now, as long as they stick with their positions that (a) it's impossible to have a Wikipedia discussion without bringing in Law and (b) The Banner has been harrassing them, we are at an impasse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the article's subject matter is legal dispute (as is the case here), Dante4786 reasonably asserts it's impossible to discuss without using "legal" vocabulary. It's hard to disagree that Dante4786 appears disruptive, but I don't believe that's their intention. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not tell them they couldn't use legal vocabulary or allude to the legal dispute. I specifically highlighted one aspect of their argument, that Wikipedia was violating legal rights of an entity by having a redirect point to a certain target, and told them that was a no-go. They've been completely unable to grasp the distinction between discussing the legal dispute academically and arguing an irl "Club [X] v Wikipedia" case that they've conjured up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support as proposer. I don't believe anything here is so egregious that more severe sanctions are warrantedThis would give Dante4786 the chance to demonstrate the issues are limited to this topic, to review policies concerning verifiability and consensus, and a pathway to contribute again in the not-too-distant future on a topic that is clearly important to them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the user talking reasonably on the talk page. User:Scolaire is assisting. I'll make an effort to help them understand the social norms which may make the language issues more challenging. If it's decided to block the user, it's unlikely I'll be the admin that does it. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman - Portal Fernandez Concha

@Chris troutman

I feel the editor has been unhelpful and hasnt properly analysed the facts. The discussion is stalemated and not progressing. Chris started to treat me in away that I felt was offensive.

Chris said "That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability." Which I feel to be offensive and unsuitable for collaborative working.

User talk:Chris troutman#Portal Fernandez Concha TraceySear840 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Troutman's comment that you're letting ChatGPT reply for you, which is a really good way to undermine your own case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context:

Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen @Jéské Couriano - The comments I made are valid and collegiate. The response from Chris is not collaborative and offensive. WP:PA WP:AVOIDYOU & importantly Wikipedia:Civility + Wikipedia:Civility#Assume_good_faith + Wikipedia:Casting aspersions TraceySear840 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you using AI to compose your replies? This is a simple, straightforward question, and it should not require a wall of text to answer it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Chris wrote (diff):

"TraceySear840: These walls of text are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)"

Yikes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TraceySear840, Chris is correct about the walls of text. You don't need several paragraphs to write what you can say in a few sentences. And if you are using ChatGPT or another AI, please stop. Chris troutman, this is way out of line, and I think you know that. A new editor would have risked being indeffed for that comment, and justifiably so. Please, just treat people with basic human decency. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it's not the first time Chris has made this kind of out-of-line comments these last few days. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't exaggerate, please. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? not a personal attack? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still doing this? I've noticed that lately it keeps being the same handful of editors who show up every time there's a chance to take down a veteran editor for not being nice enough. You may think that your civility campaign is righteous, but eventually one of two things will happen: either you will get burned out trying to compel everyone to be friends, or the community will run out of patience and force you stop. This is an encyclopedia; if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. I realize this message will likely fall on deaf ears, but at least now you won't be able to say you weren't warned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are so many people who are rude from time to time that if they all left we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content?? ltb d l (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between basic respect and compelling everyone to be friends. Civility is important for the same reasons one doesn't want to be in a toxic workplace. It's much better for everyone to provide constructive criticism where it's necessary and not insult people's intelligence. I genuinely don't get why this is controversial. I also don't think we should take it as a given that everyone involved in writing an encyclopedia is rude from time to time. I spend a substantial amount of my time in main space and I've never insulted anyone. I honestly don't think I'm somehow special for being able to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hear her, hear her!

The idea that we have to tolerate people who frequently insult others because they're the only ones who can possibly prevent the wiki from collapsing is wrong. An editor who is insulting or uncooperative might make a hundred edits a month while also, over time, driving off people who, if they had continued contributing, might together be making many times that number. I believe that we need to give grace to people who are having a bad day, and we should take the level of provocation into account, but in this particular instance, we're talking about an editor who has earned his reputation. Which reminds me: Punching down could probably use some more work.

@Lepricavark, you might be interested in reading about the problem of the meatball:VestedContributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost interest in this thread after being repeatedly shouted down by editors that I don't think had really grasped the point I was trying to make. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone else in the thread but I think the point we were trying to make is that warning someone for caring about civility is not actually how the community sees this, especially since you said the community will run out of patience and force you stop. That comment definitely rubbed me the wrong way and I felt like I had to say something to counteract the possible chilling effect a conversation that ended there might have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's comments like this that make me hesitant to edit at all, for the record. This "it keeps being the same handful of editors" can be turned right back around on people who don't think WP:CIVIL should be followed unless it's extremely egregious. I'm well aware my edit history is extremely small, but I've been a user for quite a while and WP:CIVIL issues are a main reason I hardly edit. I see comments quite frequently when this comes up of "well we have no way of knowing how many people we've driven away from incivility." Hi, I'm one of those people who are reticent to edit because of incivility. I stay on the website because I like reading about topics I'm interested in, but this pushback to any modicum of asking for civility and only wanting to act when it gets as far as slurs or super egregious personal attacks is discouraging from trying to even wikignome, at least for me.Greenday61892 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the project benefits if I type out a cogent reply to this comment instead of just 'stfu' &c -- not just me and you, but everyone else who has to see the conversation or God forbid has to participate in it, everyone who looks through it in archives years down the line and thinks "Ah, I see, this is how editors are supposed to act", and the like. We must set an example not only for ourselves but for each other and for the future. jp×g 🗯️ 17:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I gathered from your comment is that you wanted to tell me to 'stfu'. You wrote some vague stuff about how people are going to read this and how we need to set a good example, but you didn't actually reply to any of my statements. So now everyone reading this thread can follow your example by writing out the rude things they want to say so long as they pretend that they aren't actually saying it. All you've done is further convince me that civility enforcement is deeply flawed, inconsistent, and often does more harm than good. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think two things can be true: (1) TraceySear840 needs to communicate better if they're going to participate on the project, and (2) Chris Troutman's comments are out of line. They haven't edited since this discussion started, and I'd like to hear from them. Mackensen (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy. New editor and SPA TraceySear840 is pushing a draft which I declined (weak sourcing and no claim to notability). I get walls of desperation-mode chatbot text in return. Why? New editor is probably an undeclared paid editor not from an English-speaking country because regular fans and hobbyists don't respond that way to a declined draft. All TraceySear840's content edits were to a draft, so no need to report to WP:COIN. If this new editor is relying on chatbot because they aren't conversant in English or just cannot be bothered to write a sentence, then I will be unable to reason with them regarding their draft. I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs. Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years. Please hand TraceySear840 their boomerang as I have other things to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman this is the definition of a discouraging reply. Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mackensen, but I think we're past the "reply" stage. I looked at the stuff that Tracysear posted on Chris's talk page, and I would find it very, very difficult to keep my cool after trying to read that in good faith--and then the draft's talk page is full of it too. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defending a pattern of incivility as an admin is not a good look, especially since the ability to keep your cool is basically the main factor that's evaluated at an RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an RfA. Using someone's admin status against them like that is a weak move. Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness? If not, it's time for you to find an article to improve. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark I've seen the "we must tolerate rudeness for the sake of the project" argument trotted out since, oh, 2005 or so. It has not become more convincing in the intervening years. The position you're taking is effectively one of zero accountability. No one has proposed sanctions of any kind, and you're here asking Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness. I was looking for an acknowledgement that he could have handled that situation better. His one post in this discussion was to say, in so many words, I can't be bothered with this nonsense.

Editors come and go. Editor retention isn't just about hanging on to whomever is already here, it's about adding new people and encouraging them to stay. If the first encounter a new editor has is a rough one with a senior editor who couldn't be bothered, then we've just lost an editor, right there. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My argument isn't with you. It's with the small handful of editors who are bent on a narrow civility-based focus at all times regardless of whether other considerations may also apply. You articulated a reasonable position, which is something that those editors fail to do, but you were arguing against a position that isn't identical to mine. Also, I'm aware that nobody has proposed sanctions yet, but I've seen enough of these threads to know which the wind is blowing. Civility is one of the five pillars, but its most vocal proponents act as though it was the only pillar, and this is what concerns me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting like it's not possible to deal with people who you deem as incompetent without biting at them. There is a middle ground that doesn't require you to use someone's experience on the site or lack thereof as an insult--as And this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits is doing--to get your point across. Greenday61892 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting like it's not possible to deal with people who you deem as incompetent without biting at them. No, I'm not. I highly doubt you could point to any excerpt from my comments to justify that ham-fisted interpretation. One of my chief complaints about civility scolds is that they don't bother to engage fairly with disagreeing points of view. It's happening again here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, what other way is Are you prepared to take up Chris troutman's work once you've run him off the site for occasional impoliteness? meant to be interpreted besides "if you don't let us do an incivility every so often we're gonna leave?" Greenday61892 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you genuinely not see the difference between someone leaving voluntarily (your interpretation) and someone being run off the site (what I actually wrote)? I can tell that you are reading my comments with an assumption that I'm acting in bad faith, and your negative renderings flow from this assumption. Further interaction will be pointless unless you're willing to actually take my comments at face value. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's connect these two leavings, as it were. One concern expressed is that rude behavior will cause editors to voluntarily disengage. The other concern is that holding rude editors accountable for their behavior will run those editors off the site. Editors are responsible for their own conduct. I've seen the idea expressed (by you, in this thread above), that in effect rudeness is a price that the project has to pay with certain people in exchange for their contributions. The project of course, pays no price. Rather, individual editors pay it, through lost time or hurt feelings. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that civility enforcement is not as black-and-white as some are making it seem. For instance, there's an editor slightly up the thread who found a clever way of telling me to 'stfu' without actually saying it, thus forestalling any consequences for what I'm sure you would agree is uncivil behavior. Did I feel the effects of the incivility? Of course I did. But even though it happened on a very public noticeboard, I'm the only one who seems to have noticed. Perhaps some of you are chuckling to yourself, 'Haha, the guy who pushed back on civility enforcement is now complaining that someone was uncivil to him.' But if you find that amusing, then you realize that civility enforcement is more nuanced than almost anyone in this thread is willing to admit. Unfortunately, that nuance is not appreciated by the crowds that often gather to condemn long-term editors who are flawed in this particular area (and like it or not, we are all flawed in some aspect of our editing). Obviously, some incivility is beyond the pale and warrants severe sanctions (see the literal grave-dancer below for a particularly egregious example), but as I've matured in my Wiki-experience I've gradually shifted my perception of the line to be more forgiving of the imperfections of those who have devoted many hours of volunteer service. I realize that's a lot to read, but hopefully it helps clarify that I've put a little more thought into this than just if you don't let us do an incivility every so often we're gonna leave or we must tolerate rudeness for the sake of the project. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, and I frankly don't understand why he wrote that. I will say something to him. As you say, it's not black-and-white. Two senior editors arguing about civility on a noticeboard is not the same thing as an administrator--in the course of carrying out a task--speaking to a new editor. The tone and content also matter. "STFU" is not the same as openly speculating about someone's cognitive abilities.

I think the other point, one that you have not really addressed, is that we all understand making a regrettable comment in the moment. That's natural. The real source of my concern is that a day later, Chris troutman saw nothing wrong with what he said and dared anyone to do anything about it. Your comments about replacing him effectively endorse that view, whether you intended that reading or not. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. To be clear, I don't endorse Chris's attitude. I don't think it's bad enough to warrant sanctions at this point, but I don't endorse it either. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the fact that the hidden "stfu" wasn't very nice of that editor, you're right on that point. There's absolutely a level of nuance in what counts as incivility, and not all comments are on the same level as that editor who received a (well-deserve) indef for what he said. For context, I don't believe Chris should get a block for his comment — maybe something else that happens to match his username.
The place where we seem to differ in our opinions is that you prefer to be more forgiving to users having devoted more time and contributions to Wikipedia. While I can understand the argument of retaining important editors, I believe that shouldn't be the case, as 1/ their experience should allow them to be an example for newer editors, 2/ giving more latitude to some editors might make them believe this behavior is okay if they're a net positive, rather than begrudgingly tolerated, and 3/ letting some editors be rude to newcomers might scare off more newer editors, meaning keeping them might be less of a "net positive" than believed. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have accurately identified our fundamental philosophical difference. As long as you don't think this is a blockworthy situation, I think we're on somewhat common ground. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I think it's troutworthy, yes, warningworthy if this whole discussion wasn't there to do the job of a warning, but not blockworthy if the pattern (hopefully) doesn't repeat. Happy to see constructive discussion! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking your comments at face value. You are continuously arguing in favor of being able to violate WP:CIVIL. Whether you meant leaving because you're not being allowed to act uncivil or being blocked because you're not being allowed to act uncivil is irrelevant to the point that you dislike people being more and more fed up with getting bitten at unnecessarily.Greenday61892 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not taking my comments at face value and you are not engaging in the conversation in good faith. You've set me up as an anti-civility bogeyman, and evidently that leaves you free to put whatever words you want in my mouth and then demand that I defend them. I'm not having it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I literally quoted what you said. Allow me to quote, again verbatim, something else you wrote: if we got rid of everyone who was rude from time to time, we wouldn't have enough people left to maintain our content. Putting aside the fact that this is simply not true and ignores the myriad of people who, I'll reiterate includes myself, have been driven away from editing due to rampant incivility, being rude is literally incivility. If I'm creating an anti-civility bogeyman, and you're not anti-civility, why are you so concerned about enforcing WP:CIVIL? All I've been doing is taking exactly what you said, verbatim, and interpreting it in the context of what you were replying to. So what exactly have I been intentionally misconstruing of your statements?

Also, do not forget that WP:AGF exists, so please do not say I'm not engaging in good faith when you have nothing to prove that I'm acting the opposite.Greenday61892 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was already tired of trying to explain that my words mean what they mean, but the ABF accusation is the last straw. I'm done replying to you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I taking crazy pills here? I literally only brought up WP:AGF because you verbatim said you are not engaging in the conversation in good faith. How is that not an assumption of bad faith? Greenday61892 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. I don't consider a good sign when someone's ready to mount the battlements to defend Wikipedia against the Visigoths. Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, Mackensen, didn't the response we're looking at come after a series of AI-generated messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC) ^<diff>[reply]

Well, what of it? Is the theory that we can be shitty to suspected ChatGPT users? Walk this out for me. I don't see how that's a helpful approach; it just means we start arguing about whether it's a suspected ChatGPT user, and therefore whether it was okay to make insinuations about the user's cognitive ability. Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, did you miss where I said "series"? A whole slew of those crappy messages, one after the other proving that the editor is not of good faith and is not listening? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I did not. I said this above: I understand yelling at someone in the moment. It's not the moment. It's been an day. They've had an opportunity to reflect and collect themselves. Again, what's the theory here? I'm inferring that you disapprove of what he said but think it's justified by duress. I don't agree, but it's perhaps beside the point because Troutman thinks what he said was perfectly fine, and that was after having time to think it over. I don't think I'm asking much, here. There's no coercion. No one's being threatened with sanctions, a block, or even being called a bad name. Fiat justitia ruat caelum this isn't. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. Any editor who thinks it's okay to directly question another person's "cognitive ability"—especially because of a hunch they have about the person's intentions—should seriously reconsider their approach before sanctions become necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, ChatGPTZero was 98% certain that the text I fed it was AI generated. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPTZero also thinks that the bits I fed it from an unpublished manuscript that I am [supposed to be] publishing in the near future are AI generated. I do not think stuff form ChatGPT should be allowed here, but to attack a person's 'cognitive abilities' based on a suspicion of their use of software is plain wrong, but for someone else to seemingly endorse that claim based on the assessment of another piece of software, and one that also happens to be wildly inaccurate... well, I do not think I can put what I think about that into words. Perhaps that's a sign of my own sub-par cognitive abilities. Ostalgia (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I re-read WP:NPA#WHATIS. What I said does not, in my opinion, violate that policy."

Then you very much need to re-read that section (and the rest of the policy) again, and much more carefully. Consider for example the following excerpt which caps WHATIS: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in original). Look, let's make this really, really simple: any time you find yourself speculating negatively about another user's mental capabilities, you are violating WP:NPA, as an absolutely per se matter. It's not even a remotely close call and your asking us to expect to believe a) that you didn't mean this in a disparaging manner, and b) that an editor of your tenure and experience doesn't understand that this behaviour is proscribed by this community, regardless of intent, both strain all credulity beyond belief.

Likewise, other portions of the policy toss your "I was allowed to do this because they were being oh so very dumb" line of rationalization squarely out on its ear: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user."

"I was professional in deploring this sad state of affairs."

No, you absolutely were not. Unless you are literally a trained expert administering a psychometric assessment, you are never being "professional" in any context where you are speculating about someone's supposed cognitive deficits. Least of all when you are opining about another editor you are in a dispute with. And again, I just refuse to accept that you don't know that this is the community's perspective, however much you think context should give you the right.

"Anyone who thinks my comments are out-of-line hasten the day we're overrun with this sort of problem which I've been tamping down these past ten years."

That is one of the most absurdly reasoned and self-aggrandizing false choices I have ever seen on this project, including this particular forum with its long history of such efforts to wrap ill-tempered outbursts in the valor of supposedly protecting the project. In no way do we need to choose between calling out TracySear's variety of nonsense and shutting down your inflammatory disregard for the most basic precepts of WP:CIV.

In fact, behaviour like yours makes it more difficult to stop other varieties of disruption, because it muddies the waters, distracts from the core issues and makes consensus and longterm stability for the project more difficult (among numerous other reasons that are just as obvious). You are not a hero here because you had the brashness to imply another editor was mentally disabled. Give us a break and stop humouring yourself. Or for that matter, believe what you want, but just don't repeat the behaviour. Because I for one will without hesitation !vote for a sanction if it happens again, and I doubt I am the only one, especially in light of your complete WP:IDHT in reaction to concerns here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

One issue was TraceySear840‘s use of AI to communicate. Before the time Chris Troutman rebuked this new editor, had anyone ever told TraceySear840 not to use AI (a.k.a. large language model)? If not, then how are new editors supposed to know this?
For that matter, do we even have a policy or guideline yet against TraceySear840 using AI? The last I knew, we couldn’t agree on one; we just have a non-binding essay, WP:LLM.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Chris Troutman's tone/word choice, there is no reason to permit the spamming of Concha, with nonsense like this 'm reaching out to this knowledgeable community with a fascinating challenge and opportunity: the Portal Fernández Concha article. I have given them a final warning for clear UPE which is the issue beyond ChatBot. Star Mississippi 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Mississippi, I don’t think this is paid editing. Why would any building owner pay to include a whole “crime” section in their article? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like Mackensen, I consider Chris Troutman was extremely uncivil: suggesting a user's literacy and potentially their cognitive abilty are defective and that [the editing community]'d more likely just block you to silence you—that is, suggesting they are not welcome on the project—is disrespectful. Chris Troutman was basically asserting incompetence in the manner we are not supposed to invoke it because civility is a basic policy. It's also not a way of engaging someone that's likely to meet with their understanding. On a basic level, as A. B. points out, the community's rejection of AI-generated prose could have been made much clearer to the editor. (We deprecate it the same way we deprecate machine translation, but other projects vary on the latter and may well vary on the former, and both need to be very clearly explained because it's precisely new editors with weak English skills who will be most tempted to use both.) At the same time, I share Mackensen's view that TraceySear840 has so far done a poor job. The article takes a strangely sociological approach to its topic, a historic building. (Star Mississippi, I second A. B.; whatever the impetus for creating this article and for the balance of content, this is not promotional editing.) It would have been more encyclopedic and demonstrated notability more clearly if the editor had translated es:Portal Fernández Concha (which is a clearer exposition and has some useful archived sources). When the article was draftified, TraceySear840 responded with expostulations about how much work they'd put in—which is not unusual for new editors, and the best response would probably have been a calm and simply written explanation of notability, references, and reliable sources with the basic guide to making a new article stick as the top link. However, as the conversation proceeded in multiple places, TraceySear840 bludgeoned, and they do appear to have decided to use ChatGPT or something similar to generate all those posts. Which boomeranged on them, because not listening to explanations about how the community does things, posting walls of text about one's personal aims, and using LLMs in conversation are also disrespectful. ... So. Unless someone else does first, I'm going to completely rewrite the draft so it is no longer about the decline of the immediate area, raids on prostitutes, and so forth and simply about the history of the building. And then re-mainspace it. I've added the historic image that TraceySear840 uploaded to Commons to the existing Commons category. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. B. @Yngvadottir my read is it's UPE in that they're being compensated to get an article in mainspace otherwise they would not care so much about something absolutely random that they're spamming the project with requests for others to collaborate. To me that's promotional even if it's not paid to write promotional glowing text. But we're all vets here and can agree to disagree. Star Mississippi 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Thank you, Yngvadottir, very good summary. I very much agree. And thanks for offering to rewrite the draft. 🌟 Double gold stars. 🌟 El_C 23:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome :-) I procrastinated madly from what I should have been doing last night; it's at Portal Fernández Concha and I've made a few links to it. For the avoidance of doubt, we need better coverage of historic buildings (and architects, sculptors, painters ...) from most countries of the world, and I find it perfectly plausible that that's what TraceySear840 set out to help us with. I got it wrong about how it wound up in draft space: they started the article there as a new editor, and what they were responding to was its rejection rather than draftification. I've pinged them on the talk page, but including another ping here because I'm not sure they've seen how the conversation has progressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure. I'm admittedly a bit of a cynic, but contradictorily, also an optimist. So I'm hopeful something good will follow you encouraging them (and me encouraging you, in turn). El_C 04:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LLM was supposed to be a one-paragraph policy proposal and it was slowly turned into one of those $2 million San Francisco municipal toilet projects with a 0% chance of passing by the time someone finally slapped a RfC on it. I sure as heck learned my lesson from that! jp×g 🗯️ 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have little hope of anyone paying attention to this, let alone doing something about it, but this is the third (that I noticed - there's probably more) ANI report this month where an established editor is uncivil to a newer/less prolific user, is called out for it, and not only does not take it down a notch but insists on the correctness of their position, getting support from other equally established users, including administrators. I can understand frustration, heat-of-the-moment reactions (of which I have been guilty more than once), but standing by such behaviour after the fact, and even worse, endorsing it as a neutral, that I think is plain wrong. It gets to the point where it appears that you can throw WP:CIVILITY out the window provided you're popular enough with a relatively high amount of regular editors. The situation reminds me of the popular kids bullying the new guy who got transferred from another school and then covering up for one another. Hell, last time I participated in one of these reports there was an administrator going as far as to complain that indeffing a decade-and-a-half veteran user for incivility, despite his extensive block log for behavioural issues, would be inappropriate and against Wikipedia's focus on inclusivity. It boggles the mind. One would think that a) being aggressive and uncivil is probably a much bigger threat to inclusivity than removing the person who is being uncivil, and b) the logical way to go about it would be the opposite - a new guy has to learn about the policies he has to abide by (even if he has to learn by getting warnings and blocks) while an established user should already know them and be expected to behave accordingly. Ostalgia (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with your observations, popularity or even amount of edits shouldn't give a free pass for incivility. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern you're pointing out is exactly why I finally spoke up on this one. I've gotten tired of the "well we don't know for sure how many people are driven away from editing by incivility so that's a strawman" given that I myself am one of those people.Greenday61892 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes of Chris Troutman's behavior cited in this thread are clear-cut violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Insulting someone's cognitive ability, attempting to order that same person to never post here again, and saying of another editor this un-accomplished Wikipedian with less than three hundred edits complains that they've been bitten? Ludricrous. are all examples of targeting a user rather than talking about content. That TraceySear840 warrants a WP:BOOMERANG for being disrespectful in a different way (spamming a user's talk page) in no way detracts from Chris Troutman's accountability to the Wikipedia community to also adhere to the site's policies on behavior. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral issues at Talk:Horror film

Hoping someone will be willing to take a look at Horror film and the talk page there, where Andrzejbanas is exhibiting disruptive behavior issues include ownership, sealioning, refusing to accept consensus is against them, and refusing to revert their edits made against that consensus once it was pointed out to them. When an issue is addressed, they move to a new one, creating walls of text that keep accusing other editors of not being willing to continue discussing and explaining.

Extended content

It started with this reversion, where they wrote in the edit summary there are certainly horror films set during Christmas, but without some page citation from that book, all the other articles just connect the dots that "here are a list of alternative Christmas films" or "here are some horror films set around Christmas time" without really isolating it as a genre.

Here, after I'd found those page#s, they reverted again, this time saying I'd added the info back without addressing concerns, which wasn't true.
Here argued that none of the sources that none of them describe it as a genre, which wasn't true, and in fact in the content they'd removed included a note I'd added quoting the book source calling it a genre three different times.
Here that the genre wasn't well-defined. I pointed out that it doesn't have to be well-defined in order to exist, and that an entire book of essays about the genre had been published by an established publisher.
Here that they didn't find the book's arguments convincing.
Here argued "seems irregularly represented against other horror cycles here such as the slasher, teen horror film, or the slasher." I pointed out that Teen horror doesn't even exist except as a redirect.
Here told me that if I didn't even know what a genre cycle was, I shouldn't be trying to write about film.
Here said calling it a genre was FRINGE.
Here that nothing in the sources provided any value to the reader. I pointed out that my proposed addition told the reader The essential understanding readers take away is that horror includes a subgenre of Christmas horror. It seems to have a history, to have emerged as a genre fifty years ago and have been referred to as a subgenre as recently as two years ago. Those are things readers may want to know about the overall genre.
Here that they never heard the term in common use.
Here that an entire book of essays about the genre published by an established publisher wasn't sufficient to show the genre existed, saying, I repeat, this is not a substantial sub-genre, despite there being a book by a non-academic on the topic.
Here that other than the book, there were only listicles. I pointed out that NPR and Hollywood Reporter both were calling it a genre or subgenre and giving it lengthy treatment.
Here that they'd found errors in books by that publisher and implied NPR and HR were well-disguised listicle content. Which is not true, both describe the genre and its appeal at length. The fact they mention multiple highly-regarded examples does not make those articles listicles.
Here circled back to that there was nothing in the three sources that provided valuable information. Twice.
At this point, two other editors, GoneIn60 and Robert McClenon came in and agreed it was a legitimate genre. To which they responded, I'm not saying that there isn't such a genre, but due to it's sort of wobbly discussion, there is no real way to make it stand on it's own as it hasn't received critical attention. This is why I'm iffy on including it here, and not calling for a removal on the article or anything on it's own. The discussion isn't so much if it's real or not anymore, it's how we can include it here with saying something that gives the genre prominence. As I can't even write that on my own (and I've tried), I'm not sure what the best method is to include it. Which seems pretty WP:OWNy -- if they can't write it, it doesn't go in?

GI60 then proposed entirely new language, which I supported, and Andrjez started the whole rigamarole over with that proposal. GI60 at that point agreed that he and I had done our due diligence and his third opinion provided consensus, and we added the language, and Andrjez reverted again saying there was no consensus. Then he said he hadn't seen the discussion between me and GI60, but still didn't revert himself after being asked multiple times on my talk, his talk, and the article talk. And he's still arguing that neither of us has explained what the issue is and that I'm dodging his questions. The whole thing could be another dozen diffs. Sealioning in particular is hard to prove without multiple. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

. Basically on trying to pull information from google searches, I had very click-baity aritcles. I grew frustrated trying to pull into a form which I think fits a film genre and went WP:BOLD.
. I shouldn't have done this and should have brought it to discussion.
. I'm very strict with genre. The descriptions within seem broad and not part of any cycle. Kim Newman argues that genre can only exist when films are trying to imitate each other. As I've added to this and various film genre articles, genre is very subjective. For example, on the Thriller film article, most serious journalism agrees that despite the term being in common use, there is no universally agreed upon term to it. This is the same in the current horror article, specifically "Mark Jancovich in an essay declared that "there is no simple 'collective belief' as to what constitutes the horror genre" between both fans and critics of the genre" The same can be applied to the sub-genre, so I warn against such arguments.
. The genre, isn't well defined. Yes there is a book, and in the opening pages of the book the author even states "It's difficult to define [the Christmas horror]". So I'm not sure what the issue is here.
. I didn't find them convincing, because they are very broad. I'll elaborate on that.
. I'll admit to that, as it didn't appear you have read this article before contributing to it. Cycle is mentioned early in the prose.
. That was wrong of me, I was frustrated and apologize. And I believe I did apologize in the topic at hand.
. The genre is fringe. Kim Newman states this enough on his write up on the topic in Nightmare Movies.
. Here's where you are flat out wrong. It would be anachronistic to place a genre like this. Genre's don't emerge, they arrive via imitation and cycles.
. It isn't common use. Kim Newman refers to it Nightmare Movies as a very minor genre.
. One book, by one author. This is hardly the slasher film which has countless essays, articles, and books about it. I can easily provide further research into teen horror which has Scholary journals written about it, but pointing out "i've never heard of it" felt like knee-jerk reactions, especially to someone who only showed that they didn't seem to have read the article when adding their content.
. You were right on the NPR and Hollywood Reporter, and I said you were in the discussion.
. There are errors in the articles, and I've pointed them out. I never suggested the publications were unreliable, but further research (which was requested, then done, then ignored by the requesting parties). For example, information of it being taken suggest there is a connection between the films and early Christmas ghost stories, but the article has no proof out of this. The articles also list Silent Night, Bloody Night as the first, or an early film in the genre, but as the article I shared in Rue Morgue magazine on the topic, the link between Christmas and that film begins and ends with the title.
. I feel that from what I've said above, the articles are not the strongest discussion points on the topic, from writer who clearly have not seen some of these films they are discussing and question, and work on assumed beliefs based on film titles.
. And one of those editors, encouraged me to keep on going despite you only commenting that I'm trying to own the page and not addressing me when I asked you time and time again to comment on my content, not perceived editing patterns or agenda.

I'm not reverting the edit, because I feel like the user is trying to force me to agree with something, without addressing my requests. They are welcome to revert it on their own, but they have not assumed good faith with any of my edits. Yes I believe I was wrong some of the times and my actions were too bold. But when I've done when they asked (i.e: find more sources, try to re-write it), they've made their decision that I've gone too far.

I'd like to address this user made the content really frustrating to browse. Two threads were opened and the editor hopped between them back and forth. I missed the consensus (between two editors). In the meantime, I reached out to WP:HORROR and WP:FILM to ask for suggestions on my edits to Horror film, action film, thriller film, and mystery film talk pages, and this debate in question. Please do not assume, I'm trying to own a page when I'm actively reaching out. I appreciate that you also asked for comments as well, but I don't blame anyone for not reading through our bickering. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire response is returning to arguing content. This is about behavior. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...? I also apologized? Showcased where I reached out to others for further comments (which seems to be against your accusations of me trying to own an article when I want more voices on it!) and pointed out where I think you are ignoring content for, unknown reasons. Yes, I've brought up the content here, because that what was what the question was. How else should I explain myself? I want to assume good faith, but you give me one sentence summaries. You have edited your own posts as well to make it look like you haven't been antagonizing me. The very fact you address a perceived notion instead of content, and you make antagonizing posts against me in both edit summaries and edited responses: here and here. You have been ignoring WP:FOC, and have made the priority of your arguments on the page about me, when I've frequently asked to please comment on the content, you return it with how i'm trying to own a page. Not sure what else, but I'm finding it very difficult to engage about content with you that you clearly feel strongly about as you never discuss it and avoid anything that suggests I'm actively looking for a grander solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On my own talk page, I've also stated that you have made me feel like reverting my own edit would feel like you are trying to trap me into suggesting consensus with your edit. You did not respond to that. What should be my, or anyone's, take away from that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume you and anyone else should take away that I've given up on trying to keep plugging away when someone is just giving back WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION. Consensus is against you, you've refused to revert yourself, and instead are demanding that I continue a 82Kbyte discussion in which three different editors have told you consensus is against you. Valereee (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to revert it. I've stated you are trying to force me into consensus or do something. If you could simply say "i'm not trying to do that", then I'd feel comfortable. You haven't made me feel safe in doing it. Right after the editor who told me keep going with what i'm doing here. I'm not why you are quoting essays and I don't hear you, because I've done what you've requested. You can say you've addressed me, and you are happy to point out Diffs. I'm trying to address you continuously (again on your own talk page, and in the article). I am hearing you, and have made issues with the content. When you aren't engaging with me when I ask basic questions. I'm not sure what you want me to do other than call you on the same. But as you said, this is about me. I agree with you on some points, and on others, I think you are ignoring valid points on the base assumption that I'm trying to own an article. I've addressed where I think how I'm not doing that. (I.e: engaging with Gonein60, asking for outside discussion from wikiprojects, and continuously asking you to please focus on content, not perceived backlines.) I'm more concerned with you not addressing and trying to get me into reverting an edit based on...I barely know. Accident? This again, feels like I'm getting trapped for the reasons stated above. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what else there is to say, but I think we probably re-open this with focus on the prose and not perceived biases. I feel like that shows that I'm not trying to own an article, i'm trying to find the happy medium. As the current edit, has material which has some content which I've found is wrong. (see comment again on Rue Morgue quote and Kim Newman and Yuletide quotes on it being a hard to define and smaller genre). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried reverting yourself will somehow suggest you're agreeing with consensus, I'm happy to make that reversion. Headed out now, but I'll check back in. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be bold, but yes, I've said that about three times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that edit. As long as @Andrzejbanas does not revert it to some preferred version of their own, I'm satisfied. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No interest in reverting at the moment, but I've opened up new discussion, as the current edit has focus and sources that disagree with each other. I look forward you to responding. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas, so we here at ANI should take this to mean that if I and other editors do not continue to generate tens of thousands of bytes of discussion daily, you are planning to revert again? Valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? Every time I suggest anything in that talk page, you assume like this. I'm sorry, but you are not assuming good faith at all. If you can't assume good faith, I suggest you take break from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start out editing in this topic area, but was responding to what I thought might have been a request for a Third Opinion, and offered the opinion that Christmas horror is a distinct subgenre. Whether it is a fringe subgenre is not important. I will agree to the language proposed by User:Valereee or by User:GoneIn60. I thought that User: Andrzejbanas was sealioning, but I didn't feel like writing that up, and hoped that the issue would either be resolved by other editors or go away, or possibly be written up by other editors. I see that it has been written up by User:Valereee. My opinion, which is only worth what you paid me for it, is that Andrzejbanas is still sealioning. I would suggest that this dispute can be resolved in at least one of two ways. Andrzejbanas can recognize that they are in a minority, and allow the other editors to agree on language, or the community can impose a topic-ban from the area of horror films for at least sixty days (during which the other editors can agree on language). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm totally aware i'm in the minority, if like, two editors against one is a wide margin. I have to disagree @Robert McClenon that I wanted editors to go away. I've shown that I've reached out to communities and other regular WP:FILM commentators for further opinions (here and here. I was definitely rude early on. I believe I've apologized on it. I feel like since then, if I suggest anything to it, which, the current agreed upon suggestions had content that is flat out false. In fact, when I pointed it out before, Gonein60 agreed and even said just yesterday "It may be too early to call for consensus" here. When I asked Valereee to please focus on the content changes, (per WP:FOC), it led to a write-up that I'm trying to control the article. It would be a real determent to article to include it in it's current "agreed" upon form where I've stated there is flagrant misinterpretation of sources, and as further material has been found, it should require further discussion. I understand they are frustrated with me, but I think it's time to focus on prose and citations instead of presumed beliefs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrzejbanas - I didn't think that you wanted other users to go away. I was hoping that maybe the issue would go away because I didn't want to think more about it. No such luck on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh my bad. I misread there. Trust me, my current stance is to have something in the article that state what citations say. From our rough start, which is definitely my wrong doing for a good chunk, it has become difficult to contribute. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: I think it would be best if you stepped away from the article for a little while. I appreciate your good faith, but you're not gaining consensus for your views, and the sheer volume of your comments on the talk page will discourage other editors from participating. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I can't help but agree that this editor should step away. Given this, it appears unlikely to happen. Valereee (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about yourself? Anytime I try to clear the air, make easy for other editors to read, and refresh what I believe a current issue is. You shut it down. This is against several wiki policies, you aren't assuming WP:GF. I've haven't had this much trouble with anything in any article until this in a very long time. You haven't addressed any issue I've had, I haven't reverted your edit, and still you stress I can't control myself. I'm trying to keep format. but what is up ?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is over 80Kbytes. I have not shut anything down, I've engaged far longer than 99% of people would. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? I agree it's gone on long, but it's mostly because new content is not being addressed which has been found only yesterday. Per WP:TALK#USE we're supposed to communicate there. While you had made it obtuse by discussing the same topic in two threds WP:MULTI. Yes i've created a new sub-section, because WP:TALKSUBHEADING I'm trying to focus on task. Just saying "we've talked a lot" is not addressing that I've found new content that is being ignored. Now, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." You haven't given me constructive feedback, you've just been saying "this has gone on long enough". If you are done with the topic, that's great. You don't have to contribute. I'm not going to revert your edit, but I've tried to flow the topic to one course which is the current issue. You are welcome to join in, but please have something constructive about the content, not the user. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Robert McClenon's proposal for a 60 day topic ban from horror films and film genres, broadly construed, with a warning to Andrzejbanas that resuming this type of behavior anywhere on Wikipedia may lead to a sitewide block. Be concise. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328:, I respect the edit, but I suggest it be separated from horror films. I'm one of the more active users in WP:HORROR and have actively been trying to keep that community active (see it's talk page, and main page). I don't have an active train of these edits. If you feel I must step away from this topic, but I feel like just editing the christmas horror article and subsection of the Horror film article is enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas, I stand by my recommendation. Let's hear from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just wanted to add that a note dropped at WT:FILM led me to the discussion around the same time as Robert McClenon. Following our third opinions, the discussion seemed to be progressing when Andrzejbanas accepted the reliability of sources in question and suggested a proposal was needed to weigh in on. Once a proposal was given, the immediate response was "I can't really find valid content within the sources mentioned to actually formulate this into something palpable" (diff). Why ask for editors' time commitment in writing a proposal if you were already at the determination nothing could be written? This was a sign of things to come in the debate. Despite the responses and alternate proposals that followed, a new concern or issue is always waiting right around the corner.
It also appears another editor has now been canvassed directly to participate, but in fairness, this canvassed editor is a veteran editor of the Film project and a discussion notice was dropped earlier at WT:FILM. Not really sure what to make of any of this. I'll leave that up to those who have experience sorting these situations out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not cool, @Andrzejbanas Valereee (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another canvass Valereee (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if I was going to solicit additional feedback, these would be two of the first editors I'd ask. Their opinions will be unbiased. However, the fact that no one was notified of these pings is concerning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, I couldn't find information, I've said that at the time where I couldn't find information. I did not canvas to get anyone to agree with me or not, we had about three people discussing it. There is nothing wrong with what I did and my requests were strictly for comment, not to swing a position one way or another. Honestly, If they agree with you, I'll be more comfortable with me feeling "it's probably just a me thing." and I'll feel better and move on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas, they could be the least biased editors on the project. The problem is that by canvassing them, you've tainted their input. Valereee (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any rule that I can't do that? I've asked them completely neutrally, as I've seen them edit things with little bias in the past and are long time contributors to WP:FILM. I've done this several times, and this is the only time I've heard it being treated like I'm rallying troops or something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I've had it done to me on Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Atari Lynx)#Merge proposal This is really normal behavior. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the editor doing that pinged you transparently to the discussion, explaining their reason for doing so, at a point when no one else in the discussion was even disagreeing with them. The difference is obvious. I am happy to have more eyes on the discussion, but when you are in the minority and you handpick editors to invite in to the discussion and don't even mention you're doing so, it does tend to make it look like an attempt to recruit the troops. GI60 says these are editors they trust to be unbiased, so I'll let it go. Valereee (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me saying I couldn't find anything, is an invitation to say something like "perhaps you could!" I feel like we're really twisting words here to really make me discourage anyone from editing. Since then, I have expanded on it, and both @GoneIn60: and @Valereee: have said it's not close enough to their personal definition. And both decided to progress further. I feel really quite like we're trying to twist every word I have here, to make it look like I've denying everything, while I've previously said that GoneIn60's was "the best writing" i've seen so far. GoneIn60 has also encouraged me to keep going. I feel like i'm being torn both ways here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GI60 didn't encourage you to keep going. They made one final attempt to have a reasonable discussion, and then they too threw up their hands and we agreed we'd done everything we could. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues seem to have been resolved for now. I have no objection to this being closed or archiving with no action. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bears247 community ban proposal

Bears247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the third time I've brought this user to ANI (March 2022, April 2022). Since then, they've been indeffed three times (block log) for various disruptive editing. They were blocked twice for persistent additions of unsourced content and a third time for pushing a series of edits without a true consensus despite repeated oppositions from other editors (User talk:Bears247#Final warning). They were most recently unblocked two weeks ago, and since then many of their edits are unsourced (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) and another one of the problematic edits (related to the third indef) was also made ([55]). There are many warnings from me and others on their talk page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and at this point I don't think this user is competent enough to edit Wikipedia given how many chances they've received. I could post yet another warning on their talk page about unsourced edits, but would the 10th+ warning make a difference? I am proposing a community ban here since the first three indefinite blocks were unable to stick. (Before the jokes start, yes I am aware we have extremely similar usernames.) (Reworded for clarity 23:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unbearable similarity. I feel bad. I believed in this user. Gave another chance. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what pressing issues are there post-latest unblock. It wouldn't surprise me that there would be, but I'm not immediately seeing it. Eagles247, can you provide a summary + diffs of a couple of these? El_C 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, are the six recent diffs above not enough? Cullen328 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, reading comprehension failure, I apologize. El_C 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support community ban. One, two, three strikes and then you're out, and out is where we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:IDHT. I don't see any path forward. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sad support for a community ban. Admins have worked to prevent this, but here we are. BusterD (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal I’ve never interacted with this editor, but the issue appears limited to biographies of American Footballers. Perhaps we could first try a topic ban from American Football, broadly construed? Perhaps they won’t be interested in participating in other topic areas - but perhaps they will, and away from this area that they are so clearly enthusiastic for perhaps they will be more willing to use sources? BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but to me the number of warnings suggest that they will cause disruption on any topic they are "enthusiastic" about. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support it does not appear that this editor has any interest in learning from feedback, or blocks. Time to move on. Star Mississippi 03:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact they were indeffed twice, let alone three times, is a major red flag to me. Unless there are some truly impressive mitigating factors here, I feel compelled to support as not understanding what the issues with their editing are. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 04:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - let's not waste any more time on this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per baseball; 3 strikes and you are out. Toketaa^talk 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possibly a joe job, but ... I just happened to notice there's a newly-minted Bear2647 (talk · contribs) at the help desk, mentioning an old account. Might warrant a {{cu-requested}}, or maybe someone wants to just block the sock/joejob? There's pretty much zero chance it isn't one or the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated - doesn’t seem to be connected to the account under discussion here. firefly ( t · c ) 21:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. I had to close my old account of 22 years rather quickly for security reasons. I didn't have time to move my saved articles. IF there is a way to import them, great. Would save me a lot of time. Bear2647🐨 Bear2647 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to cast aspersions, but I'm surprised how someone could have been here for 22 years and still not know that Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself a moderator. So much less stuffy than admin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you settle for 'adminerator'? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like "custodian" myself. Humble, but necessary -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more surprised that someone who claims to have been here for 22 years claims an account that was created in February 2020 is 22 years old. Given there is no technically verified relationship between the accounts and no technical way to re-assign WP data, I've sprayed troll-b-gon on 2647. DMacks (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The editor has used up several "last chances". Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support They have had enough chances, enough is enough. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 01:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For extra context, are the edits mentioned adding false information? SWinxy (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:VERIFIABILITY. Focusing more on the former can make us even less reliable. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the crux of the matter. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on what myself and another editor who I saw eye to eye with, went through on several occasions. Check the revision history on Marcell Dareus and George Iloka. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't know if I'm too late but I do support this as well. I've seen this issue with this editor a few other times. It's been made clear multiple times and there's no other choice.--Rockchalk7 17 22:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support under WP:CIR. The user's been warned and blocked so many times that if they don't get it by now, they likely never will. The Kip 22:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion/deletion and User:Hey man im josh

User:Hey man im josh is obstructing edits to pages related to RFDs. This began with persistent reverts to Category:Redirects to an article without mention. Originally User:Tavix reverted with the terse (and empty/unsound) rationale "not an improvement". When the undone revision was restored, another revert followed:

01:17, 29 January 2024‎ diff by User:Tavix (Undid revision 1199870129 by C. A. Russell (talk) not an improvement)
02:51, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Tavix (Undid revision 1200232265 by C. A. Russell (talk) See WP:BRD. I reverted you, the next step is to discuss if desired)

Note the absence of any actual rationale or clear objection—the exhortation to follow WP:BRD—an essay (not a Wikipedia policy page or guideline) that prominently describes itself as an optional strategy for seeking consensus—seems rather more invoked here as an attempt to WP:GAME the process.

In light of reading this fairly straightforward declaration of intent for what it is, as well as the absence of any actual stated objection *as well as* the absence of any attempt by the editor invoking WP:BRD to "discuss", I restored the edit. User:Hey man im josh then took it up. To his credit, this revert, the third of four total, was the first containing any semblance of any actual rationale:

22:20, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Hey man im josh (Undid revision 1200405008 by C. A. Russell (talk) this is a change that should be discussed prior to implementation.)

(NB: emphasis on wikt:semblance. The rationale is flawed; as noted in the edit summary that followed, this is neither a change to a policy page nor is it a even a proposal—it's aligning the content of Category:Redirects to an article without mention with actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines regarding Redirects and the RFD process as it already exists.)

The fourth revert followed:

02:00, 30 January 2024‎ diff by User:Hey man im josh (Undid revision 1200689490 by C. A. Russell (talk) Take it to the talk page to discuss if you're interested, there's clearly push back against this)

Subsequent to this fourth revert and in light of a total dearth of actual attempts to open and hold a discussion on the part of the editor trying to offload burden onto the opposing party, a warning was placed on User:Hey man im josh's talk page regarding edit warring. That notice was immediately reverted (a revert that occurred in between the original placement of the notice and an attempt to add a heading for the new talk page section as a consequence of incorrect formatting with the se of {{subst:Uw-3rr}}).

Subsequent to this, User:Hey man im josh reverted for the second time a change to another page, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header:

22:23, 29 January 2024 diff by User:Hey man im josh (That's redundant. That's why it states if deletion has been proposed.)
02:03, 30 January 2024‎ by User:Hey man im josh (Restored revision 1200616500 by Hey man im josh (talk): Entirely unnecessary. The point is descriptive enough as is. Entirely encourage you to start a talk page discussion if you feel otherwise.)

Note well the attempt to continue to shroud the acceptability of these reverts under the guise of a call for consensus-building. As a point of fact, there actually is a discussion on the talk page related to this change. See Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Default outcome. Emphasis on related—it's not being discussed as a contentious edit. Notably absent, however, is User:Hey man im josh (as is any objection from anyone else) despite the ostensible interests in discussion.

I think this is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern.

(In the interests of disclosure, User:Tavix and User:Hey man im josh have characterized me as initiating personal attacks earlier this week when I described an RFD as appearing to be more about gamifying Wikipedia's RFD process than it is about improving Wikipedia.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I have just received notice that there is a separate report initiated by User:Hey man im josh at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really THAT big a deal to want a discussion to take place before changing long standing text? This feels incredibly premature. I'm still not sure what prompted your aspersions towards me recently (and your unwillingness to withdraw them) or why I'm the specific focus of this discussion (Tavix reverted you as well). I must ask, why are you so unwilling to discuss it on the talk page prior to re-adding the same text for the fourth time? Hey man im josh (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) C. A. Russell, this is a dense and difficult to parse complaint, but the immediately obvious thing is that your edits are contested by two veteran editors (and admins) in good standing. From an WP:ONUS and WP:BRD perspective, you should not be edit warring, but rather, working to facilitate a discussion to resolve this outstanding issue. I, however, am very sympathetic when it comes to the ethos of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Still, I'm not sure this is it. As for the WP:AN3 report, I'm looking into it, but at the time of my writing this, Hey man im josh has failed to prove you violated WP:3RR. El_C 03:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed the AN3 report as no violation. Keeping the (admin) discussion in one place. El_C 03:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully:

1. WP:ONUS is not the page you want. This is not about verifiability. This isn't even about article space.

2. WP:BRD is, as I stated, an essay. Not Wikipedia policy. Not even a guideline. It explicitly describes itself in multiple place as optional. I will state explicitly that I'm opting not to use the WP:BRD strategy here because not only am I not convinced it will be productive, I am convinced that it will be unproductive. Every interaction on this and related issues have been fraught with attempts by the editor in question to change the subject and/or move the goalposts, appeal to non-existent policy, appeal to existing policy (or guidelines) by name but mischaracterize what exactly that policy actually says, and (with the 3RR incident) inaccurately recount the relevant facts. It's a sheer exercise in fatigue. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To address one quasi-reasonable (but not especially pertinent) question: User:Tavix stopped after two reverts and has not (yet?) carried the dispute over to other articles and exhorted me to discuss where, in fact, there *is* a discussion that exists, I have participated, others are participating, and you two are not—despite the stated ostensible interests in discussion. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

You didn't mention a discussion prior to this ANI, even when myself and Tavix urged you to take it to the talk page. Did you ever consider that it might be a good idea to mention this or ping me to the discussion? That would be one of the ways a discussion such as this is premature. It could have easily been solved with a casual message or ping. Instead you reverted. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the subject. What talk page are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has really covered themselves with glory here. It's not unreasonable to check the page of a page you're reverting, but there were ways to stop this from boiling over. Anyway, everyone knows where the discussion is and will be participating, yes? Mackensen (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this issue here because of the obstruction aspect. Despite Wikipedia:Assume good faith being a behavior guideline—a great one, even—it doesn't however require us to look the other way i.e. totally ignore instances where actual bad faith is at play.

The incident in question is over the reverts to both Category:Redirects to an article without mention and the reverts to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header. The bad faith exhortations in the edit summaries for the reverts to the latter page (i.e. exhortations that the change should be discussed—where there is a discussion and the editor in question has made no attempts to participate and indeed doesn't even seem to have checked for consensus) are supporting evidence that the exhortations across *both* pages are actually obstructionist in intent rather than about seeking consensus. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe you've assumed good faith based on your comments at RfD where you accused me of gamifying the RfD process. I used a very commonly accepted nomination rationale, which is that the term being redirected was not mentioned at the target. This comes down to WP:V and including some type of context for why the redirect exists. Additionally, I'm struggling to understand why you chose to edit war instead of mentioning this discussion when you were reverted. It's important to communicate on Wikipedia and this would have stopped any type of escalation. Based on your reverts, and the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue for your (or my) position about RFD. This is ANI.

Based on[...] the location of the discussion not being instantly obvious, how would I know about this discussion?

This, not unlike the recounting of facts in the ANI/3RR report you opened up, is erroneous and misleading. The location of the discussion is the talk page of the page you reverted. Which you still haven't participated in, even after now having been made aware of it—nor have you backed out your revert exhorting me to "start a talk page discussion". -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. A. Russell has been blocked twice for personal attacks (2020, 2023), is often combative in their interactions with others (see RFD for example), and in November 2022 removed an argument with a deceased editor from their talk with the edit summary "I'm glad you're dead" and added a hidden comment reading "PS: fuck [another editor]. This behavior and reverting is more of the same combativeness. I was thinking of blocking, but I'll let another judge. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is begging the question, irrelevant, and prejudicial. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, this is utterly abhorrent. I know blocks aren't punitive and this is technically a 'stale' comment, but that is the worst thing I have ever seen written on this website for sheer distastefulness. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unbelievable. I'm speechless. I would have indeffed on sight. How was this not reported at the time? El_C 04:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us. I'm still somewhat considering an indefinite block even now for it, although it would require a healthy dose of IAR to ignore the preventative, not punitive element of the blocking policy. But that's how shocked I am by the vile comment. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their reply to Money bringing it up is just as shocking. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Even though it happened in 2022, I don't believe someone who could say something like that—and remains seemingly unapologetic about it here—has a place in the community. With great fuckin' prejudice. El_C 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you fucking kidding me man Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. A. Russell's previous block in May 2023 stemmed from poor behavior at RfD (ANI thread). He recently returned to RfD, casting aspersions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#Georgia Bulldogs' Midnight Miracle. That, coupled with the edit warring in a couple of other redirect-related pages shows that he is not willing or able to participate in a collegial manner with respect to redirects. Since this has now become a pattern, I would recommend that C. A. Russell be topic banned from redirects indefinitely. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. A. Russell: You are correct that BRD is not policy, but WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS is policy. Since you are not getting consensus through editing, you need to get consensus through discussion. RudolfRed (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying on topic. Unfortunately, you (though not alone) seem to have overlooked that there are two pages involved here.

Category:Redirects to an article without mention was reverted four times on the basis, ostensibly, of there being no consensus
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Header is an entirely separate page that, in the midst of edit warring over the previous page, User:Hey man im josh flipped over to to undo my changes there, too

To the extent that it has been discussed, the "consensus" about the edit (such as it is—the original edit is still just two days old, but no objections have been stated including (crucially) from the editor in question performing the revert and exhorting me to "discuss" it) is broadly favorable.

To reiterate: this ANI is concerned with edits across two pages. The edits by User:Hey man im josh to the first are debatable and skirting the line, absent any evidence of wrongdoing here—they at least have the veneer of acceptability. The edits to the second page, however (a) stand alone as evidence of that the suggestions to discuss are in fact not in good faith and furthermore (b) cast doubt upon the interpretation that the edits the first page truly are in good faith.

To summarize: the reverts to these RFD-related pages by User:Hey man im josh are targeted and obstructionist.

They are obstructionist for the aforementioned reason—the ostensible appeals to consensus and discussion are rather more to stop something rather than it is a good faith attempt to determine whether and how that something is the best way to achieve the desired goal (if indeed it should be achieved).

They are targeted because at the point where User:Hey man im josh is reverting changes with the edit summary to start a discussion on the talk page for this page, too—despite there being discussion on the talk page related to this change—these reverts are the result of an aim to just revert my edits. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed with Russell's wikilawyering, not impressed with their assumption of bad faith and aspersions against Josh, not impressed with their edit-warring (AN3 was declined on technicality, but intent to edit-war was obvious, as they themself are still arguing that they editwarred instead of talking because BRD is not policy and they don't think talking would be productive). But all of that pales in comparison to Money's damning diff, which may be stale, but their cold, lawyering response to it is not, and as far as I'm concerned that alone disqualifies them from membership in our community. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as they themself are still arguing that they editwarred instead of

That's not an accurate characterization of what I said. That's not a particularly honest way to go about this.

The User:Moneytrees-/changing-of-the-subject-to-past-transgressions-related stuff is (again) prejudicial and out of scope, besides. It can both be true that I did something for which I was blocked before and that User:Hey man im josh is being disruptive to Wikipedia's RFD pages. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, everyone knows where the discussion is and will be participating, yes?

@Mackensen, where's the discussion? I don't see a discussion at WT:RFD or anywhere else.

That cat page begins with the assertion that "Articles should mention any person, place, thing, or term that redirects to them". The talk page has an unanswered question from @A smart kitten about the implications of this statement for our licensing requirements (e.g., in the case of {{r from merge}} in which subsequent editors decide not to mention the most popular brand name of facial tissues in Ruritania). RFD#DELETE itself only suggests deletion "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned" – a much narrower statement than the description on this cat page. @Pbsouthwood has another relevant question at Template talk:R to article without mention, again with no reply. Nowhere do I see any discussions about whether this cat should have these directions. Has nobody actually started these discussions? Did they get archived already? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely - open to review

The block is clearly endorsed. Procedural note: this endorsement does not turn the block into a community ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I went for a walk around the block, considered my actions carefully, then decided that the best course of action to protect Wikipedia from further disruption was to block C. A. Russell (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This was for a combination of the heinous personal attack mentioned above, their failure to show any level of contrition for it (let alone an unreserved apology), their ongoing wikilaywering, their assumptions of bad faith against others, as well as disruptive edit warring. All of this combined means I believe they meet the standard required for blocking indefinitely to protect ongoing disruption and our sense of community.

As always, I welcome review of the block from my peers. Daniel (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think this is the right call. The "I'm glad you're dead" so shocks my conscience that I think it's reasonable to say any block of an editor displaying that kind of bile is per se preventative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - clear continuation of same disruption from the previous block in November. Indef block is the only thing that will ensure the disruption from ~~2022 and~~ 2020 through 2023 doesn't continue into 2024. Thanks, Daniel. Levivich (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. That comment was beyond the pale, and the lack of remorse is even more abhorrent. There's no place in our community for that behavior. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call it deterrence, call it basic decency. Thank you for taking decisive action, Daniel. I was at the cusp of doing so myself. El_C 05:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. Agree 1000% with @Dumuzid. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Good riddance. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I wouldn’t have brought up the past behavior if I didn’t think it was relevant to this discussion, it’s a continuation. It’s Wikipedia, it’s never that serious. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t read this 2020 ANI either— nothing really changed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I was about to propose a CBAN but this'll do as I don't see how a bad unblock might result in this case. I propose the WP:POLEMIC on their userpage be removed too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Listen, man, who cares if that "I'm glad your dead" is stale? Someone capable of doing that is someone we don't want around Wikipedia. Period. Full stop. Ravenswing 05:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Probably not totally by the book (i.e., using stuff from a while back) but one of the few valid uses of WP:IAR I've seen over the years. Well done. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While that individual comment was indeed from a couple of years back, there was also a more recent element (the wikilawyering, assumptions of bad faith, edit warring, as well as a failure to show understanding of how bad that comment was when challenged on it) which assisted with making the block preventative for future disruption also. Daniel (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There's WP:GRAVEDANCING, and then there's... actual grave dancing. Even without the current edit warring and ABF, this is still a by-the-book block. This is the exact type of thing that WP:CIVIL#Blocking for incivility is meant for. There seems to be zero introspection or chance of the atrocious behavior stopping, so the preventative purpose is satisfied. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. "I'm glad your dead"? Yeah, don't bother coming back after that. That is way beyond the pale. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin endorse. This kind of comment has absolutely nothing to do here. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and make it a siteban. That lack of humanity has no place on Wikipedia, on any WMF project, or in any collaborative and collegial environment. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I was not aware of that comment when I commented above. Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, endorse. Cards84664 13:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the conversation; Endorse. Toketaa^talk 13:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and would also support a site ban. That kind of comment and the response to it being brought up is truly abhorrent. That type of behavior does not belong in our community and the user should've been shown the door immediately. The Night Watch (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. On the one hand, pushing for a full-fledged siteban is probably just needless piling on. On the other hand, I don't really see a path for C. A. Russell to return to editing. We'd only allow them back if they showed remorse for their words, but at this point I doubt many of us would be convinced of their sincerity given the coldness of their replies above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As a participant at the 2023 ANI, I had wondered why the block was only for 72 hours, and why Russell wasn't allowed to acknowledge or apologize for his problematic behaviour. Jay 💬 17:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as well. The November 2022 comment, and subsequent apparent nonchalance about it, is enough for an indef (I think all these endorses arguably make this a community ban, as well). This is the kind of user toxicity we had to take a stand against in the mid-2010s; we should have zero tolerance for it now. That we let it go for over a year is on us, and we cannot rectify it swiftly enough, especially when the user demonstrated so much since then that it was not a onetime aberration. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Endorse, if I'd seen the "I'm glad you're dead" comment at the time we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and support site ban. Celebrating the death of a fellow editor is utterly unacceptable. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope they understand the meaning of consensus now. I doubt it, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
The literal grave dancing here is something we should protect anyone from. No one should work in an atmosphere where that exists, regardless of how long ago it happened. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. That comment is beyond the pale and justifiable to indef block. I'm open to consider reversing the block if C. A. Russell makes a fulsome apology (not those "I'm sorry that you think my comment was wrong"). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it possible to get that horrendous comment/edit deleted? I 100% endorse the block, but it seems distasteful to leave it up. Nemov (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, that's a level of disrespect that doesn't have its place there at all. Given that it was made in the edit summary, the fact that it's still just as much there as when it was added is a problem. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if WP:REVDEL allows for it, but I'd endorse any use of the tool to at least hide the edit summary, if not the content completely. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What summary? /wanders away whistling. Oh, and endorse indef. An editor who would make that sort of comment has no place here. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on Revdel. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jay. Nothing else I really want to say, other than I was the primary WP:PA target of the issues that resulted in the 2023 ANI report. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse strongly per my review. He deserved to get blocked for all this incivility and someone like him doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia for rudely (and literally) grave-dancing for the passing of an editor we should all be mourning about. Good job, Daniel. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing to add other than to thank Daniel for their work in making this "workplace" less toxic. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and I would consider this a Community Ban. That comment was beyond the pale, and the user's behavior since has demonstrated they are not willing to edit in a collaborative manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal attack

PickleAndPeanutFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a personal attack on me at my talk page cause they believe Jack from Oggy and the Cockroaches is a main character and I don't believe the same. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user has apologised for losing their temper, so I don't think further action is necessary other than to say, paraphrasing Life of Brian, "Right .... now don't do it again". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy

Anthroposophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evidence of WP:MEAT: Google "VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about. Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the. EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you".

Also Google "this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp".

Date: 19 October 2023.

Hard to miss: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22shitting+all+over+Anthroposophy%22

John Penner
January 3 at 2:55 AM ·
calling for a bit of help here — to help with some Vandalism to the wikipedia article for Anthroposophy Wikipedia Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy
if you check the Wikipedia Edit HISTORY — you can see how the Anthroposophy entry has been VANDALIZED by one guy — Tgeorgescu — with an axe to grind — trying to prove that Anthroposohpy is racist — making over 100 edits to the Anthroposophy article — when i know for a fact that Anthroposophists are the most inclusive, open, and diverse group. i was so shocked when a friend who had asked me about Anthroposophy thought i was Racist — because it was the first thing she read on Wikipedia — until i read the EDIT HISTORY — over a 100 edits from one guy — Tgeorgescu — grrr 😡
someone help me get this Vandal out of Wikipedia — with his lies. if you could spend a couple minutes to login to Wikipedia and correct just one statement in the article — that would be of use — because right now — this guy Tgeorgescu is shitting all over Anthroposophy — and it is not right to let his lies stand. please help get the word out. thanks jp

Full quote.

Disclosure: I don't know which editor is John Penner or even if he edited Wikipedia at all. So, I am not WP:OUTING any particular Wikipedia user. Doxxing others is not allowed, but in this case I was simply doxxing myself (Googling my own username).

If you ask me "Is Anthroposophy racist?" my answer is neither yes nor no. I will say it is a mixed bag.

And some people cannot understand that I'm not pushing original research, I'm merely mirroring mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, if they dislike mainstream scholarship, that is their problem, I'm not a scholar, so I have no contributions to such scholarship. So, if someone lies about their new religious movement, it's not me, I have merely WP:CITED mainstream WP:RS. The mainstream academia does not think highly of their movement, and they think that would be my own fault. Most of the WP:RS I cited there have been published sometime from 10 to 100 years ago. So, it's not like I'm spilling the beans about their secrets, nor like saying anything new. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence from the article history that the Facebook post led to anything. What action are you expecting to be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: I don't know which action should be taken. As I had already stated at WP:FTN#And the article about its founder, I find that the amount of newbies and WP:SPAs which have edited Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner in the past four months would be indicating some foul play. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute about Anthroposophy was heard at AE last November. That complaint was opened by Tgeorgescu as a complaint against User:SamwiseGSix, but it was closed with warnings to both parties. Now Tgeorgescu is opening a complaint about meatpuppetry on the topic of Anthroposophy, whch could possibly lead to admin action if details could be verified. However I don't see any evidence of new editors arriving on the article due to the off-site canvassing. The topic of Anthroposophy falls under WP:PSCI. There was also a Waldorf education Arbcom case which mentioned Anthroposophy, though the sanctions were abolished in 2022. To go any further with this complaint, I think User:Tgeorgescu would need to explain what ongoing abuse could be prevented by some admin action. One option is extended-confirmed protection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I see the problem, it does not follow that I have a solution. But I'll go for the extended-confirmed protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also at ANI a couple of weeks ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#User who cannot learn what WP:V means. SamwiseGSix hasn't really edited since then. I looked at the history of Anthroposophy and also didn't see any disruption since then.

@Tgeorge ... the off-wiki harassment you're quoting sucks and I'm sorry you're having to deal with that. However, I don't see any problems at the article since the last ANI ... which means no current problem?

I did, though, see this: Special:Diff/1194757415 and Special:Diff/1194757024. I really can't think of any situation where it's OK to say something about another editor in a hidden comment. I'm surprised that didn't get brought up in the last ANI thread, but please don't do this again.

Samwise said they'd walk away from the article at the last ANI, and it seems they have done so. I don't see any disruption since the last ANI -- nothing current -- so I don't see any grounds for ECP or anything else here. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that was prohibited. When someone pointed out it is prohibited, I have ceased performing such hidden comments. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we have a specific rule against it... but I think everyone would agree that articles are not the place to write anything about editors, even in hidden comments. I mean if someone wants to go around adding  to articles, I'm sure no one would object. Anyway, thanks for ceasing. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here are some rules as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but I agree having specific written rules isn't necessary to understand that commenting on other editors within articles isn't helpful: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses..., Wikipedia is not a soapbox..., and Wikipedia is not a battleground... Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not anyone's pointed out a rule to you, please strive to be as collaborative as possible. It shouldn't be a surprise that personal commentary, wherever it is placed, is not conducive to working co-operatively. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One suspects that people who belong to a large group might independently become displeased by an extremely popular website's article about them vaguely insinuating that they personally are racists, without there necessarily being a coordinated conspiracy on their part. jp×g 🗯️ 17:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vaguely insinuating, but saying it aloud: Wieringa, Tommy (8 May 2021). "Groene vingers". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2023. Het was een ontmoeting van oude bekenden: nazi-kopstukken als Rudolf Hess en Heinrich Himmler herkenden in Rudolf Steiner al een geestverwant, met zijn theorieën over raszuiverheid, esoterische geneeskunst en biologisch-dynamische landbouw. — It was a meeting of old acquaintances: Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler already recognized a kindred spirit in Rudolf Steiner, with his theories about racial purity, esoteric medicine and biodynamic agriculture.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) Also search for "Je oren deden zeer van alle quatsch over de superioriteit over het blanke ras". But anyway, just because they have a racialist worldview, it does not mean that Anthroposophists would be malignant racists. I did not find a good way to word this, but it is an essential difference: Anthroposophists are paternalistic racists, not warmongering/oppressive racists. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So they're racists but with good intentions?

Levivich (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmetric / Sikder Group

Resolved

– Blocked for a week by me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmetric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - New user with a vested interest in removing sourced content from Sikder Group. I have attempted to discuss, with no success. We're getting close to edit war territory here and I could use some intervention from someone with more experience. (User's recent edit summary contains some nasty slander aimed at me, so I need to walk away.) Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it all :) Toketaa^talk 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Unfortunately the page is still a mess - I think your reversions didn't go back far enough. Can you take another look? There has been so much back-and-forth, but I think my edit here is the last good version. Thank you so much. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yup I forgot that whoopsy! Toketaa^talk 16:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page history is quite a mess. I've restored an early September version that seems to be stable and in-between periods of large changes. Thank you for recognizing a bad fight and passing up on it when it became personal. @Toketaa I know you are excited to contribute but please try to use the edit summary feature appropriately, especially when reverting things other than obvious vandalism. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this guy blocked for edit warring? 12 Reverts in one day combined with this talk page comment [56]. Fails WP:CIR and a clear candidate for a WP:NOTHERE block. W C M_email 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 3RR is concerned, remember that An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. and Charmetric's 'undo' actions have occurred in two bursts. But their social behavior does still leave much to be desired. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I now see they did it in 2 bursts (I was looking at their contribution history). I still think it may warrant a WP:NOTHERE block. W C M_email 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether this is the right place to report personal attacks (rather than content vandalism issues), but I do still need help dealing with this user; please see this addition to my talk page - if you can even read it - in which Charmetric lashes out further, makes various accusations, and demands I be banned. Some help from a grownup would be much appreciated. Jessicapierce (talk)

(EC) Well I left a message on Charmetric's talk page because I had some hope they were here for the right reasons, but they soundly ignored it, and quite emphatically proved me wrong. I reverted their tirade, I hope that's ok Jessicapierce. This is indeed the correct place to report chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and is not actually meant for vandalism itself (or any content dispute really). GabberFlasted (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and judging from the comments there is a clear conflict of interest WP:COI and admits to editing on behalf of his employer ie WP:PAID. Just some of the comments:

“

Fraudulent, facist, discriminatory, unethical and truly evil people involed.

”

“

Ban Jessicapierce or atleast remove her unfair advantages giving her an unethcial marginally significant boost over the real people, thosoe who want to keep the world safe, keep the world truthful, keep the world real.

”

“

The reality of what I said comes from the awareness of the broader spectrum here, the money in play to produce these bad actors used to weapons wiki's data as a means to give evil people the freedoms they desire to slander their enemies to such extreme degrees. Jessicapierce plays a role for these people as an enforcer and she is the obvious choice because her wiki account is privileged with attributes allowing here to manipulate this platform for whatever she and here evil business partners desire

”

Spelling mistakes are not mine, so edit warring, personal attacks, only needs a legal threat for a full house. Definitely warrants a block IMHO. W C M_email 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a final warning for User:Charmetric. They do seem to be quicly exhausting all assumptions of good faith. I am prepared to issue an indef block if they won't withdraw the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much. It's been a while since I ran into anything so heated on Wikipedia - I'm just here to fix commas and alphabetize lists. I hope it goes without saying that I am not, in fact, a fascist (or a "facist"), nor do I have any personal interest in the article. I appreciate the backup, and hope we can all be done dealing with this issue. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked this user for a week. While the user was never warned about 3RR, and at the time Ed said they had not violated it, to me they have since then, and I would also draw the thread's attention to this apparent effort to log out and make the same edits after reaching three (maybe four) reverts within a few hours, suggesting awareness of the rule. On top of that their general incivility, lack of good faith lean very much toward NOTHERE for me. If the account had been created more recently I would have had no reservations about an indef, and if this behavior continues after the block (assuming they are not the sort of user who will make enough repetitive, abusive and unproductive unblock requests within a short enough period of time as to justify revoking talk access and extending the block), then the next block should be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the above block is entirely justified. If there is any more trouble, I would suggest an indefinite page block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem, @EdJohnston, and @Daniel Case, could one of you please remove the edit summary from this diff so the PA attack on Jessicapierce is not immortalized in the article history? If I'm mistaken and this isn't something that can/should be done, my apologies for the needless ping. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StartGrammarTime

Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno what is happening here but it is mad weird...

WP:DENY

Indeffed by Canterbury Tail. (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

See User talk:Immortalbeliever... Is this some sort of cult??? Toketaa^talk 16:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE indef. Move along. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2A02:C7C:76BF:E100:61A2:CA8A:722:32EC Adding Partial Block

Hi, this IP 2A02:C7C:76BF:E100:61A2:CA8A:722:32EC has been continuously vandalising the page Owen Moxon, could we add this to the list of partial blocks? Thanks 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three edits to an article with bigger problems - a 6 month /32 block seems an unwieldy and probably excessive solution. I've semi'd the page for a bit (and sent a /64 block message). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE user with inconsistent pattern of article creations

Drekmikc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Drekmikc76 shows a pattern of repeatedly creating nonsensical pages, from an unsourced product description changing mid-way into a copypasta, to a one-sentence troll article, to a hoax that they themselves acknowledged and promoted as such. These seem scattered among a pattern of more constructive edits, but the problematic behavior remains. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayden Jordan

Resolved

– Blocked indef Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of his edits have been reverted or deleted. Created speedily deleted pages twice, with BEN (tv series) (which he later hijacked a redirect to create) and Ochomoto. Has now crated an autobiography. Mach61 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He had already attempted to create that autobiography yesterday and it got A7'd. I had also already given him a final warning about an hour ago (before that page got recreated) to stop creating this kind of stuff. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as NOTHERE. If not NOTHERE, then CIR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLP changes to height from Turkish IP range

85.107.101.23/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Turkey has been changing the height parameter in dozens of biographies without citing a source. Some of the subjects are alive, so WP:BLP makes the problem worse. The disruption began in October 2023, as far as I can tell.[57] Can we give this IP range a timeout? Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked range for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I found four more ranges of Turkish IPs doing the same thing over the same time period: Special:Contributions/5.24.128.0/21,[58] Special:Contributions/46.154.48.0/20,[59] Special:Contributions/88.230.32.0/20 [60] and Special:Contributions/46.154.176.0/20.[61] Can we block these, too? Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And two more: Special:Contributions/88.241.176.0/20.[62] and Special:Contributions/31.142.64.0/19.[63] This person gets around. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on that. I blocked all those for 3 months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent reversions and deletions of my researched-based claims

Was redirected here by an experienced editor. Editor Potatín5 has been consistently reverting my research based claims, often deleting them completely. Not working to compromise and consensus, just deleting. What steps can be taken?

A few examples:

Josiah Omrides Ten Commandments IncandescentBliss (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Temple menorah

I am requesting that editor is restricted or banned from WikiProject Bible pages. Their reversions are making it frustrating as a new contributor with extensive knowledge or related topics and systematically trying to erase scholarly consensus on important topics. IncandescentBliss (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In each of these cases they seem to have made a single edit which they have explained with an apparently-reasonable edit summary. I'm not seeing a conduct issue here. Instead of coming straight to ANI to get an editor sanctioned for disagreeing with you, you should discuss content questions on the article talk page in the first instance Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance - Creation of Wikipedia Page for Annamalai Kuppusamy

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to request assistance regarding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy, who serves as the state chief of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Tamil Nadu state of India. Despite Annamalai Kuppusamy's prominence in Tamil Nadu politics and significant coverage in mainstream English, Hindi, and Tamil media outlets such as The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian express, and BBC Tamil, I encountered restrictions while attempting to create a Wikipedia page for him in English.

Annamalai Kuppusamy has garnered attention for his leadership role within the BJP in Tamil Nadu and his contributions to the political landscape of the state. His notable achievements and activities are extensively covered by reputable sources, including major news agencies and newspapers. Additionally, Annamalai Kuppusamy already has Wikipedia pages in Tamil, Malayalam, and Hindi, further underscoring his notability and relevance.

The creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy aligns with Wikipedia's policies on notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and neutrality (WP:NPOV). Annamalai Kuppusamy meets the notability criteria as outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, given his significant coverage in reliable sources and leadership position within a notable political party. Furthermore, his absence on English Wikipedia deprives readers of valuable information about a significant political figure in Tamil Nadu.

I am committed to ensuring that the proposed article meets Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I have reviewed the previous deleted article request, which may have been affected by political biases, and I am prepared to address any concerns raised by administrators. I kindly request your assistance in addressing the restrictions preventing the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy in English.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide any additional information or clarification as needed.

Sincerely, Thatsvilen (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatsvilen: This doesn't require administrator attention at all; new users are prohibited from creating new pages in mainspace until they're autoconfirmed. If you think Kuppusamy meets Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to try your hand at creating a draft on him, but I strongly suggest you read through WP:YFA thoroughly, and maybe push the thought of creating a draft away until you've gained experience in editing pre-existing articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Tenryuu,

Thank you for your prompt response and guidance regarding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy, the state chief of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Tamil Nadu.

I appreciate your clarification regarding the restrictions on new users creating pages in mainspace until they are autoconfirmed. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the issue at hand is not solely about my ability as a new user to create a draft. Rather, it pertains to the contention surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy due to biases and restrictions that have been placed on the topic.

I believe this situation warrants administrative attention due to the unique circumstances surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Kuppusamy. As mentioned in my initial request, Kuppusamy has significant coverage in reputable English, Hindi, and Tamil media outlets, and he already has Wikipedia pages in Tamil, Malayalam, and Hindi. Despite this, attempts to create a page for Annamalai Kuppusamy in English have been met with restrictions, possibly due to biases against the politician.

I assure you that I am well aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including those outlined in WP:YFA. However, given the contentious nature of this particular draft and the restrictions placed on it, I believe that administrative intervention is necessary to uphold Wikipedia's core policy of maintaining a WP:NPOV.

I respectfully request your reconsideration of this matter and your assistance in addressing the issues surrounding the creation of a Wikipedia page for Annamalai Kuppusamy. If there are any specific steps or guidelines I should follow in this regard, please feel free to provide further guidance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Thatsvilen (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy Please check this already existed draft for reference. Thatsvilen (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft and the article itself have both been WP:SALTed, incidentally that is the page that contains guidance on how "Editors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content" can go about managing to do so. It goes without saying that trying to restore a SALTed version is not one of the ways to go about it.

Just as an aside, and I don't say this to be rude, but if you are using ChatGPT or another AI to assist you in writing these comments (as it appears you are doing to me) then you might want to make sure that your grasp of English is good enough to write an article before actually attempting to do so.

– 2804:F14:80C4:6501:F90A:5BF2:504C:9AA6 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to some extent, I have utilized ChatGPT to refine my comments, but I do not believe that it violates any Wikipedia policy. Regarding your suggestion of WP:SALT, I am truly grateful. I will attempt to submit a draft article to the protecting administrator and await their response. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ChatGPT- I don't think it is a formal policy, but editors want to hear from other editors, not bots that they use. If your English skill is such that you need a bot to communicate(which doesn't seem to be the case with you, just saying) you would be better off editing the version of Wikipedia that is in a language that you have a better command of. Your talk page comments do not need to be gramatically and stylistically perfect- we just want to hear from you. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also hard to know if the editor using AI fully comprehends what the AI has generated. Often I doubt that they do. Another reason to insist on editors not using AI at least on talk pages. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the concerns about ChatGPT, I understand, and I assure you that these latest comments are entirely my own and not generated by ChatGPT. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that what you are attempting will be very challenging and you will need to overcome the concerns raised in the deletion discussion(linked above). It would be rare for a local party official to have the coverage needed to merit an article. The local head of the Maine Democratic Party would not merit an article as few sources write about them personally. You would need to summarize independent reliable sources that discuss what makes them important/significant/influential as a person- do they have a particular influence on party activites? Have they created unique political strategies that others try to emulate and write about? Have they created certain public policies that have been implemented? Those are just some examples of what coverage we might be looking for. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @331dot In addressing the concerns raised in the deletion discussion, I prefer not to engage in debates regarding whether Annamalai holds specific influence over party activities, has devised unique political strategies that others emulate and write about, or has formulated specific public policies. The media articles unequivocally affirm these assertions. However, if certain individuals choose to disregard this evidence and instead focus solely on arguing against his notability, then regrettably, there is little I can do to sway their perspective. It's worth noting that the primary contention in the deletion discussion centered not on Annamalai's notability but rather on concerns that previous editors may have exhibited biases, resulting in the draft being perceived as promotional and violating WP:NPOV. Regarding notability, the presence of extensive coverage in national media outlets, as evidenced by the reference articles I have provided, unequivocally satisfies the criteria outlined in WP:N for notability. Thatsvilen (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thatsvilen, FYI, people here hate reading ChatGPT material. You’re right that we don’t have a formal policy yet but ChatGPT’s style bothers people. It makes you sound long-winded, pompous and pedantic. I’m sure in person that you are none of those things.

Just be yourself. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, writing long-winded formal sentences isn't needed: provided you do the minimum and aren't explicitly rude, what matters is the points you make rather than how formally you write them. And conciseness, readability also help get to the points. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, pretty sure that long-winded formal sentences are my natural style ~ Falkner is one of mine idols ~ maybe i should use ChatGPT to sound less pompous and pedantic, more human. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The comparison with the chief of the Maine Democratic Party isn't really very close. That is the dominant party in a state of a bit over a million, but this subect is chief of a minor party in a state of about 72 million, but which controls the national government. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious me. I don't think I've ever come across another subject with such strong desire to have a Wikipedia article, and such weak credentials to merit one. Just about every imaginable permutation of this person's name + title + role etc. has been protected already... and here we are debating it, yet again. Honestly, I despair. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that he has such weak credentials to merit an article. He has just become the chief of the national governing party in a state with a population of 72 million, larger than any US state and many independent countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, as despite being the national ruling party, the BJP is almost completely a non-entity in Tamil Nadu. Regardless, this is a discussion that must occur at WP:DRV, not here. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all moot. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2 closed as "recreation (under any title) is disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV" (emphasis mine). So the person filing this section here is required to formulate a competent draft (they can do it in their userspace if the draft-space is SALTed), declare their conflict of interest, and then file at WP:DRV. Daniel (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok @Daniel i got your point, give me sometime to make a good level draft to the best of my Wikipedia policies, then i will submit it for review to WP:DRV. Thatsvilen (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, new editors are now using AI to speak for themselves on here? Is one's own thoughts not adequate enough??? But yeah, seems most AI-generated comments tend to have WP:TLDR issues. Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Accounts Being Used To Denigrate An Organization

There are 2 accounts, named Gevaarlik and Joker1Joker which appear to be single purpose accounts being used to denigrate an organization. Both accounts have been opened within the month of January with the latter being just over a week ago. In total they have made over 120 edits to pages exclusively to do with the Sekunjalo group, with just 1 exception. All the information they have written has been created in a negative bias towards the group.

They pages they have been editing include:
Sekunjalo Investments
Iqbal Survé
African News Agency
The Sunday Independent
Independent Online

They have removed information that is neutral or positive about each of the above pages and included negative information and their writing is structured with negative connotations.

Here are some examples:
Diff Here, user Gevaarlik removed a statement about about the company suing the President and State. This is a factual piece with reliable sources such as a press statement from the company website, an article written by Tech Central and an article by southafricanlawer.co.za

Diff Removed this edit citing sources as unreliable yet they are from World Economic Forum and a Muslim newspaper hajjreporters.com

Diff Undid this edit which correctly cites a source directly from the Kathrada Foundation and manipulated it to appear negative

Diff Included POV terms such as "Scandal Ridden" (fixed by another editor)

Diff Again, strongly worded POV opinions (fixed by another editor)

All in all you can see their writing has an extreme negative bias and is written in POV fashion rather than being factual. Again, the 120+ edits they've made within the last 3-4 weeks all focus on pages linked to The Sekunjalo Investments Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayFacts (talk • contribs) 09:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm ... you do realize that you are a single purpose account, with far fewer edits than they have, and exclusively editing on the Iqbal Survé and the Sekunjalo Investments articles, yes? Ravenswing 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but from the edits I've looked at, the OP appears to adding peacockery to the article [64], whilst removing perfectly well sourced edits that just happen to contain negative material [65]. They are right in that the other editor shouldn't be using POV terms such as "scandal-ridden", but on the other hand it is not as if the multiple reliable sources cited aren't actually using the word "scandal" about the various issues, so it's only a semantic issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 14:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.2.202.159

This IP user 5.2.202.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is quite insistent in adding content without references (or with references not useful to verify the information provided) in several articles. They have made the same kind of edits through the IP range 109.101.69.224/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They have already been warned on many occasions and doesn't seem to have any intention to change their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the people on the first IP address, and I am always adding correct details and facts, because I actually care about helping with shows I love, and I do not know how to use references, because it is too complicated and English is not my first language. There is still information, that has been available for months, such as Saori and Fumi's actors in JJK characters Rie Suegara and Aoi Azusa, but you block facts and instead of being helpful, are being obtuse. You are an expert, right? So please, just help and add the citations, or add the details. I want to help complete the details and was being helpful, to the best of my knowledge. 5.2.202.159 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are your responsibility when adding content, not that of other editors. If you don't know how to properly cite the material you are adding, you should not add it. See WP:V. --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.2.202.159, I suggest you put your proposed article edits along with the required references on the articles’ talk pages until you figure out citations. Thank you for your interest and help with these topics. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance, I added it to the talk page, but I did not know how to add the source, that being the cast list from the episodes, since I read Japanese. So I just mentioned the actors names 5.2.202.159 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you several times already about WP:NOTTRUTH, but it seems that you either still don't get or plainly don't care. It's not a matter of completing information just for the sake of completing it. Adding content without a respective reliable source available to verify said content is not helpful at all. If you want to add voice actors without any kind of reference, there are a million other sites where you can edit, but not here. Xexerss (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Reporting about socks

I have requested Check user at meta and found many socks. A few of them already uploaded some images that were deleted and again uploaded here.

Group 1

SwamyAyya566 (talk · contribs · logs), ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk · contribs · logs), AryaPadaiKadanthaAurelius (talk · contribs · logs), DonParlo (talk · contribs · logs), كريشنا الداعي (talk · contribs · logs)

Group 2

17289ha (talk · contribs · logs), Tamil career advise (talk · contribs · logs), சூர்யநாராயணன் (talk · contribs · logs), 1gy9No (talk · contribs · logs), Edu-info-goodwriting (talk · contribs · logs), Btytatg (talk · contribs · logs)

DonParlo (talk · contribs · logs) created an article which I requested for delete, and the user also started creation and work. eg: Sandbox
17289ha (talk · contribs · logs) uploaded some images that were deleted in Commons

I hope admins can take proper action. Antan O 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvivo images were uploaded here. Relevent tags are mentioned for non-free images. Also commons I myself asked to delete all. So, my account can be discarded. I guess 17289ha (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't uploaded anything; why am I even mentioned? كريشنا الداعي (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal articles without referencing

Per OP request Star Mississippi 01:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

BarrySpinno (talk · contribs · logs) I reviewed this article Draft:British Airways plc v Commission and its seemingly unsourced and is now in draft. Its been in draft before which I never noticed. Its a legal article and its a single source. Its a copy and paste from the legal site onto Wikipedia. There is no context on it for the average reader, or indeed anybody who isn't a lawyer. One of the articles that editor wrote was at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 which seems to indicate its notable. Its the law the land in Australia. But there must be more than that, like e.g. why it came about, the history of it. Every article that reviewers have looked at, has been sent to draft. If that perfectly correct. For me it just a straight copy and paste exercise with little value to the reader. It is a bit of a dichotomy. This may be the wrong venue for this. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

scope creep, I do not understand why this matter is at ANI. The whole purpose of draft space is to allow ongoing work on a topic, which is the case here. When I look at BarrySpinno's talk page, I see a bunch of canned template alerts and warnings, that BarrySpinno often responds to with replies and follow-up questions. And yet no other editor has engaged this relatively new editor in actual human-to-human communication about things like our expectations on sourcing and how to develop coverage of a topic in sandbox or draft space before adding it as an encyclopedia article. I think that sort of human interaction should come long before an ANI report. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the wrong venue. It is a draft article - the copy paste might be an issue but it looks quoted and the article is work in progress so not sure what the issue is. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I think your probably right. That is cogent advice. Close this, please. 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

IP deleting/vandalizing content

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

IP previously blocked ([66]) for vandalism (e.g. see edit history at Partal Palace). Right after the block, they responded with these. Over a month later, with the block expired, they are back to making mass deletions of sourced content with edit summaries that don't come close to explaining or justifying the deletions, e.g.: [67], [68], [69]. They already received a warning ([70]) and continued to do the same after it ([ [71]]). Whoever is using the IP is WP:NOTHERE. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by EvergreenFir who has reblocked that IP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor abuse on The Eras Tour

No abuse here, just a content dispute. Write more comprehensive talk page comments, including your full stances and policies/guidelines that back it. If you still don't get the input you need for a WP:CONSENSUS, neutrally ask the music related WP:WIKIPROJECTs for more input, and/or an WP:RFC. Not ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SwiftFan2024: The intensity of disruption was too great for pc, so I stand by my decision to semiprotect it. El_C 04:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

So first, I re-add a maintence tag for the film section because it was removed saying to start a talk page discussion. Even though the editor who re-added the tag then started a discussion. HorrorLover555 did eventually participate but should’ve commented first. Then, El C semi-protected the page for a year for issues that could’ve been resolved with PC. Ronherry removed the tag, saying it’s a drive by, refusing to participate in the discussion on the talk page despite encouraging one before. I think it’s time to stop this abuse. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Ronherry wanting a talk page discussion he is now refusing to comment in - [72]. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing what part of this is supposed to be "abuse". The page was protected for unsourced editing, and no one, including yourself, have even opened a talk page discussion at the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on the talk page, did you even care to look? I just commented on it! SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? It was so vague I couldn't tell what it was about. It was also 2-3 days old and, as you just admitted, you hadn't even bothered to respond at the time if you starting this discussion. How are you going to complain about lack of discussion when you're hardly doing any yourself? Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for Ronherry.SwiftFan2024 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftFan2024 Please read Ronherry's edit summary here. There is already an article for where the maintenance tag was being added, with IP being warned not to argue in the expand section of the maintenance tag for their POV. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general it’s better to keep the info in one place. SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not rise to the level of WP:ANI... talk it out before bringing it here, this thing is a communal platform. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried talking it out, no one responded so we’re here.SwiftFan2024 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should be unsurprised that other editors are not massively co-operative when the edit-summary for your first ever edit at Wikipedia reads Actually the issue IS on the talk page, so maybe reply here instead of reverting and sounding like a hypocrite, ok?. Hm? Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perpetuated false topic

Content dispute. The original poster is warned not to cast aspersions like they did with their comments about disinformation being perpetuated. Further instances may result in sanctions. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The term Functional relation is not supported by reliable sources yet an editor persists in perpetuating the disinformation that it is equivalent to a univalent relation. The issue was raised at his User Talk, but the Proposed deletion of the redirect was removed. At the target article Binary relation it is asserted that "reason=unclear whether "functional relation" refers usually to a partial or a total function", a comment derived from edits, not a search of sources (which don't exist). Intervention may be required to stop the perpetuation of fraud. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PROD says, Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source. A. Sengupta (2003). "Toward a Theory of Chaos". International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos. 13 (11): 3147–3233. doi:10.1142/S021812740300851X.
The definition is on the beginning of page 4. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sengupta's grammatical error "relations assigns" indicates lack of critical editing. The source J of Bifurcation and Chaos is far from fundamentals of relations. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about a course on the topic, another course (from MIT), yet another course? ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting Sengupta in the gap for functional at binary relation. Thus the topic has been verified and my complaint nullified. The editor that put functional for univalent has been informed of standard usage. Therefore the incident has been resolved.—Rgdboer (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the involved editor: I am "the editor that persists in perpetuating the disinformation ...". This content dispute should never have been put here. Moreover, the use of this page for accusing me of "disinformation" and "fraud" is totally unacceptable. Some administrator action is thus required against these personal attacks. D.Lazard (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

FYI, Discussion of the content issue in question is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics § "univalent relations". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoutComplex's noncompliance with WP:RS

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

German IPs - Incivility and disruptive edits

A group of German IPs ([73], [74],[75],[76] and more) are acting kind of incivil (some) at Talk:Aramaic. Their edits has been reverted by me and another user (who also informed the IPs on this on talk). Shmayo (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Reporting in here, since I'm involved and mentioned.) — Remsense诉 11:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the admins to review the entire conversation at the Aramaic talk page before judging, especially the examples of manipulative edits by user Shmayo. He/She has been involved in countless edit-warrings for a reason. User Shmayo has, with false claims, sidelined dozens of users over the past years to the point where creating an account no longer seems worthwhile for many and has thereby unjustly gained trust, which he is now abusing. Please do not be misled by his long-standing presence on Wikipedia.2A02:3038:202:F340:E0AD:FC13:F6:DFEE (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smadur661

There's something not right with Smadur661's editing. I can't tell whether it's serious lack of competence, or wilful disruption, but either way it's not helping. There's also a heavy promotional angle to this, as they only edit about music- and publication-related topics which all seem to be connected and in which they almost certainly have some sort of COI (which has been queried, but not responded to). Thus far I've not seen a single useful edit from them, so I'd say they're a net negative to the project, and almost certainly !HERE. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reverted some of their edits[77], and nominated for deletion their creation (Soccer News \ Room), I have to agree that this editor seems to have a severe WP:CIR issue. See e.g. Draft:Black Ambition, an article about a record label, but " it earned bachelor's degree from the University of Tshwane.", and then the "Awards & Honors" section is just extreme nonsense. Fram (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite is Draft:My Classical (Stories). I've gone through it many times now, and still haven't a clue what it's meant to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, a compilation of articles like Mary Hill, Austin, of course! Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked, and all pages deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Ben qasim

"This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." (Emphasis in original) This is none of those three things, closing as out-of-scope and premature. Daniel (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Newly created account who's sole purpose is to WP:POVPUSH in the article Balochistan. Despite being warned twice, they are still being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs)

Three edits and you're bringing this here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possible sockpuppetry &/or PCD + COI

Hello, I have been monitoring the article Irakli Kobakhidze from time to time. The article is one of the targets of recent sockpuppets by ArsenalAtletico2017, attempting to transform the bio into an advertismenet article, and since the subject of the article is indirectly connected to Dozens of Accounts Associated with Georgian Government on different platform, I am afraid we are dealing with PCD + COI as well, and I have an impression that we are dealing with a coordinated network here as well.--DerFuchs (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant reversions

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

Hello. I have been involved in a dispute with User:Therlinsideman over the Australia cricket team. To summarise the problem, Australia’s current captain in the ODI format is Pat Cummins. He is being rested from the next series that Australia play and Steve Smith is acting as stand-in captain. Generally, we have the permanent captain listed on Wikipedia, however, Therlinsideman has constantly been adding Steve Smith as the current Australia ODI captain, which is untrue as he is not the permanent captain. I have attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page (diff), however, I got no reply. They left a message for me on my talk page, but when I replied to it, there was no further response (diff). Their only justification given has been that Cummins is missing the next series, however, when I explain the problem in their edits, I have received no reply. I have also given them warnings on their edits but they have continued reverted since their final warning. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smith is listed as interim captain as Australia are not scheduled to play ODIs til September meaning for the intermediate time Steve Smith is the acting captain, just as is Mitch Marsh is in the T20I role! Therlinsideman (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therlinsideman: Smith would only be listed as the interim captain if Cummins had been sacked or had resigned. Marsh is listed as interim because there is no permanent captain in T20Is as of now. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins isn't permanent captain if he isn't the captain for the next series as he if fit to play but has not been selected for the interim time Therlinsideman (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Therlinsideman: He is the permanent captain as there has been no official announcement regarding a change in permanent captaincy. He has only been rested from a series. That does not equate to removal as permanent captain. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 22:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content dispute, which is fit for the relevant talk pages (or, if that leads nowhere, you can go to places like WP:3O). This noticeboard is for discussing behavior issues, not content itself. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Hamza Ali Shah ^Talk 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(non--admin comment) As a disinterested outsider (I have a view, but I'm a Pom so what do I know?), I suggest opening a discussion at WP:WikiProject Cricket with the aim of reaching WP:CONSENSUS there. Narky Blert (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Baba Mica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [78] "if you are at all intelligent", "What's your brain" and there is more. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post a comment to the talk page, but on checking Baba Mica's talk page I see that an incident report has already been filed. This level of personalization in a comment is just asking for a block and TBAN, and especially so in this topic area. There's very little room to tolerate this manner of belligerence. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the entire Wikipedia has been reduced to a pile of garbage and pamphlets without an iota of objectivity. Whenever I go back to Wikipedia, I just get annoyed by the nebula of various users who immediately after my proposal to form or restore some removed articles started a topic to remove two key elements in this war Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. As if someone from the Syrian Civil War asked to remove ISIL because it is a puppet of Qatar, FSA because it is a puppet of Western powers and Gulf monarchies, Al Nusra Front because it is a puppet of Turkey, SDF because it is a puppet of the USA, Rojava because it is a puppet of Israel, the PLO and Hezbollah because they are a puppet of Palestine and Hezbollah because they are a puppet of Iran. Unbelievable, what a provocation. Block me and I want all my contributions for the past 15 years removed. If I experienced this in the year 2024 and should not exist in your registry. I tried to compose articles for days and nights with a lot of my physical difficulties with a very modest knowledge of the English language, but as far as I can see, on the topic of Ukraine, so much bias and lack of objectivity has taken hold that it is unbearable for a normal person. There. Maybe this man is smart and I'm not normal? Maybe he has too much brain, and I no longer have it, or my brain is completely stunted and needs to be chipped, because I see that it has become normal since three days ago. Maybe this user needs to chip my brain so that I can somehow become the new normal? I apologize, I don't fall for such dirty tricks. If it is normal for you that DNR and LNR be removed from the template of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, then feel free to do so. It will be an honor for me to leave here forever because you won't make a fool of me. Your foolish theories that only Ukraine and Russia are the warring parties in this biggest armed conflict since the Second World War are not even grown up fairy tales for small children. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the worst and most biased article in Wikipedia history. After him, the worst article is the Yugoslav wars. That is my position and I will never change it. No one gives a concrete answer or any idea to my logical questions on the talk page, and the stupidity of this user who complains about me is immediately answered. I am ashamed of what the article Russian invasion of Ukraine looks like. — Baba Mica (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Baba Mica for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Their contributions for the past 15 years will not be removed wholesale. The license that the editor agreed to with every edit they made over those years does not permit that. By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have threatened to sue people in the past as well. Just recently [[79]] on an article talk page. "What you have done is blatant discrimination and blatant insolence and rudeness and I could sue you for it." And on their talk page they also talked about wanting to 'sue someone for vandalism'. But the latter was some years ago, the yellow vest protest header on their talk page from 2022. Surely intended to create a chilling effect. 188.118.188.126 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

173.29.27.108

173.29.27.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I think this is a static IP, at least whoever is using it is making the same disruptive edits over and over. Blocked three times before, now back doing the same unsourced and possibly nonsense edits. Merits a significantly longer block? Giant Snowman 07:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this go in WP:AIV? I imagine that avenue is much faster and efficient than ANI. 92.40.212.157 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 08:51, 2 February 2024 edit Thatsvilen (talk \| contribs) 11 edits →‎Request for Assistance - Creation of Wikipedia Page for Annamalai Kuppusamy: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:04, 2 February 2024 edit undo 92.40.212.157 (talk) →‎173.29.27.108: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 1,127:		Line 1,127:

	{{IP\|173.29.27.108}} - I think this is a static IP, at least whoever is using it is making the same disruptive edits over and over. Blocked three times before, now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azubuike_Egwuekwe&curid=36614821&diff=1202126237&oldid=1191888937 back doing the same] unsourced and possibly nonsense edits. Merits a significantly longer block? [[User:GiantSnowman\|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman\|Snowman]] 07:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)		{{IP\|173.29.27.108}} - I think this is a static IP, at least whoever is using it is making the same disruptive edits over and over. Blocked three times before, now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azubuike_Egwuekwe&curid=36614821&diff=1202126237&oldid=1191888937 back doing the same] unsourced and possibly nonsense edits. Merits a significantly longer block? [[User:GiantSnowman\|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman\|Snowman]] 07:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

			:Shouldn't this go in [[WP:AIV]]? I imagine that avenue is much faster and efficient than ANI. [[Special:Contributions/92.40.212.157\|92.40.212.157]] ([[User talk:92.40.212.157\|talk]]) 09:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards