Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.73.224.126 (talk) at 15:15, 19 August 2023 (→‎Absurd forms of vandalism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS

    For months now, WMrapids has repeatedly casted asperstions against me and other editors:

    To provide some context: editorial dispute with the user started after I proposed a move discussion at the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. After the discussion was closed with an outcome they opposed, they started similar move proposals in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and Operation Gideon (2020) articles on 24 May, two hours after the first move was closed. The discussions turned quite long and sour, in good part due to the controversial nature of the topics. In the latter discussion, I cited several Venezuelan media outlets and the WikiProject essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources (WP:VENRS). WMrapids would later proceed to describe said outlets as "pro-opposition" in both the essay and the outlets articles, and my opposition to the changes has been the main reason for the accusations.

    In the span of around two months, the editor has accused me of WP:OWN at least 6 times ([1][2][3][4][5][6]), WP:CANVASS at least 4 times ([7][8][9][10]) and WP:ADVOCACY at least 14 times ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]). Other accusations have included WP:HOUNDING ([25][26]), "I try to focus on the content, though it is difficult when the content is being slanted by users.", [27], and whatever this is: "You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...", which seems to be an accusation of meatpuppetry. The first accusation of canvassing would be withdrawn after realizing the mistake ([28]) and WP:OWN specifically, which was argued mostly regarding WP:VENRS, can be easily can be easily disproved by just taking a look at the essay's statistics (Xtools), where it is shown that WMrapids has become one of the main contributors to the page, both in terms of content as well as number of edits.

    In many of these cases, specifically those that took place in RfCs, were not directed towards me and the main purpose was to support their position during the discussion, and some of them were also levelled against other users, specifically User:ReyHahn and User:Kingsif. I have asked them several times to stop casting aspersions ([29][30]), asking for concerns to discuss the issues directly with me and pointing out that continuing only creates a hostile environment, but they have continued. At the third canvass accusation, I asked WMrapids to strike the accusation ([31]), which other users agreed was unfounded ([32][33]), but the request was ignored. Now, I have asked ([34]) for further accusations be withdrawn from a new RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS), which at this moment really feels like a personal attack. So far, no response has been received.

    Lastly, although not the main issue at hand, it's worth mentioning other problems with the RfCs: in the same period of two months, WMrapids has opened five RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all of which remain open (save for one, closed today) and three of which are related to WP:VENRS. Several editors have expressed their concern regarding them: [35][36][37] [38], including the suggestion to slow down on opening new RfCs ([39]). I fear that with this, along with the mentioned hostility, editors will be discouraged in participating in related topics; not only limited to Venezuela, but also to Peru, the main edit topic for WMrapids where similar issues might have happened ([40]), but I cannot comment about it without further analysis.

    I've tried withdrawing from some of the articles hoping that the situation could improve, but I can see with the opening of the last RfC this is not the case. Since two days have passed since I requested the editor to strike the latest aspersions and they have continued to edit, I assume this was also ignored, which is why I'm opening this thread. I think it's important to address these issues before there's further escalation and attacks against me continue. As I have mentioned before, if there are any issues regarding my own behavior, they should be addressed through direct discussion or in a noticeboard in the worst case scenario, not as the opening statement for a new request for comment. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I really appreciate that WMrapids has striken down many of the accusations; not only the last ones mentioned ([41][42]), but also one of the first ones about canvassing that I mentioned ([43]). If the user has taken steps to de-escalate the situation and the situation is not repeated, I don't think further action is warranted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While the personalization has stopped after this report, and further action (beyond a warning) may not be warranted in that department, the BLP issues are still of concern. It appears from the timeline that the pro- and anti-campaign stemming from the Peruvian discussion was the impetus for WMrapid's pointy Venezuelan editing and from there spilled over to slant Venezuelan BLPs, which can then be used to slant reliability discussions (as most of Venezuela's top journalists had to move to other venues after previously reliable sources were censored and shut down by the Chavez/Maduro governments). WMrapids has become much more cooperative and less combative on talk, but the change in tone on talk has not been reflected by a change in editing. I am still concerned they should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Timeline: (I declare myself to be friends with anyone who offers me an arepa).

    I’ve been watching this trainwreck, including the frequent personalization by WMrapids listed above (and including one aimed at me) unfold via the proliferation of poorly presented RFCs.

    The best I can tell, WMrapids had never edited Venezuelan content until they had a disagreement with NoonIcarus and began engaging in what looks like pointy editing.

    • "including one aimed at me"
      • Did not know that I had to read the top of every user's talk page.
    • "oddly does not ping WP:PERU"
      • The project would be automatically notified due to the talk page template.
    • "Five hours later (17:35 and 17:40), WMrapids makes his first Venezuelan edits.[106][107] (WP:POINT)"
    • "WMrapids again bypasses the WikiProjects tagged on talk"
      • Again, the projects should be notified via template.
    • "7 June, WMrapids begins biasing Nelson Bocaranda, a BLP"
      • After reviewing various articles from reliable sources describing a process how Bocaranda based his career on "rumors" and supported the Venezuelan opposition, I attributed the sources and added such information to the article.
    WMrapids (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Case study

    (Aside: the WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So, this is one example of what NoonIcarus has been dealing with to address WMrapid's biased editing. I stopped at that point.

    I know ANI can’t resolve content disputes, but we should be able to recognize disruption and tendentious editing when it comes in the form of bias combined with frequent personalization of issues. And WMrapids' focus on labeling people or outlets as "pro-opposition" demonstrates another kind of bias; I can't imagine labeling Democrats "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Trump administration, or Republicans "pro-opposition" when they oppose the Biden administration. Or saying that someone "opposes the US government" when they oppose one administration's policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add real quick that starting from 6 June, the outlets articles edited have been La Patilla, Efecto Cocuyo, Runrunes, El Pitazo, Tal Cual and El Nacional (Venezuela), as shown in the diffs, all of in which WMrapids edited for the first time and nearly all of which were cited at Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 24 May 2023. I tried to avoid discussing content disputes unless it helped to provide context, but they further illustrate the pointy and disruptive editing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked only at the first Venezuelan article WMrapids edited, and partly because Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP, as BLPs require editing more responsibly than elsewhere. What I found there was not encouraging, but I don't want to descend further into analyzing the crusade to characterize media outlets; as I said on my talk, slogging through the POV editing in Venezuela topics takes more time than I've got.
    But according to The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and just about everyone else (sample 1, sample 2 but there are hundreds to thousands of RS on press freedom issues in Venezuela), it appears there is no longer a single media outlet in Venezuela that is not under the control of the Maduro administration, and those issues-- widely covered in all RS-- are hardly covered in any of the media outlet articles, with a handful of editors assuring that continues to be the case. Regardless of their political stance, the bigger issues are not covered in most of those articles, and tendentious editing just makes it harder to write decent articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, with your extensive history of being involved in Venezuela, I know you know that the term "opposition" is a popular term describing those opposed to the Venezuelan government. So do WP:GREL sources, including BBC (see WP:RSP), with the article clearly outlining sources as "government" or "opposition". Using WP:RS to place verifiable content on the project is one of the most basic processes on Wikipedia. So no, you making a false equivalence of the Venezuelan opposition and political opposition in general is not accurate. My edits were to plainly describe the media organizations as WP:GREL sources describe them, which can be verified. Unfortunately these two descriptions of "government" and "opposition" are a result of the political polarization that exists in Venezuela, but as International Media Support writes, "Overall, it can be said that both pro-government and pro-opposition media have contributed to the escalating polarization of society. Rather than reporting on the challenges facing Venezuela, many media outlets have become part of the problem instead of the solution." WMrapids (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "7 June adds unbalanced content to the lead of Nelson Bocaranda"
      • It was a tiny article about an individual of questionable WP:NOTABILITY. Where else was I supposed to place the information?
    • "7 June removes easily verifiable content, labeling it as puffery"
      • The phrase "is considered one of the best Venezuelan journalists by his colleagues" is not easily verifiable and is WP:PUFF.
    • "WMRapids uses the edit summary "Why he has a following" while subtly misrepresenting (POV) Reuters."
    • 18 July WMrapids installs content sourced to a blog, Caracas Chronicles, on a BLP.
    • "18 July installs unbalanced content without mentioning the reports of persecution of journalists and Bocaranda being targeted"
      • Pretty sure wording it as "the Venezuelan government reportedly said it would refuse to renew Unión Radio's license if Bocaranda did not prevent his criticism" is as balanced as you can get with describing potential censorship.
    • "And in the same edit, deliberately obfuscates that the Chavez administration was actively denying Chavez's cancer"
      • This somewhat shows your bias. Information was scarce and that is accurate. If you want to change the wording to that it was a "cover up" operation, that seems to have more bias than simply saying information was not available.
    Some of these accusations against me seem to be WP:POT. WMrapids (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Nelson Bocaranda--widely known since at least the 80s as one of Venezuela's most popular journalists and television presenters, with sources easily found in Reuters, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post-- without even going in to Spanish sources-- is "of questionable notability"? WMrapids, again, I'm concerned that while you are wading into territory you may be unfamiliar with, you aren't reading sources, and are apparently cherry-picking around for which sources suit the content you want to write. If you want to do that on media outlets, have at it-- I don't have time to concern myself-- but you can't do that on a BLP. The phrase you called PUFF was cited. Yes, the Chavez cancer knowledge brought him more fame-- that is even more fame (made him known even outside of Venezuela, while he has been quite well known there since the 80s-- as one of the sources mentions, it brought him fame within and outside of Venezuela-- he always had it in Venezuela). Even if you (or someone) considered that Caracas Chronicles was run by a "respected" journalist, Bocaranda is a BLP, and you shouldn't be using a blog to cite a BLP (and Toro was by no means the only writer at Caracas Chronicles, and they finally took it private because too many people were complaining about their content, making it difficult now to give examples of their gaffes such as we would need for a reliability discussion). Information is not scarce when it's all over Twitter, from a well-known respected journalist.
    Yes, I very well know that "opposition" is a popular term used by the media; my concern is with how you want to use it and how you present it in RFC after RFC. Do as you wish in media articles, but I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near a Venezuelan BLP. You don't know enough about Venezuela to know when you're slanting an article about a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use ad hominems against me by suggesting that I cannot edit in a "territory" that I may be "unfamiliar" with, it is very unwelcoming to a fellow editor. The Nelson Bocaranda article has been of minuscule importance; until I started editing it and expanding it greatly recently, there were hardly any edits (besides bot, link and category edits) since you created the article in 2008. I will reiterate; all of my edits were verifiable from sources and in no way were cherrypicking, attempting to illustrate a point, libel or to canvass, etc. Pinging other users to promote a more broad consensus has always been my goal when using the tool. As for using Caracas Chronicles, okay, maybe that source shouldn't have been used. Information from "colleagues" describing someone as "one of the best Venezuelan journalists" is WP:PUFF, plain and simple whether or not it is cited. Overall, your accusations are not helpful. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminding you that competence and diligence are requisites to editing a BLP is not an ad hominem. If you intend to edit BLPs in a country where there is no press freedom; where most news archives from what were once the country's reliable sources were scrubbed after the government censored, shut down, and took them over (you have read the abundance of reliable sources on that, yes?); where most independent news reporting happens via social media sites and sources that may be considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards but are the only ones the government cannot shut down because they operate on social media, you had best be prepared to spend a lot of time in a library familiarizing yourself with the living persons whose articles you touch and the actual history of events that can no longer be found in the now-scrubbed archives of the former national newspapers. Even with access to a library, the going is tough when most previous newspaper archives are now gone; it's apparent by now you likely had no familarity with Nelson Bocaranda when you started editing the article, so caution is warranted before editing a BLP considering the difficulty in uncovering sources due to censorship in Venezuela. Nonetheless, your first clue to notability should have been the journalism prize you deleted.
    Regardless whether you think an individual meets notability or think they are of "miniscule importance", BLP policy applies to all living people (and your statements here to those two issues further reinforce my concern that you shouldn't be editing BLPs).
    Adding two or three sentences and content sourced to a blog is not "expanding greatly"; removing a national prize for journalism from the article, while sticking your personal campaign about labeling pro-opposition and pro-government into the lead, and expanding the article based on a blog source to make Bocaranda appear as having no journalistic credentials behind "rumors" is a gross BLP violation. You did this while real articles in really real reliable sources exist. That's tendentious, POV, and you shouldn't edit BLPs in an area you appear to be unfamiliar with if you can't do so responsibly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP vios continue

    See Talk:Nelson_Bocaranda#BLP

    I should take this to either the BLP noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard, but the WMrapids issues are already here at ANI, at WP:AN and at WP:RSN,[47] so this seems to be the most central place. Two days after I pointed out the first BLP issue, and with two of us in this discussion asking WMrapids to slow down (ActivelyDisinterested and me, pointing out that WMrapids should not be editing Venezuelan BLPs), WMrapids returned to Nelson Bocaranda to make a series of POV insertions and BLP vios. This editor should not be touching BLPs; their mission to pro- and anti- every media outlet that remains in Venezuela has spilled over into slanting the biographies of living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Slanting and OR continues on 9 August; see points 3 and 6 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For concerns about my edits regarding WP:BLP, please see that I successfully advocated for the page protection of an article about a child who has faced controversy about her well-being in the past. This occurred as the child's article was facing a bombardment of edits stating that she had died, all of which was based on unconfirmed reports. WMrapids (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm here because my username was mentioned, I don't think I have anything to add to discussion, but you having asked for page protection for a BLP that is being vandalised is not an endorsement that you know how to edit BLPs. If you think it is, that raises more concerns. Kingsif (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The tendentious issues are in Venezuelan topics; re "successfully advocat[ing]", Lil Tay is so bad that anyone could have gotten it protected. Biased editing is sometimes confined to one content area where the editor is unable to see their own bias; that's the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    NoonIcarus has been been performing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits for years and this will be properly outlined in an extensive ANI report that I will subsequently begin myself. Though we have had issues with edits, I have attempted to work with them to determine a consensus across a multitude of articles throughout the project. Both of our actions have perhaps been unhelpful at times and I will admit that I fell for WP:BAIT on occasion. This can be seen when NoonIcarus first attempted to bring me to an administrator noticeboard over alleged edit warring on July 19 in which @Bbb23: said we both needed to improve our behavior. After this, I attempted to extend an olive branch on Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) the same day, saying "Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon", hoping that we could collaborate on finding a better article title for Operation Gideon (2020) (its title is almost universally opposed). Before I could make my proposal, NoonIcarus made their own proposal (which had already been rejected before) while I was drafting my own (which I had already told them I was doing).

    Observing this behavior, it seemed that NoonIcarus was intentionally attempting to block my edits and proposals before they had even occurred, showing WP:HOUNDING. So I continued editing as I had in the past. The main concern I had with Venezuela-related articles was that though government sources were described as unreliable and partisan (as it should be), opposition sources were not described the same way despite reliable sources describing the two parties in the same manner. This was obvious in WP:VENRS, so I opened a discussion about the issues on WP:RSN in order to establish a more broad consensus. In the replies @ActivelyDisinterested: suggested that if I had issues with NoonIcarus, that I open an ANI myself. I replied, saying "Ok, I will keep your recommendations in mind if further action is needed to remedy these persistent problems. My only goal is to maintain an accurate and neutral project." Upon seeing this, NoonIcarus opened their own ANI in a similar manner to what occurred with the Talk:Operation Gideon (2020) move proposal (mentioned above), apparently trying to jump the gun with an ANI, though I had no intention on opening one. Seeing this behavior from NoonIcarus was truly disheartening as I showed before, I was attempting to bury the hatchet with them, though they seem to have taken things too personal.--WMrapids (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Also, I would like to specify that none of my descriptions of NoonIcarus' behavior were in any attempt to personally attack the user, it was to describe editing behavior plainly and call it how it was. Maybe I could have been more WP:CIVIL, but it seems like the user would have taken my edits personal either way. Ultimately other users can interpret my behavior however they like, though it should be known that my edits were to protect the integrity of the project, not to attack a single user who I had attempted to make peace with.--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I'll be clear on this, hoping the comment won't be long: I opened this thread because you casted aspersions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:VENRS RfC, cut and dried. This has been a persistent issue that I have warned you about and before coming here and I specifically asked you to strike the accusations, which you have not done. If I have attempted to avoid further content disputes for the time being (Operation Gideon and outlets articles), but the aspersions have continued in the form of yet another request for comment, it begs the question: when will it stop? Addressing the issue here is a first step, and withdrawing your accusations for the RfC is still pretty much an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking that I will open an ANI. There is no need for it as previous users have said that we are both responsible for these disputes, so I won't add on to the fire. My interest in Venezuela-related articles was limited to the reliability of sources after there were concerns related to Peruvian topics. I seek to distance myself from both topics in the future as they were not why I initially began my editing.--WMrapids (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from ActivelyDisinterested

    I was going to try and ignore this discussion, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. WMrapids has an issue with WP:VENRS, as can been seen from the many discussions on its talk page, and that's fine. Editors are allowed to disagree with each other, but project do as a normal activity maintain such lists. As I said at VENRS (in an RFC that isnyet to be closed), and reiterated at RSN, the lists are fine as long as the project does try to maintain them against a higher level of consenus. So if you have a problem with the way a source is discribed bring it to RSN, this is what happened with La Patilla (the close of which is currently at AN). There seems to be two problems, first is that WMrapids is raising questions and multiple RFC without waiting for the final consenus. This has left a confusing trails of discussions without any clear consenuses, I feel WMrapids needs to slow down and allow the processes to finish before starting a new discussion. The second problem is the one under discussion here, my comment at RSN (mentioned by WMrapids above) over aspersions of WP:OWN could have been stronger but I was hoping to softly direct rather than bludgeon. I suggest that WMrapids strike all such comments that NoonIcarus has objected to at VENRS and RSN, simply as neither is an appropriate forum for such discussions and as a sign of good faith. If they then won't to bring those accusations here, with diffs showing prove, they should do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem striking those comments. I did not know if there was such a policy requiring me to do so, but as a gesture of good faith, I'm more than willing. WMrapids (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVIL both make comments about how to treat other users. Personally if another editor is working in a way I feel is negative I'll raise it with them and if they disagreee either drop it or (if it is actually problematic) I would raise it here with appropriate evidence. Making continued accusations against another editor on talk pages or noticeboards doesn't foster a good editting environment. I feel that if you struck those comments it would certainly be a step towards de-escalating the situation. This is only my personal advice though, I'm just another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Also, I attempted to remove the templates from multiple RfCs believing that it would end the discussion (see here and here). The new RfC is genuinely an attempt to achieve more inclusion as the other discussions had already stopped. Sorry for dragging you in here and your recommendations are appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that the best direction, as other editors have already replied to them. Best to let them run there course, and work from whatever consenus emerges. Also the current RFC at RSN has many problems, I suggest closing that one. Once the others have closed maybe start an RFC with clearer objectives (specific details of VENRS that you disagree with) and a much more neutral statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a formal RfC at RSN, just an outline of topics that I was concerned about, so nothing to really "close". I'll keep the neutrality in mind for opening statements in the future. WMrapids (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids, I told you months ago in one of these many discussions somewhere that you needed to slow down and better understand processes, policies and guidelines. I'm pretty sure I told you that before you started editing a BLP, which is not a place one should go when one is on a roll about a topic like VENRS. And your excessive pinging of the world to every discussion is another bad look. Would it be possible to get you to agree to 1) stop with the personalization and casting of aspersions towards NoonIcarus, b) refrain from editing BLPs of Venezuelans for the meantime (you need to be either better versed with Venezuelan common knowledge or how to follow policy and guideline, and no one remotely associated with Venezuela doesn't know who Nelson Bocaranda is, and I'm saying that going back to the 1980s, and he certainly is not of "questionable notability"-- by definition the content you deleted about a National Journalism Prize probably alone makes him notable), c) slow down on the RFCs, d) read and digest WP:BLUDGEON, and e) stop the pinging of the world and other borderline canvassing? Your actions have now spread from articles, to the reliable sources noticeboard, to WP:AN, and are probably making it very unlikely that anyone will want to wade in to those RFCs anyway (I sure didn't). If the personalization and bludgeoning stops, I won't press for a topic ban from BLPs, but I don't think you should be editing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick comment

    Good luck sorting this out. I am sure there are faults on all sides. Haven't read everything in detail but some thoughts are:

    • We should blow up the VENRS essay and scatter it to the four winds. It is the hobby of a small number of editors which is misused to justify the insertion and deletion of text. There is already a process for assessing the suitability of sources.
    • The Caracas Chronicles was mentioned somewhere in the middle of this mess. It has been used in many Venezuela related articles, including BLP's. As far as I can tell, the heaviest user is Kingsif (talk · contribs). However, Noonicarus has used it as a source a number of times, including for BLP information. SandyGeorgia has also used it as a source. In the interests of transparency, I have also used it once.

    Burrobert (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your input is unsurprising here; "the hobby of a small number of editors" are words you might contemplate more carefully. I'm most interested to hear I used Caracas Chronicles once, and would like to see a diff for either context, or so I can correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your input is unsurprising here": keep your eye on the ball, not the editor.
    "the hobby of a small number of editors": I went back three years. These editors had a small number of edits during that time: SandyGeorgia (1 edit on 7 August 2023), Ira Leviton (1), ReyHahn (6), John of Reading (1), Buidlhe (1), Kingsif (6), Novem Linguae (2), Stephenamills (1), Wilfredor (1). WMRapids bravely entered the fray on 5 June 2023 and has made 47 edits, a large number of which were reverted by Noonicarus. The remaining several hundred edits over the last 3 years were made by Noonicarus. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not supply a diff for where, as you say, I used Caracas Chronicles as a source. We all make mistakes, and I'd like to know if I did.
    Based on what I've seen at Nelson Bocaranda in only three days of engagement, essentially everything WMrapids has written has needed to be removed, substantially corrected, or has outright bias POV and faulty sourcing and original research, so I'm unsurprised to hear that NoonIcarus has had to revert often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As expected, your diffs show I have not used Caracas Chronicles to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

    As suggested earlier, the VENRS page is largely owned by one editor. At times, their view about NPOV with respect to Venezuela has conflicted with that of other editors. On VENRS, there is often no attempt to justify the categorisation of the listed sources. The problem would be solved if Noonicarus hosted the VENRS content on their own talk page so that they would not be bothered by other editors with different views changing the content of the page. It would also stop them using their essay as a justification for "Removing unreliable source per WP:VENRS".

    Your use of Caracas Chronicles came in those heady regime-change days of February 2019. You created the article Juan Andrés Mejía containing an External link to an article in CC. The link is still there.[48] You also used CC as a reference when you created the article Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The CC reference you used is still on the page and a second reference has since been added.[49]

    You may also be interested in Noonicarus’ use of Caracas Chronicles as a source. Here is the list:

    Poverty in South America [50], Economy of Venezuela [51], Cine Mestizo [52], Greg Abbott [53] (On September 15, 2022, Abbott sent two buses with 101 migrants detained after crossing the U.S. border with Mexico, mostly Venezuelan, to the residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D. C.. Rafael Osío Cabrices in Caracas Chronicles compared his tactics to Aleksander Lukashenko's, who provoked a migrant crisis in the European Union Eastern border as a reprisal to criticism, and Fidel Castro's, who released released common criminals and mental health patients during the 1980 Mariel boatlift and shipped them to the United States.), Alfred-Maurice de Zayas [54], 2021 Apure clashes [55] [56], Special Action Forces [57], Crisis in Venezuela [58] [59], Venezuelan presidential crisis [60]

    Btw, I am not saying either you or Noonicarus did anything specially egregious by using CC. I only mentioned it because you introduced the subject with respect to WMRapids. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Burrobert: Thanks for the in-depth review. It seems that most of us can be burnt for participating in similar actions. Going forward, we should maintain WP:CIVILITY and if we have disagreements, seek WP:CONSENSUS before plowing ahead. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diffs of my use of Caracas Chronicles show nothing more than I expected, which is that I have never used Caracas Chronicles to source text.
    • Juan Andrés Mejía has Caracas Chronicles in external links (feel free to delete it if you think providing something in English for our readers as an External link is inappropriate).
    • In this diff, where I am copying from another article, Caracas Chronicles is used to provide a translation from Spanish to English, and for that purpose, it is not unreliable.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalled with feedback from only one independent editor

    [Note: The above section header does not belong to me, despite my comment following it: it was introduced in a refactor/reorganization of the discussion by another editor. SnowRise let's rap 02:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)][reply]

    Stalled with feed (back)
    It seems we're now talking about two issues, so let's try to tease them apart and see what we can say about each. With regard to WMrapids' conduct that lead to this discussion, they seem to have made a substantial (if somewhat protracted) mea culpa above: they have struck some content, made apologies for others, indicated an intent to take feedback on board and revise their approach to certain issues, and said they have no particular attachment to the topic area where the issues giving rise to this report arose and that they are looking to exit involvement there. It does seem to me, based on a reading of the above and a superficial follow up on the diffs, that their conduct did cross the line and was moving towards tendentious. But at the moment I'm not sure what more is to be done in light of their responses: they've done more than enough to justify an extension of WP:ROPE in my opinion. Does anyone substantially disagree with that, or can we say that part of the discussion is resolved with, if not exactly complete satisfaction to those who were on the receiving end of the aspersions, at least enough to let the matter go with the hope of real change from WMr?
    The second issue is VENRS. This is nuanced. VENRS is undeniably an WP:Advice page and an WP:essay, as I am happy to see it has been correctly labelled (which does not always happen with WikiProject issue-specific recommendations). Policy is very clear on this and came out of major community discussions and ArbCom cases where the WikiProject cohorts attempted to apply their idiosyncratic, non-community-vetted 'guidelines' to every article they perceived to be in their purview: it is not permissible or helpful to cite such advice page guidance like policy, and can often be viewed as WP:disruptive if pushed in certain ways. Anyone who has so much as cited VENRS in an edit summary in order to justify a possibly controversial addition or removal of content probably will want to rethink that perspective and habit, since (again, per the relevant policy) this 'guidance' has no more effect than the opinion of a single editor. Anyone who has gone further to try to leverage VENRS to justify an edit in an edit war or to try to shut down discussion on a talk page or bootstrap their personal opinion with the "consensus" of VENRS (and I don't know if that has in fact happened) has definitely stepped into problematic territory.
    Unfortunately, because of the weird place that the community has chosen to host the Advice pages guideline and discussion of the relevant distinction between WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on an individual article's talk page (or a policy talk page or noticeboard) vs. advisory discussions at a WikiProject, unfortunately this distinction is often lost on new editors durinjg onboarding (and even sometimes experienced ones over time). We really should have moved it to its own policy page a decade ago, frankly. But for those who don't know, there was past mass disruption that necessitated making this rule a formal one, so by all means, subscribe to VENRS if you think it makes sense, and repeat it's arguments on individual articles if you think they are sound. But do not wave it like a talisman indicating "consensus to do it this way with regard to all articles of type X". That's a one-way ticket back here to ANI. All that said, it seems to me that the remaining content issues can probably be resolved at the relevant talk pages? SnowRise let's rap 00:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, you made no mention of the BLP issues, which WMrapids is still not understanding days in to this discussion. At the NPOV noticeboard, hours after your post and with many reminders about BLP, WMrapids puts forward a source for a BLP described by The Guardian as a "pro-Maduro tabloid". Yes, WMrapids has gotten much more polite since this ANI, but the tendentiousness has not abated, and a polite POV pusher is the most concerning kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion is taking place at RFN, not in the edit summaries of an edit war or some other inherently disruptive discussion. Why should we take action on what is basically a content dispute between the two of you, one which at the moment no other editors have weighed in on, and in which you have actually outpaced them in volume by about 7:1? WMR's relatively tepid and single comment in that discussion does not rise to the level of tendentious by even the most liberal reading, in my view. Let alone disruptive to the point of validating sanction or other action. If you are that confident of your view on the matter, why not let the discussion play out? Clearly the two of you have diametrically opposed views on a few things here, including the two most recently discussed sources in particular. But the mere fact that you feel BLP is implicated does not obviate the need for discussion. So long as WMR does not violate WP:BRD on the article itself and attempt to shift WP:ONUS in some sort of way, they are merely participating in process at this point. If they do edit war, by all means let us know immediately. SnowRise let's rap 06:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise don't look now, but I always outpace others because "brevity is not the soul of my wit" and it takes me ten posts to make one. :)
    It doesn't help that I have to digress in the midst of a neutrality discussion to explain reliability in relation to BLPs. [61]
    The VENRS discussion in my mind pales in comparison to edits that defame living persons. The BLP issues at #Case study and #BLP vios continue date to August 7 and 8 (only four days ago). Until the NPOV noticeboard posts within the last few hours, I would have agreed that we are making enough progress on the BLP issues to close the thread, as no further content issues have occurred. But with discussions (eg at NPOV noticeboard) sidetracked by an ongoing failure to understand BLP, it becomes less likely that others will engage a topic already made difficult because most sources are in Spanish. I don't think we're done here and wonder how progress is possible without more input from Spanish speakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: I'll drop by just a second. I mentioned above that further action might not be needed considering WMR retracted from the comments, but I wanted to comment on this since you specifically mentioned WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. There has been edit warring in the outlets articles mentioned above, namely Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual, El Nacional (Venezuela) and Runrunes, of which the last one is directly related to journalist Nelson Bocaranda. I have added tags to the disputed sections and the discussion about the issue has restarted, but the onus has in practed shifted to me to restore the articles stable versions, where WMR is the proponent of the changes, currently does not have consensus and the restoration has meant edit warring. I did not start the ANI about this because I believed that it could eventually be solved through discussion, but for WP:BRD to be respected I believe the best alternative would be to have the articles original versions and discuss based on them. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, without question the status quo versions (if they have been longterm stable) should be left as the standing versions during the BRD cycle, until consensus for the changes has been achieved. Anything else is likely to fall into the category of tendentious edit warring and refusal to follow process, in most circumstances.
    That said, I continue to have concerns about how all of you seem to be approaching dispute resolution with regard to the specific articles and sources involved here. In my opinion this amount of dedication to trying to resolve these issues on the talk page of an essay and advice page is just setting yourself up for trouble. You can't cite any conclusions you arrive at there as "preexisting consensus" that has to be applied to the WP:LOCALCONSENUS issues on individual articles, and yet at the same time, this amount of debating those same points on that talk page for the essay is going to make you all very attached to the conclusions you form there and very inclined to leave that space expecting you can use the page as shorthand to win "consensus" arguments on particular articles.
    It's all very much likely to funnel you all into disruptive loggerheads. Most of this discussion should be taking place on the talk pages of the articles in question, with the WikiProject reserved for coordinating and notifying about those discussions, not as a space to centralize the discussions themselves. To the extent that you do need broader forums to resolve some issues, RSN, NPOVN, and the talk pages of relevant policies are where those discussions should be focused. I'm a little concerned that I'm observing the slow build up to a 'VENRS' ArbCom case some ways down the line. SnowRise let's rap 06:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise I agree with your broader point about activity at the VENRS talk page, but the devil is in the detail. First, I finally engaged at the talk page of VENRS to try to understand the thinking on a few cases or whether there are points I'm missing, and to save examples that can be used at centralized RFCs. I think that's a necessary precursor to going to WP:RSN and to minimizing disputes. Second, talk pages of articles have been used inappropriately in the past for RFCs, so don't want to encourage that. Third, the activity you describe as necessary is also happening at article talk pages. Encouraging more use of talk is a good thing, and it's good the aspersions have stopped as a result of this ANI. I'm seeing discussion on previously empty talk pages, and issues coming up that go back years including paid editing. There are very few editors in this area, and help is needed. Venezuelan-topic editors have sought that help, here and at other fora.
    But fourth and most importantly, when the NPOV noticeboard has been used appropriately when a difference reaches the level of needing feedback, while feral cats are all the rage, Bocaranda just above the cats (exactly like this ANI) has gotten not a single independent response (other than you and Actively Disinterested). Same applies to the BLP noticeboard. So if this is a "slow buildup to a VENRS ArbCom", we can thank the whole community for not engaging while Venezuela-topic editors have used the appropriate fora, and I would encourage the arbs to reject a case for that very reason. We're asking; no one is answering. Even an acknowledgement that others don't weigh in because they can't read the Spanish sources would help, because we would at least know if that's the problem. Thank you for at least responding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That all sounds pretty reasonable--well I'm not sure why the particular RfCs you cited were not appropriate for article talk pages, but otherwise, I follow your reasoning. I'm sorry you all are having trouble flagging down more community involvement: as you know, some areas just get hit by a dearth of available man power for periods, even with abundant sourcing to work with. Perhaps I can do something small to help: would an extra hand translating sources improve feedback for when you have need of a WP:3O, WP:RfC, the noticeboards, or anywhere that you trying to get eyes on the sourcing? I'm not perfectly fluent, but proficient enough to deliver polished translations, which I used to do more regularly. I don't know if you feel that would actually do a lot of good in these circumstances, but please consider it a standing offer if a translation by someone not involved in the underlying dispute would be helpful. SnowRise let's rap 16:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any additional eyes to help with conflicting opinions is always welcome from me. I always advocate for additional participation to help establish a more accurate consensus. Thank you for navigating your way through this discussion as well! WMrapids (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very happy to be of some small help with feedback. I think you made this discussion much less intractable than it could have been, by being open to striking some comments and amending your approach in some respects from early on. It made a big difference here, I feel. As to any additional bit of help I can offer to you guys, I think I may be more helpful in the role of a neutral for setting up any RfCs on the sourcing issues, or translating sources or some such. But if you disagree at any point and feel a WP:3O happens to be the most helpful thing I can supply to the process, please feel free to ping me. SnowRise let's rap 18:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the offer! But I'm not (yet) sure translation help is needed, as it's not clear that is the problem. Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.
    I was left wondering if the NPOV noticeboard might have gotten more response on a simple question (are these sources due weight for this content?) if it hadn't had to veer off into explaining the use of tabloids to source a BLP. So we still have no community feedback there; that's what's needed, but the 3O offer is also a good one. Thx, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Also, while (many) years ago, I routinely complained about the quality of Google translations, they have now gotten to a point of being generally usable.
    Yes, now that you've said it, that does seem obvious now! I guess I am still adjusting to this reality: all my adult life the ability to produce translations for multiple languages has been a value-added skill, generally separate from but useful for my main work which I could interject to offer for help here and there. Presumably it was much the same for many similarly-situated, going back through generations of our forebearers. And now, very suddenly, the same results are trivially available (with increasing reliability, at least in the basics) everywhere. I guess my mind is still catching up with that. Thing is, even when talking just about the immediate future, it probably won't be nearly the last task with analytical elements that I am used to occasionally doing that I will now have to get used to being done through automation. Will I sound old, wistful and slowing with respect to keeping up with the times, if I opine that the times, they surely are a'changin'? SnowRise let's rap 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep ... but thanks for the offer nonethelss, as I do still worry that others have not jumped in for the translation issue. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectively, I think we should be done here as I have agreed and participated in plenty of discussions with these two regarding improved content. ActivelyDisinterested provided a lot of help to me not only here, but in other discussions as well, so I have to thank them for their behavior. Unfortunately, this has not been reciprocated by Sandy, who responded harshly after I asked for help regarding a sensitive BLP. In addition, I recently saw some edits that would support my argument about an existing double standard used by NoonIcarus (since my similar edits were reverted here and here), though I recognized that these edits were in the past and we should move forward after we discussed the recent issues at hand. I already said I would de-escalate here and not place an ANI regarding NoonIcarus despite ample evidence that they are not innocent, though I have WP:GOODFAITH that their edits will improve in the future. For Sandy, maybe you should take the advice you gave me and slow down too? Again, I’m saying this with with the best intentions and in an attempt to focus on collaboration. So let’s just all drop this. WMrapids (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already mentioned my position regarding the ANI. Avoiding to talk about content (particularly seems some of your claims can be easily disproved), I don't appreciate the accusations of a "double standard" unless they are discussed in the article's talk page before, as the main point of why the thread was opened can be pretty much in effect until it is closed. I look forward your feedback regarding my last proposals on the topics. As for the dispute with Sandy, I cannot comment much on the activity about Bocaranda's article (at least in the recent days). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, my intention was to be as respectful as possible when raising this concern, but it's important to call a spade a spade, so sorry for the boomerang. The main reason this should end is so we can focus on improvements and the proposals, not on conflict. Again, I have good faith that we can move forward and that lessons were learned. WMrapids (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What boomerang? Even if nothing else comes of this ANI, getting the aspersions and BLP vios, along with acknowledgement of maintaining the consensus version during the BRD cycle, to stop was worthwhile. I do see that Burrobert continues to allege ownership because most of the edits were NoonIcarus's, even though the talk page shows ample engagement from others, with NoonIcarus being the one to make the edits. This is similar to the FAR of J. K. Rowling, where I show up as the author of a lot of content because I was the one who installed the consensus version developed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Burrobert is correct about some of the reports and the “consensus” is dubious at best. And like the poster, who you say you’re “friends” with, your behavior has been questionable. Though I appreciate and accept your apology, it seemed half-hearted and somewhat similar to WP:BROTHER as you blamed your dog for your behavior, which you are responsible for. This circumstance reminds me of the adage “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”, which has recently helped me remain WP:CIVIL in these situations. Again, this is in no way to be condescending, but while we are all here, we should all work on improving our behavior and civility in order to collaborate more effectively in the future. WMrapids (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, that's all fair enough--and the last point in particular should be taken to heart by all involved. But that said, the back and forth is leaning back towards passive aggression again. And for the record, you really shouldn't keep making a point of saying that you are being cooperative because you didn't file an ANI against someone else who was discussing your conduct here (if I am reading that correctly). It's true that that's the right thing to do in the circumstances, but it would have been disruptive to have done so anyway: anybody who is involved in the underlying dispute can have their conduct reviewed in this discussion, so counter-filing would have been perceived as retaliatory and unhelpful.
    That said, my initial inquiry was whether or not the other parties here were satisfied with your response to the need to avoid aspersions, and it seems to me that with fair caveats (going both ways) everyone here seems to be a willingness to move forward and try to work together. The major concern right now (and I honestly do not yet feel up to speed enough on all the ins-and-outs to know whether to endorse or reject this claim) is that your sourcing may not be up to snuff for some BLP purposes. Under the circumstances I feel like I can only ask you to be open to the possibility. WP:BLP is afterall regarded as a cornerstone of content work on contemporary issues. But again, we seem to be sufficiently back in to the content side of things at this point, that I think further discussion should return to relevant talk pages. Please consider running RfCs if you are still at loggerheads on the same couple of articles in a few days. If you do not have experience with that process and are at all unsure about the formatting or approach, please let me know and if it is helpful to you all, I will consult with each side and draft a prompt which hopefully fairly and neutrally presents each side's arguments as to the acceptability and sufficiency of the sources. SnowRise let's rap 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and thank you for your help. No more responses from me here (unless something major happens). WMrapids (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear to me why WMrapids believes this conversation on a topic completely unrelated to Venezuela and unrelated to WMrapids about an article in which I have no interest in participating required an apology at all-- I offered one anyway just because apologies never hurt when one has been short. (On an earlier question, the RFCs on the talk pages were going to generate no more than the same local consensus.) Further, I did not say I was friends with any poster; I made a joke about arepas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to turn this case to WP:Arbcom. -Lemonaka‎ 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seven days and still no feedback on the BLP question at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda. If some folks would not mind glancing in there, perhaps we could get the related ANI closed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Bluthmark

    NO ACTION
    Bluthmark, please try to be more civil when dealing with others. Everyone in general needs to take the heat down some; it's northern hemisphere summer for many of us, and I think we're all getting a bit crazy from the heat. Regardless, general consensus seems to be that while Bluthmark could use some reminders to be more congenial when working with others, and be more careful in general, that no bad faith editing is happening. Closing this as, per suggestion, it is clear nothing will become of this report at this time, and we've reached the phase where the heat is greater than the light. --Jayron32 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[62] The disruptive behavior continues.[63]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[64]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still[65] doing[66] it.[67] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On 5 August 2023, you changed
    That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[71] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. And you are still edit warring. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shells-shelss, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as NebY pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding writers and producers to an infobox. Ferret, care to chime in? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soetermans In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Soetermans, I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly what they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even asked you directly for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated WP:3RR on that page as well (also, what's up with this unexplained revert?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. Shells-shells (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the editor who made the most effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @Bluthmark per the two threads above.
    TL;DR:
    The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @Bluthmark to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @Bluthmark in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @Bluthmark has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. UnironicEditor (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders (WP: VG/MOS, wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. Bluthmark (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for outdated ass interface are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the general idea.) EEng 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh Bluthmark (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you strike that. user:Soetermans has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. Meters (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."
    Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.
    The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."
    And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.
    Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.
    Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~ UnironicEditor (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some human guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging me. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x Bluthmark (talk) Bluthmark (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was at the psychiatrist"
    That explains a lot.
    "No shit you're [sic] life is complex"
    I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?
    "Some human guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging me."
    So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.
    It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm curious what does it explain Bluthmark (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. Bluthmark (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UnironicEditor, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "That explains a lot."
    UnironicEditor, mere hours before posting that: "You are perfectly capable in using sympathy. [...] Currently your optics show real insensitivity [...] You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism."
    Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...
    You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the WP:CESSPOOL as possible? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.
    How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.
    "pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?
    Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. UnironicEditor (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.
    Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly. You can just check my /64 to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.
    How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.
    Sure, Jan.
    "pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?
    Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.
    And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.
    Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, for future reference, boomerangs don't discriminate.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone uninvolved like to close this? NebY (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([72], [73], [74]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluthark at least needs a serious WP:Civility warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a really bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. This thread is 10% rational discussion and 90% tangential sniping. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Civil POV pushing on "Gender-related topics"

    I have been editing since 2006 and in January 2023 I stumbled upon the MOS entry for MOS:GENDERID. I was shocked to find it clearly violating NPOV and NOTCENSORED and got involved in recent RfCs where I perceived POV-pushing by activists trying to expand privacy protections to deceased individuals in the MOS, beyond even the scope of BLP. I initially brought up concerns on the talkpage 5 January 2023 (see 2023 archive) and recognized that the situation fits exactly with the article on WP:CPUSH, and I found myself struggling for months against a bunch of very civil activists trying to crush even the most basic policy-based improvements on any gender-related page (e.g. Irreversible Damage). One of the first comments I got was, You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade.

    I followed closely two RfCs closed 7 June 2023 and 20 July 2023. They were started either in part or wholly by Sideswipe9th with a fairly biased setup that was leading the discussion toward another expansion of MOS-based restrictions. They both failed. I was labeled as part of "the opposition". My oppose !vote in the second RfC brought several activists arguing to dismiss my !vote. Numerous comments from the RfCs lamented the "MOS activists" repeatedly running RfCs and wasting people's time, gaining local consensus on the MOS page and failing at VPP with a wider audience. People are fatigued on this topic. In discussions with Sideswipe9th over many months, I've found they often respond to my comments within 10 minutes, regardless of time of day, and the comments tend to be very long and always oppositional and dismissive. The result, maybe intentionally, is that others find it hard to keep up with the enormous amount of discussion and they check out, leaving the few highly committed activists to dominate discussion. Consensus is impossible, creating repeated RfCs.

    I started proposing a revision to MOS:GENDERID at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on 26 June 2023 and was clear since January that I wanted to work toward a new RfC that aligns the MOS with policy, which would inevitably be opposed to the nth degree by the activists trying to go the opposite direction. I went through about 5 different revisions over at least 5 weeks trying to get feedback, trying to parse the useful feedback from the fluff of specious complaints in the face of CPUSH. I'm not providing diffs because of the volume involved. When I finally got to the point of a reasonable proposal at Village Pump, I posted it today and within 15 minutes Sideswipe9th, Firefangledfeathers, and LokiTheLiar asked for a procedural close of the RfC, basically saying that because they previously opposed it, I didn't have consensus for the RfC and failed WP:RFCBEFORE. At a surface level their complaints may look reasonable, but they're not.

    CPUSH seems to be the most difficult thing for Wikipedia to deal with, even ArbCom has effectively said that they can't fix the problem. I'm not sure what can be done, but the current VPP pole response seems actionable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified users involved here, here, and here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a bunch of exhausted people trying their best to improve policies and guidelines, mostly collaborating well. We also have Cuñado posting a complex RfC over universal objection and then posting this series of allegations with not a single diff of evidence. I am truly shocked to see this here, and I need some processing time. Please ping me if you have a question I can answer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m beginning to get the impression a boomerang GENSEX top8c ban is in order given this type of language, Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you that if the consensus at ANI is that my perception of CPUSH is wrong, and that my attempt at RfC was inappropriate, you won't be seeing much of me on this topic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re right, I won’t, because I’m going to need a VERY good reason not to use the CTOPS protocols and topic ban you. My post was hoping someone can provide one. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my warning, and their response to the rfc they opened where they said, The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. I am ready to topic ban now. Asking after clearly ignoring the warning is not the correct order of operations, and demonstrate that they understood that they were casting aspersions yet again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the feedback that my perception was wrong and acknowledge my failure to stay civil. I'll propose a one-year topic ban on myself (never been topic-banned, so not sure if a self-ban is relevant), with right to coment civilly in future RfCs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday, admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish posted this on your talk page - "Comments like several extremely active editors on this page are WP:NOTHERE and your frequent referring to other editors as activists needs to stop." and posted an AE logged warning to that effect ([75]). What have you just done above? Yeah, referred to other editors as activists. I'd say that wasn't the brightest idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given ScottishFinnishRadish's comment "If you believe that other editors are editing in bad faith or are NOTHERE WP:AE and WP:ANI are the venues to discuss that"[76], I thought this was the appropriate place to describe the problem that I perceive. If not, my apologies and I learned something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno what Cuñado thinks is happening, but to me it looks like they proposed an RFC wording, nobody liked it, and then they disruptively tried to start it anyway.
    This is actually something they've done before in discussions on that page: they proposed a wording for a section on the page, and over multiple drafts people repeatedly had the same objections that Cuñado refused to answer, enough so that I eventually made a draft incorporating those concerns over Cuñado's objections.
    Like it or not Cuñado, you do not actually have consensus for the majority of the changes you want to make to this guideline. It's a pretty common pattern in this topic area, IMO, for someone to try to make a change to a trans-related page or guideline against consensus and then when nobody is for it they start calling all their opponents activists and accusing them of wanting to WP:RGW. But WP:RGW is not a synonym for "woke", and in fact it applies better to the pattern of behavior I've just described than it does to any consensus among editors. Loki (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, @Courcelles I think I'd oppose a topic ban because, while Cuñado's repeated refusal to listen to feedback from other editors has been frustrating, I do think that his efforts on the talk page of MOS:GENDERID have been more helpful than harmful overall. (Maybe I wouldn't think this if he had been this accusatory the whole time, though.) Loki (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As my last comment of today, is there any changes or it is the same so it will require closure? ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit I think you want the discussion above us. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm seeing from Cuñardo is repeated failures to listen to other editors - repeatedly at the MOS discussion and then exacerbated by the failure to listen to the logged warning yesterday. Courcelles asks for good reasons not to topic ban, I am unable to provide one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking more on this, I'm not sure that a simple topic ban from GENSEX isn't too blunt an instrument but I'm not sure what would be better. Advice and warnings haven't worked, so we need to try something else. Blocks for personalising disputes and for casting aspersions maybe, but they're subjective and can sometimes cause more drama than they avoid and they also don't address the failures to listen. A topic ban from making new proposals in the GENSEX topic area, but not from commenting on others' proposals, would help somewhat but this feels too specific and comes with definition difficulties (e.g. is a comment like "I suggest point 2 would be better phrased as ..." a "proposal"?). When they engage constructively and without casting aspersions, commenting on motivations, etc. their contributions are valuable and it would be a shame to lose them, but if there isn't a way to retain the good without also getting the bad then a topic ban may be the best way forwards for the community. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think it's civil POV pushing? Shells-shells (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sideswipe9th and I have rarely agreed on topic related questions. However, I do think they are a good faith editor and I'm always concerned when the civil POV essay is brought out. Sometimes people do work to support their POV. So long as that effort is done civilly (and I don't recall a time where Sideswipe9th wasn't) and without edit warring, I think we should give a lot of leeway when it comes to taking people to ANI for, what amounts to, trying to make their point. I can understand frustration in topics like this but I think we should really err on the side of not intervening so long as things are civil. For what it's worth I wouldn't support any action against Cunado either as I have been in their position and understand their frustration. When you have a clear vision of a problem and others aren't understanding the issue it's easy to become frustrated. They should be careful in the future to distinguish between how something can appear and the likely intent behind things. I strongly believe Sideswipe9th's intent is good faith even in cases where I disagreed with them. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is far from the first time that Cuñado has referred to anyone who disagrees with them as "activists" and they also did so in a similar fashion on the Village Pump MOS:GENDERID discussion two weeks ago, where I called them out on it. Over there they claimed all the previous RfCs on the topic and their outcomes were "driven by trans-activists that made unreasonable proposals". SilverserenC 00:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a lot of discussions since the second of the two recent RfCs closed on next steps, and by and large we are trying to come up with a draft guideline amendment that will fit the consensus established by the first RfC, while also addressing the concerns raised in the second. This isn't an easy process, there are naturally strong opinions from all involved, and we're trying to hit what seems to be a very small target for where the community consensus lies.
    • The problem, at least as I see it and reasonable minds may disagree on this, is that while Cuñado has taken some aspects of feedback onboard (for example in this reply after I pointed out that MOSBIO applies to all biographical content and not just biographical articles), there are some pretty major concerns from multiple editors that have not been addressed. The frustrations that arise from not listening to the feedback that has been given are compounded when those are met with accusations of being NOTHERE, that the two recent RfCs "had a biased activist-y setup", and that the GENDERID guideline is the result of a "local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented". When these are combined, it does not create an environment conductive to collaboration.
      For the most part, I have tried to set the accusations aside when giving feedback on the proposals, though some of my frustrations came out in this reply, where I really should have used softer language in the last sentence. However the accusations Cuñado has been making are making this process far more contentious than it has to be. I had hoped that SFR's AE logged warning yesterday would have put a stop to the accusations, however Cuñado's opening !vote in the now closed RfC, where he said The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. clearly flies against the spirit of that warning, as it is accusing the hundreds of editors who have contributed to the development of the guideline over the last twenty years of being activists by another name. For context, see regulatory capture, and then Google search a term like "transgender regulatory capture" for how this language is typically used off wiki.
      Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would urge Cuñado to rethink his approach to discussions on this topic. There are good aspects to your proposals, but those are massively outweighed when you cast everyone who opposes them because of the bad aspects as activists, and don't take constructive feedback about the bad aspects onboard when it is given. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (comment in non-admin capacity) Back in January, I reverted Cuñado's attempt to unilaterally remove the deadname provisions. For what it's worth, I agree with some of Cuñado's criticism of the guideline as stands, but that removal was obviously inappropriate. Since then, Cuñado has no doubt seen that there's a diversity of opinion on GENDERID, even among those who generally support it. I, EvergreenFir, and Folly Mox all have expressed views (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing either of you) that the current guideline is in some ways too strict. The two aspects of GENDERID that most conflict with the preferences of the trans community—retaining deadnames on some articles and avoiding neopronouns—were both largely supported by editors who broadly support GENDERID. If there is activism afoot, it's not doing a very good job. MoS remains about the middle of the pack on style guides when it comes to trans issues: Don't misgender, don't out, minimize deadnaming, but in some cases put content concerns over the subject's preference.
      Maybe I and Evergreen and Folly and the other pro-GENDERID editors who've expressed varying degrees of heterodox, independent thought don't fall under the "activists" Cuñado is talking about. It's hard to tell, because, other than naming Sideswipe thrice and FFF and Loki once, it's not clear who in particular he's complaining about here, nor has a case been made for why those three should be considered "activists" rather than just people who sometimes disagree with Cuñado. I have my own critique of GENDERID and its ideological underpinnings—specifically that it represents a fairly stereotyped understanding of the trans experience, more the sort perpetrated by cisgender allies than by trans people. But I don't blame anyone in particular for that. If there's a problem with a guideline, that's a communal failing. I've appreciated a lot of Cuñado's critique of various aspects of GENDERID. I wish he could manage to give that critique without personalizing matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Summoned by ping) (in horror to an MOS:GID thread at ANI). I appreciate the characterisation above as a heterodox, independent thinker. I did comment " Works for me" on Cuñado's recent proposed rewrite of the section in dispute— which I'm not prepared to assess as more, less, or equally strict in comparison with the current guidance. I did not find anything in the rewrite that seemed immediately objectionable, and the comment was made – like my first comment at the second VPP RfC – ex exhaustio, in the vain hope that a bold do-over might stem the flood of RfCs. I have also given pushback against proposed changes to the current policy that would make it more thoroughly trans-accommodating at the expense of reader confusion or editor frustration, including use of neopronouns and specific guidance on "complex / complementary gender expression". That second pushback, where my edit followed Tamzin's and preceded EvergreenFir's, may be what Tamzin had in mind above.
      I think User:Slakr did a valiant and adequate job in the close of one recent discussion, seeing that people are arguing from entirely different policy underpinnings, talking past each other because we disagree with or don't understand each other's assumptions. It's natural to start seeing opponents and bad faith where none exist when staring down the maw of 800kb of raw text, unceasing workshopping and bikeshedding, and what might seem to us to be arguments that completely miss the main point.
      I do have a personal connection to this topic, and when I noticed myself having too many feelings to communicate dispassionately I took MOSBIO off my watchlist and moved on. My kind suggestion to anyone who feels themselves finding enemies in their codiscussants is to take a similar step away. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd support action against Cuñado here, but I do think they were being at a minimum at very IDHT with their most recent action. I don't think the "activists" language in itself is sufficiently problematic under policy to justify a sanction in these circumstances. It's not something I would personally use (it's just too likely to inflame and already heated debate), but the fact of the matter is that it's within a reasonable field of perspective on this one: there have been parties (on both sides) who have attacked this issue with some combination of bludgeoning, advocacy, and even borderline gamesmanship; these actions have been consistently well-intentioned, and any outright violation of process unintentional, but I think it is fair to say that at times in the recent discussions and related events, lines have sometimes been crossed by some of the more adamant hardliners on both sides.
      Feeling as they do about the underlying subject, I can understand Cuñado's view that some of the advocates for more stringent GENDERID protections have used aggressive tactics at points, but that doesn't obviate two major counterpoints: a) their wording should have been more selective, and b) they should recognize that they have been more than a little activist themselves in some respects, so glass houses and all that.
      What I am less ambivalent about is my concerns about how Cuñado approached the current nexus of dispute. As of the last few days, everyone on the MoS talk page, including the parties that Cuñado as seemed to identify as "activists", have been, through an effort of will and self-restraint, inching towards an agreed wording for a new proposal. Cuñado is one of about a dozen editors who made significant contributions to that process, but they had a very specific notion for how the final product should be presented to the community and which specific issues should be foregrounded as a part of that initial process.
      In at least one respect (whether to propose moving part of the policy language to BLP and when to propose that move), Cuñado was (I think) completely opposed by every other responding community member. Yet they either lacked the ability to see that counter-consensus or chose to disregard it. Attempting to the jump their version of the proposal on to VPP seems to have been an express effort to short-circuit the 'activists' from (as Cuñado saw it) controlling the narrative with their own proposal and thereby getting an edge in the next wave of discussion. Which is also in my book an understandable view (though not my own). But that being the case, Cuñado's appropriate responses could have come in the form of expressing that opinion on the MoS talk page. Instead they seem to have wanted to get ahead of the WP:GAME, which was not helpful. Cuñado should have read the room (including seeing that editors with more middle of the ground perspectives on GENDERID also opposed Cuñado's proposal as written).
      These issues were then further compounded by the ill-advised filing here, which occurred despite the fact that the VPP proposal was procedurally closed not just because Sideswipe, Loki, and FFF opposed it, but on the basis of a pretty uniform response from other community members at Talk:MoS/Biography and VPP.
      Personally, I would lean towards a trouting here, but I suspect we may be beyond that. CTOP or no, I don't think either a TBAN or a block is warranted, and despite some tenacity and myopathy, Cuñado has made valuable contributions to the discussion and I think the final discussion will be poorer for their absence. But at a minimum, they have to drop this categorization of their strongest rhetorical opposition into a monolithic camp. I'd urge them that this does not really reflect reality, and even if it did, it would not serve process or consensus to frame the matter in the terms they have chosen in recent discussions. SnowRise let's rap 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cuñado, are you okay to voluntarily stay off the topic for one year? If you confirm, we close this discussion and extended scrutiny (for all our benefit). Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I mentioned, I don't plan on being on this topic for a year, except as an RfC commentor. Everything is off my watchlist. I regret that this discussion became about my aspersions (which I also regret). I recognize CPUSH, and the MOS:GENDERID is an open wound on Wikipedia that needs to be aligned with core content policies, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation needs to make another special resolution on this particular issue. Whatever happens, I'm out. Thanks Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Tamzin, BilledMammal, Locke Cole, and many others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry you won't be able to participate in the upcoming discussion which you helped to shape, Cuñado. That said, your response to community concerns here has been admirable and I for one will think well of you for it, going forward. And I'm confident you will be useful wherever you end up contributing as a consequence of not focusing on this issue. SnowRise let's rap 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cuñado, the voluntary nature of topic ban will include prohibiting your comments on any RfC, current or future, or any gender-related topics likewise. Are you okay with that? Thank you, Lourdes 13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I must admit, I seem to have missed the "except as an RfC commentator" bit of Cuñado's most recent comment (unless it was edited in after the fact). I hope I did not put words in their mouth as a consequence, but in any event, I'm glad you are clarifying the need to treat this as an all or nothing restriction. I still don't think I would be in support of a TBAN if this came down to a community ban !vote, but, even as a voluntary measure, no formal content-oriented TBAN restriction makes much sense to adopt if it has such a carve out. That said, I do think Cuñado willingly avoiding further involvement in the drafting while reserving the right to !vote in the resulting discussion is a wise decision, and a reasonable compromise (assuming they do not get formally TBANned in here, anyway). SnowRise let's rap 06:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cuñado highlights a problem I see as well, and I agree with their invocation of WP:CPUSH. It feels like "activists" just keep reigniting the discussion hoping to push things a little further each time (in ways that clearly violate WP:NPOV). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cuñado may be correct that this topic area is overrun by advocacy-based civil-PoV-pushing behavior, including proposals that sharply conflict with core policy, but Cuñado has also been very WP:ICANTHEARYOU about the RfC drafting process, and the attempt to launch the RfC equivalent of a WP:RIGHTVERSION after many of us made it very clear that the drafted language so far was a non-starter, was certainly not helpful. I don't think that's any reason to call for a topic-ban or other action. This is just a heated and rather polarized topic area, and people soemtimes lose their patience for a while. If we immediately turned to T-bans every time that happened, the topic would be a ghost town and the sanction log would grow quite massively in this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cluebat Cuñado, but don't go too much further; I don't think he's being maliciously disruptive, although I amongst others are just getting tired of the merry-go-round of continuously arguing MOS:GENDERID. It may get annoying, but being annoying isn't worthy of sanction in itself. I think we have a problem on both sides where someone on one side will see each other as calm-headed and neutral and the other as hot-headed POV pushers, and I include myself in this analysis. As much as I find the transphobic culture wars incredibly exhausting as a trans person (I am not looking forward to election season in winter 2024), as a Wikipedia editor, I find the to MOS:GENDERID debates to be downright collegial. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the two editors above, I think this thread has been warning enough for Cunado. I would have Cunado formally warned. Though if it is indeed a warning, more disruption would probably result in an indefinite topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 06:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I just wanted to note as you might have been missed it above, Cunado was warned about casting aspersions on 10 August 2023. This warning was AE logged, Cunado acknowledged the warning, and yet this still happened a day later. Is another warning going to work here? I dunno, and I'm too involved to try and objectively figure it out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you Sideswipe9th, I was not aware and rescind my above comment. In light of that, I still think a one year topic ban is too long, 3-6 months topic ban would be enough. starship.paint (exalt) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cunado is the one who suggested a 1-year topic ban, so I don't see how it's too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cunado suggested a one year topic ban with a carve out for RfCs, but I don’t agree with carve-outs, instead preferring a shorter ban. starship.paint (exalt) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the carve-out is a bad idea, but I disagree that means the Tban should be shortened. I think Cunado should accept the 1-year tban, without conditions or exceptions. Failing that, we need a formal discussion of what to do as a community. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can understand why that might be perceived as necessary, given how the discussion has played out. But at the same time, I think if we read the room here, at least with regard to those who have responded thus far, I don't think there's going to be enough overall support to sustain a TBAN, so I'm not sure it justifies the effort of having the discussion.
      It's worth noting that Cunado was afterall told in the warning they received that this was a forum to bring their concerns if they though other editors in the space were contributing in bad faith or NOTHERE. That they chose to do so with this particular timing, and in relation to the reversal of a unilateral action on their part that consensus clearly was not supportive of is unfortunate and a bad look, but I get the sense that they have realized at this juncture just how clearly they misread the situation, and I don't think they are going to be confident enough of making another move like that.
      So, while it is a close call, I don't think there is a need for preventative action here. If the rest of Cunado's involvement here amounts to an !vote and maybe a couple of responses once the RfC goes up, and they avoid the "activist" accusations and anything like them while doing so (focusing solely on the arguments and not the rhetorical opposition), I don't see a likely problem. In fact, given their work in helping to frame the discussion (and the fact that even some of those they accused of being activists seem to agree as to the value of those contributions), I think their involvement will probably be a benefit for the upcoming discussions and increase likelihood of consensus for at least some aspects. SnowRise let's rap 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent misuse of talk pages

    A lot of WP:FORUM posts (e.g. [77] [78] [79] [80]) going back to late April 2023, despite being warned multiple times. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ahh, IP on IP reporting: don't see that every day. But the OP is correct: the first of the four diffs is arguably defensible as it is pulled (kinda-sorta) around to a content-relevant inquiry at the end. But the other diffs and various other comments raise a substantial indication of WP:NOTHERE: in addition to the NOTAFORUM issues, there's pretty continuous WP:RGW, WP:POVPUSHING, and WP:SOAPBOXING behaviours. However, not only did the OP not notify the other IP of this discussion (93.72.49.123, please see above about the standard template for notifying someone that you have raised their conduct on this board), but neither they nor anybody else has reached out to raise these issues on their user talk. OP, can you please show us when and where the multiple warnings you are referring to took place? At the moment, I think action to block the IP may be premature if we don't have at least some showing of pro forma discussion. Don't get me wrong, given this apparent SPA's bias, I am dubious much will come of trying to get them to contribute more neutrally in this area, but policy mandates that we typically at least give it a try. SnowRise let's rap 01:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure:

    93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified their most recent IP assignment of this discussion. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarchiving this since the user continues this behavior: [81] [82]. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It does seem that a range block is going to be in order, if only to get their attention. SnowRise let's rap 20:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the comments did make an argument about editorial decisions (77, 79 and 81 explicitly do). I dont think the IP address warrants a penalty, or even a warning.
    I think a penalty will be perceived as being more for the users opinions than for at most minor violation of policy that has negligible disruption to the project. Jagmanst (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR issue with User:Miner Editor

    Miner Editor has been indeff'd at AE. Lourdes 07:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I recently edited the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for the first time on August 7th to add a paragraph about campaign financing. Since then, the content I added has been reverted or changed by Miner Editor (talk · contribs) 12 times. Here is an outline of their edits to the page:

    1. [83] Adding incorrect donation timeline with no edit summary.
    2. [84] Removing a sentence supported by multiple reliable sources by trying to claim it is somehow undue.
    3. [85] Restoring incorrect donation timeline, this time with a misleading edit summary.
    4. [86] Adding factually incorrect content that lead to this talk page discussion which was bludgeoned by Miner Editor and lead to their change being reverted by an admin.
    5. [87] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    6. [88] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    7. [89] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    8. [90] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
    9. [91] Removes a part of the lede that is supported by multiple reliable sources in the body, claiming "unsourced", as a result of this talk page discussion in which they claim they read the sources but completely missed the multiple occasions where it is verified.

    Warning provided: User talk:Miner Editor#August 2023

    So as you can see, Miner Editor has been haggling me over a single paragraph from this article for days now, and not one of their twelve edits was productive. When an editor can't figure out how to find a citation and read the source to verify a claim, they clearly do not have the competency to edit in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a tad bewildering, and I'm not sure how FormalDude things this is a case for incompetence, but they're on the warpath, so here we are. Every cited edit has a context which is easily obtainable and obvious and which I stand by. If anyone has any specific questions about an edit I've made, I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not going to provide a narrative for every cited edit when I'm not seeing the necessity. Miner Editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanting to be able to contribute without being hindered by disruptive editing ≠ "on the warpath". ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I'll be glad to address every one of FormalDude's points tomorrow. Just not now. I'm in too good a mood. Miner Editor (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the CIR issue here. I am seeing you making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC, and acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you, including a claim of harassment and an insinuation—repeated in this posting—that this is "a single paragraph" and thus, apparently, not worth getting correct? I'm not saying ME's conduct here is perfect—consensus seems against him on the "frequent donor to progressive candidates" bit—but I'm seeing you causing more trouble than him.
    Also, a passing {{plip}} to Zaathras for the strange claim that a source's reliability can only be assessed at RSN. An experienced editor should surely know that the suitability of a given source for a given claim is determined on the article talk page, and that reliability is never guaranteed just because a publication is considered "generally reliable". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC – I made that error once. The second time I did not attribute the superPAC donations to the entire campaign.
    acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you – Indignant? All I said to them was "In that case your version is not correct either."
    I say it's a "single paragraph" in order to provide context to the number of edits and talk page discussions that have been started about it. Seems a lack of good faith from you to take that as meaning it's not worth getting corrected, especially since I have accepted corrections to the paragraph and would welcome more.
    How do you not see a CIR issue when they've made so made so many unproductive edits? And how exactly am I causing more trouble? If I hadn't challenged Miner Editor, they would've introduced multiple factual errors and removed two instances of reliably sourced due content. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Miner Editor, may I request you to provide clarifications for each of the diffs posted by FormalDude above? I am interested in seeing your response to the claim that you have repeated added unsourced material on a BLP, interpreted reliable sources to your benefit, attempted to misrepresent words (such as "long-term" versus "long-time"). Would appreciate your response on each of the diffs. Thanks, Lourdes 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, at first opportunity. Miner Editor (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Answers to Formal Dude's objections

    1: I added "in July 2023" to the article as it seemed to me after a reading of the sources that that was the purport. You'll notice that the source's title is "RFK Jr. - aligned super PAC raked in $6 million in July" so on the face of it it does not seem unreasonable. Regarding my not leaving an edit summary, that is a fair criticism. I tend to do that sometimes when I am making several edits in a row, as I did here. Going forward, I will strive to include edit summaries for all appropriate edits.

    2: After FD created a new "Financing" section, I dug into it and began verifying and copy editing. FD added material describing Steve Kirsch as being a supporter of conspiracy theories and an antivaxxer which is true but he is also a frequent contributor to Democrats and Democrat causes including Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Stacy Abrams just a couple of years ago. Just highlighting the negative and ignoring the positive seemed like cherry picking and a matter of balance so I removed it, citing WP:WEIGHT. I don't think this edit supports FD's case for incompetence.

    3: Same rationale for 1: (above). The article title clearly said "in July", so I changed the article to say "in July". My edit summary was "ce" indicting that I considered it a typo. I did incorrectly marked it as minor. I will strive to do better with my edit summaries.

    4: I added that Kirsch was a "frequent donor to progressive candidates". The source said, Kirsch has been a longtime donor to progressive candidates and causes; in the early aughts, through his foundation, he supported many liberal groups, including the League of Women Voters, the liberal watchdog group People for The American Way, and the disinformation monitoring outlet Media Matters for America. The foundation is no longer active, but records show tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Kirsch himself to the Democratic party over the last decade—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, among many other candidates for various offices.. I changed "longtime donor" to "frequent donor" to avoid accusations of plagiarism/copyright. I think my edit was perfectly reasonable and don't believe it to be "factually incorrect", however, FD and @BD2412: (the admin FD refers to) disagreed, which lead to my ::gasp:: "change being reverted by an admin" (BD2412) A talk page discussion ensured where, in the end, I pointed out that Mother Jones is considered reliable but biased by almost all editors and not the best source. FD agreed, they removed it and the disputed text and we all moved on.

    5: The article mentioned Abby Rockefeller, with no description about who she is. Her article title is "Abby Rockefeller (ecologist) so I added "ecologist" to "Abby Rockefeller". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source. With Gavin de Becker, likewise, there was no description about who he is. So I went to the article, found out that he is first off an "author" so I added "author" to "Gavin de Becker". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source.(note that the lead for the Gavin de Becker article did not include the word "billionaire" until FD added it later that day).

    6: See 5: (above)

    7: Prior to this edit, FD seemed to be insisting that if the immediate source did not describe a subject in a certain way, that it could not be included (e.g., because Abby Rockefeller being an "ecologist" was not in the immediate source at hand, therefore that was objectionable as being "unsourced"). So after FD adds "billionaire" to the description of de Becker (which was not in the immediate source at hand either) I gave tit-for-tat and removed it as "unsourced". With that same edit, I described Rockefeller as an "activist" which is how the immediate source at hand described her.

    8: See 5: (above)

    9: This is boomerang territory. FD repeatedly insists on inserting incorrect, inflammatory material to the lead and then when the material is challenged, does not respect WP:ONUS but instead immediately re-inserts it, calling me "incompetent". I ended up "dispute inline" templating the material. That seems to have gotten their attention... they have removed it and substituted material which seems at first glance to be actually supported by the sources.

    If there is anything further I can do, please let me know. Miner Editor (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems some of this dispute was a misunderstanding. I don't agree with most of Miner Editor's characterizations, but I see their point of view better, and I no longer feel this is a valuable use of the community's time. My apologies to Miner Editor for coming to ANI too soon. I'm going to step away from editing the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Section re-opened for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no doubt that FD "no longer feels this is a valuable use of the community's time", as they were about to receive some well-deserved scrutiny for their actions. Also, in case anyone was wondering, I did not accept FD's "apology" because I do not care about the forum I care about his edits which were abhorrent. Them calling me "incompetent" was none too charming as well.

    They said they were going to be "Stepping away" in their edit summary. They seem to have stepped away exactly as long as I have, plus the time require to revert my edit. I have asked on their talk page that they revert it, and threatened to ANI them if they didn't, but I am doing this now because I think you should all be aware that this editor does not follow through with what they say they are going to do at ANI, and going forward, their promises should be looked with suspicion. Miner Editor (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to step away, but then I saw that you took that opportunity to ignore the existing talk pages discussions and insert your preferred version, acting like a dispute never existed. I changed my mind at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday. Miner Editor (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask again: Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday? Miner Editor (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already answered this below. Because it was my desire and intent at the time to step away. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No you didn't. You are literally begging the question now, and have not answered it at all. You saw fit to say not only in your edit summary, but in text at ANI, that you were "stepping away". A reasonable editor would conclude that you realized the error in your ways, and decided to take some time to reflect. Miner Editor (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you're not satisfied with my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer. I've told you that I felt no pressure to step away or "reflect". I admitted no "errors in my ways", I merely wanted to stop having to interact with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one questioning my edits was you. They were reviewed. There was nothing in the ANI, or anything that anyone said, about me or any of my edits, that criticized them or which precluded me from resuming editing the article. YOU, on the other hand... You need to revert your edit, and I recommend removing the article from your watchlist. Miner Editor (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI works best when formal sanctions are not necessary. When the parties can come to an agreement and then walk away, resting assured that each side will do their best to abide by the agreement. You have done completely the opposite of what you told the community you were going to do, and I find your behaviour disgraceful. Miner Editor (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's incredulous that this, along with your 6 edits to my talk page, is how you choose to respond to me apologizing and withdrawing my report.
    And really, you're gonna refactor my comments now? [92] I said I changed my mind, and I explained why. You can feel however you want, but I'm allowed to change my mind. I was not under any pressure to step away from the article, and I only said I was going to because that was what I wanted, and still want for that matter. I'm just not willing to let it be at the expense of the article as I didn't expect you to use it as an opportunity to game the existing dispute.
    As for your edit that I reverted, I brought it up at the talk page, and I see you've already responded by calling me "a disgrace to the community". ––FormalDude (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You edited a closed discussion. That is a newb error. By striking your words in a closed discussion, a reader could think that I was unaware in my replies that you had taken your word back. Miner Editor (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's not good. As for Miner Editor's threat to "I will be asking for formal sanctions at ANI on them today unless they knock it off" - well, I've re-opened this thread so there's now a venue if you really want to do that, but I'd point out that having just read the article and the talk page I can see nothing sanctionable on the part of FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC
    1) WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have had to spend an astounding amount of time to prevent him from inappropriately framing everyone involved with Kennedy as a "conspiracy theorist" while refusing to include any other descriptions about the person, and it still continues. 2) They insisted on repeatedly adding to the lead the claim that a majority of his financial backing is from Republicans for which they could only find one very shaky source, after having been challenged, and ignoring WP:ONUS. This is a big deal. There is nothing more that foes of Wikipedia would like to cite as an example of our alleged unreliability than us saying RFK Jr recieves most of his money from Republicans when it is not true at all. I have more, but that's along the lines of my thinking at the moment... I have other stuff to do, but I'll be back. They have no business editing the article and are not only impeding it's improvement, they are jeopardizing it's reliability and reputation. Miner Editor (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still a content dispute. There are a few people who want the article to say one thing, there are others who want it to say another. And there's only one person being incivil on that talk page at the moment, and it isn't FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Insisting on inserting inflammatory, challenged and incorrect material into the lead is more than a "contet dispute". A pattern of tendentious editing is more than a "content dispute". Now, with that, I really DO have to get something done today. I'll be back later. Miner Editor (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not "insist repeatedly", I restored that content to the lede only once. After the talk page discussion, I did not object to another editor changing the same content in the body, and I would not have objected to them changing the content in the lede. In fact I've gone ahead and changed the lede myself to match the body. [93] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread has been reopened for Miner Editor, but Miner Editor has provided no evidence here and is making conduct accusations against me at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, including claiming I am WP:NOTHERE. [94]

    I also want to provide this timeline of events for anyone reviewing:

    • Last week, Miner Editor removed content which was reverted and started this talk page discussion that seemed to have resulted in stable content.
    • I then started this ANI and withdrew it shortly thereafter saying I no longer want to edit the article.
    • Barely 24 hours after I said I'd step away from editing the article, Miner Editor removed the same content that they had already tried removing last week. In trying to justify their second removal attempt, they completely change their mind on whether a source should be used, going from calling it "hilariously bad editing" and "amateur hour" to "it is a good source".

    Changing their entire opinion on a source to try to justify their edits gives the impression that they don't actually care about the sources so long as they can be used to push their personal POV. Stating that the source can be used for the claim they agree with, but not for the claim they don’t agree with, appears to be blatant cherrypicking. Note they’re not saying that the source doesn’t verify both claims, just that they only want to use it for the claim they like. [95] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FD mischaracterizes and misrepresents, as is their wont. Anyone wanting to know the real story would be advised to go to the talk page for the article, if you have the stomach. I have addressed their misunderstandings there and I do not have the time to do it again here. Miner Editor (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After giving it some thought and reading some threads, I have come to conclude that FormalDude probably was not attempting to evade a boomerang, and genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for all involved by withdrawing their complaint against me. I will strike those accusations/speculations of boomerang evasion, etc., at first opportunity with apologies to FormalDude. I still believe he is unfit to edit the RFK Jr Campaign article, though. I will give it some consideration, and if I come to the conclusion that FD needs formal sanctions, I will open a new case. Miner Editor (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not be asking that FD be warned or sanctioned in any way, at this time. That would be an exercise in futility. I still believe they are a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia (at least when they edit topics for which they are obviously passionate about) but I am going to drop the stick. Miner Editor (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be happy to walk away from ANI at this point, but Miner Editor calling me "unfit" and "a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia" is a personal attack since they're not providing any evidence/diffs nor seeking any warnings or sanctions.
    Since declaring that they will drop the stick, Miner Editor has already gone on to levy other personal attacks at me on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, such as:
    • Calling me "a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement". [96]
    • Accusing me of "bullshittery" and having a "reading comprehension issue". [97]
    If they're just going to keep up the uncivil personal remarks, this ANI may as well stay open. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    And they're still at it, now accusing me (without evidence) of stonewalling and tendentious editing. [98] Note that I have previously informed them that article talk pages are not the proper venue for conduct accusations. [99] ––FormalDude (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking, this is better covered at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miner_Editor. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks

    You are nothing more than an openly schizophrenic individual conditioned with anti-christian ideals that has hijacked biblical wikipedia pages on random biblical figures of your choosing. Unable to discern reality in your own life, you feel capable of discerning the reality of ancient figures. [100]

    Such poor discernment of reality, my schizophrenic friend. [101]

    I warned them it won't be taken lightly by admins, they did not listen. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Context is needed. Please see the context from tgeorgescu in his messages before and after these ones. Belittling and self-righteous dismissal of my concerns about his original research. Although my fallacy attack on him personally is irrelevant and I apologise for this, it was in response to his own off topic fallacy attacks towards me.
    He also never warned me of anything, which is why he hasn’t referenced you towards his warning to me. He lied, this warning doesn’t exist. DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't accuse me of lying. I have written very clearly I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, and using the above information against me in disputes will be considered a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please do not do it, it won't be taken lightly by admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu Could you be so kind as to provide a diff to that comment? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: That's from [102], and that's the only place on the web where I came out as a sufferer of schizophrenia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DennisRoddyy, not only are your comments violations of the No personal attacks policy, but they are scurrilous and contemptible. I encourage you to withdraw them unreservedly, and perhaps you can avoid getting blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu Hrm. That leaves one of two possibilities: 1) DennisRoddyy had not seen your user page, was speaking from a place of ignorance, and hit a raw nerve—which is a personal attack. 2) They had seen your user page and made the comment in spite of what you said. That is a flagrant personal attack. I agree with Cullen328 here: if DennisRoddyy wants to continue to participate in Wikipedia, they must unreservedly withdraw the comments—and ideally also apologize for them. —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seen The only thing dead in the water, is your understanding of reality itself, being a self admitting schizophrenic. from [103], it is hard to believe that he did not read my user page. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'm really supposed to comment on this board but what the heck.
    The personal attacks by DennisRoddyy are truly appalling and upsetting to see. Knitsey (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Knitsey, your sincere observations are always welcomed, and this noticeboard allows good faith comments by any editor in good standing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m happy to withdraw and remove these comments and I also directly apologise for them.
    I would also ask Tgeorgescu to withdraw his belittling personal comments regarding his assuming I have a pipe dream on the matter and his irrelevant assumptions about my personal identity DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs, DennisRoddyy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The fact posited by mainstream Bible scholars is that we don't know who wrote the gospel of Mark, but there are reasons to disbelieve the tradition that he was Mark. That's a vanilla claim, if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will highly probably say that. So, you are splitting hairs about an issue which is irrelevant to mainstream Bible scholarship. To draw the line: "the author of the Gospel of Mark could have been Mark" is not a mainstream POV. Your protests in this regard are contrived and futile. Authorship by Mark is dead in the water, and saying otherwise is a pipe dream."[104] This openly dismissive self-righteousness led to my retaliation, as you've seen. His claims are verifiably incorrect, even simply using the scholars he himself has referenced, yet he continues to move the goalposts of the discussion to confirm his views. Our mainstream scholastic consensus is that Mark may or may not have written the gospel. We simply do not know. Again, crucially, Mark MAY have been the author, contrary to what's written in the article which explicitly removes him from this possibility. I can provide countless reliable sources to confirm this if necessary, including his own sources. For some reason he continues to insist with certainty that Mark absolutely did not write it. No such certainty exists in any corner of mainstream scholarship.
    He goes on to ad hominem assume my identity is Christian, which I am not, but is an unnecessary attack on identity "admit your holy book has severe mistakes, instead you blaming those who point of the mistakes"[105]
    Further constant self-righteous belittlement about having "never read mainstream biblical scholarship in my life". [106] [107] DennisRoddyy (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated elsewhere in this thread, DennisRoddyy, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. But are you now rejecting a source published by Harvard University Press in favor of your own personal unreferenced interpretation? Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept the published source as it supports my assertion, not his.
    Why have you chosen to ignore the belittling self-righteousness I have referenced? DennisRoddyy (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or story" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pipe%20dream So, it's not like I would have accused you of actually using opium. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked DennisRoddy, but was reading the talk page discussion for context before doing so. Didn’t see this apology until after hitting the block button. I undid it… but I’m still not sure it’s wrong. I see a NOTHERE block coming pretty soon unless the attitude exhibited completely and totally changes. Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will delete the statements when I’m in front of a computer. Having now read the context you would have noticed the self righteous belittlement of my concerns about original research. Diffs will be provided shortly DennisRoddyy (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs better be provided shortly, DennisRoddyy, because you are skating on very thin ice at this point. You are not in a position to accuse another editor of self righteous belittlement without immediately providing rock solid evidence. Otherwise, you have violated WP:NPA again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About WP:OR, there was and is WP:CITEd a WP:RS/AC claim, namely Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century. I think the only way to read it is that most scholars today have abandoned the idea that Mark wrote Mark. Which DennisRoddyy denies. Besides, he got reverted by other editors (not me) when he tried to remove it from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, tgeorgescu, and I am quite familiar with Bart Ehrman, an eminent scholar. But as you know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, it was an argument against his repeated accusations that I would have violated WP:OR. Which, if true, would be a behavioral issue. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DennisRoddyy, if you are consistently arguing to reject modern scholarship like books authored by academics and published by academic outlets like the Oxford University Press, in favor of 1900 year old religious tracts, then that itself becomes a behavioral issue. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia that favors modern scolarship, not an outlet for promulgating orthodox religious dogma. There are countless websites where that sort of thing is welcomed, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps why I have accused him of ignorance deserves an explanation: Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, and so on, is one of the famous claims of mainstream Bible scholarship. E.g. lambasted here and defended here. So, it is known for a long time by both its opponents and its defenders. It's very hard to miss, especially for someone spending their time to oppose it. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, this is a problem because he wrote I am so well versed in the current mainstream biblical consensus [108] and The modern mainstream biblical consensus is that the author may or may not have been Mark, because the texts were originally untitled, and their attribution to these figures is based on 2nd century guesses about the origins of the untitled works. This is not my opinion, or some pipe dream you think I have, this is the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, whether you like it or not. [109]. The latter is a very superficial understanding of what mainstream Bible scholars claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I also doubt very much that they are really a lawyer. For what it's worth though, I think you're dead right that their claim to being an expert in this field is largely inconsistent with their commentary, which seems to be very confused with regard to the historicity of the Bible.
    Anyway, returning to the more immediate behavioural issues, even if anyone here were inclined to credit their (clearly very unlikely) excuses about the timing and meaning of their final edits with the benefit of every presumption, I for one would have gladly supported a community indef if it came to that. Their comments were so clearly calculated for maximum hatefulness and in a way that was both egregiously unacceptable and yet simultaneously petty beyond description, that I can't see that they could give even the project's single best mea culpa ever and win back the benefit of the doubt: what they said in the first instance was so far beyond the pale, so indicative of WP:CIR issues (to say nothing of the owership issues and ignorance of basic policy), that there was never any realistic hope they were going to be staying. Their post-block commentary is mere confirmation of that. SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do want to add though, tgeorgescu, that there were points where your tone took on a bit of a dismissive edge that probably could have elicited a strong reaction even from a more reasonable editor. I don't think it rises to the level of an actual violation of WP:CIV (even a mild one), but because it was enough to potentially give this user excuses for further poor behaviour, I'm going to point it out to you as purely practical advice if nothing else: please consider high-roading a little harder in these cases, if you follow my meaning.: it is much more effective against these types and gives them less excuse to try to justify their own disruption. SnowRise let's rap 05:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DennisRoddy (at their talkpage), seems to be suggesting they'll evade any blocks/bans. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    May this rank-and-file editor make the suggestion of a WP:DENY-based removal of talk page access? Something tells me this one is not going to be hard to spot when they do return. Though all things considered, we might want to consider whether this is actually the first time we've encountered their particular brand of disruption. SnowRise let's rap 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an atheist who supported Christ Myth Theory who had been socking, often promoting WP:OR against WP:RS, in Bible articles that were not so obvious targets for his advocacy of CMT (especially The Exodus). DennisRoddyy self-identifies as agnostic.
    If there was an excuse for me feeling irritated: I did not revert DennisRoddyy's edits, but other editors did. And he grudgingly took it to the talk page. So, I was addressing an editor who already edit-warred against WP:CONSENSUS (soon before that). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I understand, but I still think that (up to a certain point) it's easiest to deal with these types by starving them of the oxygen they need in order to pretend that their view is being suppressed, even if just as a purely practical/strategic/rhetorical matter. Corner them with kindness, to repurpose an old adage. Or at least, that's my view. Now obviously once they made the comments in question attacking you along those personal lines, all pretense that this was someone who could be reasoned with was done: those were some of the most targeted, personally hostile, and unacceptable comments I have ever seen leveled at another editor here. I would tell you that I'm sorry you had to deal with that, but I hope it goes without saying that virtually any goodfaith member of this community would be displeased to see them. Also, you seem like a fairly unflappable sort; those who have gone through true trials in their life often are, in the face of such clumsy, petty, and low provocation.
    Of course, that doesn't mean you didn't have the right to be incensed at that point. I only mean to stress that up until the moment such a nasty piece of work reveals their true colours, it's usually best to not give them excuses to point to when they do start to explode. But you can value that advice as you wish: your tone was just a little impatient at the very worst, and my overall impression of you and your conduct in this matter is very high, let me hasten to assure you.
    Getting back to the matter of potential socking, my feeling is that this editor is probably unlikely to be your CMT SPA: this editor was bothered by the prospect of saying in Wikivoice that the gospels are unlikely to have been authored by the apostles and their associates, so I can't imagine they are strong advocate for the theory that Jesus never existed even as a historical figure--those positions would seem to be in tension. Still, given Dennis' immediate threat to sock and disrupt the second they realized they couldn't talk their way out of this, I would say it would not shock me if this was their first rodeo. SnowRise let's rap 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About Ralphellis: his socks weren't promoting CMT in any obvious way, and they decided they like Ancient scholars more than modern scholars. So to speak, he was scratching his left ear with the right hand. He tried to hammer some points he thought were useful in the long run, there was no apparent connection to CMT. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on how recently DennisRoddyy was created and the threat of future socking, I think a CU might be called for here. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, to put it otherwise, Ralphellis wanted to win the debate through inserting apparently insignificant details in lots of articles. To those who did not know his arguments, those details were innocuous. His master move would have then been: "Why do you try to remove my POV? 30 Wikipedia articles support it." And he could win such argument only if WP:OR of Ancient scholars is allowed. So, he wanted Ancient scholars be recognized as WP:RS, but for different reasons than the Church. So, yeah, DennisRoddy wanted that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist. But why would an agnostic want that? For different reasons than the Church. If he did not cast his lot with Ancient scholars, it is hard to understand why he picked such side upon the authorship of this gospel. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Article Rebecca Bradley (justice) edits

    It just hit the news, the Justice herself has been editing her own article and allegations have been made of edit warring on her part. I'm not seeing an edit war, but there is a bit of heavy activity as of today (14 as of now). Can someone look into this, before we get a circus and perhaps, semi-protect the page now that it's in the news?Wzrd1 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi'd the page for three days and will watch after the protection expires to see if the activity resumes. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Bradley_(justice)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rlgbjd
    208.87.236.201 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article currently states that the account and subject are the same person, plus the editors talk page, and a report at COIN. All of this is based on one article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is turn is based on a tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Some BLP eyes might be useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article did also include an interview where Bradley confirmed she used the account. Muhibm0307 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks your the second editor to point out my mistake, I'll just slink of somewhere before EENG spellcheks my post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just slink of – See WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (Corollary 1). EEng 01:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed spellcheks my post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I scan left to right and stop at the first mismatch. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's enough sourcing now to include details about her editing of the article in the article itself. EEng 02:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EEng: I see that this is now included in the body, but has not been mentioned in the lede. I am wondering, does getting caught in the self-editing (or perhaps directed editing) of one's Wikipedia article generally merit mention in the lede? BD2412 T 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't really think so. I mean, it's a big deal to Wikipedia, but in the grand scheme of the outside world, most people don't care about it that much. Joyous! Noise! 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe it should be lead worthy, unless the case is egregious. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've removed the section. This happens every time someone edits their own article (Mike Lawler) or their article otherwise gets media coverage (Emily St. John Mandel). But a single news cycle of attention does not WP:DUE make, especially on a BLP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Tamzin: I see this as almost the opposite of a WP:DENY situation. Calling out those who manipulate Wikipedia in the most forward context possible (noting it in their article, and where it is substantial, in the lede) will discourage such behavior generally. BD2412 T 19:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Article content is entirely separate from user conduct considerations. To the extent that we have upheld BLP and our core content policies by omitting from articles the fact that their subjects are/were long-term abusers. More broadly, we do not use articles to "name and shame". We are an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's not just user (editor) conduct -- it's conduct of the article subject as well. And I can see some logic to using articles to name and shame when the shameful behavior occurred on Wikipedia itself. EEng 22:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't give ourself any special status in our articles. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        But what shame is there? WE are aghast because it's a violation of a WP policy, and we know that because we fiddle around behind the scenes all the time, but the average person who reads something like "...and she was caught EDITING HER OWN ARTICLE..." would immediately think "Yeah? So what?" Joyous! Noise! 03:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely we should also block the account for undisclosed COI editing and/or edit warring? SnowRise let's rap 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither of those usually results in a block on the first offense. And the username is her initials plus "JD", so not exactly an attempt to deceive. Plus the account hasn't edited in 2 months. Warnings should suffice for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your pro forma point and all, but the behaviour still seems pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE to me. SnowRise let's rap 04:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments

    User:The History Wizard of Cambridge has made about 3,000 edits over three years, during which time they have engaged in extensive WP:CPUSH behavior in favor of autocratic regimes. Their edits are almost exclusively in this area, and a large portion of these edits whitewash atrocities committed under communist states. This editor routinely finds technicalities, often quite tenuous, to remove any content that reflects poorly on China, Cuba, North Korea, the Soviet Union, or Vietnam. For this discussion, I've listed some examples from the last two months, but this is behavior that persists throughout their editing history and more examples can be provided if needed.

    I'm aware of the high bar before POV pushing is sanctionable, but this is consistent and sustained, necessitating a restriction on editing subjects related to communism and communist states. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey alien, I was overjoyed when you agreed to review my article on David Ivon Jones so I'm sorry it ended up like this.
    I specialise in editing pages on global communist movements and individuals, with example of my best work being Trevor Carter and Billy Strachan. I very often find that wiki pages on the history of communism (especially from the early days of wiki) have very lax standards and a lot of room for improvement. I often find that the editing standards on a lot of Wikipedia's pages on communism is far below what would be normal for most other political topic, especially the wiki pages of countries that United States once considered an enemy. Because of this I am often extra critical of the content of (mostly older) articles surrounding topics such as human rights in countries like Vietnam.
    Let's have a look at these cases individually.
    • Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169924025 – In the past week I deleted a lot of the information from the Việt Tân wiki. The majority of all the links were dead, most of the information on this organisation was cited as the Việt Tân's own website, whose links were also broken and unarchived. Most of the links hadn't been accessed since the late 2000s. The organisation describes itself as pro-democracy, which I found read like a press release and very self-aggrandising, and is contradicted by the fact the wiki page show Việt Tân supporters flying the flag of a government whose elections were rigged by Ngo Dinh Diem. Most of this wiki was very clearly written by a member of the Việt Tân trying to promote their organisation. I say this because most of the citations just (broken) links to the organisation's own website. I also deleted some of the citations for Voice of America, since I didn't consider an American state owned media outlet to be a reliable source of information on Vietnam, for the same reason I wouldn't consider Russia today a reliable source on Ukraine. It has been almost a week since I made these edits and none of the page's watchers disagreed with anything I did.
    • Aug 12: Special:Diff/1169608830/1169920317 – I made these edits for most of the same reasons as the Việt Tân wiki. I do not consider the U.S. State department a reliable source for information on a country the United States bombed. Even if other editors disagree, reliable academic sources on this subject are bountiful, we don't need to rely on primary sources.
    • Aug 11: Special:Diff/1169763206 – In this example I deleted this claim because half the wiki page for The Black Book of Communism is one big log of all the history professors who challenge the book's methodology. The claim itself of human experimentation is an extremely serious allegation so I aired on the side of caution.
    • Jul 29: Special:Diff/1167691330 – This was a completely unsourced quote with a three year old citation needed tag. I haven't read her book but I tried googling the quotes and she did not appear in the results. Considering this is a living person's wikipedia page I was extra cautious so I deleted the quote.
    • Jul 28: Special:Diff/1167511860 – Tim Pool's wiki page contains a lot of information on the media personalities he has been associated (Donald Trump Jr. Kanye West, etc), and the follow-up of his links with these people. When I saw his name appear in The Washington Post (see here) that I was reading on Yeonmi Park, I went to his wiki and left a couple of sentences in the same style as the other editors.
    • Jul 24: Special:Diff/1166815884 – Maybe you should include a page number? I often delete cited books that have no page numbers and I am unapologetic about this.
    • Jun 28: Special:Diff/1162362200 – I was read Ronald Grigor Suny's work Red Flag Unfurled (2017: Verso Books, 94-95) which discussed the historiography of the famine, which mentioned that most historians of Soviet history no longer believe the famine constituted as a "genocide". I don't "deny" the Soviet famine because there is a complete historical consensus that it happened, just as many of world's leading experts on the topic such as Professor Suny, Professor Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and R. W. Davies, don't agree that the Soviets intentionally tried to commit a genocide. Also some of the claims by Anne Applebaum at the bottom accusing an author of being a Soviet spy are pretty weak. I checked the original source and it seemed more like a rumour than a fact. Shouldn't we have stronger evidence before we allow a wikipedia page of a living person to contain such a contentious claim such as accusations that they worked with a foreign intelligence agency?
    • Jun 18: Special:Diff/1160694587 – A sentence in the wikipedia page for Cuba claimed that the Cuban government had conducted over 4,000 poltiical executions. I looked at the source and it sent readers to a dodgy looking blog from 1998 which didn't even mention executions.
    • Jun 17: Special:Diff/1160543383 – Again, maybe you should include page numbers when you cite a book?
    • Jun 16: Special:Diff/1160426290 – I don't feel as though you bothered to read my edit summaries. I deleted a paragraph by a sociologist who listed both positive and negative traits of communist governments. He listed greater rights for women as a positive and "less freedom" as a negative. How can greater rights for women not be considered a type of freedom? It was very strange. Since the paragraph I deleted also contained many positive aspects of communist states, I don't see how you could use this as an example to demonstrate that I am pushing my POV.
    The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely not appropriate to remove content cited to a book just because a page number has not been supplied. That's what {{page needed}} is for. Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody cannot give the page number of a book they cited then I doubt they actually read it. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People very frequently provide page numbers in books they haven't read, usually in the form of bare URL google books direct page links. Whether someone has or has not read a book is immaterial to whether the book supports the claim cited to it.
    I haven't looked into the diffs in this report and thus have no opinion on the report in general, which is context for my next statement, where I reverse your argument to assert that if you can't be bothered to verify whether or not a source supports a claim, you have no business removing the claim. Unless it's violating a content policy or something, just tag it {{page needed}} or {{verify source}}. We're supposed to assume good faith. Folly Mox (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Unverifiable is one thing; merely assuming it is unverifiable is another. I suggest you stop being unapologetic about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time other editors have ever pushed back on this so I'll start getting into he habit of using {{page needed}} or {{verify source}} in the future. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also just find the page number yourself. Often (especially for quotes), a Google Books search is sufficient to both find the page number and verify that the book says what the citation claims. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a source to a large book with no page numbers is near useless, and it is fair game for someone to delete it. If an editor chooses to be lenient then they can add page number required tag. In the same way an editor can choose to be lenient and not delete unsourced material and put citation needed tag. It is a choice not compulsion. Jagmanst (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just on the matter of the first removal, and on the use of VOA as a source, repeatedly over history, the consensus (as explained at WP:RSP) is that VOA is considered a reliable source; not all state-owned media is considered unreliable by default. It is not ownership (who pays the bills) but rather editorial independence that determines the reliability of such a source. VOA is no more state-owned than The Beeb is, and no one seriously questions their reliability. Russia Today lacks editorial independence from the Russian government and it has been documented time and time again that they knowingly publish falsehoods. Russia Today is a false equivalence with VOA. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Diff/1166815884 – Deleted sourced information documenting North Korean atrocities because the citation didn't have a page number. Reverted an attempt to restore the content. - just to be clear, the cited text refers to South Korean atrocities; maybe they misinterpreted it the same way you did, but I dug up the book to be sure because I found it slightly startling (and wanted to confirm the page numbers), and it's very clear. The yeonjwaje bit in question refers to the way the South Korean government (the ROK) would punish the relatives of defectors and even abductees to North Korea due to guilt-by-association. It shouldn't have been deleted but (unless they made the same mistake you did) it's not evidence of the bias you're accusing them of. EDIT: Also, regarding Special:Diff/1169763206, while they could have given the argument better it's broadly correct that the Black Book of Communism is not a WP:RS, certainly not one that can be used for facts unattributed (it's complex because different parts of it were written by different authors; but generally speaking the parts of it that people want to cite are the parts that are not reliable, especially since they're going to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL and require higher-quality sourcing.) See the most recent discussion here. A source's wiki page cannot of course directly make it unreliable (our pages can have their own biases and flaws, which we're all familiar with, and are not themselves reliable) but, as in this case, it does sometimes serve as a quick useful at-a-glance temperature check as to whether it's likely to be challenged, ought to be challenged - or whether it's worth trying to mount a defense of it, if you think it's reliable, as opposed to just finding a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I immediately recognized this editor's name, as they had made a rather unhelpful comment on the United States talkpage back in May. They certainly have a history of POV pushing in favor of communist regimes and in opposition to liberal democracies (particularly the United States), and they don't seem to be here to build a neutral encyclopedia. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I went to the talk page of a country with a torture camp and asked my fellow editors why the lead of said country claims to have a positive human rights record? Am I not allowed to raise my concerns with my fellow editors now? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You should address concerns in a friendlier manner. Calling it a "laughable description" instead of actually inquiring why it's there (and thus assuming good faith) is not helpful or conducive to a collaborative environment. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So what is it? They hurt your feelings or have a point of view you disagree with? Jagmanst (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From the discussions, I am persuaded 1) They have an interest and expertise regarding communist regimes. 2) They don't share common pro-western bias we may have come to expect in some corners of Wikipedia. 3) They have reasonable explanations for their edits and there is no evidence of point of view pushing. Not being biased is neutral point of view. Jagmanst (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible off-wiki coordination

    Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) 80.47.149.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) I reported this to AIV but I thought I might as well come here. This seems like a couple of kids using Wikipedia as social media or intentionally trying to draw attention (which they have done, so all power to them). See User talk:80.47.149.26 for what I'm talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A portion of that IP page has been suppressed, the behavior, etc in general can still be evaluated here. — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt there's any off-wiki coordination, just a very questionable choice of who to befriend. @Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit:. Please do not use Wikipedia as a social network. If you do so again in the future, you may be blocked from editing. Just focus on improving articles. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From talk page subjects and IP whois, 80.47.149.26 looks to be evading an active month-long block on 89.243.205.200 (talk · contribs · logs). Belbury (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    • I have blocked the new IP address, removed some misuse of User talk:Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit for chat unrelated to work for Wikipedia, semi-protected that talk page, and left a note there explaining to Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit that a talk page is only for discussions related to work for the encyclopaedia. I hope that those steps may go somewhere towards conveying the message to the IP editor. (I am usually very reluctant to apply any kind of protection to a user talk page, but in this case there have never been any edits to the page by any other non-autoconfirmed editor, so the risk of collateral damage is tiny.) JBW (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor

    See edit history for A E WORLD (talk · contribs), especially to prominent articles. Not responding to messages at their page, which sometimes leads me to suspect they've been down this road before. At any rate, they ought to be slowed down at the least, and allow for others to clean up in their wake. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect there's much still on the table that is problematic, EvergreenFir, as at Christians Against Poverty, where overlinking is in play, but even more so WP:ENGVAR. There's just a lot here that the user isn't yet familiar with, and shouldn't be making mass edits, thinking they're constructive. At any rate, I'll be away for some hours. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay to say that. I would just stop editing for now. It's not like you got to know all of these things in a day too, so pls be patient. Starheroine (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ayyuha Sideeq is active again, EvergreenFir. See the most recent edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Starheroine, I have gone through many, but by no means all of the articles you edited. The problems are multiple, and though I'll repeat some of what I've already written, I'm not leaving all the diffs here at the moment. You can easily find my reversions and edit summaries. In brief, the major problem has been WP:OVERLINKing, which looks indiscriminate and often arbitrary. This stands as an example of dozens of similar edits: [111]. Many of the grammar changes have not been improvements--some were misspellings [112], a few didn't allow for WP:ENGVAR [113], and in a few others you rephrased quoted content [114]. Your most recent edit added a source that had almost no relevance to the adjacent content [115]. What's of additional concern is that it's clear that there's a coordinated effort by multiple users--my initial question as to whether one editor was using multiple accounts is hopefully unfounded--to copy edit at some of the same articles, but nobody has yet been forthcoming about this. Instead, there's been much grammatical and formatting error and disruption of some basic copy editing guidelines, explained away with edit summaries suggesting these are all improvements. In fact, they leave behind a ton of clean up for other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd check them out carefully. Thank you very much Starheroine (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir isn't the link validating that there's an Ontario park? since that's also a news about the same location Starheroine (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, we learn everyday. I'd really pay attention. Starheroine (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another one, EvergreenFir, Lourdes: Pmanofficial (talk · contribs). Deforestation is protected, so I can't revert the edits there. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor English vs British

    Howdy, Recently 51.6.6.209 (talk · contribs) has been changing the word British in the body and text of Wikipedia articles to English or Scottish etc.[116] Now IP editor 146.90.190.240 (talk · contribs) has joined in. In all of their edit summary's they are a bit abusive "English born and bred. when the home nations get their indepence back we will get our country back! no more of this vague 'British' nonsense": Special:Contributions/146.90.190.240. I left a Message on 51's talk page and have copied the same message on 146's.

    51 does not want to engage in constructive conversation only to hurl abuse at the other editors User talk:51.6.6.209#August 2023.

    I hope this is the right place to post about this/these individuals. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've encountered this IP recently, too. I was the one who initially reverted the edit that had the edit summary OP lists. Their response to me was To the editor clled Cello. You need to stay clear of English people you biggotted selfish hyprorite! Representing him as English IS impartiality! To call him British is vague and IS partial and anti English! This is a public site for editorial freedoms and you do not own this site! you are merely an equal contributor! Other articles have people represented as English so whay can't he!!! Dammit you blind fool!! Petty freak! Power hungry egotist!!!!,[117] and then again on their page.[118] (ignoring the fact I am English). They seem to be here to right great wrongs / have an axe to grind. — Czello (music) 09:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't edited for three days, so I've given them a final warning for incivility. I'll block them if they kick off again. Also, why is it that people with these types of views inevitably (a) can't spell and (b) overuse exclamation marks? Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, did you see the second IP has edited the same pages with similar edit summary's. Paulpat99 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked that one for a week. Calling other editors racist - not happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite They've been at this for a long time, They were doing the same thing as EnglishBornAndRaised way back in February. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I blocked someone for doing that a few months ago. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they're editing from a UK ISP with a lot of ranges, so rangeblocks aren't going to be any use here. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be a good candidate for an edit filter? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, but we only really tend to do that for really persistent and disruptive vandals. I'll have a look, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A new IP has started with this non-sense 87.114.46.81 (talk · contribs). Paulpat99 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.Bitton

    I've had a series of reverts with this user who gave me two disruptive editing warnings, for two edits I made to address the neutrality of the lead in Dakhla, Western Sahara (the latest revert).

    The user then started attcking me saying "You know very well what I'm talking about (the sources about the occupation)" and "Don't play games with me"while also claiming that "(It's an undisputed fact that is used throughout wikipedia.)" that the Western Sahara is "occupied" despite the fact that the whole place is called a disputed territory.

    Its worth noting that nowhere in my edits did I say that the place is not occupied or disputed, and I actually expanded the infobox to say that the place is claimed by both Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as done in the Laayoune, another disputed city in the Sahara.

    I think the user doesn't have a NPOV when it comes to the Western Sahara conflict, as 1. I feel that my edits were appropriate, 2. The reaction was personal, 3. Almost all of the user's top edits revolve around the Algeria, Berbers, Morocco and the Westen Sahara conflict. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I left two warnings on your talk page because you kept replacing sourced content with your POV. In the discussion that followed, first you said I'll submit a NPOV to see whats wrong with your pattern of reverts, then acknowledged the issue (that you had a preference for a word) and later started pretending not to understand what you did. If anything, your persistent source misrepresentation to push POV is the real concern here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you changing your replies? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and "pretending" and "persistent source misrepresentation" are far from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't start a ANI report and expect good faith. As for your question: I'd say, because I can, but mostly, it's because I think you are here to push the political POV of the UAE (your preferred subject). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how? Vyvagaba (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's for you to explain why you misrepresented the sources to push a political POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did't misrepresent anything, I made the lead more neutral, while acknowledging the political dispute. You can disagree with me on that, but the way the article is phrased is not neutral. Vyvagaba (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not open to debate. You misrepresented the source (about the occupation). This is a fact that is visible to anyone who checks this diff. Keep denying it if it amuses you, I have better to do than repeat the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a content dispute with a lot of holes being dug deeper. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's been closed as not being a content dispute, but a behavior dispute at WP:NPOV.[119] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The source Vyvagaba removed as it doesn't contain the word occupied, was never supporting text that said occupied. That part of the sentence only ever said disputed, which is support by the reference. Also having removed that reference they added additional text, without any new reference. The part of the sentence containing the word occupied (before it was removed) was supported by a reference to this document from the UN, which does specifically say that Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco (point 3 top left of second page).
      So sourced content was removed and apparently unsourced content added. I can certainly see why M.Bitton has little patience for this.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you please view this version as @M.Bitton is still being difficult. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You restored the reference that should not have been removed, but you have still removed the word occupied which was properly referenced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I restored the reference in the second edit, I kept the word occupied, and kept the reference while acknowladging and refrencing other reliable sources that administer/control rather than occupy. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You misrepresented the two sources by attributing what they say in their own voice to the Polisario (see explanation and diff in the note below). Once more, your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No what you did was change it to but is also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco. The source is a UN declaration, to turn that in "the Polisario Front says" is most definitely a misrepresentation of the source. The fact that you then say that you kept the word occupied, without saying how you changed the wording doesn't engender trust in your argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please go through the sources I added, which clearly don't use occupy. Assuming one characterisation over widely used others is the reason why were having this debate. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we wasted enough time with your nonsense. Your responses have been rightly described by others on the NPOV board as "pointlessly evasive and disingenuous". M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes but there is both a primary source and a secondary source that show that the UN considers Western Sahara to be occupied. You can't use those sources to say also claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco as that's not what they say.
      It appears quite clear that you intent is to downplay the word occupied, even if that goes against the sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I represented the views of both sides of the issue, we can add a sentence on the views of other bodies, but the article is on a city of 100K not the Political status of Western Sahara. Thw word occupied goes with SOME sources and not all of them. The whole point of downplaying the word occupied is to consider both sides and not lean on the "occupied" view on the issue. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. Btw, reliable sources supporting the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum. M.Bitton (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The status of WS is disputed, your using your POV (that the place is occupied) to push your view over all others in the lead. There are many sources and countries that dont agree with your charchtarisation of "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied". I included your view in the recent edit on the PF side of the story, and the Moroccan side of the story. We can add a line or two to include the view of NGOs or rights groups, as done in other disputed territories (Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Vyvagaba (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      International law is not based on the opinion of some countries, so no dispute there. In any case, none of this is relevant to the fact that you misrepresented the sources to push your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I got that. I'm looking to improve the neutrality of the lead of the article, and I'm here to debate that. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't debate that here, it's not for ANI to weigh in on content issues. The discussion should be on behaviour issue alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of what both sides of the view are, you can't use sources that say the UN considers the Western Sahara to be occupied to say that the Polisario Front say the Western Sahara is occupied. That isn't a matter of showing both sides, that's misrepresentation of sources. You could rewrite the lead to include the Polisario Front's claims, but you would still need to include the UN's opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, the UN itself avoids using the term in recent publications. Example 1, Example 2 to the extent some claim that the United Nations supports the occupying Power. Vyvagaba (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First, that's your irrelevant opinion (as the OUA source says otherwise). Second, you keep ignoring what others told you: the ANI board is for behaviour issues. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why are you changing the subject? :) Vyvagaba (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again that's not the point, this discussion isn't about content. The sources that are currently in the article don't support how you changed the article. Why did you change the article to something not support by the sources in the article without supplying sources to support your changes? It is also very easy to find recent sources stating that Western Sahara is occupied, 1 2 3 4. You appear to think that NPOV is neutrality, it's not. NPOV is representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources, not bothsideism. Removing that Western Sahara is occupied or that changing the sentence to state that the Polisario Front say it's occupied is WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I disagree with your characterisation of my edits as WP:FALSEBALANCE. Based on your what I think you're saying, I should keep sources that support the view that the place is occupied, and not add or mention any sources that the place is administered by Morocco; this is far from "representing all major and minor views present in reliable sources by the weight of those sources" please see the sources I listed below. I think that the state of the lead shows a clear bias to the PF (and some rights groups) view. Is that the gist of it?
      P.S. its also easy to find many reliable sources that say the place is adminstered, controlled or de facto controlled by Morroco, including the UN and rights groups. Examples
      United Nations Mission For The Referendum In Western Sahara "MINURSO continued to assist both parties in maintaining the ceasefire across the ‘berm’, which stretches along the entire length of the disputed territory and separates the Moroccan-administered portion (west) from the area that is controlled by the Frente Polisario (east)."
      ICRC "Both parties eventually accepted the Settlement Plan and a cease-fire formally took effect in September 1991, with Morocco controlling the vast majority of the territory and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders."
      BBC "This ends with a UN-brokered cease-fire which sees the Polisario controlling about 20% of the territory, the rest being controlled by Morocco.",
      France 24 "Morocco de facto controls 80 percent of the vast desert region, rich in phosphates and with a long Atlantic coast abutting rich fishing waters.",
      Childrens Rights Research "These two dominant narratives are the narrative of the Moroccan nationalists on the one hand, and of the Sahrawi activists on the other. According to the Moroccan nationalists, the Western Sahara is Moroccan territory. According to the Sahrawi activists, Morocco is illegally occupying the Western Sahara, a territory that belongs to the indigenous Sahrawi people."
      Crisis Group "In 1979, Mauritania withdrew and left Western Sahara solely under Moroccan control. Over time, Rabat solidified its grip on most of this area by constructing a barrier called the “sand berm”, with the Polisario retaining control of the remaining 20 per cent, which it refers to as “liberated territory”."
      Al Jazeera "Rabat controls 80 percent of the territory, including its phosphate deposits and its fishing waters.
      Morocco, which maintains that Western Sahara is an integral part of the kingdom, has offered autonomy but insists it will retain sovereignty.
      The Algeria-backed Polisario Front, which fought a war for independence from 1975 to 1991, demands a referendum on self-determination.".
      New York Times "Despite that recognition, Morocco controls most of the country, including the entire 500-mile-long Atlantic coast, while Polisario is limited to occupying parts of the desert interior." Vyvagaba (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When you stop comparing apples to oranges and find a scholarly source (like the one used in the article) that says Western Sahara is not occupied, then and only then, you can take your so-called concerns to the article's talk page and talk about balance (a waste of time if you ask me, as I'll swamp it with scholarly sources stating the exact opposite). Meanwhile, this discussion is about your unacceptable behaviour and I think it's time that the admins intervene, because this has gone on for far too long and you're clearly wasting everyone's time with your constant evasion of the issue at hand. @Rosguill: could you please share your views on this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No one said the place is not occupied, you're being pretty dogmatic and your not being constructive whatsoever. It's pretty clear you're pushing your political views at this point, evidenced by your demeanour, and history of scouting and creating WS and Algeria-related articles, so let others opine on it since you made your views pretty clear. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You did, when you misrepresented the sources that say so in their own voices and attributed the word "occupied" to the Polisario's opinion. If multiple multiple editors (here and on the NPOV board) can't even get you to admit to what you did, let alone explain why, then maybe the admins will. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Back to "misrepresented"!!. I'm discussing how to improve the lead, you don't think there's anything wrong with it and you thing, and you believe that "the undisputed fact that WS is illegally occupied can be cited ad infinitum", which I appreciate, but your phrasing erases any other opinions on the issue.
      I'm providing sources to support the phrasing I'm suggesting, the point of the debate is to get opinions on improving the article, but you clearly have nothing to add, and FYI the discussion is still open so there's room to hear opinions other than the ones made.Vyvagaba (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: the source misrepresentation continues: the OP has attributed claimed by the Polisario Front, who consider the city occupied by Morocco to two reliable sources[120][121] that say no such thing (both talk about the occupation in their own voice). They are clearly desperate to push their POV by whatever means necessary, including but not limited to sources misrepresentation, forum shopping, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: I informed @M.Bitton several times about their personal attacks, including in the the original post yesterday, but this seems to be a pattern, which I believe is part of their bias several topics. The latest example in my dispute, and another NPOV dispute hours after mine on Arabic Numerals with the same "misrepresentation" show. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the fact that you started following me to other articles that you never edited before (clearly to harass me). M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not harassing anyone, you're literally involved in the NPOV dispute under mine that has your username listed in the second sentence. I had an opinion on the topic so I used the talk page of the article to add mine, and its a opinion that has nothing to do with you. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to find an excuse for everything, except for your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI this thread is about your personal attcks, any disagreements we have should't be personal. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, this is about your persistent misrepresentation of the sources to push a POV (a fact that is supported by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Misrepresentation is not the subject of this message thread, its your personal attacks. We're debating my "misrepresenation" in the thread over this one. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have news for you: you don't decide what is debated here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably read WP:BOOMERANG. Everyone's behaviour is under scrutiny at ANI including even uninvolved bystanders like myself (see WP:VEXBYSTERANG), not just the user reported. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that we're having a constructive debate, I don't expect personal attacks for my opinons. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we are not. The only thing that I will be discussing (until it's properly addressed) is your persistent misrepresentation the sources to push your POV. You can try all you want, I won't let you change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got that, you're not being constructive by pasting what the same mantra in every reply. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some sympathy for the repeated reply, even if it's not overly helpful, as you have evaded answering the question on why you change that part of the sentence to not match what the sources stated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source misrepresentation highlighted by ActivelyDisinterested has been met with unacceptable evasion. I think a tban from Polisario Front is appropriate, although given the level of combativeness it seems likely that it will turn into a block. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that I've been pretty civil and non-combative on this, despite the many personal attacks I got, which is why I decided to bring this to ANI. I'm trying to clarify my edits and give supporting evidence to support my opinions. The whole point of the discussion is to find some consensus on the edits I'm suggesting, so I really don't understand why a tban or block would be needed. Vyvagaba (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And again the only thing this board is for is behavioural issue, it should never give any consensus on content edits. Also this is, again, evasion to the point raised. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A distraction. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to pile it on, but there's another issue at NPOV/N involving M.Bitton stonewalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Editors_standing_guard_to_prevent_Arabic_numerals_from_even_linking_to_Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system
    Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter nonsense! In fact in the other irrelevant (to this one) discussion, the editor made made a baseless complaint about unnamed editors and gave a list of diffs, that incidentally include 2 admins (one of whom revert the usual pov 6 times). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Most of the editors there are saying he's 100% in the wrong on this one is an accurate reading of the linked discussion, or the original discussion at Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system. At any rate, that seems to be a content dispute that is entirely unrelated to this one, and I don't see anything clearly sanctions-worthy in the behavior there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Looking at what the IP did to the article (they linked one of the many bolded common names, a redirect to the main article, to another article), I'm not surprised that they found their way here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

    User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Poochasaurus and unsourced BLPs

    (non-admin closure) Poochasaurus has been blocked for a week by Deor for copyright infringement, persistent addition of unsourced content, and not engaging with other editors when the concerns were brought forth. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Poochasaurus (talk · contribs · logs) has been creating WP:BLPs with no references in mainspace. Editors have draftified some of these [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], PROD'd one [128], and deleted two as copyright infringement (B.K. Davis, Thomas L. Moser).

    Editors have posted repeatedly on Poochasaurus's talk page, but Poochasaurus has continued to create unsourced BLPs. The first two notes, which pointed out the lack of sources as a problem, were left at 18:40, 6 August; Poochasaurus created seven unsourced BLPs after that.

    Poochasaurus recreated one of the BLPs, Robert Sieck, after it was draftified (Draft:Robert Sieck).

    This might be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. However, Poochasaurus ignored maintenance templates, editing a page with both a PROD notice and a BLP unsourced template without adding references: [129]. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a BLP, but their latest creation, Carver Kennedy, is an unsourced copyright violation. Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted that article and the corresponding draft as copyvios. Deor (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (add) It looks as though Poochasaurus has been going through the redlinked names in Rogers Commission Report and attempting to turn the links blue. Deor (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Poochasaurus added all of those redlinked names in their many edits to that article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also unsourced defamatory content on a BLP.[130] The Robert S. Ryan article they created is simply a copy-paste of the NASA bio (I think those are public domain so not copyvio). Their non-copied edits are unsourced and poorly written. (example) I think this editor needs to be blocked from mainspace until they communicate, acknowledge the problems with their edits, and demonstrate through talk page edit requests that they understand how to source encyclopedic content. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for a week to give the user a chance to respond to editors' concerns. Anyone who wants to reduce or extend the time of the block is welcome to do so without informing me. Deor (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Promotional editing is making a speedy deletion confusing

    (non-admin closure) Mariyachowdhury has been indefinitely blocked by Girth Summit for disruptive editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Younusr Howlader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Mariyachowdhury first moved the page View to Younusr Howlader. I moved the page back and nominated the resulting redirect Younusr Howlader for speedy deletion. Mariyachowdhury then replaced the article with this, which I subsequently reverted. Mariyachowdhury then proceeded to replace the entire page with a very promotional biography. After I nominated this for deletion for being promotional, they removed the promotional content, so my speedy delete tag doesn't apply, but the subject is not notable at all and the only source is a blog. I do not wish to keep switching the speedy deletion criterion, so I need an admin to deal this. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Burninated. —Cryptic 07:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cryptic @Nythar This user has hijacked a couple of other articles as well, Hridoy Islam was moved to Sakib Ahmed Tuhin and replaced with a biography of a different person, Alam Khan discography was moved to Atikur Rahman Mahi and replaced with a spam biography. Could you clean up those pages too please? I strongly suspect this is UPE. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleaned up those pages, I think. I will also be indef blocking Mariyachowdhury for DE (as well as their sock, Samirakhanmahibd). Girth Summit (blether) 11:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivambangwal? casualdejekyll 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rangeblock sought for Colombian IPs

    (non-admin closure) 186.31.192.0/19 blocked 3 years by Jayron32. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 20:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    We have a long-term abuser in Colombia who jumps in with profanity every month or so on various IPs. Can we put together a rangeblock that will stop this person with as little collateral as possible? IPs from the past couple of years listed below. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think 186.31.192.0/19 should take care of the whole lot of those. There's maybe 3 edits there from the past year or two that aren't our profanity-loving numetal friend, which is pretty low collateral damage. --Jayron32 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and pulled the trigger and blocked that range for 3 years. If anyone objects to my block, feel free to undo it, but I think at this point, the signal-to-noise ratio coming from that range is far to lousy to keep it open. --Jayron32 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, that'll do it. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:HOUNDING, WP:INCIVILITY and WP:PERSONALATTACKS by User:Therapyisgood

    Therapyisgood was recently blocked 31 hours for personal attacks made at the Did you know? talk page and at theleekycauldron's request for adminship. While those comments were not addressed at me, these seem to be part of a campaign of his to drive me off the site by commenting at many of the discussions I've participated in and trying to get the opposite of what I want to happen. Therapyisgood has engaged in this WP:HOUNDING of me since about January. His behavior towards me has made me feel uncomfortable, has caused me great stress and has made me think at times about leaving the site. I've been trying my best not to retaliate and to be as civil as possible during this time, but Therapyisgood has continued HOUNDING me again and again and again for months. I didn't want to do this, but I feel I have to take him here now for this as I think it has to stop. I've listed below many of the numerous examples of his HOUNDING, ranging from simply commenting at pages I do to outright nasty comments.

    What seems to have started this
    • Therapyisgood seems to have started HOUNDING me after the I saved several of his AFD nominations from deletion last January. He brought me to ANI, and you can read the ensuing discussion here (in short, there was no consensus for any sanction or warning against anyone there). I admit I may have been somewhat uncivil at the time, but I have since made sure to be extremely cautious about what I say and have tried very hard to be civil in all circumstances (also FWIW, therapy had his fair share of unncivility at the time as well, see for example [131] and [132]).
    Worst violations since then
    More minor instances of HOUNDING since then
    • At the start of March, when the WP:LUGSTUBS Olympian removal discussion started, I !voted "oppose" - right after, "Support, per above. Therapyisgood" [133].
    • A week later, I went and made a major expansion to Fred Vehmeier to save him from AFD - immediately after I did that, "Delete - Therapyisgood" [134].
    • Several days after the DYK issue (above section), there was an AFD for Junior varsity, I said keep, right after Therapyisgood made the opposite vote [135].
    • April 25, there was a close review for the initial close of the Olympian discussion (which was no consensus) - I voted endorse - right after, sure enough "Overturn - Therapyisgood" [136].
    • May 10 - I nominated Joe Kapp to appear at recent deaths - right after "Oppose - Therapyisgood" for there being sourcing issues (while this was correct, its also odd how he found out about this one yet almost never participates at ITN besides this - he also didn't strike his oppose when all the issues had been cleared up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1154170443 ).
    • Also May 10, I commented at an NSPORT discussion, right after he does as well [137].
    • June 2: I was saying we should keep the article on Tavon Rooks - then "Delete - Therapyisgood" [138] - this contributed to it being deleted.
    • June 8: voting delete at a discussion I was involved in and wanted kept [139]
    • July 2: commenting at a discussion I was involved in [140]
    • July 3: voting delete at a discussion I wanted kept [141]
    • July 8: voting support shortly after I voted oppose at a discussion [142]
    • The lone oppose vote at theleekycauldron's RFA, a discussion I had put a "support" vote on.

    Interestingly, looking at Therapyisgood's AFD log, every single discussion at which he has participated since late January was one involving me (minus the nominations, although they were all in either topics I was involved or on articles I worked on) (and in all cases, him voting after my involvement (he commented at Wilson Raynor before me, but that was only after I was involved in a NFL talk page discussion on him)). Also of note, only 51% of his AFD nominations (19-18) were successful and that number drops to 10-16 since October 2021. Since January 2023, he is 8-10. I apologize for the massive amount of text, but I wanted to show just how extensive his HOUNDING of me has been. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment just wanted to note three things: (1) Therapyisgood appears to still have 6 hours on their block, and thus won't be able to respond to this discussion for a bit, and (2) their comment at DYK was definitely unhelpful, but I really didn't take it as much of a personal attack (although I understand how others would view it as such), and (3) although some of the diffs mentioned by BeanieFan11 (like the RFA vote) seem fairly incidental, all taken together there does appear to be problematic behavior by Therapyisgood and it would likely be beneficial for them to avoid interacting with Beaniefan11 moving forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the RfA comment could be coincidence, I also find it odd how theleekycauldron is one of only two RfAs Therapyisgood has ever participated on (per xtools), and it also happens to be one of only two RfAs I've participated in since last January. Its also interesting how every single AfD Therapyisgood has voted on since late January happens to have been right after one of my votes/right after I discussed the article, and in almost all cases he voted against what I was voting for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking this over, and came to much the same conclusions as Gonzo fan. The look on Therapyisgood is not very great, based on the evidence presented; it does appear they are specifically following BeanieFan111 around in a way that really toes the line with WP:HOUNDING. Still, I would like to hear their response before passing judgement entirely; they have a long history at Wikipedia with a mostly clear block log, otherwise. Let's wait a day and see what they have to say for themselves. If both volunteered to avoid each other, it would save a lot of hassle in voting on an interaction ban, which is where I see this going. --Jayron32 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One way or another, I'm convinced that Therapyisgood needs to disengage from hounding BeanieFan11. If he voluntarily submits himself to a 1-way interaction ban, great; if not, I would support imposing one on him. But the course of conduct that he has engaged in over the past several months shouldn't be condoned. Kurtis (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My concern with a 1-way IBAN is how you would define the scope. What are we saying - just don't participate in areas of Wikipedia where BeanieFan11 participates? Or are we talking about a very specific limitation on behavior? If they both happen to edit in the same subject areas, then it seems inevitable that there will be conflict. Honestly given his brusque comments such as the clearly unpleasant "get a real job" at DYK, a behavioral sanction might be a better idea. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:IBAN does delineate the scope of an interaction ban. We can also impose additional restrictions, such as not participating in the same article maintenance (deletion, moving, etc.) after the other has already done so, not nominating articles for deletion the other has significantly contributed to, etc. If they can't self-manage enough to avoid that, we can look at more stringent sanctions.--Jayron32 12:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment with respect to BeanieFan11 whom I ahve much respect. How about we leave this editor alone for a bit? They have been badgered, blocked and skewered for days. The hits keep coming. Lets see how they act after they return from their putative 31 hour block. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that he has been badgered, blocked and skewered, as you say, but I felt that I needed to bring this up, because for eight months Therapyisgood has been (intentionally, it seems, from what I have seen) causing me great stress and I really would like it to stop. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with BeanieFan11. The behavior of editors on WT:RFA doesn't excuse continued, ongoing misbehavior towards other editors in any sector of Wikipedia, especially since this is long-term behavior that has apparently been happening for a while. Sorry, but WP:HOUNDING is a big deal; it verges on harassment. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unblocked therapyisgood per their request, ownership of their trolling, comments on their talk page and desire to participate in this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, please see my responses below. Thanks again. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Jayron32. It is better if both editors agree to stay away from interacting with each other for some time. If one gets involved in a dispute (e.g. an AfD on a specific article, the other avoids getting invovled in the same AfD). If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Therapyisgood: and @BeanieFan11:, can you both agree to an WP:IBAN with each other? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm... I'm not sure I want to have my name engraved on the editing sanctions page when I don't think I've really done anything wrong. I'll have to think about this further. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spend a bit of time at DYK and that's where I come across both Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11. I can't say that the latter has ever caught my eye. The former, however, has displayed some unexpected and inappropriate behaviour. Over the last few months, I recall that at various occasions, my thoughts were that "this user needs some of what his user name suggests". What had not occurred to me, though, is that many (or all?) of those behaviours were in relation to BeanieFan11. HOUNDING is absolutely not ok and when this happens over several months, this behaviour is distressing and drives editors away. An IBAN (one-way, to be clear) is the minimum sanction. I would like to go further and given that BeanieFan11 spends quite a bit of time at DYK, a DYK WP:TBAN for Therapyisgood seems in order. Schwede66 21:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way WP:IBAN at a minimum, including not being allowed to cast !votes in the same discussion, given the longer-term pattern presented in the evidence above that appears to target BeanieFan11. No comment on the validity of individual content concerns raised by Therapyisgood: while they have themself contributed some high-quality content, their AfD track record isn't solid, and I don't see widespread similar contributions in projectspace that would serve as clear counterexamples of hounding. As another example, participation at WP:VP in 2023 is limited to two threads in which they !voted opposite to BeanieFan11, though I'm willing to look past the RfA !votes in light of DanCherek's comment. I also encountered a couple of older instances of inappropriate behavior from Therapyisgood (this edit summary, and the original hook of this DYK nomination) – perhaps isolated at the time, but not too dissimilar from the focus of this discussion. I also echo WaltCip's concerns about the sincerity of their apology.Complex/Rational 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TIG's response

    • I don't have a lot of time but I'd just like to say I'm sorry for any problems I've caused @BeanieFan11: over the past few months. I will voluntarily agree to a direct IBAN but I'm still a bit confused about what that would entail (ie if I can vote in the same AFD they've already voted in, just not directly responding to them). Again I don't have the time to go over everything here but some of the stuff is a bit petty (ie the most recent RFC, which obviously had nothing to do with him). But I really do have to say BeanieFan11 has a way of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior (hounding @JoelleJay: among others), which if given time I can find diffs of. The first ANI report was "no consensus", which doesn't strike me as hounding at all given other users supported a warning for him. But if it was again I'm sorry. The Commons stuff I'm sorry for, but at least two of those discussions have continued and appear to have merit. Again I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused and will abide by anything the community decides. The "cry harder about it" comment was out of left field but again BeanieFan11 really does piss me off sometimes. But again I'll abide by anything the community has to offer and once again I'm sorry for what I've done. Take care. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interaction ban means that if one of you comments on an AfD, the other does not comment there at all. If one reverts on some content, the other does not revert or comment on the same content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at WP:IBAN it reads to me that you are allowed to take part in the same discussion but not to make reference to the other person "directly or indirectly". SO don't address the other person's arguments but potentially you can address a totally different aspect of the issue. Dronkle (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the typical case for interaction bans, but the community can choose to expand the scope as needed. And given the context, it seems that may be needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If both editors are allowed to take part in the same discussion, that is not a true interaction ban. If one editor votes "Support" in a content discussion, the other can vote "Oppose" just for sake of opposing and annoying the other editor, without making any reference directly or indirectly. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, that type of behavior seems to be the reason this thread was opened in the first place. But I can't see why a mutual i-ban is warranted unless someone presents evidence that the wrongdoing goes both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        A one-sided i-ban too would be OK, though I think that it would be better if both agreed to not interact with each other directly or indirectly. If someone would be banned from interacting with me, I would avoid getting involved in a discussion where they are already present. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Being interaction banned is a sanction, though. Unless someone can produce evidence of misconduct by both sides, a two way IBAN is inappropriate. And I’m not seeing that evidence here. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If the i-ban is imposed by the community/admins, then ofc it should be one-sided. A two-way i-ban would make sense only if both editors agreed to stay away from each other to calm things down. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        We do not need to calm things down. We need to prevent one editor from continuing to follow another editor around. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that in a one-way i-ban, BeanieFan is allowed to take part in a discussion where TIG is present, but now allowed to address/make a reference to TIG directly or indirectly. TIG due to the i-ban would not be able to respond, so addressing or making a reference to someone who can't respond to you is pointless, if not ridiculous. Btw, just so you know, WP:IBAN says that A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Barring any future presentation of evidence against BeanieFan11, it seems pretty clear which editor is in the wrong. This isn't a no-fault situation, so I'm not interested in a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. One editor is hounding another, so give them both the same sanction? I don't think so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Read carefully what I said above. I did not say BeanieFan should be sanctioned, I made a suggestion to BeanieFan. Up to them what they decide to do. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I did it read it carefully. Perhaps more carefully than you, in fact, given that there appears to be a typo that significantly changes the meaning of your first sentence ('now' vs. 'not'). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, thanks for pointing out the typo: that is amazing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @ Therapyisgood: look. I see where you're coming from. BeanieFan and I are on diametrically opposing sides of a lot of notability issues. We're both opinionated, active in some of the same areas, unlikely to change our minds, and I grit my teeth a lot ... the same as he must do over me. And that doesn't matter worth a damn. I am required to be civil, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. I am required to comply with Wikipedia policies governing proper conduct, no matter what provocations real or imagined exist. (Not, by the bye, that I can recall BeanieFan being uncivil towards me.) There are no rationales, excuses, or defenses to violating them, and indeed the relevant policies require you to remain civil no matter what. If you can't do that -- and that "Are you really that thick?" comment in an ANI thread about your conduct, of all places, suggests that you can't -- then you're heading right for a reblock. Ravenswing 02:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're apologizing for the problems you've caused BeanieFan11 while also accusing them of pissing me off with their insistent and constant AFD behavior and hounding which if given time I can find diffs of. To me this is not much of an apology. If you want to apologize, then apologize fully; if you want to defend yourself, then do so. Trying to weave a path in between both reads rather insincere. Perhaps others read it differently. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You've just summed up what like 80% of ArbCom ban appeals are like. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beeblebrox, 80%? If that’s all, then things have decidedly improved since I served on the committee. Courcelles (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The other 20% is insults and threats. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite. Possibly the text of WP:BUTTHEYHADITCOMING!!! should read "The invocation of this argument is prima facie ground for an indef." Ravenswing 02:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would appreciate a frank and honest answer to this question: What led you to comment at that specific RFA, which appears to be only the second time you have done so in nearly four years of contributing? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It feels like relevant context to point out that the other RfA that Therapyisgood !voted in was theleekycauldron1, so it's not particularly surprising that they returned for the second one. Even though there is a self-admitted, broader concern with Therapyisgood's behavior towards BeanieFan11, I think the RfA participation is a distinct issue. DanCherek (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In a peculiar and semi-paradoxcial way, I think it actually bodes worse for this user's ability to contribute competently in the longterm if they weren't trolling: every bit of their !vote seemed contrived from the start, but if they genuinely believed half of what they said about RfC procedure and their reasons for opposing the nomination on those grounds, there's a big problem here, particularly with "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." No single user changes anything via RfC. If content or policy was changed as a result of an RfC (albeit one Therapyisgood does not approve of), then it is because a consensus was convinced that the change was for the better, in each of those instances.
      Now one may have less than happy feelings about the results of particular discussions, but someone having a succesful track record with consensus discussion processes is per se an absolutely absurd reason to oppose them for the mop: it can only possibly be a positive thing that a community member has been found to be able to guide consensus through a combination of sound ideas and/or an effective use of rhetoric and the ability to forge agreement. The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility.
      In any event, the trolling comments that immediately came out towards the first editor to criticize TIG's !vote (and the fact that similar comments had been made to other parties earlier in the day) are issues enough. Adding in this very compelling record suggesting longterm fixation and hounding of another editor, and it's clear some limits need to be set here. I strongly oppose any kind of IBAN on BeanieFan11 here: while looking at the details, I would say their conduct was not 100% optimal towards the start, but it is clear they are not driving this pattern of constant adversarial interactions but rather caught up in it against their will. If we mutually IBAN the pair (even if BF11 agreed to it just to put an end to the hounding), then we would be teaching the truly problematic party how to weaponize a mutual IBAN--which is something we have actually accidentally done in this space before, with the result of much longterm disruption. SnowRise let's rap 23:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When I said "user...changes things through RFCs that don't need to be changed." I meant they propose changes. Are you really that thick? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Additionally "The !vote was therefore either clearly a rationalization to facilitate an effort to get under someone's skin, or such a profound misapprehension about how collective decision making, dispute resolution, and discussion are supposed to operate on this project that it's arguably the worse possibility." I opposed their nomination because I found their taste for RFCs to be bad. Additionally other users were upset over not being informed about the NCOVER changes they proposed, which they didn't inform the WikiProject Songs about. Again, please do not assume bad faith. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      First off, trust me when I tell you that you want to strike that "Are you really that thick?" comment immediately, unless you want to go straight back into time-out block for a PA mere hours after Gonzo fan2007 let you out of the last one early in order to participate (presumably in a scrupulously civil fashion) here. I really could not care less about your propensity for lashing out with petty, immature, temper-tantrum-adjacent ad hominems. The only thing "thicker" about those of us trying to get you to see where your behaviour is problematic here is our skin. But I've seen enough ANIs to be able to advise you that you're about to burn up in the descent from this latest series of explosions if you don't find another, better way to respond to criticism here, fast.
      Second, and more to the point, you are clearly (if not willfully) avoiding the critical point about the defect in your reasoning. It doesn't matter that your criticism is that the things theleekycauldron effectuated through RfC were, according to you, bad ideas. The point is that she (leeky, as an individual) didn't make any one of those things happen. In every case where she got a result you didn't agree with through RfC, the community (local or otherwise) agreed that such was the right result, and it was thereby a community act. So how can her decisions to bring those matters to RfC be a valid procedural knock against her record, such that it supports a rational reason to oppose the promotion?
      We don't avoid giving people the tools because they didn't choose to support ideas cherished by editor A, B, or C, or opposed content option 1, 2, or 3. If you had a generalized complaint that TLC made frivolous RfCs, that would be one thing. But they clearly aren't frivolous discussions--by definition, if we are talking about discussions that actually got things done with community approval. Likewise, you would have some rhetorical ground to stand on if you had argued TLC abused process in some way with said RfCs: but that's clearly not the case either. Your !vote comes down to "she succeeded in winning arguments via RfCs, the results of which I don't like. Which is clearly not a reasonable, rational, or anything other than disruptive reason to oppose a promotion. And honestly, you can ask me to AGF that Beanie is wrong and that you didn't oppose just to spite them, but the problem there is the one I describe above: even if I do give you the benefit of the doubt where that is concerned (and based on the pattern demonstrated above, I'm not sure that I can) it's just as bad (if not worse) a look for you in terms of competency regarding the basics of dispute resolution and consensus on this project.
      Lastly, and along the same lines of the previous point, there is absolutely no requirement that an RfC be published at a given WikiProject that has members that would consider the article in question to be in their particular purview. That is an absolutely ridiculous position that has never been supported by policy and never will be; there are countless reasons why that might not be best practice in a given case and the discussion nominator/proposer uses their best discretion. Anyone can feel free to use notices to inform a local cohort of WikiProject editors, but the OP is in no way required to speculate which groups would want to know about a discussion and inform them all.
      Again, these are extremely underwhelming (if not completely inverted/counter-intuitive) reasons to oppose an RfA and based on your reported history here and the conduct I have observed from you today, I am stuck between just not believing you are being at all sincere with us and wondering if you are being completely honest and just aren't competent enough to contribute without disruption on this project. SnowRise let's rap 01:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has problems beyond hounding BeanieFan11. See this thread from 6 months ago:

    They gratuitously blew off a very polite request from Liz about pacing AfDs. Lepricavark did a good job of summarizing problematic edits concluding presciently that Therapyisgood was on track to WP:ANI someday. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @A. B.: Not only that, but he had immediately reverted when I asked him to slow down then and initially reverted Lepricavark with the comment "stay off my talk page". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should I slow down when there's no rule saying I have to? It might be a common courtesy but there's no limit on AFD noms a day, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        So ”common courtesy” is not a good enough reason?. This is a collaborative project. Comments like yours above just demonstrate to anyone reading this that, notwithstanding warnings and blocks, you still refuse to accept this. That bodes ill for your future. It’ll be a lesser sanction today but, mark my words, you’re on track for a site ban in a few months. I hope you’ll change course but somehow I doubt it.
        —~~<~
        A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's always good to read the room and calibrate, so that you do not cause problems for other editors. It is possible to cause some minor problems and disruption without formally breaking any rules. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @A. B.: yet where was I wrong? There's no current limit on AFD nominations at a time, as far as I'm aware. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Therapyisgood, you ask, ”where was I wrong?”
        Simple: you were asked nicely to slow down - that your pace was causing difficulty for others. Because this is a collaborative project, you should have slowed down immediately but instead you said you didn’t have to and you continued, thereby making problems for others. The fact that you still don’t even see the problem tells me you are unlikely to succeed here in the long run.
        I suggest that for the next year, as an exercise, you do everything someone nicely asks you to do on Wikipedia, whether it’s what you want to do or not. Whether the rules require you to or not. Make a habit of saying “yes” and “of course” to other editors.
        One final comment: those nasty remarks about other people not having jobs - they were really, really mean-spirited. You can’t stay here if you’re going to be mean like that. Other people ”piss off” the rest of us, too, but we don’t say stuff like that. Why should you?
        —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • His (BF11) whole framing of this is way off too but unfortunately I don't have the time to get into it. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? I'm way off in my whole framing of the situation? When you do have the time, I'd like to hear why you believe that's the case, as what I've wrote is exactly how its felt to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, so let's set a few things straight. 1.) There were multiple users who supported a warning for your behavior at AFD discussions involving marginally-notable NFL players. You can just look back at the discussion to find them. 2.) I reported you to 3rr for page reversions on a VPP proposal page. You had actually reverted four time according to @BilledMammal:: [143]. Again, a legitimate reason to report you there. Others took issue with you there too [144]. 3.) That article had a weasel word, nothing wrong with that edit. 4.) "A few days later, he had a DYK nomination that needed a QPQ. - Now I had a nomination for Lewis Manly - and one user was complaining that the source was unreliable because of the url name (it was from a university, however, and so is reliable)" I told you to take it to RSN and you failed to do so. It's your fault it failed. 5.) "April 17 - I was about to finally have a "Did you know" image slot, something that almost never happens to me (I've nominated 80 articles for DYK, probably about 10 have had an image - only Jim Dillard and this one ever had the image approved) - Therapyisgood lodged a complaint about the copyright status (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors&diff=prev&oldid=1150250027) right before it was set to appear and had it removed (and his complaint seems to have been wrong, too)." What evidence do you have that it was wrong? 5.) As I said earlier, two of these discussions are still ongoing. I apologize for the others, but again you should have tagged the pages at the Commons with the proper copyright rational. 6.) Tagbombing is common at ITN. If you disagreed with it you should have found sources for the article and SOFIXEDIT. 7.) The "cry harder about it" comment was a bit out of left field and I apologize for that. 8.) I'm not seeing how this has anything to do with you. 9.) Yes, I thought that article didn't meet our notability standards. You know we disagree on those. It turns out I was wrong. No bad faith. 10.) I thought it wasn't interesting. So what? 11.) Again, nothing to do with you. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • But my question is, how did you find all of those discussions? (and you're misrepresenting some of those, for example, BilledMammal was not correct in his interpretation of 3RR, as shown by the closer declining your request) BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • The same way you found this. By the way, just because the closing admin declined a warning on the 3RR report doesn't make you right. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you for confirming my belief; you've been WP:HOUNDING me by extensively going through all my contributions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "why are you so concerned about how people find discussions?" [145] Therapyisgood (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    There's a big difference between periodically clicking on various editor's contribs and systematically hounding one person for months. If you can't understand that, you're not long for Wikipedia. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            There were no warnings handed out as a result of the ANI (closed February 14th) or 3rr discussions (declined March 5th). What has BeanieFan11 done since then that you have an issue with? You keep saying there's evidence that you can gather if you have time but so far everything you've pointed to doesn't appear to be recent and has already been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some admin needs to make a decision and close this thread. The discussion has become rather pointless with back and forth accusations. Given the issues I raised above with the one-way i-ban and the evidence provided by others that TIG has not had problems only with BF11, admins might find more suitable solutions or sanctions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion has only been open for just over 8 hours, there's no rush to have it closed. If you really want to move things along then you could start a sub section and propose an outcome for the community to discuss and/or vote on. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be perfectly honest, it might very well be for the best if an admin was willing to make a call at this juncture. But for better or for worse, that's just not the culture at ANI: the presumption here is that when the community is actively discussing conduct and it's this early in, it should be afforded the opportunity to examine matters and that swift conclusions (for anything other than the most egregious cases) are precarious for the needs of both the community and the individuals brought here.
      And bluntly, very few admins are willing to stick their necks out and risk drawing the ire of this or that group of community members for rushing to act in this or that way (or even achieve multiple groups lambasting them for jumping the gun and undermining community prerogative). Which, let's be fair to the mops, one of those scenarios is exactly what would happen in a majority of cases. I agree with Walt below that this is never a fun conversation to be had; it's just that the consequences of not having it (or making a rushed job of it) are typically even more unpleasant. SnowRise let's rap 02:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are times where swift reprisals from administrators for gross and repetitive disruption are widely praised for initiative and judgment, but those cases tend to be relatively simple and the admins who execute those actions have the benefit of lots of experience and CLUEfulness. It's far less simple when there are two or more people in a dispute with varying levels of activity on both sides, and I certainly don't say this to equate BF's behavior with TIG, but it's clear that more careful judgment is needed before we jump straight to Occam's razor. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Rushing to close a discussion because we find it unpleasant is almost certainly going to make things worse. Addressing incivility on ANI is not a pleasant subject, but you don't have to participate in it. You're free to disengage at any time. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Pinged) I've had possibly the most extensive and lengthy arguments with BF at AfD out of anyone here, and honestly they all just run together in my head so I can't pinpoint anything that stands out to me as HOUNDING. I'm curious which incidents are being referred to? On the whole I'm mostly of the same mind as Ravenswing on this matter. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you came in, JJ. As you point out, you've had extensive interaction with BF, too many for anyone else to really be able to characterize without doing a ton of work, so I'm glad that TIG's characterization of it as hounding of you by BF isn't what you're feeling. TIG, whether or not an IBAN is made, you probably just need to disengage from BF. As you say, they annoy you, and you seem to have a very hard time staying civil when you're annoyed. So go do other things. There's a whole big project out there. Valereee (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    I believe a structured approach would be conducive to determining consensus and speed up discussion.

    1. Impose one-way interaction ban between Therapyisgood and BeanieFan11
    2. Impose a two-way IBAN
    3. Block Therapyisgood for x duration
    4. Something else

    Ca talk to me! 12:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1 with additional conditions beyond what is at WP:IBAN, to include commenting in discussions (XFD, move discussions, RFCs, RFA, etc.) in which BeanieFan111 has already commented, and nominating articles for deletion that BeanieFan111 has contributed significantly (excepting simple things like vandalism reverts by either party of a third party, etc.) --Jayron32 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4, in order of preference from most to least. The block should be for at least 1 month, recognizing that up to this point TIG has had a clean block log and presumably has been a productive contributor at Wikipedia outside of this apparent long-term harassment campaign (I'm not taking the apology into consideration here as it was not an apology at all). A one-way IBAN should be placed, with restrictions along the lines of what Jayron has suggested. Lastly, a civility restriction along these lines: "If user makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses." While I say these are in order of preference, it would be best in my opinion to implement all of these things simultaneously, recognizing that this has been a relatively complex case that goes beyond just a vote at RFA. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      TIG was given a 2-week block 3 years ago for using two undisclosed alternate accounts in project space discussions. ArbCom indefinitely restricted him to one account over it. Since then, however, he's been pretty productive (if a bit gruff at times). I don't think an extended block is warranted at this point; I just think he needs to step away from anything to do with BF11. Kurtis (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support Jayron's proposal; I don't know if I'd support a one month block or a topic-ban in addition to the IBAN, as proposed by WaltCip and Schwede66, respectively. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with Jayron's addenda seems like a commonsense approach. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 I think that the best solution is something between one-way i-ban and two-way i-ban. A one-way i-ban is a questionable concept because: BF11 is allowed to address, revert and make reference to TIG, but TIG is not allowed to respond. Such an i-ban can easily become harassment in the eyes of the editor who is not allowed to respond. Instead, the i-ban should have these conditions:
      1. TIG is not allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where BF11 is already present (including things like nominating BF11's articles for deletion or renaming).
      2. BF11 is allowed to participate in discussions or other disputes where TIG is already present, but not allowed to revert, address or make a reference to TIG. BF11 is not allowed to nominate TIG's articles for deletion or renaming, and is not allowed to revert TIG.
    • Such an i-ban is not a "sanction" on BF11, it is a logical and natural step to follow if TIG is sanctioned with an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What you're proposing would be considered a sanction on BF11, as it explicitly restricts him from specific actions relating to TIG. I think BF11 is wise enough to avoid doing things that could be construed as harassment against TIG, assuming the latter is subject to a 1-way IBAN. He probably doesn't need it spelled out for him. Kurtis (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Allowing an editor to revert or make a reference to someone who is not allowed to respond to them is quite ridiculous, though ridiculous things are not uncommon on Wikipedia. Anyways, I had never seen the 2 editors before yesterday so I have no reason to comment here anymore. Got better things to spend my time on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The community has applied many 1 way interaction bans in recent years, and I'd say they have a higher success rate than their 2-way counterparts, if anything. Look, I'm half in agreement with you: I think the very concept of an interaction ban is dubious. If an editor cannot comport themselves with our baseline behavioural expectations in regard to one editor, they are certainly capable of violating them with regard to another. The IBAN therefore typically delays addressing the root issues with regard to one or both (or however many) editors, and shifts the burden for keeping conduct within community norms from the individuals who should be exercising self control to the larger community to enforce and regulate the interactions between them. It's a bad idea and I've been saying so for many, many years.
      However, the biggest problem I have with IBANs is that they can be gamed and weaponized, and that's often exactly what happens when we mutually IBAN parties because we just get fed with trying to disentangle a personal dispute and decide it's just easier to keep a given pair of parties apart. If there was one party who was overwhelmingly the more abusive and/or IDHT with regard to community concerns, they will learn that this is a way to get other users out of their way. In these situations, the immediate IBAN also tends to extend the disruption (through petty debates about who crossed the line into someone else's orbit first) rather than resolving it.
      So I actually think 1 way IBANS are more straightforward in that respect. Here we have a clear case where one editor was hounding the other, and the other making every effort to avoid them. Putting aside the voluminous and reasonable community concerns here that is manifestly unfair and problematic to give BF11 a logged sanction for being on the receiving end of discussion stalking, by putting the onus on TIG (because there's is the deeply inappropriate behaviour necessitating the sanction) to avoid the discussions BF11 is involved in, we short-circuit any debates about who really violated the IBAN first and we don't risk encouraging someone whose conduct is already problematic to view a 2-way IBAN as having its silver linings (i.e. restricting the editor they have an issue with as much as they are restricted themselves). SnowRise let's rap 18:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Snow Rise: thank your for your elaboration. I think we can agree that part of the problem is that WP:IBAN is poorly formulated, leaving space for evasion, misunderstandings and unhelpful situations. On second thought I wonder if the best way how to proceed here is a block with a warning that further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. Hounding is an extremely disruptive thing because it is not a group of mistakes made here and there, but well-thought, long-term and persistent disruption. If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". The Oppose vote at the RfA which was not well-argued and pointless after 300+ Support votes too gives a bad impression. Even worse, here at ANI/I they called you "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. Everyone makes mistakes, I am not an angel. But mistakes too have a limit. Hence probably a block and a "final warning" could be better than an i-ban. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ktrimi991, there's no doubt that a 1-way IBAN is really hard on the editor who is prevented from interacting. That doesn't mean we should also put restrictions on the second editor if they're blameless just to make things not quite as hard on TIG. TIG has been following BF around in a deliberate and disruptive way. Yes, it sucks for them if they end up with a 1-way. There was an easy way to prevent it happening: don't hound people.
      And no, an indef isn't a better answer, and judging by TIG's responses here, I think it might be hard to get unblocked, as they're proving in this very discussion that they have a hard time remaining civil when annoyed. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee: I see your point and I agree with it, but still think the issue I raised with the one-way i-ban is a serious one. I am not suggesting an indef block, but a temporary one with a warning that the next block will be indef. I know admins try to be patient and not to rush to block. However, as someone who edits controversial Balkan topics, I know that in many cases that stance of the admins only makes things worse. Balkan topics see harassment, personal attacks and edit warring every single day. The amount of disruption is huge. Most of the good editors have left the project. Why? The primary reason is that admins are too often too tolerant. Instead of blocking disruptive editors, they often give "advice" and "warnings" and ineffective sanctions, and in many cases disruptive editors see that as a sign of "weakness" and keep driving constructive editors away from the project. Based on what others have said, TIG is in some ways a productive editor, so they should be given a chance to reflect. But that productivity should not justify turning a blind eye to disruption that can drive away other (even more) productive editors. TIG's issues are not only with BF11, so I believe wider sanctions, such as a temporary block together with a "final warning" should be considered. In any case, it seems clear at this point that the community will choose the easiest way and just impose a one-way i-ban. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ktrimi991, no one is talking about turning a blind eye. We're talking about a 1-way, for heaven's sake. And none of the admins who are opposing a limited duration block are trying to be kind; they're recognizing that
      1. A community-imposed block of any duration, fixed or indef, would mean TIG would have to appeal here rather than via an unblock request, which can be an extremely high obstacle to overcome, and
      2. That in this case the block is being proposed as punishment, which is against policy.
      Valereee (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: Block and final warning If TIG has been hounding someone, it is doubtful they are friendly with the all other editors. Someone provided a diff where TIG was being rude with Liz. A few days ago TIG got blocked for repeatedly calling other editors "jobless". Even worse, here at ANI/I they called Snow Rise "thick" or indicated that. If somone can't be civil even while the community is examining their uncivility, that is a sign of big issues. The proposed one-way i-ban is a wrong idea for reasons elaborated on above and does not address all issues with TIG. After the block expires, if they repeat their mistakes, the indefinite block should be the next step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with Jayron's addenda anything that could be construed as a sanction against BF11 is unacceptable. We don't punish editors for having been hounded by someone else. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1—With the additional restrictions proposed by Jayron32. Even setting aside how unfair it would be for BF11 to be subject to any kind of sanction for this, I don't think he has any intention of discussing or otherwise making reference to TIG on Wikipedia after this discussion; he just wants to be left alone. An interaction ban on BF11 would serve no purpose other than to patronize him, as if to suggest that he's not smart enough to refrain from goading TIG of his own accord. Kurtis (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose it should go without saying that my support of Jayron's sanction is with the understanding that BF11 will act in good faith and not attempt to provoke or badger TIG with the IBAN in place. I see nothing to indicate that such interactions may happen, but if they did, then I think we'd want to return to the drawing board. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Although based on their recent behavior I suspect "indef block" is going to be a thing for them at some point. Harassing another user because they annoy you is not something we want to see, ever, and is completely incompatible with a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I can get behind a solution that gets BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood back to their work. I understand hounding and the stress it causes. Occasionally an informal process can work if imposed by an administrator. You can ask @Floquenbeam: how to make that happen. From what I have seen in contributions we need BeanieFan11 and Therapyisgood. I understand that Therapyisgood is snippy when they feel put-upon, and that needs to stop now. In this thread Therapyisgood asks an editor if they are "thick". The question and language is likely a violation of our NPA policy by being offensive. Therapyisgood should be advised that they need to strictly adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU in their interactions. Lightburst (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with additional conditions as described by Jayron32. Therapyisgood must leave BeanieFan11 entirely alone if they wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3, 1 (+ Jayron), and 4 per the exact same conditions described by WaltClipper above. I've gone back and forth considering whether a longer block proposal is justified here, contemplating 3 months, 6 months, and even an indef as reasonable options. There's a pretty problematic complex of behaviours presently evident with this user:
      • severe and chronic incivility--indeed nearly constant with regard to editors they find themselves in disagreement with, if the behaviour on display the last few days and in the diffs above are any indication;
      • longterm, fixated hounding of a fellow editor, which TIG has failed to fully acknowledge as an issue, rather continuing to rationalize it despite the fact that the community response here has been unambiguous that it is unacceptable harassment, and if anything using the discussion to get in more broadsides on their perceived foe;
      • and lastly, an attitude towards community efforts to reign in these issues that oscillates between complete IDHT and naked hostility.
    • In short, this user seems to have no sense of how close they are to running out of WP:ROPE. So doing nothing here is actually a disservice to them since, as numerous community members have opined above, TIG is on course for an indef regardless, if they don't make a big change in their approach to communication on this project. Still, I've ultimately decided that Walt's suggestion of a one month block is the sweet spot here as the minimal possibly effective preventative block likely to truly get TIG's attention. I'm going to add myself that such block should be appealable only to the community as it is a CBAN and because the last time TIG requested and received a reduction to a block (yesterday) they repeated exactly the behaviour they had been blocked for within a matter of hours.
      I also support the 1-way IBAN as the only reasonable IBAN option available to us (and clearly absolutely necessary to give BF11 a break from the harassment). As others have noted above, if BF11 were to attempt to game or manipulate the ban to passively harass TIG, we could amend at that time, but I see no compelling reason to believe that is likely to happen.
      Lastly, I support Walt's notion of the "civility enhancement" sanction, if I am to label this habit that has formed here of late of making a sanction out of the regular CIV requirements for the purposes of a close: I don't know that it makes much difference, since any editor is subject to these same principles at all times, but I suppose it can't hurt either. It will, at a minimum, make the record more clear that the community is nearing the end of its patience with TIG's WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:PA proclivities. SnowRise let's rap 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very broadly intended option 1, and I wouldn't even object to an additional short block (option 3), as based on his recent edits it seems to me that the user is adamant about not taking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously. Cavarrone 20:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 with additional conditions as per Jayron. And if BF does not support the DYK topic ban that I suggested previously, I shall drop that suggestion. Schwede66 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (+ Jayron) and option 3 based on history of stalking and highly uncivil comments. Length of block should be 7-14 days, which is enough to send a message but maintain the purpose of WP:BLOCK, which is to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Continued disruption could lead to an indefinite block. I think the one-way IBAN is most appropriate but can be amended in the unlikely event it is abused by Beanie. Carson Wentz (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 with x=3 months and 1 (+Jayron). Since the initial comments at TLC's RfA, I've been thinking about TIG's behavior quite a bit. I wasn't involved in the prior discussion nor remember any prior interaction with those involved besides TLC. When editors like TIG contribute exceptional content at the expense of inappropriate interpersonal interactions, the wellness of editors takes precedence. Furthermore, it's evident that much of TIG's non-content activities are very out of step with the community. While dissension ought to be encouraged and appreciated, poorly substantiated contrarianism where other editors get caught in vitriolic crossfire is unacceptable. I've been the target of a now-blocked, content-contributing hounder in the past. It's a deeply unpleasant experience that nearly killed my interest in the project. It's not something our community should tolerate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, oppose 3 as punitive casualdejekyll 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 (+Jayron) and option 3. I concur that a duration of 1 month would not be a mere "slap on the wrist", yet not be overly punitive; the "thick" comment here demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a too-short block. Hounding and personal attacks are unacceptable, and there's a demonstrated pattern of those in TIG's behavior. Complex/Rational 00:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 plus re-blocking for a month. The "Are you really that thick?" comment also implies the apologies were not sincere. It in conjunction with the other personal attacks that resulted in the initial block suggests heavy penalty.Jagmanst (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose 3, prefer moderate option 1 - unless we have an indication that they are harassing other users, then blocking would be punitive on top of the IBAN. Either they don't break it, or they do and are blocked for the pleasure. While an extended IBAN to cover AfDs/DRVs where TIG has commented (or nominating TIG articles, if not covered by a default IBAN) is good, I wouldn't have it cover all discussions. In any of the big-issue topics where lots of individuals participate because they're fundamental to community consideration, I don't think TIG participation as person 10 should prohibit them from participating as person 60. If a closer isn't willing to consider an intermediate option, go for a "pure" IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For the sake of clarity, I should note that I'm aware of their comment at Tamzin at the RfA, but if there are other significant incidents please highlight them for me and I may reconsider. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. A block for X duration is a punishment. I don't think that should even be considered, and frankly if the suggestion had come from an admin I'd be pushing back directly on their understanding of what blocks are for. And a 2-way...has there been any evidence BF has caused a problem? Why would we even consider sanctioning the editor who has been the target of the hounding? Valereee (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here

    I noticed a number of articles about deforestation in Nigeria, and the issues seem similar to some earlier Nigerian and Ghanaian projects/hashtags we have discussed here over the last few years. Through Template:Deforestation in Nigeria, used on some articles and drafts, it seems as if these are the work of a project on Meta The new articles and edits to existing ones have already led to issues, and the edit summaries used by the editors are suspiciously similar and uninformative. Articles involved include (but aren't limited to)

    Nearly all of these have been tagged with multiple issues, mainly that the pages are very essay-like.

    Editors alrady active include User:Ezema James, User:Francisike, User:Tochai, User:Lilianneche, User:Ngozi Stella Udechukwu (university lecturer, so perhaps somehow involved?), User:Emmyglo, User:Ifyeke, User:Festgo12, User:SusuGeo, ... The project lead, identified at Meta, is User:Ngozi osadebe, but I see little evidence of the enwiki efforts being lead in any way, or the participants being instructed in how to improve and avoid the many issues. Most of these editors have recent warnings or even a block.

    Apparently, there are more than 60 participants[146], all of them required to create at least one article and edit two others[147], on enwiki[148]. So again a grant-subsidized dumping ground for many subpar articles without any effort to reach out to enwiki or to monitor and improve the issues. Fram (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A grant request[149], I might add, based on a falsehood: "A search on Wikipedia on “Deforestation in Nigeria using Petscan, Wikidata and List building tool yielded zero articles. A general search using Petscan yielded 37 articles. A quick scan on three of the articles (Deforestation, Afforestation, and Reforestation) shows that they have no information on Nigeria and very little information on Africa. This creates a content, contributor, and reader gap in Wikipedia. The result is that Nigerian citizens have no culturally relevant information on deforestation." At the time of the request, we already had a lengthy article titled Deforestation in Nigeria... Fram (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggested a multi-merger of most of these into Deforestation in Nigeria some while back, which should allow cutting out the dead wood (sorry...), but lost sight of it due to meatspace concerns. Hopefully will have time to do something about it next week or so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please not call it "meatspace"? *shudder* JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we have mainspace, projectspace, userspace... it certainly fits the pattern ;) casualdejekyll 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah these are... really bad. Would approve merging them, but am honestly unsure how much good that would do given that most of the info in those essays add basically nothing to the existing article. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Olugold created the page at Meta, so they may know about what is happening. TSventon (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I could almost merge my above report [150] here. Another wave of new Nigerian accounts, disrupting dozens of articles with false grammar corrections and a deluge of overlinking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all for bringing this to our notice. I'll notify the team about these observations. Olugold (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jonteemil

    I am truly disturbed by Junteemil's process on image files. I don't think his process is right, for instance he has placed FC Barcelona crest in the FfD queue. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 12#File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg with the reasoning (Below c:COM:TOO US and relicense to {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}}?) Why on earth does the crest for a major football club need to be in the FfD queue with that? I don't know how many other images there are, but earlier I saw that the file File:Ajax Amsterdam.svg was deleted by admin Fastily and that is to me consider a vital image for the article to help with identification of the team. It then got restored and the process by Jonteemil with happen over and over again maybe in this way?

    Could then the same happened to the Barcelona crest, would that get deleted without people watching it correctly?

    So to me, it could possibly be detrimental editing here and could result of a loss of multiple icons/crests/images without others realising what is going on. I thought I could have a word with Jonteemil on his talk page, but I feel it's not going to work and felt this needed to be presented to ANI as I believe this is a far bigger issue than realised. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are misinterpreting FFD as files for deletion instead of files for discussion. I will reply longer later… Jonteemil (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, Jonteemil is 100% correct here. FFD is not only for deletions, it is also for other discussions about file licensing and use at Wikipedia. For example, they have specifically said nothing about deletion in the FFD post you cite above. You, Govvy, voted nonsensically as "Keep" on a discussion that said nothing about deleting the file, they only said that the image should be relicensed. I haven't looked at the other discussions they may have started at FFD, but looking at the discussion you've had at Jonteemil's talk page, AND looking at the above post, it is quite clear you aren't reading a single word they are saying, either directly to you, or in those discussions. They aren't doing anything wrong or out of process, FFD is exactly designed for these purposes, and they aren't even asking for these files to be deleted. --Jayron32 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only for deletion you say, but majority is deletion, look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10 as an example day. This process is simple, if a file is over used on some articles, just remove it from some of those articles, it's not a hard thing to do, it's more with how he has been processing what wikipedia has on offer under these processes. There are ways to do things without the need to run FFD. Overt damage in my opinion. Nothing wrong with me saying keep on something as to preserve what could be presumed to be a delete argument. :/ Govvy (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't need to but they are allowed to. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with seeking outside input on matters such as image licensing. If you think that maybe something needs to be fixed, like a file being "over used on some articles", but you aren't sure enough to remove it, and want to seek some additional input on the matter, FFD is the exact process where those discussions happen. We aren't going to punish someone for being cautious and asking for input. Seriously, this is ridiculous that you dragged someone to ANI because you think they're too conscientious.--Jayron32 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether ANI is the best venue for this discussion, but there was another nomination by Jonteemil at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 10#File:Czech Republic national football team logo.svg on 12 August. On 18 August The file under discussion was deleted, Jonteemil complained, the file was restored, Govvy voted keep and the discussion was closed as keep. The nomination does seem to have been treated as a request for deletion, perhaps it should have been worded more clearly? TSventon (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's hardly Jonteemil's fault; the admin in question deserves a tiny trout for not being careful, but otherwise, we're still not going to block Jonteemill because some admin fucked up. --Jayron32 14:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I should have had my rationales worded more clearly, since I didn't quite expect the decision to be kept or deleted… rather Kept in Article A and B, removed from article C, D, E and F. To me it was crystal clear what I've meant and I've seen FFDs of the like before but I guess it obviously wasn't as clear to everyone. In the future I will be more specific. The Barca logo FFD however I feel is as specific as can be, so I don't understand the confusion there. Jonteemil (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationales could have been clearer (which for the Ajax one, they are now), but this doesn't require any administrative action. The problem with unilaterally doing something like removing images from articles is that it's likely someone else will revert it. WP:FFD gives a way to get a tangible consensus, so seems fine for all these logos. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32 I am not suggesting that anything is Jonteemil's fault, nor that anyone needs to be blocked, just that some advice might be useful. The Barcelona nomination hasn't been answered, apart from keep. Jonteemil, it might be useful to explain the reasons why you think it satisfies {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Spain}} but not c:COM:TOO US. TSventon (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, {{PD-textlogo}} should be used for files that are below the TOO (threshold of originality) in both the US and the country of origin. These files can be uploaded to Commons. Commons only accepts these works, whereas Wikipedia only requires that the works are below the TOO in the United States. Hence, sometimes there are logos which are free in the US (can be used freely on Wikipedia) but not free in the country of origin (can't be uploaded to Commons), and for these cases {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Country}} should be used, and for the case where the logo is above the TOO in both the US and the country origin, {{Non-free logo}} should be used. Each non-free file AND each usage of said files need to satisfy all of the Non-free criteria, whereas free files can be used whereever, whenever and how many times you want (there are some WP:Non-copyright restrictions as well but I don't think they are relevant to Wikipedia). If a file qualifies for any of the PD licenses, it is hence better to use one of those licenses. When files are borderline free (either in the US or both), as the FC Barcelona logo case, I bring the files to FFD to let other users give their opinions.
    The US has a fairly high TOO (meaning they require more complexity for granting copyright protection) whereas for example Australia has a very low TOO. Even File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is complex enough for copyright protection in Australia whereas US courts don't even grant copyright protect to File:Best Western logo.svg nor File:Jamba logo.svg (read more at c:COM:TOO Australia and c:COM:TOO US).
    My claim is hence that the Barcelona logo is complex enough to be grantes copyright protection in Spain (i.e. it's above c:COM:TOO Spain), but not complex enough to be granted copyright protection in the US (it's below c:COM:TOO US). But since I'm not certain enough to boldy relicense the logo myself I bring the file to FFD, where one user answers Keep haha.
    I hope this directly explains at least the Barça logo FFD. Jonteemil (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pinging Edward-Woodrow who closed one of the FFDs as keep and Marchjuly who spends a lot of their time browsing non-free content. Jonteemil (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read the whole discussion above, so I'll just say that I closed the crest discussion as a) consensus seemed to be in that direction and b) it was clearly the sensible thing to do based on my understanding of policy and the arguments presented in the discussion. If I closed in error, I apologize; feel free to trout me. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alas, I feel like I've entered into a game of Chinese whispers without knowing. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Relax. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, but we've got this now. --Jayron32 16:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    LTA IP

    47.36.43.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    Please block this IP range, sock of Chicken Little 2005, self edited and directed, see this, such as 47.36.43.28 and 47.36.43.20, IP is pinged by that sock in zh wiki 14.0.231.93 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Witchcraft and related topics

    user:CorbieVreccan made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft claiming that another user had attempted to WP:CANVASS[151]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[152] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page for some time.[153][154][155]

    I became involved,[156] was immediately reverted,[157] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[158] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[159][160] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[161][162][163]

    About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and established coordination with user:Asarlaí for further efforts.[164] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[165][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[166] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[167] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[168]

    I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[169], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[170] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[171][172]

    There's more, but I'm not sure what else to add as relevant and I've lost visibility on some of it through page deletions. This has been exhausting. I'm just trying to cover the material in line with what academic sources say - including sources already being used in the main Witchcraft article; but somehow that's insufficient justification. - Darker Dreams (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Darker Dreams, you need to re-check you diffs, because several of the ones I sampled appear to be in error. So please double check. El_C 18:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how to provide diffs to deleted pages since a significant part of the ownership issue has been expressed by not being 'allowed' on the witchcraft page and creation of secondary pages being blocked through afd if they don't meet 'approval' regardless of sourcing. Darker Dreams (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted page diffs, and entire page histories, are visible to admins and 'crats. I fixed the diffs to them in the arbcom report and in my comment below. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not exactly sure what that is in reference to, but this thread is growing quite a bit, so as an outsider to this dispute, it's becoming difficult to keep up with. Regardless, all the OP's diffs of deleted content I looked at were mislinked. But when one knowingly submits deleted diffs, they should at least note them as such, along with an explanation of the respective deletion/s (nominal context). Also, several diffs show edits by Asarlaí for some reason. Beyond that, it seems that there are a lot of WP:BOLD changes (edits / forking). And while being bold is fine, once these bold changes face objections, it is usually expected to observe the maxims of WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. El_C 23:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Among those deleted diffs are attempts to meet wp:onus, Including "Such information should be [...] presented instead in a different article." But it's also hard to meet that when people are adamant about demolishing a house that's being built. Again; including blanking the page and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.” - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the heart of WP:ONUS is how it approaches longstanding versus contending versions: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, your reply doesn't address my points on the report's structure. El_C 23:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disputed content/onus: I have repeatedly provided citation. That citation has included foundation from sources already being used in the article, for the information I've tried to include. I have tried including it with citation and had it buried. It has been manipulated to say literally the opposite of what the citation contains. New articles created based citations have been attacked and deleted before I have a chance to do anything other than create them. I do not feel that I can make a substantive edit without being immediately reverted regardless of citation.
    report structure: There's an issue with users trying to exert ownership first over the Witchcraft page, then over the broader topic area. I don't know how I'm supposed to mark diffs to deleted pages and I don't have access to them now that they are deleted. I don't know where I'm supposed be to navigate the apparent bureaucracy for wikipedia seeking this to be addressed. I come here to find and improve information, not get dragged into figuring out which of a dozen different processes I'm supposed to interact with and how so that sourced information can be placed in articles and not get personally attacked for everything I do. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, these un-evidenced assertions are not helping. This is what you need to do. Go through every diff and make sure it actually depicts what you claim it does. As for diffs of deleted content, expressly note those as such and then explain why the given page/s were deleted. Because this report as currently written is subpar. Please don't continue to argue around those instructions and just do it. Failure to do so will be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. That's it, for now. Thanks. El_C 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have been dragged into this tangentially after voting on a RM related to this dispute. I do not think the situation currently needs admin attention. There is a very nasty content dispute over the lead section of Witchcraft; but the current RFC process seems to be addressing that problem in a civil manner. The concerns and accusations about canvassing or tag-teaming should be ignored; this is a situation where additional voices are helpful, and accusations that any new participant might have been "canvassed" are harmful. As far as POV-pushing: with this type of disagreement, it is inevitable that people view "the other side" as POV-pushing. Until there is some form of consensus, that is not actionable. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Walt Yoder: point of clarity; I'm not accusing CV of canvassing specifically. My first encounter was them (incorrectly) making that accusation (diff linked above). - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go again This is exactly what Darker Dreams posted to ArbCom (and at the Edit-warring board in defense of Skyerise on July 23). It is full of misrepresentations, personal attacks, confusion, and blatant lies. I suggest folks go and read what happened there. Direct link to my statement to Arbcom. I am requesting WP:BOOMERANG for DD's ongoing disruption, WP:forum shopping, and wasting of Wikipedians' time and energy.
    However, if we want to talk more about the ongoing disruption by DD and related users, that's fine. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And with Darker Dreams falsely accusing others of canvassing to coordinate tag-team edit-wars, that is something that Skyerise has actually done:"You just gonna watch from the sidelines?". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still deflecting, I see. Skyerise (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had considered opening an ANI discussion about this dispute weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that Darker Dreams and other editors would WP:DROPTHESTICK when they realized that consensus was against their changes after talk page discussions, a WP:SNOWed requested move, multiple deleted POV forks in response to the failed move, and a dispute resolution discussion (now failed after Darker Dreams attempted to escalate to ARBCOM). I've clarified my opinion on the content dispute at Talk:Witchcraft, but the conduct dispute seems to be the underlying issue here. Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. There is now an RfC at Talk:Witchcraft, which I believe is out of order as I and a few other editors explained in our responses to that RfC. There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation at Talk:Witchcraft. Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month, which is about as much as CorbieVreccan and Asarlaí combined. Beyond that, we can get into tag teaming to avoid 3RR, as well as the battleground issues where editors have discussed their intentions with one another to combat "Christian" editors (though it's my understanding that several of the editors opposing their changes are not Christian) and to insert pro-occultism content into Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it's hard to get a word in edgewise on Talk:Witchcraft, and I'm not sure that Darker Dreams's approach is the best, but the fact remains that despite having a perfectly robust article on European witchcraft, the supposedly global article on Witchcraft focuses undue weight on European witch trials. Seem to me that the whole Judeo-Christian background should be covered in Witchcraft in the Middle East and the witch trials summarized in European witchcraft, and the overview article get to the global coverage it professes. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Skye, respectfully, you're one of the main problems on the page and prior to your timeout were the most prolific editor and the one most displaying blatant battleground behavior. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:315E:BA69:522B:4431 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Care to provide an example that's not a month old? Skyerise (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Darker Dreams, for example, has added 71,328 bytes to the talk page since the dispute began last month." It is possibly worth considering how much of that dedicated to a series of attempts to documenting references/quotes relevant to the discussion, some portion of which I self-collapsed for navigation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Page blocked for following WP:DENY, without warning, in contentious DRV

    A long-term abuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive) is trying to create a frequently deleted article for more than 10 years. The last creation was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which was initiated by me.

    • This sock came back to start WP:DRV at 19:53, on 17 August‎.[175]
    • The sock got blocked for evading his block at 09:42 18 August for block evasion.[176].
    • At 10:06, I closed the DRV per WP:DENY, WP:SOCKSTRIKE and WP:SNOW because nobody opposed the AfD closure.[177]
    • Now 2 hours later, an involved editor from the AfD re-opened the sock's DRV instead of starting a new DRV, and completely reverted the closure as well as the sock-strike.[178]
    • From 17:40, I made 2 reverts against the above editor.[179][180]
    • At 17:55, my close was now reverted by a different editor.[181] I brought this issue to their talk page where I exchanged a few messages.[182]
    • Now 20 minutes later, at 18:16, I got page blocked, without any relevant warning, in violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK.[183]
    • Blocking admin Cryptic has not offered a valid rationale.[184]

    Since socks don't deserve attention per WP:DENY, it clearly makes no sense to waste time over a long-term abuser by providing attention to their filings. If someone else wanted to share the same concerns over the AfD then they were supposed to file a different request instead of unilaterally re-opening sock's complaint.

    The block is entirely pointless and should be overturned. It came without warning and edit warring was already stopped in the light of the ongoing discussion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See:
    The AfD’s initiator, Aman.kumar.goel, an involved party, has now speedy closed this DRV 3 times [185][186][187] and been reverted 3 times. The last time, he deleted my objections[188], then speedy closed, then told @The ed17 he closed since there were no objections[189].
    If you look at this AfD’s edit history, you’ll see further problems. Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven. If you’re editing with an IP and Aman doesn’t like your comment, he sees a sock. If you’re on a dynamic range, the different IPs are socks, not one user. If I disagree with an IP, I see a fellow editor until proven otherwise.
    Now he’s going after @Cryptic here at ANI.
    My experiences with this editor have been the most unpleasant of any interactions since my 10 year wikibreak. I made the mistake of getting involved with 2 of his AfDs:
    I lack confidence in Aman’s ability to edit collegially here based on these experiences.
    —~~<~ A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am urging you to strike your outright misleading comment "Lots of comment deletions and sock accusations some proven, some unproven" because every single IP who's comment was struck still remains blocked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
    There is not a single user who opposed AfD closure per the version of the DRV which I closed. That close was perfectly valid per WP:DENY and WP:SNOW.
    You were wrong with reverting this valid closure.[190] You were required to start a new request instead of re-opening sock's request. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, the other editors here are not chumps. Anyone can look at the DRV edit history: [191]. You delete my objections, then close the DRV. You also strike through objections from IPs.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to throw misleading statements just because "editors here are not chumps". Anyone can look at the version of the DRV which I closed. It never had your "objections" and there was no contribution of "IPs" but a single block evading sock. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, there you go again.
    You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing. diff
    Clearly duplicitous behaviour.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit which you are citing appears to be revert of subsequent comments after your reopening of the closed DRV, as noted in the edit summary, followed by restoration of the closure.[192] It is not same as this edit (cited by Aman.kumar.goel) where he closed a sock-filed DRV with no support towards the request itself. It was hours before you ever edited the DRV. Dympies (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dympies, please explain these diffs:
    Aman closed the DRV 3 times. The second time, he deleted my objection:[193]
    His next edit was to close the DRV the second time:[194]
    After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[195]
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant to your false claim that "You say you closed the DRV without objections - that’s because you deleted them before closing." Don't shift the goalposts. Dympies (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you got off lightly: you were only blocked from the pages where you were edit warring. Your first closure of the DRV was bad form because of your involvement in the AFD, but perhaps barely acceptable. However, your subsequent edit warring was inexcusable. You have been blocked for edit warring before, so you already know it is not acceptable. Please log out for a day and reconsider instead of wikilawyering your way deeper into a violation of the law of holes. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How? The DRV was started by a sock and the time I made the closer there was nobody opposing the AfD closure. Reverting the closure is absolutely not the way to go. Either the closure has to be disputed or new request has to be started. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll also note that WP:DENY is just an essay, not a justification for violating our actual policies and guidelines.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DENY cannot be ignored just because you want us to disregard it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an excuse to make WP:INVOLVED closes and blatantly remove other editor's comments. Your extreme interpretation of what is an essay is doing no-one any good. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 22:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopening a closed discussion soon after closure can be a valid form of disputing the close. "Do not close discussions where you are involved" is valid independent of your arguments for closing. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is explicitly not a forum for discussing behavioral issues. And early closes there are almost unheard of, absent consent of everyone - including, yes, the nominator, even if they're an ip editing through what's likely an open proxy, and closing/deleting admin (when reversing their decision) - it happens maybe four or five times a year, at most. There is no universe where an early close, by the nominator of the afd being reviewed, while simultaneously removing another editor's good-faith signed comments from the discussion, would be appropriate. —Cryptic 20:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman, your disingenuousness and wikilawyering have failed you this time. You closed the DRV knowing you had deleted my objections and stricken through IPs’ objections:
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma: The guideline on "involved" does not care about "where you are involved". A sock can be reverted by anyone.
    @Cryptic: The IP was not just a "an open proxy" but a blocked sock.[196] Why Wikipedia is supposed to entertain blocked sock's request? That's why I made the closure because at that time there was nobody who opposed the closure. The reversion of my closure was however invalid. By the time you made block over 2 reverts (which were also made by A.B.), the edit warring was already stopped. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aman.kumar.goel, you illegally closed the DRV. I reverted this and stated my objections. You then deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a second time. I reverted you. You deleted my objections and illegally closed the DRV a third time. The ed17 reverted you.
    You also illegally removed DRV tags twice from the AfD and Cryptic reverted you twice.
    After he reverted your third DRV closure, you told The ed17 there were no objections at the time. You knew this was false when you wrote it.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Aman.kumar.goel only closed the DRV when the ban evader was blocked. But why A.B. was not blocked for making 2 reverts to restore DRV of a ban evading sock?[197][198] A.B. was doing the same reverts to restore sock on the AfD as well. Why A.B. did not open a separate request and continued to edit war despite being told otherwise?[199] Ping Bishonen, RegentsPark and El C since they are familiar with the area. CharlesWain (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I made 2 reverts of illegal closes. That is not edit-warring. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Illegal? In what jurisdiction? casualdejekyll 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn as unwarranted. Those who are not familiar with this area should know that this area is infested with socks and we have already wasted nearly a month over the AfD which was itself disrupted by the above user (A.B.) who was restoring blocked sock's comments[200] and now he edit warred to revert closure of a sock's DRV. These unnecessary attempts to waste time of volunteers is disruptive. CharlesWain (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I don’t even care about the book or his author. I don’t normally edit South Asian topics.
      I do care about the integrity of our processes. I got involved purely as an outside neutral editor in what was a very troubled pair of AfDs.
      —20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC) A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not concerned about yours or anyone's intentions. I am only commenting on the actual actions based on the diffs. CharlesWain (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's absolutely no way the block should be overturned. Aman.kumar.goel should never have closed the DRV, should never have removed the DRV notice from the AfD discussion, and really should not have gotten into an edit war over either of these actions. I don't think it will happen again if the block is lifted, but an ounce of prevention... SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Kusma. While I wouldn't have blocked you here, it is well within administrators' discretion (though the duration should be shortened to the duration of the DRV discussion). Being technically correct is not a free pass to edit war. You should've instead started a discussion with the editor reverting you and sought the opinion of a third party if necessary. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isabelle Belato: I had already started the discussion here and also here. The block came 30 minutes later without any warning. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the editor who reopened the DRV. The policy Wikipedia:Involved and the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Non-admin closures are clear: "Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes." Now, there is a great argument to close it early because of the extensive involvement of a LTA sockmaster, and even despite that it's looking so far like there will be a consensus to endorse Drmies' closure. Neither of those facts of that means that the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place can close the DRV in a way that endorses their viewpoint. If it's blatant, let an uninvolved editor make the call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recommend 1RR restriction. Aman has a history of edit warring and wikilawyering as readily seen above and at his block log. I think a 1RR restriction would help keep him out of further trouble and spare us all future ANI dramas. This would allow him to edit constructively. When disagreements arise, he could hammer out consensus on the talk page like everyone else.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Aman.kumar.goel is a highly productive editor in this area. This block was made in mistake which needs correction. You should better address your own history of creating unnecessary trouble for Aman.kumar.goel by reverting him for ban evading socks. [201][202] You are also the only person at this stage who is trying to rescue this deleted article except the sock. CharlesWain (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have changed the title of this thread to indicate that it is a contentious DRV. I was about to report the edit-war over the closing and reopening of the DRV, and found that it had already been reported. I agree that User:Aman.kumar.goel was involved, and should not have closed the DRV. It appears that User:A. B. also is in good faith requesting deletion review, so that closing the DRV and asking A. B. to refile it would be process for the sake of process. The DRV should be allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (pinged) The block is a good one since AKG is clearly in the wrong here. AKG, if you're involved in a discussion, you shouldn't close it. If you're involved and do close it and someone reverts your close, you most definitely should not re-close it. That said, keeping in mind that the DRV was started by a sock, perhaps the ideal outcome would be to unblock AKG if they promise not to mess with the DRV again. That promise would render the need for the block unnecessary. RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block is very limited - it's to two pages, the DRV and the AfD - and is preventing further disruption from taking place due to a clear lack of understanding for DRV processes along with clear WP:IDHT, and I think Cryptic got it spot on. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RegentsPark and SportingFlyer: But I had already stopped reverting on DRV before the block was made since I was discussing elsewhere about it.[203] I was obviously not planning to resume reverting but the block came without any prior warning and in middle of the discussion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblocking should be the right choice to move forward per the discussion above. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely support unblocking to resolve the matter. I don't see if there was going to be another revert war after The ed17 intervened. I find it somewhat interesting that an LTA managed to make so many wikipedians fight over something that could have been resolved with a simple dialogue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, the initial DRV close was correct since the only person disputing the AfD was the sock puppet who opened it. The revert of this closure by A.B. was inappropriate and then Aman.kumar.goel's revert was also inappropriate.
    Cryptic's use of WP:ROLLBACK against what appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding is concerning.[204] Cryptic has not described why reverted the same edits twice while Aman.kumar.goel ensured leaving edit summaries. The use of rollback by Cryptic tantamounts to abuse of rollback in this case. Rollback can be used only against vandalism or socks. Cryptic took more than 3 hours to explain these reverts after making the block.[205] These actions are not in the line with the blocking policy.
    Yes Aman.kumar.goel should be unblocked as he has confirmed he was not willing to revert again but it's clear that he is not the only one who has done a mistake here. Orientls (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was not a “good faith misunderstanding” as you put it. Aman’s 3 closures were illegal and disruptive edit-warring. They were reverted by 2 different editors.
    @Orientls please explain how the following is “good faith”:
    • Before he closed the DRVs the second time, he first deleted my objection:[206]
    • His next edit was to close the DRV:[207]
    • After I reverted his second illegal closure, Aman simultaneously deleted my objection and illegally closed the DRV a third time:[208]
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Orientls your criticism of Cryptic’s rollbacks is disingenuous. Twice, Aman illegally deleted the DRV notice from the AfD. Cryptic reverted them.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk like "illegally deleted" is over-the-top and irrelevant. We know what happened—there is (according to the above) a long-term abuser who has recreated an article. WP:DENY is much more than "just an essay"—it is the only effective method available to deal with LTAs. AKG should not have edit warred but this is a standard issue where one side wants all content and the other wants to apply DENY. Calling it illegal is a misunderstanding. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A.B. This means you admit that you were also edit warring. When disputing the closure, you have to first consult the editor who has closed it on their talk page but that is not what you have done. You went to wage an unnecessary edit war. Wikipedia is not a judicial body so your use of the term "illegal" is misleading. It is correct that WP:ROLLBACK says only vandalism should be reverted with rollback tool and Aman.kumar.goel's edits were nothing more than a misunderstanding as evident from his edit summaries.[209] Cryptic was required to explain their reverts at least in the edit summaries but it never happened. By attacking editors and their comments as "disingenuous", "disingenuousness", "duplicitous" across this thread, you have already put yourself into WP:NPA block territory. You must strike these personal attacks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was improper, but it wasn't "illegal." SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cryptic, your call here. If you may wish to unblock the user with warnings/advise, or if you may wish the block to continue, please do either so this discussion can be closed. Thank you, Lourdes 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody behaved well here. The first closure (terminating a process started by a blocked sock, which nobody had yet supported) is a common practice as a reasonable application of WP:BLOCKEVADE, which is policy and which allows the removal of edits made by socks. I don't see any reason why a DRV would be exempt from that. While other people had weighed in, they had (at that point) all weighed in in opposition to the sock, so makes no sense to argue that that meant the discussion had to be allowed to run its full course. If anyone had weighed in in favor of overturning at that time it would be different, but they hadn't. Likewise, I don't think involvement matters when making such BLOCKEVADE reverts; they're done without prejudice and are straightforward actions that require no particular judgement call - they are not "real" closures in the normal sense of the word. (I wouldn't have phrased it as a closure myself - the idea is that it ought to be erased as if it never occurred - but as far as that goes it'd only be a technicality if they'd only removed the discussion once.) However, BLOCKEVADE and DENY both have clear limits - a sockpuppet's edits can be reverted once by anyone without further rationale, but they can also be restored by anyone, and after that they have to be treated normally. At that point it definitely wasn't appropriate for Aman to close it again, since that was no longer a lightweight judgement-free implementation of WP:BLOCKEVADE. And their comments afterwards (insisting that A.B. needed to open a new discussion) make no sense - re-opening the DRV was equivalent to doing so; arguing that they need to create a new discussion smacks of trying to throw red tape at them for the sake of red tape. As long as the sockpuppet's comments are striken, ensuring the eventual closer knows to disregard them, what would be the advantage of a new discussion? Really, I think it's reasonable to question why A.B. wanted to restore that DRV instead of starting another one (doing so meant that all the opposition already present was preserved, and further editors would probably be less likely to support a position taken by a blocked sock) but they were within their rights to do so. I do also feel it was somewhat inappropriate of A.B. to unstrike the sockpuppet's comments in their reverts - it's important that the closer know they were a blocked sockpuppet. Even if I'm not sure there's a specific policy for it, clearly an editor shouldn't do something in a structured discussion that might obscure the fact that someone was a banned sockpuppet, since that's something the closer needs to know. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think those of us who participate more DRV see this differently than others. DRV has very specific rules on when to close a discussion just because reviewing deletion is generally a very important task, and generally requires an administrator to close (because tools are generally needed to carry out the next step). There are only four specific speedy closure rules for DRV, and WP:BLOCKEVADE is specifically not mentioned. As a result I see this as a very serious misunderstanding on AKG's part. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a standard issue where a group following their own rules (see WP:IAR) collides with the practical difficulties of dealing with LTAs. The wikipolitics of deletion discussions is particularly sensitive but that's all it is—wikipolitics. Their rules are no more sancrosanct than WP:EVADE or WP:BANREVERT or indeed, WP:DENY. As outlined above, edit warring is always a mistake but the initial close was not improper. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree - it's almost always incorrect to close something at DRV as someone who is involved. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term issues with user Kinfo Pedia, redux

    • Kinfo Pedia (talk · contribs) has long caused immense difficulties for those trying to clean up damage at Glenn Miller, with perhaps hundreds of edits reverted. I had sort of hoped for a topic ban last year, but I don't think that will solve this, as can be seen at [210], [211], [212], [213], and external links under 'see also' [214]. Previously there were lengthy disruptions at [215], [216], [217] and [218]. The earlier issues culminated in my report here [219], but really not much has changed since. To mix metaphors, a lot of leeway has been given, and the batting average hasn't improved. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given them a two weeks' block from the article space and have given them some essential reading. Do come back in case they resume editing articles in the same manner after the two-weeks' block. Thank you, Lourdes 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Lourdes. Back in December, I think they made a vague resolution to learn more about editing here with respect to guidelines. We'll see in a few weeks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yousefsw07 edit-warring, pushing unsourced POV changes

    Yousefsw07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Account has been consistently making unsourced POV edits across multiple articles (generally to infoboxes of military history articles concerning Libya). All have been reverted and they frequently edit-war over them. They received multiple warnings about this on their talk page, with no change in behaviour.

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:Yousefsw07#Block. El_C 14:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    14.0.128.0/17

    14.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    This IP range possible broke edit ban in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and List of Disney animated films based on fairy tales, please see [234], why IP user 14.0.229.194 know Chicken Little 2005 has already blocked in this wiki and Meta? I feel this LTA camouflage anti vandal user and obtain the trust, and this IP range must not new user, also, sometimes this IP range can edit in this page.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Absurd forms of vandalism

    Recently I have seen many different IPs which are going out of the typical vandalism trends. Hurricane Hilary (2023) has been ref-bombed by several IPs recently, while User talk:Tamzin has been bombed by worthless nonsense. Do these events deserve a deep investigation? IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero diffs provided. I see no particular problem with Tamzin's Talk page, and if there were a problem, she is well able to deal with it herself. Hilary was semi'd earlier today for 12 hours (unusual) for disruption, but if there is a problem after that protection expires, WP:RFPP is the place to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the IP, who seems to be amusing themselves by testing boundaries. Block or protect and ignore. Acroterion (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For those of us who are totally in the dark, the IP blocked by Acroterion (for two weeks) is Special:contributions/77.48.135.9. BTW, their edits to Tamzin's Talk page were on August 11, and their edits to Hilary were today.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's LTA stuff, revert them, block any IPs with repeat usage or accounts, and protect pages as necessary, but otherwise ignore them. Blocks can be requested at WP:AIV, protection can be requested at WP:RFP; if they return with autoconfirmed socks don't hesitate to request ECP. Eventually they'll get bored and find something else to do. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is (at least sometimes) a residential proxy, so I'm actually not sure if this is the same LTA now or if this is two people proxying through the same IP. Doesn't matter hugely at this juncture, though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, theres a significant chance it's two people using the same service, but whether it's one LTA or two (or more) different LTAs really doesn't matter. There was a discussion a ways back at WPOP where it came up that multiple LTAs were using the same known cheap residential proxy service provider, but I don't have the time to dig it up right now, and again it probably doesn't matter. TBH I probably shouldn't be looking at Wikipedia at all today or for the next month or so, but you know, procrastination. Anyway, 세상에 열린 (talk · contribs) is now blocked, and another AC sock has followed. If disruption persists with more autoconfirmed socks than a bump to ECP can be requested at RFP, but otherwise there's nothing more to do here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I do the right thing here?

    I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [235]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.
    So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1171185349"