Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    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. (archivessearch)

    Jonharojjashi, part 2[edit]

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

    TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.

    Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.

    These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2] [3], but they were mostly fruitless.

    Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699[edit]

    1. Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
    2. Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
    3. At Kanishka's war with Parthia, Mr Anonymous 699 restored [7] the pov addition of Jonharojjashi.

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Indo12122[edit]

    1. As mentioned above, Indo12122 was also part of the edit warring efforts of Jonharojjashi and the now indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699 at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent [8] [9] [10] [11]
    2. After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah [12]
    3. Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan [13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
    4. When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15] [16]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Shakib ul hassan[edit]

    1. Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They initially made such a poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
    2. Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17] [18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh [19] [20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
    3. Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22] [23].

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330[edit]

    1. Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts [24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
    2. Same here; Melechha creates a Wikitable at Luso–Maratha War (1729–1732) [26], then its heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [27]
    3. And the same here again, Melechha creates a Wikitable at Dogra–Tibetan war [28], then heavily edited by Jonharojjashi [29]
    4. Indeffed user Aryan330 and Melechha's sock EditorPandit edited warred at Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) [30] [31]. Guess who joined them later? That is right, Jonharojjashi [32]
    5. Melechha's sock Msangharak trying to save the then POV infested Kanishka's war with Parthia by Jonharojjashi after it got nominated for deletion [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

    Jonharojjashi and the sock Rowlatt11[edit]

    Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.

    Closing remark[edit]

    In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.

    There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
    "I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.
    Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
    Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
    1. HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
    Kanishka's war with Parthia Why are you still lying?
    1. 2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
    2. The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
    3. more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
    Jonharojjashi (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A poor, cherrypicked response which barely addressed half the stuff I said. As I expected. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what's so cheery picked in it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing issues of Jonharojjashi[edit]

    I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial[AFCND] 17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial[AFCND] 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial[AFCND] 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's first comment:-
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's second comment:-
    Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.
    Responding to relevant points in @ImperialAficionado's third comment:-
    • Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.
    I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50] Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonharojjashi and Malik-Al-Hind[edit]

    Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    My god, can they make it less obvious?

    1. Both Jonharojjashi [51] and brand new User:Malik-Al-Hind [52] use the obscure and poor source written by a non-historian Dictionary of Wars
    2. Both fixiated on making poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war/conflict articles where the Indian part wins [53] [54]
    3. Like Jonharojjashi [55], Malik-Al-Hind also tries to overinflate Gupta territory/history through source misuse (WP:SYNTH) [56] [57]
    4. Both Jonharojjashi [58] and Malik-Al-Hind [59] are fixated on me not focusing on User:DeepstoneV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.

    Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.

    Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.

    Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.

    Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68] [69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonharojjashi and Sudsahab[edit]

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

    1. Both Jonharojjashi [71] [72] and indeffed user Sudsahab [73] use the incredibly obscure and obviously non-WP:RS by a non-historian Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands
    2. Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74] [75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 2024 9 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.
    I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A user Based Kashmiri is selecting articles for deletion that do not appear to have any issues. It seems that he simply dislikes these articles, which is why he is deleting them. Surprisingly, another user, Rawn, has voted for deletion on every article this user has selected for deletion.
    [1][2][3][4] DeepstoneV (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    पापा जी[edit]

    पापा जी (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    पापा जी is a "brand new user", yet they are already aware of WP:SYNTH [77] and WP:NPOV [78]. Their first edit was restoring info in an article by Shakib ul hassan [79], does this edit summary seem like that of a new user to you? using "rv" in their very first edit summary. They then immediately went to support the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab conquest of Kaikan ‎and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh. Not even remotely close to the traditional journey of a new user, good thing they're trying to hide it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A remark about closing[edit]

    @HistoryofIran, please stop non-archiving this thread. You have been warned about this previously. The administrators do not appear to be interested in this report. It's time to close and move on. I have removed the no-archive. BoldGnome (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @BoldGnome: That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this [80] [81]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

    WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [82]), likely a sock [83], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.

    1. At Talk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [84], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
    2. After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [85] [86]
    3. Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [87]
    4. Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [88] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
    5. Same here [89]
    6. And here [90]
    7. And here [91]
    8. And here [92]
    9. And here [93]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another removal of information about the Mongolian component - diff. KoizumiBS (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because Babur never said those words in his Baburnama, but the translator added it and it should not be taken as a source. please see [5] Bravehm (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CIR issues too. You've already been asked several times why the translators don't count as WP:RS, but you've been unable to, even changing your arguments as you please [94]. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Another attempt to minimize the Mongol aspect [95]. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[96] Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
      • According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
      • According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
      • According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.
      I only rm the last one due to repetition, incompleteness, and it only mentioned the Mongolian aspect. Bravehm (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [97] Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: [98], [99]
    They are not removal but restoration.
    I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bravehm once again being dishonest, removing sourced info while saying it is "unsourced" [100]. WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "More unsourced" not "unsourced"
    I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".
    And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [101] Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not unsourced though... And your explanation is worthless, we follow WP:RS, not your personal opinion - you've already been told this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So "" and "" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    1. ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226)", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
    2. ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha invasion of Awadh", Wikipedia, 2024-05-18, retrieved 2024-05-18
    3. ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Ranthambore (1226)", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
    4. ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mughal conquest of Baglana", Wikipedia, 2024-05-17, retrieved 2024-05-18
    5. ^ Zahīr ud-Dīn Muhammad Babur (1921)."Memoirs Of Zehir-Ed-Din Muhammed Babur. Volume 1.". Oxford University Press. Pages 44, 243, 279."

    Request for closure[edit]

    Can an admin please take a look at this case? Bravehm is disrupting more and more articles as we speak [102]. They are WP:TENDENTIOUS and have clear WP:CIR issues, exactly like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad and co., they even all have the same English skills! --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.
    User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [103]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.
    This's how I did it (Restored revision 1219713481 by WikiDan61 (talk): Please do not delete previous contents [104]) Bravehm (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, everyone can see how you did it... I already linked the diff. And everyone can see your disruption through these diffs. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the request for closure and have removed the non-archive from this report as well. BoldGnome (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.
      This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough [105]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.[edit]

    See here. [106][107] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention:
    Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.
    WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't a recent death now. It was when the DYK was plastered over the main page, three weeks after McCluskie died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempt to goad me into making the response that comment merits duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't you a little too involved to be making such a proposal? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: that or a BOOMERANG. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    horse horse i love my station
    I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your telepathic skills, you should already be aware of my reply. Feel free to report the breach of WP:CIVIL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For using examples over a decade old in a discussion about current practices. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:
      • "If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
      • "Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
      • "Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas
      Oh and here's a bonus:
      • "All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"
      Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The evidence section was entirely 'simple and discussion free' until people objected to me submitting any. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I have accepted that submission. It's in the table. Let's move on.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) my comments are not not needed.[reply]
    1. AndyTheGrump opened a thread at WP:ANI referring to DYK contributors as "idiots".[108]
    2. 4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[109]
    3. AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[110]
    4. 4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[111]
    5. 4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.

    This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[112] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjiii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology 06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something
    ATG‘s behavior is unacceptable Maestrofin (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks.
    I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, kick the can down the road until he does it again? And again? And Again? This is a repeat pattern, it's not going to get better. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump[edit]

    • Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This happened on the 15th. That's three days after his previous disruption on the same topic. What we're seeing is already the "if it happened again". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.
      I see it this way:
      • There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
      • He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
      • Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.
      So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also support a topic ban from Did You Know. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a t-ban from DYK per Valereee. BorgQueen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't realize that worked; I should have named myself LevivichTheInsufferable (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors who are eager to go for the nuclear option also create a chilling effect. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.
      Incidentally, I feel a new-found respect, if not warmth, towards the editor Lightburst. ——Serial Number 54129 18:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That question is easy to answer: DYK posts 9-18 8-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A 9th list item has snuck in today! Levivich (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and their own behavior wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a general remark not based on any single editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't know about the original title of the thread. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Simonm223, identifying it and calling editors halfwits, morons, and idiots is two different things. Passionate does not have to mean namecalling. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not comfortable banning an editor from the whole project indefinitely over name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For namecalling over a decade with no indication that they plan to stop? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking making four replies to every !vote that goes opposite the way you want doesn't persuade anybody. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.
      What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - ZLEA T\C 18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @4meter4, are you suggesting a logged warning? Valereee (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I would definitely support a logged warning then.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, nvm, that's already happened. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Just Step Sideways, Andy opened this. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrī TALK 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both I don't see any new issue, and the rest is a re-do of the last ANI thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You realize Andy opened this "re-do"? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is Andy suggesting these sanctions? If not then no he did not open this re-do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.
      Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He. Brought. This. Here. If you think it wasn't worth bringing here, it's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Note the comment above was only He. Brought. This. Here. when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.)
      It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria.
      What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Taking this to user talk. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless you have anything new to say here, please just get over it. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Genuinely, I don't think responding to every single person in this thread is a good thing to do. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The exact same reason as my previous wikilink for you. Because no one is obligated to satisfy you. In summary; you're not entitled to an apology, even if you deserve one. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Taking to user talk. Valereee (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I definitely support giving some sort of final warning to put ATG on notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For reference sake see BLP incivility warning that was given. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am not bloody-minded enough lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Christ on a cracker, Mangoe, would you get the facts straight. Levivich (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."
    The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.
    TFD (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The punishment seems disproportionate to the offense, though it may become proportionate later if the behavior continues. Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef. Was his first logged warning for incivility this week? Rjjiii (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I believe he's had a number of temp bans before. wound theology 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia. He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I didn't make a statement about a topic-ban from DYK, and I am still not making a statement about that, so I don't think that I am disagreeing with User:Valereee. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support non-indef ban and perhaps a topic ban based on the above. Warnings clearly aren't doing the trick. wound theology 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: to make everybody happy, I support a three months block from DYK. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef. I thought long and hard about this. Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions as shooting the messenger, though Andy would be well advised to tone it down. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom[edit]

    I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.

    I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.

    I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.

    It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides.
    There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive.
    It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.
        That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion. Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit. And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here. It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND and just follow that route.
        Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him. He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors.
        But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he is pushing the right idea or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project. This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards. Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm. The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. SnowRise let's rap 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The RFC is now open at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. All are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This solves the procedural issue at DYK, but the second overlapping issue, which relates to user conduct, is still open. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these users have raised serious civility concerns on Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia#Replies_to_Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist. YFNS made a pretty blatant personal attack, saying I will say it plainly, stretching the absolute limits on assuming good faith, that was stupid and raises serious WP:CIR concerns. If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll. Licks-rocks is constantly assuming bad faith from me and making false statements about my edits, such as repeatedly saying that I removed a bullet point when I had actually merged it for redundancy, and later for saying that I had speculated on YFNS's competency to edit in this topic space based on her age at transition, something I did not imply. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • For clarity: I said this briefly before in a comment below, but I think this info should be at the top for clarity since I'm potentially/partially withdrawing one of the two users from this report. I think I can safely drop the WP:STICK against specifically Licks-rocks (the report stays up for YFNS though, I'm not letting the personal attack nor the disruption slide). Maybe a warning could be issued for me and Licks-rocks because of the conduct Licks-rocks and I had with each other, but I don't think there needs to be anything further for Licks-rocks. During the 7 hours so far Licks-rocks has been either asleep or busy, I discovered a diff (listed below in one of my comments) where they seemed open to discussion. It appears the false accusations were from good faith misunderstanding, not from malice, with the misunderstanding and frustration going both ways between both of us. It's annoying that the two of us had to go through this, and I apologize; arguing with two editors simultaneously frazzled me, and I had initially missed the diff that solved many of my civility concerns for Licks-rocks, even if we still disagree on the content. I think the Licks-rocks conflict can easily be reduced from a civility concern to a content dispute, which, while not ideal, is no longer serious enough for ANI. If something new comes up with Licks-rocks, I may reinstate my report against them, but so far I believe I can come to an understanding with Licks-rocks. As I said though, my report against YFNS remains due to the severity of her personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case anybody is wondering what context UA is neglecting to mention, that comment was in response to the fact they removed That accepting transgender youth is a slippery slope toward putting litter boxes in schools or other strange beliefs about identity. from a list of queerphobic beliefs in an essay - stating that Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here (emphasis mine). [113] . Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A content dispute is not a good reason to call me a troll, bad faith, or incompetent. You're also neglecting to mention how you started the whole argument with a sarcastic Non-Endorsement, which was extremely disruptive. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained on your talk page, this goes beyond "content dispute", which I assume is why you took it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It goes into user conduct dispute once YFNS made the very blatant personal attack, and I was also sick of you saying that I said things I did not do, and yours' and YNFS's latest comments on the essay talk page were the last straw. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think it went into user conduct dispute when I told you to stop repeatedly trying to delete content from that essay. The rest happened because ANI cases are a hassle and I was hoping you'd have stopped by now. If you have, I can't tell, because you're too busy arguing back and filing ANI cases against me --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you remember how several editors retracted their !delete votes to get rid of the essay because I was deleting content that was found to be problematic, and they cited the deletions as overall improvements? I figured it would be fine to keep trying to improve the essay, but then you accused me of disruptive editing because according to you, I shouldn't edit a page I voted to delete on. I also didn't want it to come to an ANI case, but once you said I was questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior, as well as her name-calling me, those were the last straws. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a diff on questioning YFNS's competence because of her identity rather than her behavior? You can't just say someone said that without diffs. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the diff where I felt Licks-Rocks was accusing me, and here is the diff where YFNS made a very blatant personal attack. I'd also like to mention that I just discovered a diff showing that Licks-rocks is able to discuss civilly, finally realizing that I had merged a point instead of deleting it, although it came after these two diffs of false accusations. I apologize to Licks-rocks for not finding that first diff before making this ANI. My conflict with Licks-rocks hasn't disappeared fully, but my trust has been partially renewed after reading the diff where they said "fair point", as it seems like a lot of our dispute was founded over miscommunication. However, the issue with YFNS remains fully intact, and I can not in any way trust a user who will blatantly call another user a "queerphobic troll", cast aspersions of incompetence and dogwhistling, threaten to take me to AE over a content dispute, or in general say something as hostile as cry as much as you want, or make it extremely clear she's not open to discussion by saying the essay isn't going to change for you. Saying "I would call you a troll" is essentially the exact same thing as "I am calling you a troll right now". am aware that YFNS has had a GENSEX TBAN before; should her TBAN be reinstated if she will behave with such hostility towards a conflict dispute? In fact, for good measure, here's her sarcastic Non-Endorsement that I found to be disruptive, and the additional comment that made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical, furthering her disruption. I don't think there's any specific policy against sarcastic/satirical comments in talk pages, but they're not helpful and only make things confusing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    YFNS had a GENSEX TBAN because admins refused to close the discussion when the filer was revealed to be a sock. It was illegitimate to begin with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This time, it isn't a sock filing. Also, even during that prior discussion, many legitimate editors came forth with actual problems against YFNS. As the closer stated, It might make or break in a close discussion, but this was not close… Even though the filing was in bad faith, once the issue was up, it became apparent that there was indeed problem's with TheTranarchists editing. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really LilianaUwU? You think I'm a sockpuppet because of beef with one user?. I just checked the supposed sock master's edits, and I don't have any other edits in common with the supposed sock master, especially not any of the pages tied to locations I have no familiarity with nor have I ever been to. Go ahead and check our IPs, unless the sock master is by some chance in the same area as me they'll be different. I would, however, like to report LilianaUwU for the unfounded aspersion that I could be a sock. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and I withdrew it when I realized I'm horribly wrong. Apologies for the aspersion casting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for blowing up at you. I'm glad you understand that I was frustrated at a false accusation. I'll strike my above comment. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, it's fair to be mad at me for such a big mistake. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since we're here... might as well put this up here. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting of ass

    I am open for a two-way interaction ban between me and both of these users, though I would still like for their behavior to be examined, as the name-calling and assumption of bad faith are both very uncivil in my opinion. I am also open to examination of my own behavior. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the conversation I had with anon at his talk page. Also, take a look at the conversation mentioned above, and anon's general editing history since that MfD. Something something doth protest too much. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your most recent edit to my talk page still falls under my civility concern. You accused me, again, of obviously disagreeing with the premise of the essay, when I had literally just explained that I do think queerphobia is hate, and that the disagreement was what the essay considered queerphobia. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of what the words "the premise" mean is very narrow here, to me. All in all, you've been pretty vocal about disliking what amounts to the vast majority of that essay, so I don't think what I'm saying is an unfair characterisation. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that this reply was made to the initial post(diff), the OP wrote the text this is currently a reply to 5 mins after the reply was made(diff). – 2804:F1...1D:E8C2 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Crazy thought. Stop arguing with each other here before anyone else has a chance to chime in. You both look bad. --Onorem (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As an uninvolved administrator, I have been watching discussions about this essay for a while. Things are getting nasty and it must stop. All editors involved with this essay pro and con should be advised that false accusations, snide remarks, personal attacks and slow motion edit warring are unacceptable. Be on your best behavior, or be prepared to accept the consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, uh, what he said jp×g🗯️ 07:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unnamed anon's contributions in this area have been disruptive and it is far past time that he dropped the WP:STICK. His comments in the essay's MFD consisted mainly of soapboxing about his own personal views of what is and is not queerphobic instead of making policy-based arguments, he edited an archived deletion review after it was headed for a unanimous endorsement to suggest yet more discussion should be held, and now he bring this dispute to ANI after he chose to escalate it at seemingly every turn (ex. suggesting YFNS remove the "friendly" from her username). It's just an essay! Hatman31 (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see your point about my comments on the MfD being soapboxing and not policy-based, but I can explain the edit to the archived deletion review. YFNS sarcastically wrote a Non-Endorsement and this additional comment made it confusing if she was being serious or satirical. My thought process was that she wouldn't reply to her original endorsement if she wasn't at least somewhat serious. It turned out to be sarcasm, but it was legitimately hard to tell until she replied later, so I requested to reopen the Deletion Review now that new info had supposedly come to light. Did I write it in the wrong place? Yes. I had no idea where to write it, and because I didn't know if it was sarcasm I didn't want to waste a page on new info if I didn't know it was serious or not. As for saying YFNS should remove the word "Friendly" from her username, I'll admit I did step too far and my comment could be interpreted as a personal attack, but I had felt she made a personal attack towards me first by misinterpreting my replies on the talk page and by saying that my agreement with her disruptive sarcasm was a stupid bar, before of course she made a more blatant personal attack. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If the people who write an essay want to avoid arguing about it with others who want it to say something else, why not just put it in userspace to begin with? That's what userspace is for, after all. This kind of thing is why I said it ought to have been userfied in the first place... jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, uh, what is this -- "In any case, cry as much as you want" -- it's great that you have good opinions and etc etc, but I do distinctly recall a person being indeffed some years ago after repeated ad-hominems about other editors "crying"/having "cried" -- so maybe less of that. jp×g🗯️ 08:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to add that the next diff was the one that proved that Licks-rocks (who I also initially reported but have mostly dropped the stick towards by now) can actually be reasonable, with a statement like Fair point on the first removal. However, because YFNS blatantly called me a troll at the exact same time, I was more focused on that, and didn't discover that Licks-rocks even made that comment until a few hours after filing this ANI, and ended up wasting Lick-rocks' time. While I can only speculate, I do think the conflict between me and Licks-rocks would have reached a more natural conclusion if I wasn't also dealing with YFNS's disruption and general incivility at the same time. Unnamed anon (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate, if unsurprising, to see UA at AN/I. But the signs were there from the start. It is worth noting that they registered this account for the sole reason of continuing an edit war which they had waged as an IP, intent on restoring unsourced cruft material to an already-swamped fanboy page, even when advised against doing so (e.g. by Drmies, and Ad Orientam). This led them to forum shop in excelsis, and saw them file in rapid order at WP:AE, the Teahouse (!!!) and WP:ANI. They accuse others of lying (noted GorillaWarfare). I note that little seems to have changed. While it might look as transphobia is their latest POV to push, they have had similar gender-based problems previously (Claiming someone is gay because of a Twitter post, or advice from Tamzin in which she notes a degree of offensiveness in his treatment of transgender people); before which their previous behavior pales. But the side issues brought up—here and on UA's talk page—demonstrate that the lessons of a few years ago have not been learned. Edit warring (and the continuing misunderstanding of what constitutes it), bludgeoning, aspersions of trolling and edit warring (result: No violation: and the closing admin told UA they were basically throwing anything to see what stuck), and a basic IDHT unwillingness to be counselled are all old behaviors not yet unlearned. To quote Eggishorn to UA:

      You will, of course, dispute every characterization of your edits I've made above and defend yourself from these "accusations". Your statements at the Teahouse and DRN and AE all demonstrate that, no matter how many editors have told you this approach is mal-adapted for this website, you are going to insist on your righteousness. Please: you really, really need to slow down and read instructions and the feedback you've already received before you keep going. You are treating the entire project as your personal WP:BATTLEGROUND.

      That warning was from nearly four years ago. plus ça change, and four years later, we are having almost exactly the same conversation. Such recidivism suggests that they are a net negative and continually soaking up editors' time and energy requires a preventative block. ——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: While I hate to bring up an entirely separate discussion into the mix, if you're going to bring up that one from 4 years ago, I can't see how you reverting to your preferred version of a page every month or two could be considered anything but slow motion edit warring, especially since three of the people who reverted you were not me (the first was an entirely different user and the other two were separate IPs who were not me). Only these two IPs editing that page were me, with a third one briefly rotated to here (and the first one was a temporary one as I was editing while not in my hometown), before I made my account in August, as I wanted to avoid the aspersion you cast that any IP reverting your edits to that page was me. In addition to the aspersion that every IP editing that page was me, and another aspersion of "bullshitting innocent admins", you publicly stated my location at the time, something I really do not appreciate, as it comes very close to doxxing. Calling me a "crufter" in that same edit where you stated my location at the time also comes close to being a personal attack since it's immature name-calling, but I'll let that slide for now because doxxing me was so much worse. Even after reverting your edit I had tried to find a compromise by removing said cruft without entirely removing the article's substance and tried to add sources (examples of both). I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have, and forumshopping that I have mostly stopped doing since that discussion with you, but it seems like you still believe you were entirely in the right even four years later, when what you were doing 4 years ago couldn't be described as anything but the exact type of slow motion edit warring that I'm (probably correctly) at stake for right now, and you're completely blowing off my attempt at cooperation. I hope anybody else reading can understand that I was frustrated at clear slow-motion edit warring from SN54129 being called "not warring" and especially towards being doxxed, even if my response to edit war back or forumshop wasn't appropriate. As I was a new editor back then, I did not know how to describe slow motion edit warring, and as I said I have not continued forumshopping. You're also claiming that Ad Orientem had told me to not edit the page; he never did that at all, and specifically said that In this case I am now satisfied that there is nothing malicious going on here when I raised my concerns. You linked GorillaWarfare, who said you were discussing on the talk page; while you were doing so properly in January, when the discussion resurfaced in August, your only substantial edit to the talk page was the aforementioned doxxing. You are also leaving out GorillaWarfare's next comment suggesting what I should do, and me properly following her advice. While I appreciate constructive criticism (Hatman31's criticism was constructive, for example), Serial Number 54129's criticism is not constructive at all, as it appears that you still believe you are blameless, when that clearly is not the case, and are completely ignoring instances where I showed that I was able to properly come to a compromise and consensus. I also can't trust how the discussion below started by Kcmastrpc was initially collapsed by you, when another user is bringing up issues with Licks-rocks. I hate to WP:BOOMERANG to a user that was initially uninvolved, but I feel I have to when said editor is misconstruing facts of a prior debate to get me blocked, whether intentionally or misguided. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I mention walls of text, anyone? That's another favored technique, and comparable to the AN3 report where an admin said they are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the report.
    But while it's true I was involved in that case, I deliberately didn't personalise it by adding my opinion. I did not even mention the causes of the dispute or the original page it revolved around. That's because it's irrelevant. What's relevant is you are showing the same behavior here as you did four years ago—as indicated by your immediate attempts at diverting the discussion into rehashing and relitigating an argument from four years ago. Anyone clicking those links will see my involvement and judge as necessary. But the important thing in these discussions is not to personalise them, as that generates more heat than light. Unfortunately, you have proved Eggishorn's point for them: you immediately personalize the discussion, go on a battlefield attack, while accepting no responsibility. You should remember, now, that it's not about me, and more to the point, it's not about defending yourself to me—you must defend yourself to the community. I imagine a little self-reflection and consideration for others might go a long way towards helping your case; I hope it's not too late.
    Feel free to cry boomerang all you like; I do not feel such chill on the back of my head to necessitate wearing a helmet.
    PS I've re-hatted that extraneous section, as it clearly would have been undone by admin if it was out of place. It was not. That essay has enough discussions on it already if you want to join one of them.
    I expect there will be further walls of text to enjoy; I doubt I will avail myself of the opportunity to do so. ——Serial Number 54129 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatting the below discussion is still not appropriate if another user is bringing up concerns about Licks-rocks, whose user conduct is also being judged. And I feel I do need a wall of text if you're going to be casting aspersions by saying I have a misunderstanding of what constitutes [edit warring] or blatantly misrepresenting admin statements. You're also either lying or not reading carefully that I am accepting no responsibility, when I had literally just said I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless in that situation for a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that I admit I still have. I have no desire to sanction you for a discussion that ended long ago, but aside from the BATTLEGROUND problem I realize I have, your argument to block me is misconstruing the facts. Also seriously, another user saying Feel free to cry? Didn't JPxG literally just say that was a uncivil? Unnamed anon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Serial Number 54129: What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now, other than strongly imply that everyone here has a tumblr? Is the idea to just get us to start arguing about whether BakuDeku is a bad ship?? Be still my dash... jp×g🗯️ 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re. What does a random BNHA argument from 2020 have to do with an AN/I now: Nothing, as I said JPxG; but the similarity of the behaviors demonstrated then, with those demonstrated over this essay, are clear. This recidivism—a long-term failure to abide by community norms and expectations—has resulted in this thread. You agree, of course, that a pattern of behavior needs to be proved. I give you UA's own history. Anyway, please focus on UA's current transphobia and consider my input as background to the current complaint.
      Re. the rest of your message, I have no idea it relates to or what answer is required, apologies. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As I stated, most of the diffs you linked were things that were either before I came to a proper consensus and abided by community norms and expectation, or things I haven't done since I was new. Only the BATTLEGROUND complaint was valid. It appears you believe I don't abide by the community norms because you didn't participate in the discussion to resolve the edit war you were a part of. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I'm just some guy online, but if I were trying to get someone to stop posting huge walls of text, I would try to find some way to criticize their behavior without making repeated vague accusations of bigotry, something which necessarily requires them to type out gigantic reams of text to respond to and deny et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @JPxG: Thank you. Both SN54129 and YFNS have shown why I write these walls of text in the first place. I'd like to mention that, while I was editing as an IP, SN publicly stated my location at the time with a whatismyipaddress link and used immature name-calling, the former of which comes dangerously close to doxxing. Frankly, now that this is the first time me and SN have interacted in years, I'm open for a two-way interaction ban between the two of us as well, because he can't respond to me civilly, or criticize me without outdated information (seriously, why bring up forumshopping if I haven't done that since I was new?), and I can't WP:DROPTHESTICK towards his incivility. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @JPxG: SN54129's argument was to prove that I have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, which I'll concede he is correct about. Unless somebody else beings up a new issue with me, I think only BATTLEGROUND issue remains though; the rest are pretty egregious aspersions. The edit warring he's accusing me of was primarily from him, several admin statements were misrepresented as those statements were before I came to agreements with them, and the rest of the diffs represent things I haven't done since 2020. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BOOMERANG aside, that doesn't really negate the WP:BATTLEGROUND that is emerging on the recently created essay. There's no easy solution to that, honestly, and the controversy surrounding it's creation, deletion proposal, and subject matter in general is indicative of the broader culture war that naturally coexists on Wikipedia. I see general incivility around, and I was accused of WP:ASPERSIONS by Licks-rocks regarding the MfD when I explicitly avoided alleging canvassing was deliberate.[114] Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The easy solution would have been to delete the essay but the community missed that opportunity and now nobody is surprised it's a battleground. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I know I haven't been involved much in this discussion, but maybe a rewrite of the essay might do something.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I also explained my reasoning for that on your talk page. I'm glad that you're making the distinction between accidental canvassing and intentional canvassing now, but I'm sure you'll forgive me for not divining that from your initial comments, where you referred to the extremely standard issue notice placed at WP:LGBT as seeming, quote, "quite partisan as it didn't even attempt to include any potentially dissenting voices.". --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PG allows essays in project namespace that are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. It follows that editors who fundamentally disagree with an essay should just leave it be (short of taking it to MfD, which we have been through). There is no reason to continue this escalating conflict. Trying to achieve consensus on something that by definition expresses a view that does not have widespread consensus is impossible. Now if you will excuse me, I am off to rewrite WP:MANDY to match the infinitely wiser WP:NOTMANDY.--Trystan (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Licks-rocks has given me new info that I was legitimately unaware of, to which I replied that I'm open for compromises. If other editors have problems with Licks-rocks, go ahead, but I no longer have problems with them outside of a minor, easily solveable content dispute. YFNS struck her "cry about it" comment, which I'm glad for, but she did not strike the dogwhistling/compotency/bad faith aspersions nor calling me a troll, which is still a concern since those were more blatant personal attacks.

    Additionally, SN54129's faulty and outdated evidence against me makes me distrust him further, he's also given the uncivil "Feel free to cry" statement that, unlike YFNS, he has not struck, and I still haven't forgiven him for doxxing my location four years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that he's acting in bad faith. Dishonest use of "diffs". Making a claim, then providing a link in a form of a diff which supposedly supports the claim when the diff actually shows nothing of the sort, and if you go the the next diff in his "unwillingness to be counseled" aspersion, you can see very well my willingness to be counseled. I'd like for two-way interaction bans between me and both SN54129 and YFNS. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrt WP:CIR, you admit just above that you were editing an article and removing mentions of trans kids because you didn't realize genital surgery isn't done on elementary schoolers. The text you removed and are saying this about didn't even mention medical transition.
    If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll - this is me saying that I was interpreting your behavior, that came off as queerphobic, as genuine concern, as opposed to trolling. Stop trying to twist that into you are a queerphobic troll because that's not what I said. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll trust that you think I had genuine concern, but saying "I'd call you a troll" is pretty easily read as "I am calling you a troll right now". Unnamed anon (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I issued a warning nearly a day ago, and Unnamed anon thanked me for my warning and then proceeded to disregard my warning. Unnamed anon continued with battleground behavior, which, strikingly, the editor themself acknowledges as battleground behavior, and yet continues even after being warned at this very noticeboard. On to the repeated mentions of "doxxing" based on another editor saying that certain IP edits were made from California, which any competent person could confirm with a handful of keystrokes. California has 39 million residents and who knows how many visitors at any point in time, and is by far the most populous state. California is the third largest US state by area, stretching 950 miles from Crescent City to Calexico. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have lived in California for 52 years which simply informs my analysis. So, this ongoing "doxxing" complaint is entirely without merit and should be dropped completely . WP:TLDR is another aspect of my block. The unpaid volunteer competent labor of productive editors is by far our most valuable resource. Disruptive editors who repeatedly waste that precious time have two choices: Stop it or get blocked. Accordingly, I have blocked the editor for a week. Cullen328 (talk)

    I don't have enough energy to compile diffs and detailed timelines, but one pattern of behavior from Unnamed anon is that they often make changes that are disputed but fail to engage on discussions that follow. For example this section was opened after UA had made 10+ consecutive edits removing a portion of the essay content. A part of those removals saw some discussion before UA made those edits, with no apparent consensus. Despite that, UA went ahead and implemented those, along with some additional content they thought warranted removal, which I disputed in another section. This time UA only engaged after someone suggested CBAN. At the history page of the essay, you can see how UA has on multiple occasions did this:

    1. makes a change that was disputed/considered problematic
    2. when others bring the issue to talk, refuse to engage or minimally engage with the consensus building process, with other editors having to make reverts.
    3. after discussion for that dies down, UA goes ahead and makes another edit that is problematic/disputed, perpetuating this pattern of behavior.

    This is disruptive editing with the time wasting, combined with some WP:TEND as well. WP:GENSEX is already a contentious topic, and UA's behavior is subpar. Combined with SN54129's background above, my preference would be a CBAN. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I know he's magnanimously decided to let me off the hook if I don't do anything further to offend him, but sadly, I have to agree with this assessment. Something else I've noticed is that UA also frequently uses individual comments by users on talk pages as a cue, where someone will say something negative about a part of the essay as an aside, and two minutes later I'll see a "per the talk page" removal of the entire thing from UA. See here and here. Neither of these were preceded by actual discussion, just off-the-cuff comments by single editors. I should note that since the ANI discussion, he's started adding stuff instead, using the exact same "one talk page comment as a cue" MO, see here. I'm accepting the new additions under AGF, but they do leave me scratching my head. The quality issue should be obvious, but even when done in good faith, interrupting talk page discussions like this makes carrying out those discussions properly more difficult, and is tiresome to deal with. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After Cullen328 made the temp block and explained in the comment above, there is a response at UA's talk page. The part that specifically addressed this ANI thread is copied here.

    As for the discussion at ANI, I have no more interest in editing the No Queerphobia essay, as I fully realize that, regardless of my intent, it is clear I do have a disruptive editing pattern there. I fully understand 0xDeadbeef and Licks-rocks' points that I added content way too fast after seeing it on the talk page. It would be better for everybody's mental health, including mine, for me to outright ignore the essay. I would prefer not having an official page ban, at least not an indefinite one, as the block notice on my contributions list will remind me of the page's existence and defeat the whole purpose of me ignoring its existence. This talk page section serves as a good reminder for me without being the reminder being constantly everywhere, but I will promise to never touch that essay again. If I do edit that essay again, especially in the way the users are concerned about that adds talk page input immediately after hearing it, then an official page ban can be in order. As you can see with my edits since the MfD ended, I can make constructive changes to other pages, mostly small changes that fix things like grammar.
    — User:Unnamed anon

    0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. It may sound surprising, especially as I'm usually the first to support an extension of WP:ROPE, but in this particular case, I think that ship has sailed. Whereas usually attitudes soften and people become more comfortable in their surroundings, here it seems the opposite: that confrontation and a general refusal to take advice—and with a curious focus on settling old scores—shows that if anything, they have become less collegiate over the years and less likely to fit in with the community for the future. Perhaps if they could demonstrate a year or two of productive, anger- and confrontation-free editing at other projects, the WP:SO would probably become available. ——Serial Number 54129 17:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: t-ban for Unnamed anon[edit]

    • Notwithstanding Unnamed anon's request that their current short-duration block be the end of the remedy against them I think the most productive method of resolving this issue would be an indefinite topic ban from Gender and sexuality topics, broadly construed. This is not a new problem with Unnamed anon as some of their editing relating to Bridget (Guilty Gear) and The Simpsons demonstrates: [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] this one in which the user insists on misgendering a video game character is particularly alarming also a whole bunch of tendentious commentary on the gender of Hikaru Utada. What it comes down to is that Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well and it seems to generally end in tendentious editing. They shouldn't be editing articles with regard to gender and sexuality. Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Gender and Sexuality topics, broadly construed (and I would support this being inclusive of content in non-article pages, like essays, as the disruptive behavior at WP:No Queerphobia warrants). Simonm223's diffs are persuasive for establishing a broader pattern of disruptive behavior in this topic area (a 'highlight' including an edit summary accusing editors of having an obsession with history revisionism when they write prose that doesn't misgender), and Serial Number 54129 describes a long term pattern of Unnamed anon becoming less collegial over time. A topic ban here would be preventative, sparing editors from further disruption. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Unnamed anon on their talk page expressed disavowal of the "sexual deviancy" comment (diff in comment from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist below) which is to some extent good—but then followed that up with I do not have a history at homosexual-related disputes, which is both eliding disputes like the removal of marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted from WP:NQP (which was about same-sex couples) as well as, while not as egregious as "deviancy", phrased with what rings in context as brow-raising language (and makes me a bit concerned about Unnamed anon's copyediting; might they end up introducing less-than-neutral language like this in the name of copyediting in other articles?). This is also why as much as Unnamed anon's less confrontational tone at present is welcome it doesn't persuade me to stop supporting the topic ban proposal or to support exceptions to it. Unnamed anon continues to not recognize some of their disruptive behavior as disruptive, and the long duration of this behavior—and the extremities it has reached—together leave me persuaded that Unnamed anon spending time away from this topic area would be to the project's benefit. Other editors will be capable of copyediting and of doing so without disruptive editing accompanying their contributions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • think I can support this, if it means keeping an otherwise productive editir onsite. I hope that Simonm223's suggestion does turn out to be sufficient; otherwise Unnamed anon has a long history of not handling discussions regarding trans people well would have to be addressed. Still, one step at a time, all right yet be well. ——Serial Number 54129 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN; neutral leaning support on CBAN (involved): After UA opened this original thread, I filed a case at AE regarding their long-term GENSEX misbehavior. @Seraphimblade: closed the thread, referring the matter back here. Highlights include:
    • UA made comments stereotyping LGBT editors as having a POV in 2021, when Tamzin kindly called them on this[122], they doubled down [123], and when Tamzin left a more detailed message UA explained they resort to stereotyping when in a bad mood.[124]
    • UA made comments grouping editors by LGBT identity again in 2022, then described being LGB as a sexual deviancy[125] in the same month.
    • During the WP:NQP discussion, they make an oversighed massive BLP violation[126] and they continued to make comments about editors based on identity (having repeatedly argued that LGBT editors can have a COI due to their identity)[127]. They in fact said that it "definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest" that I objected to people saying all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists[128]...
    • As mentioned earlier, they removed marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples from a list of queerphobic beliefs in the essay.[129]
    • The examples I listed here and at AE are only a selection of worse offenses, there are other instances of tendentious editing regarding LGBT topics. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      i have been quietly watching this ordeal over the last week or so, and wowie i had not seen those diffs you present here. the "sexual deviancy" comments are especially egregious and offensive, and the fact that seemingly no one addressed that blows my mind. i acknowledge my apparent "conflict of interest" as an LGBT editor, but i think TBAN is the bare minimum here, given that this behavior has not changed in the slightest since they joined nearly 4 years ago. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      and to be clear: YFNS' conduct hasn't been perfect here, but that can be addressed separately and that's no excuse for UA to be tendentious themself. at the AE request, UA said I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. UA, you shouldn't be grouping editors by their sexuality at all.
      UA has just replied to me on their talk page and i appreciate that they are concerned about not being able to fix typos and the like - in that case, i think carving out a minor copyediting exception to the TBAN would be fine, if that's an option (struck per Hydrangeans) - i just do not want the community or the lovely admins at AE to have to spend any more time on this disruption ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN to prevent further disruption in this topic area. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep in mind that WP:GENSEX is a contentious topic where the threshold for tolerating disruption is already low. No one, not even Unnamed anon himself, has denied that he has disrupted under this topic area.
      I think we as a community is spending way too much time on this than necessary, with UA's talk page section starting to be filled with walls of text.
      The community should move on and implement a topic ban. UA should move on and accept a topic ban, and I hope he can remain here and contribute to other areas that interest him. And if someone thinks a page ban from WP:NQP is sufficient, we can add the history on Talk:Hikaru Utada, the comment about sexual deviancy, and many more detailed above and in the arbitration request. Being able to edit constructively in other LGBT articles is not an excuse for the disruption already caused, and TBAN is just what happens when you continuously disrupt a contentious topic. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • pencilled in Oppose, per Serial, but also because this measure is being suggested at a point of time where the subject of the suggested sanction is not able to explain themself. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) ... added later: When I wrote "per Serial" I meant what Serial Number 54129 had written at the time before removing it here. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can see UA's talk page, he has responded there. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban to stop further disruption in the area. As was already shown above by others, UA has a long-standing history of problematic edits in the space, not just limited to the WP:NQP MfD where they caused hours of tendentious arguing, or then jumping and trying to immediately resurrect the DRV (and editing an archived page at that) after YFNS made a sarcastic non-endorsement. Them now arguing they will leave the essay alone after a tban was proposed appears very reactionary and ignores the rest of their disruptive history in the area. A topic ban also won't stop them from editing movie or TV articles as they asked about, just that they stay away from any explicit LGBT articles, or on movie or TV show articles, just specific sections or sentences that are part of the topic ban, as is explained in WP:TBAN. So I think a topic ban will help prevent any further disruption here. Raladic (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have read UA's response on their user talk page and my personal opinion is that grammar fixes to articles about LGBT BLPs are not sufficiently beneficial to offset the risk of permitting UA to continue editing in the gender and sexuality topic area. I would be willing to extend WP:ROPE regarding edits to TV shows and movies with queer characters provided they understand that editing in relation to topics of gender and sexuality within those articles was still off-limits. But, saying this as a cisgender bisexual, I find both UA's recent comments about sexuality and conflict of interest generally alarming and also don't think we should, at Wikipedia, be countenancing LGB without the T as being a coherent idea that we should permit. The rhetoric used on trans people now is the same rhetoric that we bisexuals and other members of the queer community faced in decades past and an inability to edit appropriately on trans topics should be interpreted as an inability to edit appropriately on queer topics generally. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN per YFNS, as well as 0xDEADBEEFs note about CTOP. I read through all of UA’s responses through this whole mess, and while it looks like they've realized that they did something wrong, CIR remains an issue. UA has shown an inability to judge their own ability to contribute to conversations productively (the fact that they still thought 7 year olds are getting genital surgery [130] over two weeks into arguing against the essay was particularly concerning to me). They've shown a tendency to only become receptive to feedback from others after things hit a boiling point (particularly when discussions of sanctions pop up). I do think that they’ll be able to appeal this in the future, but until they show an ability to contribute productively (I'd suggest checking out the advice on WP:COMPLICATEDTALK), they need to stay away from GENSEX topics. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • :Huh, never heard about WP:COMPLICATEDTALK before, but that's a really good essay, and I will certainly incorporate it in my editing practices going forward. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:GENSEX topic ban - I've had a number of off-wiki conversations lately with friends who identify as queer (I identify as straight with asterisks) where we discuss the concept of an "unsafe person" (my words; the off-wiki tone is not so collegial), in the context of local events. An unsafe person is not a bad person necessarily, but they are a person whose behaviour around queer spaces and topics raises doubts as to whether that person can be trusted not to do harm, most commonly through well-meaning ignorance as I think was exemplified by UA's editing at WP:No Queerphobia, but also occasionally through malice which we have seen some examples of from UA as well. Unsafe persons have a chilling effect on queer persons and queer spaces, and we must avoid that on Wikipedia; see WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I'm not saying this to attack Unnamed anon and I trust they won't take it that way since they've already acknowledged they've behaved badly in this space, but I agree with Simonm223 on this: the minor benefit of one editor gnoming and copyediting BLPs in this space is very greatly outweighed by the potential for a known unsafe person to drive marginalized editors away from a sensitive topic. I don't think there can be any limiting in topic scope of the ban, gender and sexuality are too closely intertwined to craft a workable sanction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      this is a really excellent way to put it ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban These are the types of AN/I I typically try to avoid weighing in on, but after reading Simonm223's diffs and YFNS' highlights I realized how much I, as someone not even directly interacting with UA, felt a deep discomfort at their attitudes and editing patterns regarding queer topics. Luckily for me, Ivanvector already wrote essentially everything I wanted to convey, nearly exactly. From what I've seen UA very much seems well-meaning, but how they conduct themselves and word their stances imparts a notable chilling effect. I hope no matter the result, UA sticks around and continues to help improve Wikipedia in a way they find fulfilling. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban(Involved) I was thinking about not weighing in on this topic ban proposal because I felt I'd already said plenty elsewhere, but I've decided to weigh in one final time. I want to highlight that this "disruption" we talk about is not something theoretical. Honestly, this whole situation has been very tiresome to me. The energy I ended up spending to keep the constant deletions, comments and unhelpful changes in check is energy I could have spent improving the essay. In fact, I would've much preferred spending that time working my way through the essay and doing copyedits, or making sure the list of transphobic beliefs section explained why those beliefs are listed, or adding proper sourcing to back up the factual claims. We have no deadline, but editors do run tired, and then they stop, and then the next editor to come along might be years away. As CambrianCrab pointed out above, sometimes, an ill-informed contribution is worse than no contribution at all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    user:elshadabulla1954 accussing of supporting not good people[edit]

    so recently i was discussing with user:Elshadabdulla1954 about the importance of citing sources since they attempted to just claim on the elshad abdullayev page that elsha adbullayev was performing some crimes related to fraud. I of course reverted these edits since they were unsourced, however quickly I was accused on my talk page of "supporting a fraudster" and "defending a criminal" by user:Elshadabdulla1954 even though all I did was request for sources to be provided. I'm not entirely certain what my best course of action should be in this situation so if someone could help me out it would be greatly appreciated! ps: the comments are still on my talk page if you want to take a look at them Gaismagorm (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    alright the user has been blocked, so the issue is now resolved Gaismagorm (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a username block here sine the account is editing the relevant page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b1c8:b754:6106:ae10:b44d:ecfc (talkcontribs) 11:29 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, I don't want to be too hasty before reporting them to the username board Gaismagorm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]
    Reasonable suggestion re username block but probably unnecessary in this case. From their edit history they're not trying to impersonate Elshad Abdullayev. And of course they are already blocked indefinitely. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here? If I am not mistaken (which i very well might be) you are trying to say that the username block wasn't fully justified? I am not sure if this is what you are trying to say, so if it is not a clearer explanation would be greatly appreciated. Gaismagorm (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elinruby and BATTLEGROUND[edit]

    Elinruby is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([131]), warnings ([132]), and a block ([133]).

    • Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: [134]
    • Accusing me of inserting fake news and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [135]
    • Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [136]
    • Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [137]
    • When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: [138]

    Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150 § Elinruby’s conduct. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Elinruby#Block. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text is Q[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO [line break] Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.
    By way of context for different editor did heavily maul the article, there is an RSN discussion (permanent link) about the use of unreliable sources in Canadian Indian residential school gravesites. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C 05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP put the "triggered" in quotes, and that's where the word occurs in the diff cited. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.

    I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [139][140] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[141][142] Or specific. Or that they didn't show the receipts. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.

    I think that Pbritti misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example:

    • current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
    • current diff 146: Discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
    • current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself

    Then the complaint itself:

    • Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [143] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points.
    • Accusing me of inserting fake news: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI.
    • removing reliably sourced material: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations
    • refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes.
    • spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present: see next bullet point.
    • the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons": Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[144][145][146] The same week, Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere: By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia!
    • Saying they don't need to engage in discussion: Misinterpretation of I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement.
    • suggesting that I'm racist: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice
    • CBC News investigation that determined a link: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag.
    • When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going...
    • apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you
    • a list of Q and As: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits.

    This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

    copied by Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinged note, no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @Elinruby notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. Star Mississippi 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Per El_C, I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified. What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with Springee that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the Jordan Peterson page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections.
      As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound WP:NPOV failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at WP:RS/N and you can see how that turned out here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page: as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting TPA revocation and block extension[edit]

    Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page:

    • When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they replied with I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills
    • They falsely claim The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having left an edit summary that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning
    • They claimed a hostile notice they added to their talk page mentions no names–despite pinging me with @Pbritti: please see section below immediately after adding it.
    • The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and this reply

    I am not keen on the project allowing further ROPE for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging El C as original blocking admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pbritti: The diff for left an edit summary is linking to a 2008 revision. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C: Thanks, I must've deleted a digit. Fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    Oppose - I do not see anything there that requires revoking TPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CLIQUE-like behavior at Elephant article[edit]

    Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [147],[148], [149]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying, removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
    Far more important, however, are the following:
    • "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.
    • "the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([150]) as well as [151].
    However, since I am blackballed from the Elephant article, and would get no satisfaction or response there, anyway, I will raise these issues here. Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reflink states exactly "In Sri Lanka, the population has increased." So you're wrong. LittleJerry (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.
    ( Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([152]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) No it wasn't, stop making false claims. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can continue at the talk page. But the book is available here. LittleJerry (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear what it means and you're the only person who doesn't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's relatively hard to understand. I've made it easier (I have the book). See Special:Diff/1224543588Alalch E. 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is okay too: Special:Diff/1224530808/1224547147. —Alalch E. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E. 01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren't willing to take a step back, and learn from the more experienced editors, then there's no reason I should be talking to you. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.
    Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E. 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. EEng 08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads)." (page 121). CodeTalker (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. EEng 21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm very disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine):
    Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
    What in the world prompts such an accusation here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing[edit]

    I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All three deletion discussions have now been closed as delete. (Full disclosure: two of them by me.) Thank you for nominating those articles, LocomotiveEngine. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    User: Hopefull Innformer[edit]

    There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks onTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.

    I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators. X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Higher powers"? I guess I know what you mean but I've had a long day and that made me laugh. Time to get back to my mop. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's assuming bad faith, but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over this comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the aspersions which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term.
      "is people from twitter, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just people who don't care for integrity or accuracy"
      "I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever inaccurate narrative you want to push"
      "I don't think Theozilla is being sincere here let's focus"
      The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. X0n10ox (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Entire IP range vandalizing and disrupting tons of Wikipedia pages. +SOCK[edit]

    2603:8001:B202:3294:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    This entire IP range is vandalizing / disrupting several articles without hesitation and stop. Most of the edits are sourceless and few of them include unrelated sources. Many of these accounts are sockpuppets that target the same articles, but not only that, it seems that just over the past 24 hours, the IP range has started to vandalize article's talk pages, user talk pages, personal user sandboxes, personal user archives and several Wikipedia articles as well, of course.

    This IP range is already blocked from 2 articles, but I would suggest to block the entire IP range from editing anything in Wikipedia (anon-only) as the disruption will never start.

    Here you can see just some of these examples. Affected pages just within the last 24 hours (except from the Croatian kuna page, as the range was blocked from there 3 months ago) and the other pages are from the last 48/72h:

    Last 24/48/72 hours as well:

    And many more TV stations pages, honestly won't count them all.

    --WikiEditor1890 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user also seems to break WP:NPA in their own talk page when asking to be unblocked from the partially blocked pages: Unblock me, if not, you are a Catalan separatist! --WikiEditor1890 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) new update: Seems a sockpuppet of the above IP range as it's targeting the same pages and the location is identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditor1890 (talkcontribs) 10:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]

    Also, it seems that i'm being targeted by these IP users, sincc i'm more active editor than WikiEditor. The fact that this IP user's edits are not properly cited with reliable sources, he himself sent me on my talk page about the snow in the Almeria mountains, which doesn't even have anything to do with the article. Furthermore, he edited my sandbox unnecessarily, just saying that they are talking about setting up some autonomous communities. Also, this same user changed the Koppen climate classification of the Tabernas desert without any specific reason.
    Now my point of view: all this gets stranger after the confrontation with the user Weatherextremes ends. I say this because this same user has already tried to add several unproven sources that it snowed in Almeria, instead of just relying on AEMET data. Furthermore, as soon as Weatherextremes became inactive (last edition 15 march), these IP users began editing the Almeria article for no specific reason, in addition to editing other Wikipedia articles. This is my assumption, since there are other things that this user edited that don't make any sense and that Weatherextremes has never edited articles of this type. Farell37 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply][edit]

    Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. -Lemonaka‎ 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Malaysia is not a Chinese country, the official language is Malay written in both Latin and Jawi script. (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka‎ 11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok next time I will put the summary, btw I already put the statement in the caption. (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you should have tried discussing with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”.
    Hence only Latin and Jawi are recognized nationwide, Chinese and Tamil are not recognized under Malaysian constitution and law. (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Are you the same person as the IP discussed in #Repeated unexplained addition of Arabic-like scripts by IP address in multiple Penang-related articles ~2 months ago? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same language indeed. FYI ping Ponyo. CMD (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. CMD (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka 14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb and @El_C, who may want to deal with this case? -Lemonaka 15:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would appear to be disruptive editing on the part of User:, but at present I think a final warning would be adequate. Deb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were blocked once, but now returned with same behaviour -Lemonaka 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise.
    Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough of that. I've re-blocked the IP for continued edit warring and incivility.-- Ponyobons mots 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them.

    My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I reverted a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an arbitration notice against me.

    Fast forward to present day, I've reverted another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. Threatening to have me blocked unless I restore their edits.

    I don't know if this is behavior is allowed on Wikipedia or not but it's certainly immoral. Ecrusized (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, the full November AE report. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted ScottishFinnishRadish to say an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here
    That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting a 1RR concern from a different editor without responding to it, and then today a concern from me about the removal of a disputed tag.
    Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago. BilledMammal (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here"
    "That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting"
    You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was talking to you on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and personal commentary towards other editors, we're firmly in topic ban territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For bringing concerns to ANI combined with expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns, seemingly. I don't wholly follow what brought on the indefinite topic ban. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's about it. I probably should have explained that earlier. I left this open so community discussion could continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That indeed seems problematic. But you should use trawling rather than trolling to express such purported WP:HOUNDING. Thanks. El_C 12:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @El C thanks for the correction. TarnishedPathtalk 12:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which would y'all rather have:
      1. Editors complain about 1RR vios right away each and every time they happen
      2. Editors never complain about 1RR vios
      3. Editors let 1RRs slide for a while until they get to be too many, and then bring all the recent ones up at once to show it's not a one-time thing
      I prefer # 3. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to WP:AE, which is what I hoped would happen when I proposed the gentlemen's agreement here. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out:
      Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while at the same time complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like "virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias" ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year.
      I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that BM's behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I can see how someone who didn't look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this bill of particulars out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      virtually inexperienced editors and heavy Israeli bias is strong wording that I don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn't look at this history (that is to say, a different user's behavioral history) and think that BM's behavior is problematic; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that @Levivich. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreliable reference work, not engaging with concerns by CoptEgypt136[edit]

    CoptEgypt136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am concerned that CoptEgypt136 is repeatedly inserting content that is either supported by unreliable sources or else entirely original research. I encountered their editing while reviewing the new pages Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage of Noveleta and Our Lady of Maulawin; in both cases, after I identified serious reliability issues with their cited sources, they responded only by removing tags (Special:Diff/1224816435, Special:Diff/1224816381) and otherwise declining to engage. Upon looking to start a discussion on their user talk page, I saw that they have previously deleted but otherwise ignored multiple warnings from Veverve and Pbritti (Special:Diff/1165819612, Special:Diff/1179393452, and additional warnings from Pbritti before then), and that they have yet to actually make a single communicative edit to a Talk page (other than deleting comments or adding WikiProject flags). At this point, unless they decide to finally engage with the community, I think that a CIR block may be needed. It's debatable as to whether I am WP:INVOLVED here, as my only interaction has been to tag articles for AfD as part of NPP, which is an admin-adjacent task, but I figured it would be best to err on the side of caution and request independent review rather than proceeding to a block. signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't want to make a snap judgement regarding this most recent set of concerns regarding CoptEgypt136, but I have spent a long time reverting/correcting errors and OR inserted by them. If they have been continuing to do this, I am inclined to support a CIR block that forces them to engage with these issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been pretty sure that CoptEgypt136 is the latest sock incarnation of Mark Imanuel Granados. I had gotten tired of playing whack-a-mole with his socks both here and over on wikicommons. I had also hoped that maybe he could focus on editing according to policy as opposed to creating socks to keep pushing his edits that had been reverted. I would support a block, but I also do not anticipate this to solve the problem as he will likely just create another sock. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some odd stuff going on at EuroLeague and its talk page. Primarily, it's Cf203 (talk · contribs) apparently in a bit of a content dispute with some IPv6 users who they're accusing of using VPNs, and lumping Coining (talk · contribs) in with them. Right now there's a slow-motion edit war on the article and I've removed tit-for-tat block requests from the talk page (from Cf203 targeting Coining and an IPv6 targeting Cf203). See also: User talk:Coining#Last Warning and User talk:Liz#Vandalist, as those are also related to this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My thanks to Jéské Couriano for raising this issue. For now, I point to my prior defenses at Talk:EuroLeague and my user talk page, and I convey that I'm happy to answer any questions an admin has for me. I get that Cf203 doesn't care for the anonymous edits that were made by others, but they weren't from me -- I approached things directly and publicly on the article talk page, and yet the reaction from Cf203 goes against WP:AGF WP:SIG and I'm sure whatever policy Wikipedia has about not leveling charges of vandalism without a proper basis. Coining (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi , now i havent issue with User:Coining . I messaged their talk pages. And I requested to block VPN and protect pages from destruction.

    In the last ten days, one person has broken pages many times with different VPNs.

    Last VPN:



    - Athens, Attica, Greece Cf203 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) *sig moved by 2804:F1...53:A19D (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC): diffs1 (19:34), diffs2 (19:45)[reply]

    Respectfully, Cf203, though you say you don't have an issue with me, you've left up your false vandalism charge against me at User Talk: Coining. It really should be replaced with an apology that shows contrition. As for the substance of what the IPv6 accounts are relaying -- the thing you call vandalism -- I can only speak to the EuroLeague article I've been involved with, but I think you are mistaking genuine disagreement with vandalism. Those accounts and I (who, again, are not the same people) are all trying to point out that the concept of gold, silver, and bronze "medals" and the EuroLeague simply don't go together, and you haven't cited an outside source that says they do. So, your effort to keep reinstituting a "medals table" keeps getting reverted (never once by me, but by others -- I simply raised the point in the article's talk page). Just because you disagree with that determination doesn't make it vandalism. But what likely got you here, to this administrative discussion, is that you turned the disagreement into a "war" (your word, on my user talk page) and I, an innocent bystander, was caught up as collateral damage, when you falsely charged me with vandalism. And when Jéské Couriano tried to explain proper Wikipedia procedure, you also summarily ignored him. And, no matter how many times I try to point you to the requirement to sign your posts WP:SIGN, you keep not doing so. I hope an administrator sees fit to give you some sort of time out. Most of us would rather focus our efforts on improving articles rather than having to deal with things like this. Coining (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's clear to me that the situation at the EuroLeague article, and related articles, is a content dispute. There is no vandalism taking place there. Accordingly, I've given Cf203 a standard templated message about edit warring, as they are subject to being blocked if they breach the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles. Who should stop him?

    His VPNs should be blocked and his articles protected

    I did not enter into an editorial war. I have discussed enough here. The account user did not respond. VPN had no answer except destruction and manipulation. Cf203 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, User:Cf203, be careful about how you phrase things. You say at the beginning of this last comment "He continues to vandalize, insult, edit war and destroy articles." A casual reader would think that I am the "he" you are referring to because the topic of this conversation refers to the two of us. Continuing to read your comment, the accounts you are complaining about are the IPv6 accounts, which I have explained to you time and again are not me. You claim you don't have an issue with me, but you seem to not be willing to distinguish between those you do have a genuine dispute with and those, like me, whom you've simply made up accusations against. Do better. I continue to leave in place your false vandalism charge against me at User_talk:Coining in the hope that you will take it upon yourself to reverse your edit and apologize. You haven't seemed to be willing to do that yet, but you still have a chance. Coining (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See this history:

    One of the users deleted his edit and he restored it again with different VPNs. All his VPNs should be blocked forever. It should be checked which VPN it uses so that all its addresses are blocked.

    Template:GoodHue291 hello remove all edits of this vandalist and lock all pages for ips and vpns.Cf203 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cf203: Do you want to explain why me template signing your unsigned comment, and reverting your section title change with the clear explanation that your change violates WP:TALKOTHER, is to you blocked user nonesense content? Further, you've now included me in the list above - what exactly am I being accused of? – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:AD1D:5423:ED53:A19D (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cf203, you just linking to IPv6 contributions without providing any additional context is not doing you any favours, —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither is the WP:FORUMSHOPPING [155] [156]. Your verging ever closer to WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviours and that wont turn out well. Amortias (T)(C) 16:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: And upon inspection they went and reverted for a 4th time in a fraction under 24 hours and just minutes after your warning so I've issued a 24 hour block. Amortias (T)(C) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: A.Viki Wiki7[edit]

    A.Viki Wiki7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User is disruptively editing numerous pages, inserting unsourced, often nonsensical or unencyclopedic content, excessive Wikilinks (e.g., to numbers in pages), and what appears to be the unsourced addition of LLM-generated content. Their focus appears to be on islands, mainly the islands of Greenland. User's disruptive behavior has been brought up on their talk page numerous times, including with warning templates, since 12 May by three different editors (myself included). User has acknowledged the warnings, but continues to edit disruptively. The repeated acknowledgement then ignoring of warnings leads me to believe this user is not editing in good faith.

    Disruptive edits include:

    nf utvol (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this might be a WP:CIR issue.CycoMa1 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially thought it was just that (and haven't ruled it out entirely). However, the continued editing following rather clear warnings, as well as acknowledgement of those warnings, leads me to believe that this individual simply isn't interested in constructive editing for whatever reason. nf utvol (talk) nf utvol (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then this might be a Wikipedia:NOTHERE and/or a troll.
    I think they might be a troll because on there userpage, they claim they a #1 of the list of Wikipedians by articles created. Even though they are not even on that list.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues to make unsourced, nonsense edits to uninhabited islands off Greenland. The continued behavior after all the friendly advice, warnings, and now an ANI leads me to believe this is just strangely targeted vandalism. nf utvol (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I'm A.Wiki Wiki 7. I wish all Wikipedians a good and lucky day. I'm afraid of vandalizing Wikipedia. My edits present the knowledge and skills I have acquired. Thank you. Happy editing! A.Viki Wiki7 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Above comment by A.Viki Wiki7 moved from new section they started at bottom of page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    p-blocked from article space. Not sure it shouldn't have been full, but as long as they don't become disruptive elsewhere, maybe that's sufficient. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their own userpage nonsense and their sealioning at various usertalk, I would have full-blocked. But no harm in waiting a bit to see what they do next. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: Looks like this user has created a sockpuppet account User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08. This user thanked me for an edit where I removed a number of A.Viki Wiki7's comments from my own talk page, account was created immediately after A.Viki Wiki7 was banned, and has a language pattern on strangely similar to the banned user, and is making the same kind of nonsense edits. nf utvol (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, there are many accounts starting with those 2 words followed by a number, multiple blocked: Special:ListUsers. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, good catch. That's extremely strange. nf utvol (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an xwiki sockfest dating back at least to December. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is a little out of control. User:Abduvaitov Sherzod 08 is now pinging admin talk pages asking why they got blocked...pretty cut and dry admission of sockpuppetry if you ask me. nf utvol (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure there are more, there's overlap through UZ Wiki history (first article the 08 sock edited there) for names like A.Sherzod _ and multiple combinations of A. (short for Abduvaitov?), Sherzod, Wiki, Viki (short for Vikipediya, Uzbek for Wikipedia) and some number or other.
    There's also this account which is globally locked and was blocked along with some related accounts at UZ Wiki: Vikipediya foydalanuvchisi (unless Sherzod is some sort of meme, it seems like there's a connection: diff).
    Hopefully a checkuser finds most of the relevant ones. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:A1A9:5E67:39D:C985 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone has any additional accounts with evidence of being part of this sock set, please add to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A.Viki Wiki7. CUs will be looking there in due time and that's also the place anyone else will be looking in the future to help keep track of this set. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smefs Continued harassment / personal attack after previous block for harassment / personal attacks on May 7 expired[edit]

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

    I was advised by Deepfriedokra to bring this issue here after this behavior from Smefs continued. Smefs was blocked by Acroterion on 7 May 2024 for personal attacks/harassment. During their block, a random IP came to revert my edit on the Hin Bredendieck article, a fairly obscure article which had seen exactly zero edits from IPs before or after their block. After their block expired, they continued reverting my edits in a harassment campaign, claiming various rationales in edit summaries that were usually a partial version of reality (claiming I removed sources when I hadn't, claiming they added reliable sources when they hadn't etc.) Some examples of misrepresentation:
    Edit sum: "Undid edit by edit warring user removing further reliable information, obfuscating massacres, etc." I had done no such thing, as I added a source and used information from that source.
    Edit sum: "Yes, I added a reliable source to the original page." They had not done that. A reliable source was eventually added by a different editor, only after I opened a discussion at WP:RSN.
    Claimed, on the talk page, that I removed reliable sources from the Rhodesian article. I had not removed a single source; in fact, I had added one. I'm also the one who opened the talk page discussion after their choice was to start edit warring there.
    Edit sum: "added src". Obviously, no source was added.
    They have also not stopped with the personal attacks, today stating "Unlike you, I don't have hours a day to go back and forth on Wikipedia -- I'm a grad student with a lot on my plate." They then followed that up with "Is that an insult? It's not meant that way, it's more of a statement of fact" on Deepfriedokra's talk page. I don't know where else to turn at this point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was typing this up, they continued to edit war at Propaganda in the Rhodesian Bush War to force their preferred version, with no edit summary and ignoring the points I discussed on the talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been continuously editing the page in order to whitewash massacres committed by African paramilitary groups and have failed to acknowledge that fact. Smefs (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) This edit is from Wisconsin, a state in which I do not live. This is a complete non-issue: you brought it up once before and Deepfriedokra confirmed it is an unfounded accusation. You have no grounds for this accusation. The article is notable and linked publically on Google. It makes perfect sense that someone would edit it soon after creation.
    Deepfriedokra did no such thing, so your statement here is, again, not the truth. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to where Deepfriedokra stated that in my original reply. Please take a look.Smefs (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2) This user's edits clearly and obviously removed information and were an attempt to whitewash massacres committed by paramilitary organizations during a war. They removed information on the St. Albert's massacre and used their one added source as a means to totally rewrite the section, making the actions of paramilitary groups seem less atrocious.
    3) I did in fact add a reliable source to the original page. The source is Greyscape, which is only unreliable according to you. The only editor which has claimed Greyscape is unreliable is Fred Zepelin. I know this because he has posted on the reliable sources noticeboard to which nobody else claimed it was unreliable. You are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to make me look like I am making unfounded changes.
    4) This is one of the most egregious misrepresentations you've made. I'm the one edit warring? Fred Zepelin has continuously and repeatedly been hounding my page for no other reason than that I made conflicting edits with him on the page for True North Centre, showing obsessive and unnecessarily aggressive tendencies in his speech. The only reason he is even editing the Hin Bredendieck page is because he saw it in my revision history -- I was the one who translated the article from German to English. If this doesn't show clear bad faith I'm not sure what else will. For posterity, I'd like to reference Fred Zepelin's talk page, on which multiple users (1, 2, 3) have complained about a similar pattern of behavior. This war was started from Fred Zepelin stalking my page and reverting edits I've made months ago, which aside from being obnoxious shows clear bad faith.
    5) I added the source to the original page. Again, clear misrepresentation.
    The claims about me starting "personal attacks" are totally unfounded. Aside from one regretable comment I made where I questioned this user's sanity, I have been exceedingly respectful, especially considering this user's persistent, relentless attacks on me. I do not find any joy in continuing to edit war with some guy on Wikipedia. If this behavior continues, I would be interested in filing a notice for harassment myself.Smefs (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I seen them here cause my talk page is not the place for this.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As they've already rode out a week block for personal attacks and immediately jumped back with editing the page in order to whitewash massacres even here at this ANI I have blocked them indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that the behavior will not continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:JUSTDOIT has been blanked four times by 3 different accounts[edit]

    As of a few minutes ago, the redirect page Wikipedia:JUSTDOIT pointed to a page that just says . The blanking was first made three weeks ago,

    • first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists on March 14.
    • then by an IP account and
    • Then by by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b.
    • and again by the same account o "Giatricotloi".

    I reverted again but I think this page needs to be protected temporarily and the other two IP accounts need to be blocked or banned or something. I hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask questions. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected for a month. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly this isn't a page that requires editing to be open at all. It's not likely to be valid to change it to anything else. Canterbury Tail talk 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] (talk · contribs) Vandalism and disruptive only editing IP for years[edit]</