Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Block evasion

88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a few hours ago for DE. They have switched to 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and are continuing to spam See also links. See contributions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for evasion per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Oguzkaan76:: another account, same behavior, continued DUCK edits after block of IPs. See contributions and talk page for information.  // Timothy :: talk  17:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked indef, left a note that they would need to explain themselves for any chance of an unblock. --Jayron32 19:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also relevant to the reason for the indef, the user in question has had an account since 2020, has a usertalk page with a list of warnings longer than my arm, and has never used a talk page or a user talk page or ever even left an edit summary. Refusing to communicate is antithetical to collaborational editing. --Jayron32 19:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also also also, something is making my spidey sense tingle. I seem to remember an LTA that has been doing this sort of thing from years ago. Does that ring any bells to anyone? --Jayron32 19:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The block on 88.230.104.114 has expired, and they continued the same editing pattern that they were blocked for.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks this time. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Switched IPs again and spamming from 176.30.230.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  // Timothy :: talk  01:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The block on 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expired and they are continuing the edits from that IP.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

5.176.176.0/20 blocked 1 week.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Another 176.30.232.114  // Timothy :: talk  00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 176.30.224.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week as well. Also rolled back everything from that range. --Jayron32 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

176.220.98.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

And now, Special:Contributions/94.235.120.86. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the two above IPs for 2 weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

New spam ip 176.220.192.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  // Timothy :: talk  13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I rolled everything back, but they seem to have left that address in the past 24 hours and aren't using it right now. I checked the /20, and there's unrelated edits coming from that range so I hesitate to block it yet. Otherwise, thanks again for your diligence. --Jayron32 17:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They have moved on to 176.220.114.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) thanks,  // Timothy :: talk  22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to do. It appears they are using pretty much any IP address in 176.220.0.0/16, but that IP range is busy enough that we really can't block it. I'm not sure we can range block anything in there that is likely to be effective, and not have collateral damage. I'm afraid that if you see the disruption from the 176.220.0.0/16 range, playing whack-a-mole and just mass reverting is likely it. By the time an admin who is following this thread in particular notices and responds, they will have moved on to a different IP in that range. --Jayron32 23:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:HabibKhosti's tendentious editing

On Torkham article an IP editor 39.41.6.68 probably the reported editor made contentious changes without explaination and usurped the article from a border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan to a town in Afghanistan. [37] When he was reverted he started an edit war first as IP which was blocked and then with above account almost 6 times, 5 of them in just two days while 4 of them in last 24 hours with no regards to dispute resolution process or trying to build consensus for these contentious changes. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Not only that he even removed notice of Requested Move started by another editor [43] and second time even went on to move it bulldozing the discussion process. [44] And when I started the discussion on talkpage, he didn't even bother to come and explain and straight-away went on to revert again.

He has repeated the same feat at Wesh-Chaman border crossing by moving the article twice without any discussion. [45] [46] While making contentious changes [47] [48] and edit warring. [49] [50]

He's just pushing Afghan nationalist and irredentist POV and his behaviour clearly states that he's here with battleground mentality and not here to build encyclopedia. 37.111.137.135 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Banned edit-warrior (ShahabKhanJadoon1 (talk · contribs)) is behind the above IP (37.111.137.135). He's not allowed to edit any page or make any report, and if required I can list all his other names that haven't been blocked and tagged. As for me, I came to organize a few very messy pages which nobody oppose except this one-and-only banned edit-warrior based in the Islamabad, Pakistan, area who is network-switching [51] and creating multiple user names to evade his ban. I know all this simply by reviewing history of pages. It's the same exact character and thinker. He generally hates Indians, Afghans and Persians.--HabibKhosti (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia simply via my mobile network's shared IP addresses and because my operator is based in Islamabad so its IPs are assigned that location. I have no knowledge about the editor you're linking me with, you have did this with other editors too previously for which you have no proof and just because they are reverting your tendentious editing in Af-Pak area on Wikipedia. [52] [53] [54]

The same IP and account of yours is involved in similar editing on Torkham, Pakistan. [55] So this is clearly a pattern that you first make IP edits and then come from account to back them. You're currently evading your IP block too which has been blocked for edit-warring. 37.111.128.42 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not you? What about this? [56] Bro, the entire world knows that you're abusing Wikipedia by making countless spare user names and using them to edit Pakistan pages. Your character and specific thinking gives you away. 99.9999% Islambad people think and act very different than you do. It's all about the way you behave and write. Are you one of those deported Pakistanis from America?--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And your assumption about me is totally wrong. I don't revert others, just fix a page and go, but when you were spotted I had to expose your misbehaving. If you're not banned why don't you use one of your many spare names? An intelligent person like you shouldn't be doing these things.--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Every banned editor on Wikipedia from Shahab to Siddiqi and Ali banu sistani is me, happy? No proofs, nothing in rebuttal, just casting aspersions and being sockphobic. That's not how you defend yourself. I have presented the case with all the diffs about your WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Admins will better decide over it, I have no time to pay heed to your histrionics. 37.111.128.166 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Siddiqui. [57] Don't these banned names write 99.99% like him? [58], [59], [60] And contrary to how he behaves, Islamabad people in general are humble and very respectful to others. Another give away is his unique fondness for Turkey (and anything Turkic). He's known for being arrogant and making frivolous statements. What's wrong with changing an article's name twice? The first was based on Afghan news reports and the second based on alphabetical order (C comes before S). Why would someone find this contentious or requiring a discussion? About using my Wiki name, didn't he write this to the other IP: "Instead of allegions and article hijacking why doesn't you login with your account and come here...." [61] Admins, notice how an educated person like him wrote "allegions" and "doesn't" there. This demonstrates that it was error for the admin to block the IP that reverted a banned editor. Admins, the entire educated world knows that Pakistan was historically India and Afghanistan. I think he wants to propose that we stop mentioning this in Wikipedia, and that we stop accusing him of being a banned editor.--HabibKhosti (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a shred of evidence presented here that can relate me to those accounts in anyway. I have started IP editing on Wikipedia barely a year or two and I'm being linked to Wikipedians as old as 17 years while interestingly you are only 3 months old account knowing so many old Wikipedians which means you yourself could be someone's sock.

• First of all you are in an open block evasion of the IP 39.41.6.68 as you're defending it.
• Secondly my IP range is different from the one you are linking me with and there's a clear difference in our prose. I have given the reason for my IP ranges location, interestingly that IP of yours involved in nationalistic editing is also based in Rawalpindi, Pakistan but I haven't called you refugee because that's least of Wikipedia's concern.
• Thirdly even after this report you're continuing with your tendentious editing by removing sourced content from article. [62]
• Fourthly renaming of Wesh-Chaman border crossing was reverted by User:AafiOnMobile (Torkham renaming was reverted by User:Paine Ellsworth who gave fair justification for their undo.

All these points further adds to the case against you and your mention of Pakistan as Afghanistan and India further tells about your nationalist and irredentist mindset against Pakistan. I will wait for admins to assess this report. 37.111.189.27 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Any person who taps on "View history" sees who did edits. I have children and even they do that sometimes. It's the year 2023 if you didn't know. When one taps on editor's name it is blocked and/or banned. I did it and quickly learned they [63] [64] [65] [66] had your characteristic. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] What if 39.41.6.68 is another person? And honestly, I had no idea it was blocked until you said it here. What's "nationalistic editing"? Fake news from 2007 about Pakistan building rail line in Afghanistan has no place in Wikipedia and I gave my reason. [72] Discuss that there, not here. You easily give yourself away. You writing under IP here is basically admission that you're banned. More importantly, you writing comments like a person who grew up in America, acting arrogant, and giving a poor country like Pakistan the image of a rich developed country in Wikipedia simply makes you a one of a kind. No other editor based in Pakistan does that.--HabibKhosti (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, this has devolved into aspersions. HabibKhosti, if you believe this person to be a sock, present evidence at WP:SPI. If you continue to make such accusations without doing so, that can also be considered a personal attack which will get you sanctioned.

I am not weighing in on the editing dispute, just informing folks that they need to drop the stick and actually support their accusations or withdraw them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't directly accused him of anything, my concern here is his editing behaviour and I have presented proofs of it on which admins need to weigh in because he's only up on edit-war if I'm going to revert the article to its stable form since there's no consensus building effort from him. 37.111.134.208 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, the sock accusation was central to HabibKhosti's quick defense here. And in exceptional circumstances WP:SPI can be bypassed because the filing and result takes a long time. Regarding consensus, see Talk:Torkham#Requested_move_10_February_2023 (1 support and 2 opposes).--HabibKhosti (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not an exceptional circumstance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This section has been so overwhelmed by the protagonists as to make it very difficult for any independent editor to see if there is any behavioral problem here. Both of you, please shut the fuck up unless you both want to be blocked. You have made your points several times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Commment, I think this thread should be closed with no action. My above friend who's using IP probably agrees.--HabibKhosti (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense at HQ (video game)

HQ (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AlmNack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
108.31.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2600:4040:21D9:C700:29FA:6807:238E:C420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So there has been at least two IPs and one registered editor has been attempting to add unreliable content about a player takeover of HQ (example revision here), sourced to Twitter and - you're not gonna believe me - screenshots. Could an admin check what's going on with this?

Pinging @Adakiko since he's the one who brought this up to me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just reverted an edit by 2600:4040:21D9:C700:29C4:3D04:A630:CE15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Screen shots that were uploaded minutes before the content and citation were added BTW. Adakiko (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, AlmNack took the screenshots of the conversation to provide as sources, as you both had said there was no sources. He was trying to provide sources to validate our claims. I was told in an edit that I had done that those sources were unreliable and very unreliable, so I removed them based on your request. I don't understand what type of sources you want us to use to validate our claims. This isn't a subject many people know about, as only 8 people were part of the takeover, so only 8 people would have access to seeing the whole conversation. In order to prove that, we'd have to use screenshots. That's why I don't see how you want us to provide proof. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

See, having nothing is better than having something bad. In this case, if there are no reliable sources (say, a newspaper talking about it), don't bother putting it in. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying we need an article talking about the takeover? Not sure any of those were written. Would Reddit posts work? There were some Reddit posts talking about it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPS has all the answers on what to use and not use when it comes to sources. Spoiler alert: Reddit posts are in the "not" camp. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The takeover didn't get much fanfare from the media. There are plenty of stuff bout the documentary though. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If there's not much information out there to be used as a source that implies to me that this isn't a particularly notable incident, and so it might not be justified to be included. — Czello 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It was a person taking a control of a popular trivia game. That alone I think is fairly unusual, and noteworthy, as most apps would have measures to even prevent that from happening. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then the question is why hasn't it been more adequately covered by reliable sources? Notability has to come from these sources, rather than us as editors deciding ourselves something is noteworthy. — Czello 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can attest to this. I indeed did take a screenshot of the message from "UntrustableRus" which read "HQ server now I own the HQ website !!!!". Said screenshot in question came from a direct conversation with him on the Discord application which can be viewed here https://ibb.co/cCKZmLq AlmNack (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@AlmNack Screenshots are not reliable sources. Now, tell the class, what is your association with those IPs? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this, school? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it is`now. Did you bring your math homework? U-Uh, I mean, are you connected with @AlmNack in any way? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As stated in a previously removed revision of the article, both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be meatpuppetry, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We're friends. We've meet on discord from our shared interest in HQ. We both enjoyed the hosts, and the game formats it's had. I don't really see what the problem is with having friends, it's pretty natural if you ask me. It's something that nearly everyone has weather they like their friends or not AlmNack (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• The show Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia is scheduled for release March 5 on CNN and April 6 on HBO Max. Possibly what is behind the editing? Adakiko (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that is a part of it, as no info was provided about that previously in the article. Due to the fact that the documentary hasn't released yet though, the main reason was to tell readers how the player takever went down. If their is more to share after it's release though, then I'm sure we would wanna add to the article with that info as well though. At this point all we have is articles and a trailer talking about it. I can add some of that in if you want. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place to break stories. If regular mainstream media haven't reported on a story, neither do we. Tweets, screenshots of Reddit conversations and the like - these are things that a journalist might use to write a story. Once they do that, and it gets published by a reliable source, we can then write something about it. We follow the sources, we don't anticipate them. If the edit warring continues, blocks will likely be forthcoming, and/or the page will be protected. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thankfully, the edits have stopped, but with the supposed meatpuppetry going on (both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. as written above), I would argue that blocks would be needed anyways. I ain't an admin, though, so it's not my call (and I would be too involved to block if I were an admin anyways). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  user:108.31.92.88 describes their collaboration with AlmNack here: Talk:HQ_(video_game)#HQ Trivia Player, and Website Takeover Adakiko (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, are you saying an article has to be written about the takeover, then if we use that article as a source, it'll be accepted? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly. The article needs to be a WP:RS. If what you're trying to add has been covered in reliable sources then you're past your first barrier but it might still be the case that whatever it is isn't something we will cover per WP:DUE etc. All COI editors should refrain from adding any content directly. If you can find reliable sources you could propose additions of revelant material on articles talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. As of now I don't think any articles have been written about it, so I guess it can't be included at this time. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And now the IPv4 has attempted to report me to AIV, complete with bad formatting. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, what you call being an asshole to another editor? You're comment about tell the class your assoisiation was totally being an asshole, and certinaly uncalled for. Thought we're supposed to be polite here, not rude. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. Providing the edit warring stops, I don't think we need any further blocks just yet, but AlmNack and the IPv6 editor should familiarise themselves with the guidance at WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:MEAT before attempting to make any further edits to the page; they should also start using the article's talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add (now that I've noticed the IP saying that they were personally involved in these events) that WP:COI is something they all need to familiarise themselves with. Leave it to someone else to write about stuff you did, or were involved in doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Understood, but in some cases for things that are internal, other editors tend not to know about things so I don't really see how that would work in a case of that happening. Like I said though, there's no reliable sources as of now to include so it's a moot point at this point. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tried being polite, IP. I really did. But no matter how many times I told you and your friends to not add unsourced content, you didn't listen. Of course I was gonna lose my cool after the 5th time I was getting told "but I have this (unreliable) source!"

As for further blocks, yeah, I think this is enough for now. As long as the editors follow @Girth Summit's advice, things might work out in the end. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The other IP is 100% correct that "now tell the class" was obnoxious and inflammatory. "I tried being polite" well no, not in that instance, you were rude and unpleasant for no particular reason. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, AlmNack, and I appreciate it. If only other editors could look at it the way you could. If I'm being honest though, I think we're treated differently as we don't have accounts. I think account users get better treatment, which is sad, but I think it's the case. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I wish that other editors could look at it the same way I could. I understand how they may think that I or another person here being part of said takeover may obfuscate our thoughts and such, but I am just trying to share what’s happened with sources to which I think are credible. I do not see how one could sustain an editorial status if someone continuously removed a post for little of a reason. The takeover was something that could have been avoided on HQ’s part by parking the domain right as their services got suspended but the person to whom I have mentioned in a now deleted source had the same hosting service as HQ, and he could do something with the dns to take control of the subdomain in which the app used. I am not seeing how very little sources and no sources at all to these regards are being removed when there is another few parts added by me which no sources stated; I mean, there are ways to get the sources, but at the time I didn’t know how to add them in and they are still up. I just think that given this, and that some people are interested in learning about HQ’s history, that this should have stayed included. I too also feel that the users that continuously reverted the page haven’t actually played HQ or haven’t played it for quite some time to have a somewhat big understanding of the app as I. I would love for you all to reconsider the addition to which I made because the removal of it was in my opinion, wrong. I have added sources per your (users) request, but what was the point of asking for me to do so if you all are just going to remove it and think that you know way more than anyone else? Please, grow up and just let someone who has the most insight to add in a section they know the most about. As per the CNN documentary, I did not add that part in nor know who had added that before removal, but that too should have stayed. People and some news article sites have talked the documentary about for the past year. A trailer finally dropped along with its release data and someone has shared what they know about it already. I understand the Doc hasn’t released yet, but that section on its own can be edited once the Doc releases to include more information than it already did. Please, if at all possible (I know it is) please reconsider all the changes you wrongfully made along with why you have impeded on age history of revolutionary app that once was. AlmNack (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call you messages polite. You said the various sources I had originally used were unreliable, and very unreliable, so if you look back at the history, I had removed the sources you had complained about per your request. So in that aspect, I did listen. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Should WMF legal be notified? Not making a legal threat, just pointing out that Title 18, US Code 30, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, covers unauthorized access of computer systems. Slywriter (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how WMF legal is necessary. The actions were entirely off-wiki, the editors here were just trying to get personal recognition for what they did during that event. I'd recommend they go to the press for a formal interview if they want credit so badly. They can then sit for direct interviews with law enforcement afterwards! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think I can speak for the whole takeover team in saying this, I'd be all for interviews with the press on it, but if law enforcement has to be involved, it would have the be Canadian law enforcement, as the person that actually took control of the app in the first place is Canadian. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a good question, and honestly, I'm not sure how it was done, and if it was technically legal. I can say this though, neither me or AlmNack had anything to do with the taking it over part. We were just involved in coming up with the ideas and stuff of what to do with it. We didn't have control of the app as we're not the people that took control of it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Since you missed my point earlier: trying to take credit for hijacking someone else's service is a bad idea. You should walk away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I see your point. Nothing good ever comes from hijacking something. Not sure if this would be considered hijacking though. I know it's a grey area though regardless. I still find it hard to believe it was even possible for the person to even gain control of the app to be honest. The fact that they did, it was kinda like, well might as well take use of what we have. I wasn't that shocked when they took it back either. I was more so surprised it took them that long to do so. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Vanishing editor

Hi, I hope I'm writing to an appropriate place. In August 2022, I started a Talk section in response to a note 'undue weight - discuss' on a page. The article is Identity Politics and the quote flagged is from one Brendan O'Neill.

Today I received two replies from the same editor, both containing intemperate language in what I consider to be ad hominem attacks. After replying in-page, I attempted to discuss the matter with the user as per WP guidelines. I received the message 'page does not exist' which suggests to me that the editor deleted their account soon after posting.

This is behavior that IMO could be a nuisance, since if the editor re-registers with WP they can do the same to other editors. I post this in case WP has protocols to deal with this type of behavior, since I can find no guidance myself. Chrismorey (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Chrismorey If you are talking about another editor here, you must notify them of this discussion(see the instructions at the top of this page)

It is not possible to delete an account, either by the user themselves or anyone- it is possible to delete pages, though an admin must do so, and that is not usually done to user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. 1, you have not notified Mike0000000 of this discussion, I have done so for you. 2, the user hasn't vanished–the user just doesn't have a userpage. They haven't vanished, they're still there. And like 331dot stated above, it is not possible to delete an account, see here. Tails Wx 18:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Better to try to talk to their user talk ages instead of their user pages.😛 Speaking of which, I see Bishonen has offered the user a few words of wisdom. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Intriguingly, I see no messages on User talk:Chrismorey and Mike0000000 last edited yesterday. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The OP did not provide any links but it appears the discussion took place at Talk:Identity_politics#Brendan_O'Neill_quote.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, talking on their user pages? WP:UOWN? Don't do it! ;) Tails Wx 00:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Thanks.

@Tails Wx: Never! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction, nor how to communicate with a 'use' who doesn't have a user page. The link is useless, only telling me what the red hyperlink does, i.e. that there is no link to the user. That was the only reason why, having been unable to communicate with the user as suggested, that I raised it in the only forum I could find.

I find the replies here highly confusing. It seems there are user pages and user talk pages, which are different things, but how are ordinary users supposed to know that, or know how to access them? Incidentally, nowhere did I ask for anything to be deleted, so I don't understand what you're talking about.

Well, it will teach me never again to answer an apparently bona fide request foe editor input on a topic. It seems WP has become so complicated that only experts in its internals can contribute anymore. Good luck. Chrismorey (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chrismorey: Wikipedia has had separate user pages and user talk pages since near its inception. See WP:User pages and WP:User talk pages. You have edited your own user page, and your own user talk page, and you've edited other peoples' user talk pages and never edited other peoples' user pages, so I guess you knew this at one time, and forgot. Fair enough. You can access Mike0000000's talk page by going to User talk:Mike0000000. It already exists, but if it had been a red link, you could still have created it to talk to Mike0000000. While I'll agree WP has become complicated, I don't think many people would agree with you that separate user page and user talk pages are complicated. That's probably the reason it didn't occur to anyone to explain in more basic terms. I think people are talking about deleting accounts because you said "...which suggests to me that the editor deleted their account" in your initial post. Finally, I don't think anyone has complained about your choosing this forum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [73] [74] [75] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [76], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran!

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [77], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [78]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential dox of uninvolved party

@Loose canon reverted information on the Convergence Movement article using reliable sources from the Anglican Church in North America and the Kentucky Secretary of State, all because the information verified that an excommunicated priest became part of the Convergence Movement through a denomination whose founder has (according to the sources later provided) an erratic background. I would like for the admins to also bear in mind that they have seemingly doxx'd someone who has no involvement with editing here. I also want to highlight a very large almost obvious conflict of interest with their talk page draft article being rejected for Lumanog plenty of times. AndreasMar (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I also want to mention their edits to Cornell College] which also further verify a conflict of interest, and perhaps a self-expose of themselves. At jacklumanog.com they have this very article with others mentioning Lumanog's involvement with the college. For me, something isn't adding up. AndreasMar (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence on the "potential doxx" issue? I think the matter between you and Loose canon is just some content dispute on Convergence Movement. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They said I was "(Redacted)"...I am not whoever the heck that is. AndreasMar (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On the article talk, I made a case that since they are claiming a personal attack and partisan information, their username and similarities between the Lumanog drafts being consistently written and deleted, associations with Cornell College, and the Convergence Movement article very recently may show this is a duck trying to merely write their own history. AndreasMar (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're concerned about outing, you really should just use diffs rather than repeating the name since now if it is outing, ANI is going to have its edit history erased too. In any case, without WP:diffs we still have no actual evidence that AndreasMar did anything, it's your responsibility to provide the evidence not ours to find it from what you've said. Duck for which other account? In a discussion where you brought up outing, you've alleged Loose cannon is an individual you've named with a link to another website (did they post this website before?). You haven't mentioned any other previous accounts the editor has used. If the editor has a COI that's one thing probably best dealt with at WP:COIN. Socking i.e. a duck is another. Please be clear what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, without WP:diffs we still have no actual evidence that AndreasMar did anything You are talking to AndreasMar, who is also the OP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

After reading, I didn't bear in mind the quack is a sockpuppet thing; I was referring to them lining up with a COI initially. Forgive me. This is the Diff where they claimed I was another person in the edit summary. Here is their first Wikipedia edit adding the Anglican clergyman to the college page. And here is another when them [79]. This has to add up to a COI. Everything that account edits is very much tied to the associations of that clergy. AndreasMar (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to COIN though since its best dealt there. Didn't even know it existed. AndreasMar (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• The currently redacted name is reference to a source used in the section that was removed. COI and NOTHERE likely apply, but outing is a stretch. Slywriter (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Shukry M.A - escalating concern

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

---

Shukry M.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is ignoring all warnings and continuing to add his father to various articles, without sourcing. He has admitted to a COI here. He has created three unsourced articles about his father as of typing this - Abdullatif siraj, Abdullatif Siraj and Abdullatif Cadhe Siraj. He is persisting to add his father to various articles, even after I remove him from them. Marawi Grand Mosque (I am aware that I am not allowed to revert again here), Contemporary Islamic philosophy, List of Muslim philosophers, Islamic philosophy and Shafi'i school. I'm concerned about every mainspace edit to date. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked indef at this point. They are clearly a SPA to promote their father, and are looking to promote him in every article they have edited. I also deleted the Abdullatif Cadhe Siraj article as well for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I endorse the block. I was getting to it, but I was deleting multiple copies of the article about his father per WP:A10. The only thing that's left now is a very short draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've salted the multiple titles as the subject clearly isn't notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both for your swift responses here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack SapientiaLinguistica

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

---

• SapientiaLinguistica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The new editor since 14 February 2023 is constantly making personal attacks on me and reputable, reliable scientists - relating us to the extreme-right and right-wing political views; saying to be vandalizing, censoring and manipulating scientific viewpoints; etc. although am doing exactly the contrary making major edits of once badly written with errors and badly sourced article (from 21 to 57 thousand bytes), citing reliable academic & scientific sources. The dispute on the content was minimal (I hope for now settled in the article's lead, only about one-two words, the article is up-to-date and cannot be more than NPOV than it is now), and vast majority of their comments were not on the content yet baseless accusations on me and certain scholars, baseless advocacy for certain other scholars and so on. The comments can be found in the Chakavian edit summaries, Talk:Chakavian#Chakavian is scientifically considered a language of its own, not a dialect of serbo-Croatian/Shtokavian discussion (where are strangely using the same wording and sources as an editor who started the discussion almost 5 years ago), and User talk:SapientiaLinguistica#Chakavian discussion. I think that their initial edit was in good faith but am not sure they are completely not WP:NOTHERE. They are extremely misinformed about the topic, which is probably the main reason of frustration, as well as about Wikipedia, editing policy and guidelines. Since the beginning have friendly informed the editor, numerous times pleaded to stop such behavior and personal attacks, gave them explanations on the topic and explanations and wikilinks to various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, warning notifications, accepted an intermediate solution - without improvements in their behavior and apologies. They are WP:NOTLISTENING and wording is becoming only worse. I pinged admin Joy, but without response. I do not think to be wise of me to tolerate such behavior anymore (for mine and SapientiaLinguistica good), and do not feel as an editor to be able to do anything more than this to change their behavior for better and without further escalation. Please take it from here. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Nikolai Boyanov again for the 3rd time here

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

As adviced by admins at WP:AIV to bring this. I had posted here previously on December 2022 and January 2023 which no admins responses/actions were taken, pertaining to Nikolai adding unsourced materials and/or failed verification materials to various articles including BLP ones in violations of WP:BLP and/or WP:VERIFY despite being warned multiple times by me and other editors, and also getting blocked for the same disruptive behaviour back in November 2022, clearly Nikolai couldn't be bothered (WP:IDHT) to comply with our guidelines and policies especially WP:VERIFY. Also noting that majority of their edits were made on desktop (noting the lack of tags in their edits) hence not because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Here are some diffs since Nikolai was unblocked.[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][[93]]. Can actions finally be taken against this user otherwise we're simply allowing this disruptive behavior to continue? Thanks a lot! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Nikolai Boyanov was just blocked in November for disruptive editing; I've now blocked 1 week for persistent unsourced changes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo Thanks you, hopefully they learn from their mistakes and don't continue it again after unblocking. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sennalen trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles.

Sorry for bothering you.

I'm not very "into" Wikipedia, but today I saw that the user Sennalen after being knocked back in a failed RfC on talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (they were directed to the Marxist cultural analysis article as an alternate place to edit) that they immediately created a merge for that page (Marxist cultural analysis with Culture studies) - in order to, I presume, get rid of the obstacle/argument by merging the article. This manipulation seems to be part of their ongoing project to revive 'Cultural Marxism' as having currency or modern political relevance.

I also noticed on their talk page, that this is part of a "plan" they have for framing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, and that those plans seem generally focused on substantiating the term as a specific "movement" rather than accepting "Marxist cultural analysis" as a less controversial (and already included) term for what they're trying to place emphasis on. I was just wondering whether this kind of maneuver, or article-gerrymandering is frowned upon at Wikipedia? I know there's WP:OWN, but I don't really know when that's applicable (persistence after multiple consensuses go against you?). I don't think this is stewardship, as they tend to overlook other POV's and distinctions in the subject matter. They themselves have a specific POV - that cultural Marxism is a set and well defined term, and should be substantiated on the page about the conspiracy theory usage. Multiple editors have pointed out the purpose of the conspiracy theory page, and have directed them to the Marxist cultural analysis article instead.

They have never had a consensus for their POV, but are very persistent. I believe last year they also tried to bring NewImpartial here [94] for reprimand, claiming the conspiracy theory represents an "actual movement" and that NewImpartial was the main reason they were unable to form a consensus, which is in no way true (NewImpartial is one of the few editors that negotiates with Sennalen, and I hope they're not over burdened by this).

Is there a solution, or does the attempted ownership/maneuvering by a SPA just eventually pay off with enough time and persistence? The articles/topic is a culture war topic, and the desire seems to be to get rid of the Marxist cultural analysis article in order to make sure the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory can be edited to be seen as a legitimate and modern movement currently persistent within academia/society (rather than a 50 year old mixed and divergent set of different ideas and theorists who haven't been mainstream since the 70s, or indeed, a term with little definition or definitive source).

P.S I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. So I'm just looking for - answers I guess? Advice, direction, a warning, or a resolution to this POV backdoor culture warring. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, I just found this, so I'm not sure whether the issue will be acknowledged here. But at least there are some guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing#Suggested_remedies 203.220.137.141 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, I see related threads at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you the same IP that called me a racist troll and was blocked by Dennis Brown? If so, I do not believe that you are not very "into" Wikipedia - you are a long-term editor with a great deal of history in this topic area, including, bizarrely, drafting articles that are more or less in line with many of Sennalen's proposals. Also if so, calling your interactions with Sennalen highly adversarial is a bit rich to put it mildly, as your continuous inflammatory accusations did nothing but stir up trouble (you seem to have calmed down a bit, lately, again assuming this was you). I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged (some of them have been, resulting in their modification or omission, without any edit warring that I can remember). I think part of the problem is that the IP and others seem to fervently believe, without any evidence as far as I'm aware, that Sennalen believes in the conspiracy theory, and this is guiding their interactions with this editor. I suppose this is possible, but I think they just have a difference of opinion, based on a reasonable reading of the reliable sources. Perhaps I need to assume bad faith a little more often...  Tewdar  12:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: I don't think Sennalen is a problematic editor, and many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged - I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so. Sennalen's User account began with this edit to Marxist cultural analysis, arguing against the separation between that article and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory set out in the former article: The right-wing commentators ascribe more malice and more influence to those authors as matters of interpretation, but largely agree on the facts - the respectable scholars and the conspiracy theorists are supposedly talking about the same phenomenon. The article she began her account with BOLD impetus to change the lead is the same article she is now proposing to merge away into non-existence, while removing the material delineating a distinction between Marxist cultural analysis and the object of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. When the response to her original proposal was less than positive a process was begun to reach consensus on that article - but now Sennalen is attempting to achieve her original POV goal "by other means".

Similarly, Sennnalen began her participation on Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory with the claim that conspiracy theorists and academic sources use the term "Cultural Marxism" to mean the same thing, which was once again the whole point of her recently opened[95], enthusiastically defended[96] and subsequently refined[97] RfC, which she decided to withdraw when it was clearly not going her way (it was then closed). Around the midpoint of the intervening year, Sennalen made another attempt to rewrite the article ("Objections to new content" in the Archive), which again was not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals. In all of this, Sennalen has rather doggedly pursued a POV that has been repeatedly rejected by the community (in the 2014 Cultural Marxism AfD, and as recently as this week), but that she believes to be true (check the edit summary), which apparently justifies a long march of different kinds of interventions (creeping edits, periodic discussions, and now RfCs and Merge/Move discussions) all in service of this "truth" that the community has rejected. For the record, I don't think the Sennalen account believes in the conspiracy theory, but she clearly believes that the conspiracy theory, and actual scholarship about Marxism and culture, are talking about the same thing. That view is "true" for her even though it is at best a minority current in the relevant literatures, and this "truth" must apparently be pursued by all techniques the community will allow. Newimpartial (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You should recognize that you yourself are the one who suggested holding an RfC, endorsed withdrawing it, and suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link. Sennalen (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The only one of these things that is true, is that I suggested redirecting attention to the disambiguation link, and when I said what I did[98], I did not mean "wouldn't it be good to get rid of that article by means of a Merge discussion". Your interpretations of each of these aspects are deucedly peculiar; for example, to say that I suggested holding an RfC when I actually said "Without an RfC or other explicit instrument to change consensus, this just isn't on" seems - well, it seems pretty much on par with the belabored interpretations you offer for your scholarly citations, so I shouldn't be surprised at this point. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"...that she believes to be true (check the edit summary)" more than the edit summary, I hope someone checks the reference, Buchanan's Dictionary of Critical Theory (OUP), which states that [Western Marxism] also started to focus more on cultural rather than economic problems and it is for this reason also known as "cultural Marxism" - an assertion that Newimpartial has repeatedly rejected, claiming that "Cultural Marxism" cannot possibly be a synonym for "Western Marxism". We'd probably need a citation for that, since we have a source that (probably) says it is, although we'd need to discuss what 'also known as' means for hours and hours first of course...  Tewdar  12:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

not well-received, although Tewdar aligned himself with some of her proposals - but in that discussion, the IP (who may or may not be the current complainant, I'd say 99% probable though) said It all just needs a clearer lead/framing. Other than that, it was quite good work! - must have been nicer weather or something that day! 😂  Tewdar  17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I find this statement misleading, though perhaps unintentionally so - either you think I am trying to be intentionally misleading, or you do not. Which do you think is most likely? This sort of insinuation is not exactly helpful.  Tewdar  15:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to insinuate that you intend to mislead. You almost certainly believe your statement, many (most?) of their edits to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article have been improvements that have not been challenged, to be true. However, you also know that many other editors do not share that assessment, nor do we agree that Sennalen's editing is unproblematic, but you choose to make your simplistic assessment anyway. I find this choice misleading, no matter how much faith you have in the accuracy of your own assessment. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen, and you haven't reverted it, and wow are you quick to revert when you don't like something. I conclude that you believe those edits to be unproblematic. Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with?  Tewdar  16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: A lot of the content in that article was written by Sennalen - I don't believe this to be true, and would like to see some kind of evidence for your assertion.

Re: Which of Sennalen's currently extant edits do you disagree with? - virtually all of her Talk space edits and most of her gnoming in Sandbox, etc., which I believe accounts for most of her edits. Newimpartial (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here you go, lazybones... more than 10% of the total text, almost as much as my great edits, and even more than you. 😁  Tewdar  16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to parse "more than 10%" as A lot of the content, particularly when many of Sennalen's edits that actually survive in the article were arrived at in a BRD process where she did the post-D edit. This pattern will over- rather than under-state her contribution to the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, so they follow BRD, take the time to reach consensus while you lot blather on and hurl wild insinuations and accusations, and then take the time to add the agreed content? Sounds real problematic...  Tewdar  16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Attempting over and over again to attain the same POV in article text, in Wikivoice, against repeated community consensus is inherently disruptive. It doesn't really matter how much CIVILity is used to push the POV. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I defy anyone to take a look at the stinking monstrosity that was the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article at, say the end of 2021, and compare it to its current state. Then take a look at who was editing that article last year.  Tewdar  18:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you want people looking into the history... They might notice that your top 10 talk pages are Talk:Sex and gender distinction (492 edits), Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (444 edits), Talk:Cornish language (161 edits), Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (136 edits), Talk:Irreversible Damage (135 edits), Talk:Kathleen Stock (124 edits), Talk:Gender (122 edits), Talk:J. K. Rowling (113 edits), Talk:Western Hunter-Gatherer (98 edits), and Talk:Cornish phonology (96 edits). now what do all but three of those topics have in common? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Perhaps you could spell out exactly what you mean here, and what conclusions you think onlookers should draw. Don't be shy now.  Tewdar  19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a conversation about editors trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles is it not? IMO all three of you need to a new core area to edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Fair enough. Some of my other comments are probably a bit over the top and based on a misunderstanding, then. Anyway, talk page comments aside, sociology type articles are really a side project that I (used to) dip into from time to time. Perhaps I'll stick to my core interests - articles that nobody else really edits.  Tewdar  18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see why you would get from the impression you did from what I said. My comment is about the volume of edits, in case it isn't clear what they have in common is the same editors at the top of the edit list. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pathetic insinuation, based entirely on talk page titles it seems, too lazy to even check the actual edits. Say what you mean, or retract this. (assume most of the rest are stricken too)  Tewdar  10:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly advise you to take a look at the actual edits on say, the sex and gender distinction article and talk page. See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers? Against Crossroads? To make the article more reflective of the preponderance of reliable sources? Might want to back off a bit here...  Tewdar  19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Or my vote in the 'RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?' discussion ob the Irreversible Damage page, whrre I said Yes It is in conflict with the existing scientific consensus, and there are no published articles supporting this hypothesis afaiaa. It is, therefore, by definition "fringe", which isn't necessarily an insult. It is not pseudoscience, however. Say what you mean, Horse Eye. Say exactly what you mean.  Tewdar  20:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial just thanked me for this comment, which means, of course, that you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back... Tewdar  19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, if I might point your attention to a flaw, you have once again jumped from being correct in a small claim (See those bits where I'm aligning with Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th, and Firefangledfeathers) to an unsupportable large claim (you are talking complete and utter Horseshit's back). This again is why you can't have nice things. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) What do you think Horse eye is trying to say? (b) Do you agree?  Tewdar  19:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(a) I don't know; (b) I don't know. Three cheers for epistemological modesty. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should wait for their explanation. If they provide one.  Tewdar  19:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Because guess what: I'm quite angry that an editor is making insinuations based on the fucking talk pages I edit.  Tewdar  19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

From your edit history, you look more than anything like a trifurcafed WP:SPA. As opposed to Sennalen, who looks like an SPA tout court. Newimpartial (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Languages, archaeology, genetics, with a bit of troublemaking for variety is how I'd describe it... Tewdar  20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I find that funny, because I saw your troublemaking as two topics and those three as just one. I think the Talk-space analysis would back me up on that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on article improvements in the Frankfurt School oeuvre for over a year, at the school's main page, Herbert Marcuse, György Lukács, and areas where it gets more controversial, like West German student movement and Degenerate art. No one ever cares, except when it comes to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where the connection to Trump-era politics gets it on all the SPA's watch lists.

People would like to say that like the fruit of the poison tree, every single statement a conspiracy theorist ever said is false. The fact of the matter is, they read the historical scholarship too and sometimes just repeat what they read. Bringing those real authoritative sources to Wikipedia generates a lot of WP:STONEWALLING, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and general tantrum-throwing like this filing. Nothing else to see here. Sennalen (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is at least one thing to see here: it is very tiresome to encounter an editor who believes Wikipedia is wrong about something and needs to be corrected, and who treats each and every expression of community consensus behind that thing - no matter how strongly based in sources - as STONEWALLING and IDONTLIKEIT, an obstacle to be worked around using a combinarion of patience and new tactics. Very. Tiresome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, editors who edit on a variety of topics and who engage in this one if and when it shows up on their watchlists are, by definition, not SPAs. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's even more tiring to encounter an editor who believes all the sources are wrong about something. My interest is in bringing the scholarly consensus on the topic to Wikipedia. It's opposed by people with a culture war angle who want to prevent that at all costs. There is exactly one (1) source so far that support's Newimpartial's personal POV. Tewdar and I have together brought up easily 20 books and journal articles that give a more complete picture. It's always not enough sources, or the author is too young, or the author is a lawyer, the author is Belgian, and so on until finally NewImpartial declares the sources simply don't mean the plain English meaning of the text on the page. They mean something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe. This is stonewalling.

Some people say I should be more cooperative. I have cooperated. When someone reverts my edits, I ask for an explanation. If they express their objections, I make a new edit that incorporates responds to that feedback. That's cooperation. No, when people say I should be more cooperative, they mean I should just stop talking about reliable sources that contradict the PoV they are pushing. Sennalen (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We have perfectly good sources, starting with Martin Jay, who distinguish between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory and who neither confuse nor use common terminology for the two. If you believe for some reason that Jay is the only one who makes that distinction, I would be happy to explicate that on talk, but given the way you have repeatedly presented sources as saying things they do not say at all, I am not hopeful about WP:SATISFYing you on this matter. I am not the one here who believes all the sources are wrong, I am the one who believes that there is a clear consensus of scholarship - that Marxist cultural theory and the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory are two distinct topics - and that the vast majority of the sources that discuss that relationship are clear on this point. Most of the sources on Tewdar's list, that you point to, don't address the conspiracy theory at all, many of them don't describe anything in particular as "cultural Marxism", and the only ones that do both of those things distinguish clearly between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. The idea that because a tiny minority of sources on Marxism and culture use the phrase "cultural Marxism" (to mean different things), therefore when the conspiracy theorists talk about "Cultural Marxism" they are engaged in selective interpretation of something that actually exists - well, you'll need something more than a single peer-reviewed source to back that up, since the mainstream view is clearly to the contrary.

As far as something complicated and obscure that Newimpartial is never able or willing to describe, that is an unfounded ASPERSION, as I am never anything but willing to describe complicated and obscure things. Alas, on this topic I am usually the one relying on the plain English meaning of the text on the page and you are typically the one insisting that the text means something it doesn't actually say. Discussion after discussion after discussion clearly demonstrate this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, what does Christian Fuchs (sociologist) mean by The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism.[99] Sennalen (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In plain English he is using "cultural Marxism" as a synonym for the activity, Marxist cultural analysis, and making the obvious point that the Frankfurt School tradition engages in that activity. I'm not seeing anything there in common with the object of the conspiracy theory, "Cultural Marxism", which acts in the manner of other antisemitic conspiracy theories to subvert Western mores. One isn't "based on" the other. Newimpartial (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. The quote's not about the conspiracy theory, but that's the point isn't it? There is a thing, a real thing, at least sometimes called cultural Marxism, and it has to do with the Frankfurt school. If we can agree on that it's a major breakthrough. Sennalen (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I can't agree about a real thing - you are giving it a Dinglichkeit the sources don't, which is kind of the whole point. It matters whether writers refer to a domain, an activity, or a group (or none of the above). If a group, it matters what group. These are not all the same thing, nor do they have in common something to do with the Frankfurt School. There is no thing there (and if there were, I'm sure you would have a more muscular statement about this pre-conspiratorial usage than that it has something to do with the Frankfurt School). Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

So we can't use a source that says "The Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism." to say the Frankfurt School is an important tradition in cultural Marxism, because it lacks Dinglichkeit. I rest my case. Sennalen (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We have an article on the activity and domain "cultural Marxism" - Marxist cultural analysis (this domain is also known as Marxist cultural theory and Marxist cultural studies, and is not usually called "cultural Marxism").

We also have articles on Marxist Humanism, Critical Theory, Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School, each of which is a group of writers (only overlapping in places) that have been referred to as "cultural Marxism". Again, as a minority usage.

"Cultural Marxism", apart from the conspiracy theory, doesn't mean any one thing, and it is purest reification (Verdinglichung) to pretend that there is some singular "cultural Marxism" in which the Frankfurt School can be an important tradition. (Some of the sources you've pointed to define one as the other, which would make the cited statement tautological, but clearly that isn't what Fuchs actually means.)

We have to pay attention to what authors actually mean, not a convenient reification that we wish they had meant, or what is the point of using sources? Oh yeah, so you can pretend someone meant something they obviously didn't and immediately rest my case. I wonder whether ChatGPT can do that... Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are several things called cultural Marxism. The conspiracy theory, the Frankfurt School, the Birmingham School, Western Marxism, and more besides. Why is it sometimes we can agree these things can be called cultural Marxism, and sometimes people act like its saying Elvis abducted JFK in a UFO? Sennalen (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I have always objected to the proposal that there is a unitary, identifiable topic identifiable as "cultural Marxism", apart from the object of the conspiracy theory. I object to this because the RS, with which I am familiar, do not support this claim. I also know from extensive experience that even when those making the claim are somewhat familiar with the relevant scholarship, the vast majority of the time they claim that such a topic exists in order to make a second claim - that the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory was constructed out of a flawed, or simply alternative, interpretation of this actually existing "cultural Marxism". This second claim is very popular in SPS and op-eds, is very poorly attested among scholarly sources, and arrives annually or more on enwiki in sinusoidal waves. Since the first claim (that there is a thing prior to the conspiracy theory that scholars agree to call "cultural Marxism") is false, there isn't much reason to discuss the second one. (And that doesnt mean the CT was invented out of thin air, just that it wasn't based on an already existing "cultural Marxism"). Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, now scholars don't call something cultural Marxism? 30 minutes ago they apparently called so many things cultural Marxism we couldn't possibly tell which one they meant. Sennalen (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret asking this, but could anyone explain the context behind the author is Belgian please? As that seems a rather odd way to object to a source. Too young, and lawyer also are odd objections, but being Belgian is the weirdest of the bunch. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP ludicrously objected to the Jamin source because he's Belgian. I cannot remember exactly what Newimpartial says about him.  Tewdar  18:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I have no idea what you're talking about. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This was you, was it not? Okay, changed out the reference. Jamin is a french academic, a bit silly to have them used for an American concept/social context. Braune is American and correctly summarizes the academic viewpoint on the conspiracy theory. Hope that's enough to please everyone. --124.170.170.79 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Except you incorrectly described Jamin as French, and it was on the Talk:Marxist cultural analysis page that you made this statement.  Tewdar  09:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You may regret it, but it is an off-colour joke I make about Jerome Jamin. He has been mistaken by editors as being French, but is actually Belgian, and unlike other peer-reviewed scholarship he likes to draw parallels as well as distinctions between the object of the conspiracy theory and actual Marxist cultural theory. So when I want to pigeonhole his personal idiosyncrasy, I refer to "Belgians". In reality, I have nothing against Belgian scholarship ourside of the problems posed by Jamin's peculiar take (which editors have repeatedly decontextualised, tendentiously interpteted, and tried to incorporate in Wikivoice where he disagrees with mainstream scholarship). Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The topics of Marxist cultural analysis and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory are pretty obviously different, so whoever is arguing that they are the same is simply wrong. I'm afraid my eyes glaze over when I read such reports, so I can't identify who that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Nobody's saying that, Phil, except drive-by kooks who occasionally show up at that article...  Tewdar  15:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Then let's do something about the drive-by kooks if they refuse to accept consensus, as I have accepted many times even when it is against me. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The drive-by kooks are regularly reverted and sent on their merry way. The recent RfC was started by a regular editor, when it was suggested that a RfC from 2014(!) was still binding today, despite lots of sources available that nobody mentioned in 2014...  Tewdar  15:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, you know perfectly well that the community has continued to re-affirm that "Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else, through formal processes up through 2021. You also know that selectively citing only sources that use words the way you would like to see them used is not evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists" - treating it as though it shows something has changed in the literature since 2014 is - well, it's beneath you, frankly. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" is the name of the conspiracy theory's imagined object and not anything else - rubbish. Even our cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article does not support this. There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy theory, including a SAGE Encyclopedia and the Oxford English dictionary.  Tewdar  16:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The SAGE Encyclopedia doesn't say what you insist it does, and the OED isn't a good source for the claim that the minority view should be presented as the mainstream one. Re: There are dozens of excellent sources who use the term to mean something other than a conspiracy - your evaluation that they are "excellent" seems to mean "that agree with you", several of these sources do not support the idea that "Cultural Marxism" actually does "mean something other" than the CT, and the ones that do aren't all referring to the same thing.

Believing something, no matter how fervently, simply does not make that thing true. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so Kellner is talking about the conspiracy theory when he says 'cultural Marx(ism/ist), is he? Nonsense. The sources collected here are all pretty decent, and certainly at least on a par with anything by Joan Braune. A source does not have to agree with me, nor another source, to be 'excellent'.  Tewdar  16:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your linked list contains sources that use "cultural Marxism" strictly for an activity, ones that use "cultural Marxism" for a group of writers, and ones that use it for both or don't specify (Kellner is a great example of cultural Marxism as an activity). Your list also includes sources for whom "cultural Marxism" refers to the Birmingham School, ones for whom it refers to the Frandfurt School, and ones who are referring to Marxist humanism, as well as ones with no clear referent. There really is no there, there. You don't include sources there who talk about Western Marxism using its COMMONNAMES (which don't inclide "cultural Marxism"), nor do you include the corpus of sources that reserve "Cultural Marxism" for the object of the conspiracy theory. I'm afraid that, as I said before, you have no evidence of anything beyond "this phrase exists". But then again, we are now discussing a content issue which is outside the scope of ANI. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would I include such sources you describe on a page devoted to collecting non-conspiratorial usages of the term 'cultural Marxism'? Anyway, this is irrelevant here, as you say.  Tewdar  16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If your argument, or Sennalen's, had simply been, "not everyone who puts the word cultural in front ot the word Marxist is a conspiracy theorist", we could all have agreed long since. But if one of you is going to argue that the source situation has changed significantly since 2014, and that RS now use "cultural Marxism" in a specified way that was unknown to the 2014 AfD, you need to provide more consistent evidence IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't just have drive-by kooks in this subject area; we also have well-intentioned editors who believe that conspiracy theorists and scholars of Marxist cultural analysis are talking about "the same thing" from different perspectives. This is a small minority view in both literatures (the literature on the conspiracy and the literature on Marxist scholarship), but Sennalen is an editor who tries in protean ways to incorpoate that view in Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the dispute is actionable but I do think Sennalen should proceed with caution. The RFC was obviously flawed as there was no content proposal or substantive question. The idea that the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory," ie the theory that modern-day institutions are trying to promote Marxism subtly or secretly, is not a conspiracy theory but is in fact true, is problematic and tendentious. It's true that the Frankfurt School was a Western academic branch of Marxist critical theory and cultural analysis that was influential in the 1960s, but that doesn't mean "the conspiracy theory is actually true" and there also seems to be a bit of WP:OR spin happening here. Wikipedia is not going to acknowledge that "the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is actually somewhat true" because it isn't, but more importantly, WP:V is the issue: Verifiability. Conflating Marxist cultural analysis and a conspiracy theory is disruptive. The former is a legitimate discipline in academia that existed and still exists, but that does not mean there is a conspiracy to brainwash the masses and turn them commie. That is a right-wing conspiracy theory. Andre🚐 15:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have interacted with this user, and it's only ever felt highly adversarial. You are an IP with practically no history, and before today, all interactions between your IP and Sennalen have been one-way (from you; she has never responded to any posts by your IP before this report, and therefore could not have been "adversarial"). Would this constitute an admission of log-out socking by any chance? This is explicitly not allowed on project pages. DFlhb (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC); fixed pronouns DFlhb (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment here but IP addresses can change. This does not necessarily rule out socking but it also does not imply it, specifically, and that's why we assume good faith until evidence brings us to a different conclusion. --ARoseWolf 16:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

(She has never responded, etc. Pronouns, people.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. I usually use "they" when I don't know, but I guess I got confused here. DFlhb (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is very easy to get confused; I started to use "they" for Senanalen but had a nagging feeling so I checked her user page. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not an accurate characterization of the content dispute. The question is essentially whether to describe the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as

1. Something invented out of thin air, and the only thing ever called "cultural Marxism"
2. A set of lies about the Frankfurt School, which is also legitimately called "cultural Marxism"

The second is the consensus of reliable sources, but upsetting to of a faction of editors. Sennalen (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we must await the forthcoming peer-reviewed article, Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of Cultural Marxism, and the following ARBCOM intervention, to decide between these two perspectives. 😁  Tewdar  18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

But Sennalen, many of the sources that you have advanced in support of your view that "Cultural Marxism was a real boy thing before it was an object of the conspiracy theory" are not about the Frankfurt School. Nobody disputes that the conspriacy theorists have made up lies about the Frankfurt School, but from this you cannot conclude that there was a pre-existing usage, "Cultural Marxism=Frankfurt School", that was seized upon by the conspiracy theorists. Once again, you are assuming precisely the thing you are supposed to be demonstrating, and are creating straw goats ("invented out of thin air") to make your case for you. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Trent Schroyer A Critique of Domination (1973) used it that way, which you well know from your university studies, our recent talk page discussions, and the time you expunged it from Marxist cultural analysis.[100]

Then we also have sources that say things like One of the issues associated with the Cultural Marxist conspiracy is that Cultural Marxism is a distinct philosophical approach associated with some strands of the Frankfurt School[101] Sennalen (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how a diff wherein I remove a bad paraphrase about a tangent to the article's topic becomes some kind of "gotcha" in your eyes. Yes , Schroyer refers to "cultural Marxism" as a broad domain. No, he does not use it as a synonym for the Frankfurt School, or any other group of writers.

And if you're reading Busridge as saying anything like, "the conspiracy theory is based on a misreading of Cultural Marxism as a philosophical tendency" - well, I don't know what to make of that. It seems on the face of it like a terrible misreading. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Marxist cultural analysis is not the same as cultural Marxism, although they have overlaps. You can see this in the writings of Raymond Williams that I used as a source recently on the Marxist cultural analysis page. Herbert Marcuse, whilst accused of being the main driving force of "Cultural Marxism" didn't use the term. So you claiming that his removal from the lede of Marxist cultural analysis is something wrong - well, I think that highlights some of what you're attempting. Fortifying the conservative views that you read in a way that aligns with Civil POV pushing. The reason I came here. You do a lot of edits, not because the page needs it - but because you want to rewrite it. You've said as much in various places (on the talk page, in RfCs, on your own talk page). Seeing you and Tewdar joke about cutting the heads of Hydras when you have these RfCs shows that you're not really here in Good Faith. The reasons you have been brought here are obvious for those who understand what's going on, and we are trying to explain it. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you take me to ANI, if you think you can show that I'm not here in good faith, because I made a joke about a hydra? Perhaps you can point out my edits on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article that you consider problematic, for those who don't understand what's going on? And why don't you ever use your user account? Was it about to be blocked or something? The behaviour on that article talk page is appalling, and you are the worst offender there. This section is a travesty, can someone either decide on a suitable action or close it, before it turns even more nasty?  Tewdar  10:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And it wasn't a joke about an RfC, it was a joke about Newimpartial being taken here.  Tewdar  10:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What would be the diff for that, Tewdar? I would have thought I'd remember a joke about being taken here: usually when editors make comments like that about me, they aren't really joking. Newimpartial (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's on Sennalen's talk page. You even replied to her reply! 😁 And it certainly was intended as a joke - occasionally I find you reasonably tolerable, on your good days... for clarity, the joke was made after you were brought here.  Tewdar  10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So (1) your exchange with Sennalen was actually about her bootless ARE filing against me, which I had pretty much forgotten, so it wasn't about ANI, and (2) I can see how your comment may have been meant as a joke, but hers seems quite earnest, albeit misguided. Newimpartial (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

(1) ARE, ANI, you really want me to remember all these drama acronyms? (2) This was months ago and didn't seem to bother you very much at the time. People are always plotting to get rid of you, right? Waste of time if you ask me 😂.  Tewdar  11:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

People even plot about people who might plot about getting rid of me in the future ... it can be very meta. Newimpartial (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Here, this diff is a great example of me pushing the conspiracy theory. Perhaps you could start with that one?  Tewdar  11:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an accurate characterization of the content dispute? Thats not at all what appears to be on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories. Usually they are just allegations, and the term "conspiracy theory" is a POV addition / mis-labelling to discredit the allegation. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you dispute the scholarly sources documenting a Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? If so, who should we follow: your opinion or the peer-reviewed scholarship? Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Most things"? What? First of all, even if for the sake of argument most things considered conspiracy theories aren't conspiracy theories, have you read the lead section of the article in question? If after reading that you still believe that the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" is not a conspiracy theory, you're basically aligning yourself with a fringe right-wing POV. There's no culture war conspiracy of the leftist universities to brainwash people. The fact that some people might use the term "cultural Marxism" broadly in no way validates the conspiracy theory. It's a literal crackpot theory about a conspiracy that our institutions such as universities are brainwashing people en masse into leftism. A sizable portion of paranoid right wingers believe this. Andre🚐 20:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Most things labelled "conspiracy theories" aren't conspiracy theories, what an irresponsible and ignorant comment. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved administrator please hat or delete North8000's comment and its replies? NOTFORUM. Sennalen (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As just one example of the peculiar behaviour over there, take a look at this RfC about the first sentence. Now, the conspiracy theory itself is given at least three names in the academic literature by various scholars; the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; the Frankfurt School conspiracy; and Cultural Marxism. Even noting that the conspiracy theory has at least three names is rejected! Just look at some of the stuff they're saying here! 😭  Tewdar  18:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by pointing to an RfC where Sennalen didn't participate, you retracted your !vote, and I commented briefly but didn't vote. It was also an RfC about the lead sentence only, and it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence. So what are you kvetching about, and why would it be relecant at ANI? You are giving me the impression of some kind of disintegration. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought Sennalen did participate in that discussion... 😁 Anyway, that discussion is fairly representative of the nonsense that goes on over there. Quite relevant background material, I'd say, but of course people can decide for themselves.  Tewdar  20:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

it is impossible to include everything RS say about the topic in a lead sentence what the fuck?! Two extra altnames?!  Tewdar  20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the RfC again, Tewdar. It doesn't present any choice that includes multiple "altnames". Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a better look at the 'Neutral, mixed, or other section', as well as the rest of the discussion. Do you not remember it? We discussed it on my talk page for what felt like years...  Tewdar  21:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, the best bit of that discussion is the claim that we shouldn't call it Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, because that might imply that it's a conspiracy theory about a real thing, even though the sources call it that, and it's the name of the article! 😂  Tewdar  21:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that you aren't inclined to respect community processes on that Talk page, citing as your key example the way a side issue, not raised in the formal RfC, was handled in a discussion section. If so, I submit that detecting, interpreting and evaluating peculiar behaviour (vs. legitimate consensus determination) may not be your strong suit.

Deciding for yourself what the article should say, and then evaluating the sources presented and the arguments of other editors based on whether or not they support what you believe the article should say - which is what your procedure appears to be - is not really how enwiki is supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a good job I don't do that, then. I say the sources give three different terms for the same conspiracy theory, and suggest we use all three. Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources, let's just use one of these, which happens to not be the title of the article.  Tewdar  22:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The procedure I described is certainly what your consistent disparagement of Joan Braune's scholarly work, and of the contributions of many other editors, tend to imply.

You said something in a discussion section of an RfC about something else, other editors disagreed with you, and you now caricature that disagreement as Respected community members say fuck the reliable sources - voicing that caricature at ANI, of all places.

I understand that this is how you feel, and I have observed over the years just how full ANI can be of feelz. However, this disaparagement of unnamed editors is unCIVIL, unhelpful, and frankly just unwise. If you can't stop using this discussion as an opportunity to paint a target on your own back while distracting attention away from Sennalen, you just might want to disengage. Newimpartial (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I won't be replying to this part of the discussion again, I just wanted people to take a look at what community consensus looks like over there, so I'll let you have the last word.  Tewdar  22:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and concluding(?) wall of text

Some people have cast aspersions because my first edit on this WP:CLEANSTART account was to Talk: Marxist cultural analysis. What's actually important about that edit is that I came to a talk page with a constructive suggestion, using RS, and asked for feedback. Newimpartial's response to that was to delete my talk page comment and accuse me of being a sock.[102] That set the tenor for our following interactions, but I would only later come to understand how it fit into an existing long term pattern of incivility and disruptive editing by Newimpartial. I documented the situation and sought relief at AE[103] to little effect. Happily, I can report that since that time Newimpartial has provided more satisfactory revert edit summaries.

What I did not know when I started looking at Marxist cultural analysis is that about a year prior, Newimpartial had specifically curated that page to push their ideocyncratic PoV about the conspiracy theory. Because the phrase "cultural Marxism" is used in academic research, Talk page consensus was moving towards adding a disambiguation link from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Western Marxism or some similar page.[104] Newimpartial's priority has been to deny that link.[105] Sometime around October 2020, Newimpartial had discovered the abandoned stub of Marxist cultural analysis. Over a course of a couple of weeks they purged the little-watched page of content that confirmed scholarly use of "cultural Marxism".[106] Once the page matched their PoV, Newimpartial set it as the disambiguation link at the top of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory.[107] I can't construe any way this explicitly violates a policy, but it certainly doesn't seem like fair play.

It's not the conspiracy theory page that provoked this paroxysm of opposition, but the suggestion to merge the semi-duplicate Marxist cultural analysis into cultural studies. The IP who made this filing is somewhat of an enigma. I've asked them to confirm what I believe to be their editing history[108] The recent entries are a near certainty based on geolocation and their pattern of interests. The older ones are a hunch - an IP with similar geolocation who was called before ANI at the same time as a discussion on Marxist cultural analysis. I'm reasonably satisfied they are not a sock, since in their early edits they were clearly still getting a feel for the topic. They do however seem to have particuarly restricted editing interests, even more restricted than just cultural Marxism. Several edit wars have gone by on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory without drawing their attention. In both timing and content their activity centers around my edits to Marxist cultural analysis. The only user talk pages they have graced are mine and Newimpartial'ss - and the latter to tell Newimpartial about the sandbox page where I was workshopping an edit to Marxist cultural analysis.[109] Is it wikistalking? Are they logging out to avoid scrutiny? Are there missing spans of edit history that would clear the air? Maybe the IP can fill us in.

I am being taken to task for periodically updating articles with reliably sourced encyclopedic content and due weight. Meanwhile the faction with their knives out for me have been engaged in a far longer campaign to prevent the addition of reliably sourced content and skirt the obligations of NPOV. Who should really be called to account for themselves? The IP speaks in ominous tones about my "plans" for the article, as if I shouldn't be collecting books and journal articles, writing outlines, and expanding articles. If the accusation is WP:OWNership, there's a numbered list of criteria at that guideline, and I match none of them.

I'm not a threat because I ramrod my versions over the objections of community consensus. I'm a threat because I'm all too ready to withdraw a rejected proposal, listen to feedback, track down the sources, and fine-tune the wording. That's why almost everything I wanted stands in some form on the live version of all the contested pages. I have found the consensus that people sometimes don't want to be found. As much as this filing was a cynical effort to drive away a productive editor, it has still furthered negotiation with those who are reticent to negotiate. In the vacillation about the meaning of a simple sentence from Christian Fuchs, reification has emerged as a cause for objection, and we can work on that. I just look forward to the day when obvious improvements don't require such disproprtionate angst. Sennalen (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

From the complainant.

I guess as far as I can tell there's never been anything close to a consensus to have The Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory on the same disambiguation page as Western Marxism, which to my mind would be like having The List of 20th Century American Presidents on the same disambiguation page as The JFK Assassination conspiracy theory (in that, one page is focusing on a conspiracy theory, the other, real life).

I also don't see NewImpartial "curating" the page to avoid this fate, or for that matter, for any other particular goal as Sennalen claims. NewImpartial in general has been a force (as mentioned in my complaint) for supporting and negotiating for the long term stability of the page, and the ongoing consensus around that.

I think most of Sennalen's claims shows that their goals for the page are - odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Likewise when Sennalen talks about being unsuccessful at Arbitration Enforcement, that would be the same AE that they discuss on their talk page as "leaving a paper trail" against NewImpartial, a campaign of long term character assassination very much in line with the actions of a Civil POV pusher. A set up. The very fact that most of their replies here have been aimed at NewImpartial the individual (and voice of stability) rather than at my actual complaint also confirms that there's - some questionable moves and perhaps motivations going on here. Which is why I came here, because of the many attempted strategic moves being made.

Sennalen's above comments also confirm that these very civil claims of having had a consensus, or almost had a consensus, or disambiguating a page, or merging one that was getting in their way... well, this is the very stuff of trying to own a topic area.

More recently these sorts of behaviors have been suggested on the Marxist Cultural Analysis merge discussion (which as the complaints state, came on the heals of a failed RfC)...

So when you sit back, and take the actual statements and courses of events in - the claims of consensus that don't add up, the mischaracterizations, the desired page moves, it is all very Civil. But it's also fairly clearly aimed at achieving an outcome that only one editor really supports.

Sennalen has never backed down, never been caused to accept that others disagree with them (and have grounds to). Their one abiding answer always ends up being - that they'll try again later (and later is often sooner). As far as I can tell, the attempts against consensus, set ups, wrangling, POV pushing, whatever you wish to call it, will not cease unless they're made to listen by some outside force. It will always be one more editor in their way, an almost achieve consensus that was no where near, or a merger after a failed RfC to achieve their strategic goal of well... elevating the conspiracy theory to the level of being a legitimate, well defined, and relevant ideology, on par with other forms of Marxism in the west. Keep in mind, here, they've been told repeatedly- that consistency is lacking in the term, and that we've attributed a legitimate page for the topic at Marxist cultural analysis, and that there are others on the general topics of The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and The Culture Industry... the beauty of these pages is that they're not about a conspiracy theory. They're about the real events.

Take that for what you will. Appraise the matter as the Administrators of Wikipedia that you are - because that's why I came here. I see something, wanted to know if you do too, and was looking for advice, a direction, or perhaps if it's warranted some causal outcome. Your 2 cents. Thank you. 203.220.137.141 (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

odd. Driven, self-motivated, internal, individualistic... and an anathema to what's come before.

Sounds metal. I like it. Sennalen (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have little to add here, as I lost the plot of this thread quite a while ago. All I would like to say is that I salute the dedication and fortitude of any administrators who have been able to read this far and still have their sanity relatively intact. You all deserve a pay rise. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

More faking Eric West

Eric West
Fortress (2021 film)
User:Dam!ta

Someone is introducing false information into Wikipedia about a subject that has had a long problematic history.
On the page for Fortress (2021 film) multiple claims regarding Eric West were made, since removed. See [110] from the history.
1 Black Movie Awards. The claimed Black Movie awards links to American Black Film Festival who have a website of www.abff.com. The source used to backup the claim of an award in a wayback capture of www.blackmovieawards.org. There is only one capture of the site on 19 March 2022 and there is only one page on the site.
blackmovieawards.org was registered on 19 March 2022 [111] and has since disappeared.
2 Silver Horn Film & TV Awards. Claims he won 2 of these awards. Never heard of them. No surprise there, just another sham award. There is no sign of any independent coverage. They only exist in 2022. The first source used is a press release. The second source used to backup the claim of an award in a wayback capture of www.silverhornawards.com on 19 March 2022. There is only one page on the site.
www.silverhornawards.com was registered on 13 March 2022 [112] and still exists as the same static page.
3 Credits. West had been placed at fourth billing. IMBD (admittedly not a reliable source) has him much much lower. None of the reviews on RT mention him or his character.
Someone is trying to fake West back into Wikipedia.
Who introduced all this baloney? The award were first introduced here on 21 March 2022 and then reinserted here, both by User:Dam!ta. The billing here, again by Dam!ta.
So how did Dam!ta come across these links, why did they chose to elevate the billing? Someone smelly is clearly afoot. Any thoughts? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax doing mass editing of political parties claiming "Per longstanding consensus: no American political party should have their position on the ideological spectrum listed"

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

Now I may be mistaken, but it appears to me that this is on the basis of User:Orangemike telling them "we have reached a long-standing consensus not to describe "the" position of the Democrats because we cannot achieve a consensus on how to describe it.' This seems either a misunderstanding or editing to make a point. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidently we can't call the American Nazi Party far right according to this editor. I also see some heavy editing of Dixiecrat that needs review. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Same for the Communist Party USA, this editor thinks it is bad to list their ideology as, um, Communism. Their edits should be rolled back en masse ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of responding throughly and in detail to these concerns. (Which will likely take 15-20 minutes.)

As for the Communist and Nazi party changes: I don't really have any strong feelings on whether they're reverted or not. So feel free to do that. (e.g. My objection wasn't placing communist parties on the left. (Broadly speaking.) Obviously, they were. It's whether all self-professed communist parties can be uniformly described as far-left.

It's important to note that a lot of American and European Communist parties moderated themselves at various points in their history towards the center; see the Italian Communist Party.) I'm requesting that the other changes not be reverted as make a detailed response in the meantime. The changes are justified and defensible. KlayCax (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally think the changes are 'justified and defensible' is rather beside the point if you claim to be making them because there is 'long-standing consensus' on the matter. Provide evidence for the 'consensus'. 14:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider KlayCax's explanation, but on the face of it this looks an awful lot like disruptive editing to make a point. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is clearly no such 'consensus'. Roll back, and tell KlayCax to find something useful to do instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A nationwide consensus makes no sense, in any case. That's something for a case-by-case basis: if the Party platform declares an ideology, then that's their ideology, regardless of what other parties in the country may do. Cambalachero (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What AndyTheGrump said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax response:

First of all — while I realize in retrospect that it may have unfortunately came across that way unintentionally — this had nothing to do with the discussion on the Democratic Party/Republican Party talkpages and/or with specific editors. There's a longtime agreement that attempts to classify past major political parties in the United States — such as the Federalist Party, Democratic-Republicans, National Republicans, Anti-Masonics, et al. — on the modern political spectrum are heavily problematic. I agree with that viewpoint. American political parties are unique in traditionally being heterogeneous and big tent organizations. The same context does not apply today. While applying the political spectrum to past (pre-1990s) American political parties is anachronistic, the modern Republican and Democratic Parties have homogenized to the point where they should be treated similarly to other country's articles. Whatever decision is made about how current Republicans/Democrats should be classified on the political spectrum: I absolutely don't support it being extended to a vast majority of political parties in the U.S. related to the past. This wasn't a case of editing to make a point. I support the changes, regardless.

Secondly, as you can check yourself, a majority of the changes of the past two days related to the state-level Republican organizations. Editors characterized them in contradictory ways that were often poorly sourced or reliant on overly-partisan/ideological sources. (Compare Colorado's position description being "right-wing to "far-right" to California's being described as exclusively "center-right".) While I do believe that proposals to place the national parties on the ideological spectrum in their respective infoboxes are justifiable and needed. I don't hold the same opinion about their state-level organizations.

Thirdly, I removed the majority of minor parties tags were removed because they were:

• Ambigious/unnecessary (e.g. Union Party and Pirate Party.)
• From unsourced/low-quality sources (e.g. Labor Party)
• Couldn't be easily characterized into the modern left-right spectrum and/or unclear.

I know that @Doug Weller: and other editors seem confused on why I removed American communist parties from being uniformly described as far-left. (The vast majority of which was unsourced.) The answer for this is simple: many Western European and North American self-professed communist parties moderated their ideologies at the time. (See the Italian Communist Party for perhaps the most famous instance of this.) I have no objections to the American Nazi Party change being reverted. Although it seems obvious to me that we don't really need to put "far-right" after that of "Nazi". It inherently within the term.

Finally, the changes I made (see here) to the Dixiecrat article were entirely WP: Due. The original wording in the article improperly used "[racial] conservatism" and "states rights" as a euphemism for white supremacist policy and the ability of states to legally institute segregation. Most Southern Democrats at the time couldn't be classified into either modern liberalism or conservatism. Many — including their ideological forebearers who predated them, such as Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Tillman — supported white supremacy (supporting racial hierarchy; e.g. "right-wing") and economic redistribution (supporting economic equality; e.g. "left-wing") at the same time. (Of course, this didn't apply to all — Strom Thurmond was indisputably on the right in both aspects.) A multitude of historians, political scientists, and journalists in recent years have written about this, saying that summarizing their political thought as "left-wing" or "right-wing" is at best an inaccurate oversimplication and at worst actively misleading.

I apologize for the delayed response. There was a lot to respond to and I wanted to ensure that it was written in an easily understandable way. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

For source on Dixiecrats being hard to ideologically classify on the political spectrum in the modern sense: see here and here. Per FT, Katznelson’s book goes on to show how both Congress and President were kept in a stranglehold by the veto power of the southern Democrats. The segregationist south was intent on preserving the rights of states to run their own affairs as they saw fit, but it came to support progressive political and economic policy from Washington DC. Katznelson suggests this was because it was in the south’s economic interest: it was poor and economically weak relative to the north and the New Deal offered it the chance of economic prosperity on terms the southern Democrats could live with. While the “Dixiecrats” made the New Deal possible, their support for progressive economic legislation was conditional on non-interference with the right to run their states on segregationist grounds. It's hard to characterize many pre-1990s American political parties in the political spectrum. Since many took positions characteristic of "both sides", including the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans, et al. KlayCax (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You have provided nothing even approximating to evidence that there is any consensus that "no American political party should have their position on the ideological spectrum listed", which was the justification given for your edits. Provide evidence for such consensus (with diffs linking the relevant discussions), or revert, and then start a discussion in an appropriate place with the objective of reaching such consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I said nothing about the American Communist Party - I don't know much about it, but I am clear that not all communist parties advocate revolution and that in India they have and probably still do control state governments through democratic elections. Why no edit summary for that edit? Doug Weller talk 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Meant to tag @ValarianB:. Not you. Sorry. KlayCax (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax you have edited a whole bunch of articles based on the premise that a long-standing consensus on this matter already exists (and you have inserted a bunch of comments into the articles referring to that consensus). Your response above looks like some of the things you might say in the process of attempting to build such a consensus, but it does not point to any existing consensus. I think you now have three options: (a) point us to where the consensus you are referring to is documented; (b) self-revert those changes, and then try to build such a consensus in the normal way; or (c) refuse to do either, have your edits reverted by somebody else, and probably end up getting blocked. What would you like to do? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Removing the "political positions" from the Republican Party state-level articles was from the party's talk page. I'm assuming this is uncontroversial but wanted to be sure.
• There was a misunderstanding. (Although not from any comments that OrangeMike made — as suggested by @Doug Weller:)
• I completely reverted all of the changes I made on the "minor American political parties" page due to that. (Beginning at the 11:58, 17 February 2023 edit on the Federalist Party article; see my edit history)
• Note that this does not include (and I just wanted to ensure that the reversion of my reversion of these three aren't linked to the above and/or non-compliance) the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans articles, as there is an ongoing lack of consensus that can be found on their respective talk pages and it's not related to the issue of the ANI. I think the Dixiecrat discussion could probably be hashed out on the talk page while the Federalist/Democratic-Republican dispute is probably going to have to go to a RfC. KlayCax (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Hope that explains everything. KlayCax (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Girth and Doug and AndyTheGrump: KlayCax should pump the brakes on their change here and discuss it, and be open to there not being a consensus for said change. Andre🚐 15:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• KlayCax apparently thinks that a good response to this thread is to go back through all these articles, partially reverting the changes they have made, but rather than reinstating the original content, they are replacing it with an instruction to get consensus on the relevant talk page. E.g: Workers World Party now has no political position listed, just an instruction to go and form a consensus. Since it has said 'Far-left' stably since at least 2016, I think that consensus already exists. Is it time to block KlayCax from article space, and just mass revert? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Block from article space, mass revert. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Need to restore articles affected ......this should be KlayCax burden.Moxy- 16:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted them all back. @Moxy:. KlayCax (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax@Moxy Not at Dixiecrat, you didn't reinstate the sourced position but replaced it with "Get consensus on talk before adding ". Doug Weller talk 17:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm reverting now.KlayCax (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Everything - if I checked correctly - should have been completely reverted past

The only exceptions are:

• 1.) Democratic-Republican Party page (see Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party#Left–right_political_spectrum)
• 2.) Federalist Party page (see Talk:Democratic-Republican_Party#Left–right_political_spectrum)
• 3.) Dixiecrat page (For reasons above that I'm about to repost to the article's talk page; other editors have expressed similar concerns.)

Are you alright with those changes remaining?

I'm about to respond to your other question above right now. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Federalist restored as a 2 year old Talk page discussion that appears to have gone nowhere does not justify removing sourced material nor has the specific source been challenged. It is properly sourced and includes a quote to support. If there is alternative viewpoints, they need to be discussed on that articles talk page or in a larger centralized discussion. Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

About the communist party, see here: "The critique of capitalism and the promise of socialism and communism form the basic ideas of the Communist Party, USA, which came into being in Chicago in 1919." Cambalachero (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

User:DoctorWhutsup

On the article Kievan Rus', DoctorWhutsup (talk · contribs) made four reverts within 24 hours (and a fifth one just after 24 hours) removing sourced content because according to them it is all "nonsense". They were previously blocked a few months ago for edit warring (where they have only made a few mainspace edits since then) and were also alerted about discretionary sanctions. When I call their edits disruptive on their talk page because they reverted five editors without using the talk page, they write: I am sorry, do you have some mental problems I am not aware of? Cause if you do, I apologize but you do sound like an idiot.[113] They continue to insist that they were not disruptive (but also admitting to being disruptive?) and that they did not make a personal attack.[114] I am not sure what should be done here but they only have 59 mainspace edits. Mellk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. I'm considering a topic ban or 1RR restriction or some other restriction that might prevent future disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a topic ban or some kind of restriction is needed judging by the unblock request. Mellk (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access no longer required

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

---

Please see User talk:CT-971, and consider whether TPA is still a necessity for this user. Bot or troll, they're clearly just wasting our time mow. Cheers, SN54129 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

TPA removed. Enough time wasted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor

Radioactive39 has been make disruptive actions on Wikipedia for months. They have frequently made unconstructive edits to articles. Their worst behavior though has been repeated recreation of material previously deleted through XFD process. This article is an example and they even went as far as using a slight variation on the title of the article to circumvent article creation protection imposed on it because of their actions among others. They have done the same with a least one template. A whole list of warnings about their behavior has been already posted on their talk page, but they just don't seem to be heeding these. I don't think their is anything more that editors can do to try to make them change their ways. Tvx1 20:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Is no one going to take a look at this?Tvx1 03:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look at some recent contributions by Radioactive39 (talk · contribs). There are a heap of warnings on user talk and perhaps I did not look hard enough but I did not see any clear issue that I could examine. The comments are often generic complaints without diffs. For example, one mentioned "unconstructive edits" at 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix but I can't see anything that an outsider could tell was a problem. A point in their favor is that the four replies they have made on their talk are very reasonable. I can't see any other article or user talk page comments. Is there a discussion somewhere where claims of problems have been spelled out? Can you identify any of the many recent edits which are a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at anything I linked to in my post at all?? They’ve been recreating articles in defiance of XFD discussions’ outcomes for months, even going as far as trying to circumvent article creation protection. Contributions on deleted articles won’t show in their contributions log. Tvx1 13:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Your first link shows that Radioactive39 is a typical confused user who has no idea that List of Formula One Grand Prix wins Max Verstappen was purposefully deleted and should not be recreated. The second two links are from 31 October 2022 and 31 December 2022 with similar but out-of-date confusion that does not rise to sanction level. User talk:Radioactive39 is full of mainly templated warnings and unfortunately the page is now incomprehensible. What I was getting at is that generally an unhelpful editor is unhelpful in more ways than simply recreating deleted articles. There are lots of recent edits and I wondered if they were generally good or bad. Knowing how to proceed would be difficult if recent edits are nearly all sort-of-ok but not really helpful. On the other hand, if there are clear problems that an outsider with no topic knowledge can understand, I could start a process to fix the issue. A clear problem would be one with a diff and an explanation of what is wrong with the edit. At any rate, it would help if there were a clear statement of the extent of the problem. One approach would be to archive their talk (a manual archive, not a bot) then add a new section with no templates in which a single problem is explained in some detail (not too long, but enough that we would expect a competent editor to follow). If there were an inappropriate response or if the problems were repeated, admin action could be taken. When I asked about "discussion somewhere" I meant that it can be useful to outline a problem at the relevant wikiproject then get other opinions on whether the edits are helpful or otherwise. A wikiproject should not discuss an editor but they should discuss particular actions. Even if there were no reply to a post at a wikiproject, the fact that it had been posted would provide confidence that there was no dissent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I too had a cursory look. Special:DeletedContributions/Radioactive39 (admin only) does reflect an unusually high number of deleted edits; something on the order of 1000+ in the last 7 or 8 months. It looks like the editor works extensively on "List of Formula 1 Grand Prix wins by (Driver X)" type articles, and it looks like these lists fare quite poorly at AfD (although according to the editor's talk page it looks like one actually was promoted to a Featured List before being deleted). I do see some attempts at recreation. I have not compared timestamps enough to see how egregious this is. The editor might just need to commit to avoiding this behavior, or we could be looking at a WP:CIR situation. I'll try to look in more detail tomorrow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Brian K. Tyler

User has caused multiple disuption over the years and betrays a warrior personality in his edit summaries. The latest instance is refusal to provide WP:RS and a triple reversion in the Little Jack Horner article. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Vast history of disruptive edit warring and personal attacks from a user at 42.190.128.0/18 (+ more IP ranges)

Hello all, I just wanted to bring to administrators' attention, the history of disruption and attacks coming from a user at this IP range:

42.190.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed the disruption pretty much all at computer/tech-related articles like GeForce 40 series, High-Level Shader Language to name a few.

It starts with the user either removing excessive amount of content without explanation, removing refs for no reason, adding improperly/poorly sourced content, or adding content against WP:CRYSTAL rule.

When the edits are reverted, they then follow up with vigorously "undoing" (edit warring) other editors' edits and often writing vile personal attacks in the following edits' summaries.

After-note: As I typed all this and went through all the instances to list in the table below, I discovered that this persistent behaviour has actually been going on for several years now, with disruptive edits previously coming from a wide range of different IP addresses where even the first (leftmost) octets vary. Please read carefully through the table, there are instances where the atrocity has been extremely severe.

List of incidents Date Article (linked to timeline of incidents) Involved individual IPs Notes/Summary 17 Feb 2023 — 219.92.0.0/16 I'm only just noting this IP range down, this seems to be yet another IP range the editor is using to evade blocks and disrupt articles. Couldn't be bothered to figure out the subnet yet so I just put it at /16. 6 Feb 2023 PCI Express
Sapphire Rapids 42.190.184.100 (talk · contribs)
42.190.146.35 (talk · contribs) After being reverted by Materialscientist for not properly adding a source (!), they went on to edit war and personally attack them. 4 Jan 2023 GeForce 40 series 42.190.172.23 (talk · contribs) Resumed disruption on GeForce 40 series again as soon as the protection expired 25 Dec 2022 Talk:GeForce 40 series
GeForce 40 series
GeForce 20 series
GeForce 30 series 42.190.189.165 (talk · contribs)
219.92.199.79 (talk · contribs)
42.190.183.189 (talk · contribs)
42.190.153.140 (talk · contribs) Severe disruption on the GeForce 40 series article with atrocious things being written in the edit summaries 19 Dec 2022 GeForce 40 series
GeForce 20 series
GeForce 30 series 42.190.182.79 (talk · contribs) Yet another instance of disruptive removal of excessive quantity of content on GeForce 40 series, and unexplained removal of content on 20 and 30 series articles 3–25 Dec 2022 High-Level Shader Language 42.190.153.140 (talk · contribs)
42.190.147.138 (talk · contribs)
42.190.174.117 (talk · contribs)
42.190.181.137 (talk · contribs)
42.190.183.181 (talk · contribs) Edit warring when T4C Fantasy made it clear they are wrong; calling them a "retard"; removing mentions of GCN from the article for no reason whatsoever at all. 10 Nov 2022 GeForce 40 series 42.190.143.105 (talk · contribs) One instance of the same disruption on GeForce 40 series involving removing excessive quantity of content that cannot be explained by just the edit summary they left. 22 Sep 2022 GeForce 40 series 42.190.172.10 (talk · contribs)
42.190.191.119 (talk · contribs) Edit warring - unjustified removal of excessive quantity of content, as well as calling other editors "AMD shill trolls that are extremely jealous of Nvidia's success" 21 Sep 2022 Tegra
Turing (microarchitecture) 42.190.176.151 (talk · contribs) DIYeditor considers the Tegra edit summary confrontational. Silent removal of image on Turing 20–21 Sep 2022 Ada Lovelace (microarchitecture)
Nvidia NVENC 42.190.176.151 (talk · contribs)
42.190.135.177 (talk · contribs) Disruptive behaviour on Ada Lovelace, edit summaries removed on both Ada Lovelace and Nvidia NVENC. Silent removal of image on Ada Lovelace afterwards 14 Jul 2022 Safari (web browser) 42.190.147.147 (talk · contribs) Just noting it down 27 May – 5 Jul 2022 Raptor Lake
PCI Express 42.190.146.18 (talk · contribs)
42.190.134.199 (talk · contribs)
42.190.145.160 (talk · contribs) More disruptive edit warring and some attacks at Raptor Lake 11 Jun 2022 AVIF
AV1 42.190.171.131 (talk · contribs) Not sure what to say for this one, just noting it down 30 Mar 2022 AV1 42.190.164.122 (talk · contribs) edit summary removed 29 Mar 2022
6 Mar 2022
31 Dec 2020 Talk:GeForce 30 series 42.190.164.122 (talk · contribs)
42.190.137.74 (talk · contribs)
60.50.69.99 (talk · contribs) talk page messages containing personal attacks and harassment 15 Mar 2022 Arc Alchemist series 42.190.159.229 (talk · contribs) PA edit summary removed ??? – 14 May 2022 Raptor Lake 42.190.158.104 (talk · contribs)
219.92.197.198 (talk · contribs)
42.190.176.136 (talk · contribs) some disruption at Raptor Lake 18 Feb 2022 Talk:List of Intel CPU microarchitectures 42.190.161.224 (talk · contribs) Personal attack against other editors, highly likely the same user involved in 27th May 2021 incident on the actual article. Blanked user page with a harassing edit sum that screams WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1–9 Feb 2022 GeForce 10 series
Talk:GeForce 10 series 42.190.184.211 (talk · contribs)
42.190.164.131 (talk · contribs)
210.187.210.212 (talk · contribs) Edit war to add unsourced content. Personal attack on talk page as well as edit sum of 42.190.184.211 blanking their talk page. 210.187.210.212 had edit summary removed 23–27 May 2021 Nvidia G-Sync 175.141.32.111 (talk · contribs)
118.100.173.32 (talk · contribs)
115.133.25.96 (talk · contribs) Unexplained removal of all mentions of a competing product/technology; NPOV breaking at the very least 11 Mar – 27 May 2021 List of Intel CPU microarchitectures 175.141.32.111 (talk · contribs)
118.100.173.32 (talk · contribs)
115.133.25.96 (talk · contribs)
115.133.27.58 (talk · contribs)
210.186.99.91 (talk · contribs)
60.50.71.219 (talk · contribs)
115.134.173.75 (talk · contribs)
110.159.98.99 (talk · contribs)
115.133.252.144 (talk · contribs)
115.134.161.225 (talk · contribs)
175.138.76.112 (talk · contribs) Extremely severe disruptive behaviour coming from a wide range of very different IPs, where even the first octet (leftmost) varies. Highly toxic edit summaries. Possibly the same user followed up with the talk page posting on 18th Feb 2022 ??? – 14 Mar 2022 GeForce 30 series Various IPs, too many to list Woah, I did not realise how long this behaviour has been going on for, until I saw this. Seems to date as far back as September 2020, nearly the beginning of edit history of the article.

I did some closer looking into contributions from the latest 42.190.x.x IP range, and have come across at least one user 42.190.153.175 (talk · contribs) who looks to be totally different from the one disrupting the tech articles and strongly not related. So a long-term full rangeblock probably isn't going to be suitable here...

Blocking the individual IPs is of no use either, as the user clearly is able to evade the block and continue edit warring, by simply resetting their modem...

Given the vast history listed in the table above, and the persistence of it happening again over time, I feel like some serious action needs to be taken against the problematic editor here to maintain a safe, peaceful environment for other editors, as well as to minimise/reduce the disruption that other editors have to deal with over time. There's already one editor I know of (User:Rando717) who has quit editing regularly, partially due to abusive behaviour of this editor.

Maybe permanently ban these IP ranges long-term or completely from editing computer/tech related articles only (e.g. ban from editing certain categories), if that's possible?

AP 499D25 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• This was discussed at User_talk:Drmies/Archive_142#Belligerent/edit_warring_IP and Drmies, Deepfriedokra and Widr were involved on the admin side, as well as Blaze Wolf (although Blaze Wolf seemed to defend this user for some reason when I raised the issue at User_talk:Blaze_Wolf/Archive_6#42.190.135.177). I'm not sure if it would be my responsibility to tag their talk pages with ani-notice. This anon user has some kind of severe problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  No recollection, but that's an awful big range. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps those with special glasses can finetune some range blocks. Maybe some SP protections? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was not defending them. I simply don't think it's a good idea to personally attack someone just cause they personally attacked you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have no qualms about blocking the range for two years. It's been blocked for longer periods before, and I see really nothing useful coming from it--in other words, in theory the collateral damage can be big, but in practice it's not. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's a start. They may get more creative about finding IP addresses to come from, considering this is a person who has exhibited at least some technical knowledge. Could be worth playing whack-a-mole including article protection given how abusive they are - the whole "retard" thing isn't cool. Given that the origin seems to be in a potentially repressive country, I'm not sure how I feel about contacting the ISP(s) - cuts both ways. Could be an option though. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes by Hurricane Allen

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

---

Hurricane Allen (talk · contribs · count) has been making persistent unsourced changes to hurricane articles, primarily to the listed wind speeds. As can be seen on their talk page, they have been warned multiple times not to do this. The changes started at Hurricane Ian. Here, the user stated that they just "wanted to make Ian a category 5" suggesting it wasn't a matter of disagreeing with the listed information. This behavior was repeated with Hurricane Iota. Leaving those articles, Hurricane Allen continued making similar unsourced changes to other articles ([115], [116], [117]). While I try to assume good faith, such changes to storm intensity in the past have been a form of subtle vandalism. It's unclear, as some other sources or original research could also be involved. This user has also directed a personal attack at another editor. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not only this, but shouting? Tails Wx 16:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhh... Tails Wx 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd as WP:NOTHERE. Anyone else should feel free to unblock if you're convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Valereee (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

How about revoking TPA access as they are shouting and making personal attacks? Tails Wx 23:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ayup. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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

User Wes sideman for disruptive editing, attempts to intimidate others editors

• Wes sideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• OgamD218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I apologize if any of this is amateurish in structure, it is the 1st time I've felt compelled to report another editor, I prefer to resolve disputes amicably/without wasting the time of myself and Admins.

I noticed 2 of my recent edits were reverted almost simultaneously by Wes sideman w/ vague or false summaries. On follow up I saw I was the most recent contributor on 3 most recent pages WS edited-2 of which they appear to have never edited prior (1 was a minor change)-this was clearly not a coincidence.

Those at issue were Woodrow Wilson and race where WS changed long standing (almost the entirety of the article's existence) content without going to talk and a summary of "ce". Right before they reverted my edit trimming the bloated and repetitive see also section for Neo-Confederates; which is the longest I've ever seen for a page of that length, many links are repetitive or excessive, others are to topics and conservative individuals who have no actual affiliation to the neo-confederate movement. EG Wes sideman repeatedly restored the Republican Party to the see also section. Myself and other auto-confirmed editors have tried to trim it for sometime but a handful of IPs keep adding links that don't belong. When we delete these Wes sideman reverts, often without a valid summary and ignoring the talk discussion that was opened.

Upon realizing WS was wiki stalking me, I reviewed and restored with clear summaries. I later made edits to Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, a page WS is currently engaged in multiple contentious talk page disputes re their disruptive edits. I did not involve myself in any of these disputes however. 80% of my changes were new content-drafting a brief see also sect for the article. I did restore a tag WS kept deleted in breach of wiki rules re sources. Claiming somehow I was the one who was hounding them, WS reverted all my edits on Helms. Reasonable editors can disagree re the others but this was essentially vandalism. I restored + summary warning/noting the situation. Here they backed off, even fixing the issue for the tag. I briefly thought good faith may be salvaged but WS again reverted on neo-confederate w/ an edit summary falsely claiming I deleted ls and must discuss each link individually with them at talk. WS then left a threatening message on my talk page making the same lies/demands, irrational accusations of hounding and threats of ANI (while ignoring the fact they violated the 3rr). Once again there was a brief talk on this opened, no editors disagreed re need to trim for ^ reasons so I did not weigh in. WS never defended the recent adds/excessive links by IPs but just kept restoring them, meaning they were well aware the sect was not as they put it stable or ls before my changes.

I would like to be clear, reasonable ediors certainly can disagree re my edits/I would have a productive discussion at talk. The serious issue that must be address is the threatening of other editors by Wes sideman for daring to disagree with them on politically contentious topics, that for continuing to do so they will be report to ANI with false accusations and lies about both parties' conduct. Once again, this is not a solution I've pursued before, but threats solely meant to intimidate other editors creates serious issues. It wastes the time of other contributors eg drafting reputable reports (esp for editors such as myself who are unfamiliar w/ ANI) to say the least but more importantly creates a chilling effect on the platform. Threats of ANI for hounding, when if anything that was what Wes sideman was clearly the one engaging in, appears to be a common intimidation tactic of their's. In a 24 hr period, I was the 3rd editor they accused of + made threats of for.

Even looking beyond this I failed to see a viable alternative. Wes sideman is currently engaged in multiple talk page disputes re edits they made on politically contentious articles. WS's conduct in these discussions give little cause to assume good faith-personal attacks, false claims, deflections etc.

No editor is perfect especially myself but this is bullying and should not be tolerated. OgamD218 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I followed up on the first few links here, and I don't think we are being presented with a fair description of events above. Looking at the history of Woodrow Wilson and race, I see that a different user edited that particular sentence on 4 February; OgamD218 reverted the changes, reinstating prose which is simply ungrammatical (what is that hyphen supposed to be doing?), and reinstating the word 'incredible' (as in 'an incredible range of...'), which is WP:EDITORIALIZING, and not appropriate. Wes sideman attempted to fix the sentence again (ce seems like a reasonable edit summary), and Ogam reverted that too. It's not a great look to be edit warring to keep content as badly written as that in an article, no matter how long it's been there. With regards to the assertion that Wes sideman was hounding Ogam: WS's first edit at Neo-Confederates was in November 2022, OgamD218's was in December 2022, so WS didn't follow Ogam there; WS's first edit to Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act was in September 21, whereas Ogam's was just yesterday. I fail to see how Ogam came to the conclusion that WS is/was hounding them - if anything, it looks like the opposite is true. If any action is required here, it's likely to be a piece of curved wood. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes 2 weeks prior another editor made a similar change however again that passage had been stable/there since the page's inception. Wilson's admin was dominated by racists however I did not want to convey the idea every single member was one-eg arguably the most notable American Liberal of the time, William Jennings Bryan served as Sect of State. The impetus for this specific wording was to preserve impartiality and factual accuracy not editorialize, I feel a disservice is done by deleting "though not exclusively composed of". I have no obj to deleting "incredible" or any grammatical fixes. Neither the prior editor nor WS however stopped there or even mentioned grammar-an appropriate edit summary would, imo be "fixed grammar" vs "ce" if that was the case.

  @Girth Summit I did not report WS for hounding, I pointed out that they accused my of such left and right without foundation stated if one of us was guilty of hounding it wasn't me it was them-cited to the fact they happened to in almost immediate succession edit the last 3 pages I contributed too-incl reverting me 2X, in light of this detail, that me and WS's 1st edits to Neo-confederates were 3 days apart months ago is irrelevant. Did you actually look at the details of the edit warring/disputes on the Helms Page? Please note that they actually backed down from their stance on my edits there bc their actions were so flagrantly indefensible. For further affirmation, please take note that is now topic banned from editing the Helms page.

  My report makes very clear that my issues with Wes sideman include edit warring, false accusations, lying about the edit history, breaching the 3rr as they did on Neo-confederates but above all else making threats against myself and other editors for daring to disagree, that they attempt to bully and intimidate editors who dissent from their stance on contentious topics. OgamD218 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Lots of articles are very bad when they are first written - a bad sentence that has not been fixed for a long time does not somehow become a good sentence. Edits that improve the prose (as both of the ones you reverted unarguably did) should not just be reverted - if you think that some important detail has been removed then by all means add it back in, but don't just revert the change. 'ce' is an abbreviation for 'copy edit'; it is an edit summary very commonly used for edits that make minor fixes to spelling, punctuation or grammar.

  I did not report WS for hounding: your initial report included a paragraph that starts with "Upon realizing WS was wiki stalking me," so it kind of looked like you were reporting them for that. If we leave that to one side, your issues with WS are edit warring (which you have also indulged in); breaching 3rr at Neo-Confederates (which they very clearly have not done, since they have never made three edits of any kind to that page within any 24-hour period); making false accusations (which you appear to have done yourself in accusing them of breaching 3RR), and lying about 'the edit history'. I don't understand this last point: where is your evidence that they have lied about anything? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by Lokys dar Vienas

Recently, in a discussion on the Terek Oblast's talk page where I politely asked Lokys dar Vienas to self-revert their page-move per WP:BRD and the cited Wikipedia policies (WP:NCCAPS), they made the following personal attack against me:

And thhis must be done by experts in the area, in this case wikipedians interested in Russia subjects with some expertise in the subject, not a random internet-savvy editor who knows how to (ab)use google searches/tools. So far as I see no one comes from WPRussia, so I DGAF and retiring after trying to attract a broader participation.

It's puzzling that an editor of more than 12 years believes that such obscenely offensive/rude remarks are warranted on Wikipedia. – Olympian ^loquere 09:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The remark falls short of being polite, especially with the use of "(ab)use", but is pretty normal discourse on WP talkpages, in my opinion. I don't believe "DGAF" is to be considered an obscenity in this day and age. Compare this recent Guardian article about a judge ruling specifically that the use of "I don’t give a fuck" in a business meeting is now "fairly commonplace". Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for sharing that – whilst the DGAF is rather brash, I only included it to contextualise the manner in which Lokys was replying to me, which I generally found unsettling and unamiable, which is why I brought it up here. – Olympian ^loquere 13:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize before user:Olympian, since they felt offended by the remark. In fact it was directed not to them, but as a general impersonal frustration with the situation I observe as "an editor of more than 12 years": a considerable drop in participation in Wikipedia (IMO). An overwhelming majority of edits of nonperfect articles I created are done by wikignomes who fix typos, formatting, etc. My special thanks to wikipatrollers of new pages, who do most of constructive edits to my content within several hours of creation recently. In this particular case I was frustrated by two facts: I noticed that several massive article moves were made by consensus of 2-3 wikipedians who made their decisions on the basic of ngram charts, not on the basis of expert sources, which, as I remember, is discouraged by the rules, hence my "(ab)use" abuse. The second fact is that despite my notice at WPRussia (it is Russia-related subject), it seems that they DGAD, so I DGAD as well. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lokys dar Vienas Thanks for the apology. Just for context, I think you may have misjudged me; you said such moves should be done by "wikipedians interested in Russia subjects with some expertise in the subject", the fact is, in addition to having researched the topic over 2 years, I've basically rewritten most the Russian Empire district/province articles within the Caucasus, adding their maps, demographics (1897 & 1916), infoboxes, translations, administrative divisions, etc. Not to mention, I authored the district (okrug & otdel) pages for the Kuban, Terek, Kutaisi, Tiflis, Chernomore, and Dagestan provinces. Basically, I don't want you to have the impression that I'm some random editor on the subject, since you expressed such a concern. – Olympian ^loquere 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Yashsahuji123

Yashsahuji123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is clearly only here to promote the website Movieholik. They continue adding inappropriate links or unnecessarily changing refs to Movieholik and other sites: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Additontally, they created the now deleted Draft:Movieholik.

This user has been warned before on their talk page, but has not listened. Courtesy ping to Callanecc, who left this user a {{subst:uw-agf-sock}} warning 2 weeks ago. Thank you. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just me, but when I click on the movieholik links my security software blocks it as an unsafe site, making it even less acceptable for use here. Neiltonks (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clicking the links, but they're clearly just a promotional spammer possibly even their own site. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Obvious spammer can be reported on WP:AIV. Lemonaka (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

87.20.7.191 and external YouTube links

87.20.7.191 appears to be a stable IP address. For the past three months, they've attempted to add excessive YouTube links to song articles. (Some of the most egregious: [118][119][120][121][122]) Some of their edits add the licensed youtube link to the infobox[123] which is not unconstructive, but then they add multiple variations of the same song to External links.[124] Their talk page is full of cautions/warnings/pleas to stop. Could they be blocked from article space? They could request edits on article talk pages (which they've not yet used). Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack

Preceptor1008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Preceptor1008 on a content dispute repeatedly made personal attacks e.g [125] SutyaRashi is a malicious troll.

[126] You basement dweller are clearly acting out of agony. better learn to behave in social situations before using a keyboard.

[127] Sutyanashi is a troll account, and must be ip banned.

Inspite of my warning[128] the user continued their disruption. This is the message the user left on my talk page [129] Don't act out of your personal vendetta, because it shows you don't have any real respect in real life. If you think you can report, you can be reported as well. Better not cross other users' boundaries, dont act like a tyrant.

This all makes it clear that User:Preceptor1008 is not here for constructive purpose. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sutyarashi - I appreciate that you have been the target of repeated personal attacks by Preceptor1008, but please don't stoop to their level by calling them a vandal (as you did in this edit). I've blocked Preceptor1008 for 31 hours as a first step; if they make any further comments like that again, come back and I will increase it to an indef block. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, first if he's also name calling me why is he not being blocked? and second, what is wrong with factual information. You're the admin/higher up, you can verify my contributions. If Scandinavism and Nordism link to the same page, shouldn't they be grouped together? He's acting out of personal vendetta and you can verify it yourself. Preceptor1008 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion by Iranian IPs

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

---

• Progrock70s (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 151.246.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.128.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.152.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 151.246.160.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

User Progrock70s was blocked in December, January and February for edit warring, the final block being indefinite. Each time the user was blocked, IPs from Iran continued the edit war, for instance at Shades of a Blue Orphanage,[130][131][132] and at Thin Lizzy (album).[133][134] At Whiskey in the Jar, Progrock70s was supported in edit warring by multiple IPs from Iran, including Special:Contributions/2.147.139.145 and Special:Contributions/2.147.182.57 in addition to the ranges listed above.

Today, the blocked person is using Special:Contributions/151.246.167.79 to berate a user from Brazil, and myself, on our various talk pages. They are continuing a senseless edit war at Camel (album) and Killer (Alice Cooper album). Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I swear I'm not Progrock70s and I wasn't edit warring and evading blocks. Please stop this I'm just here to edit for temporary. I'm not an edit warrior. I don't know how to prove I'm not that user but I swear I'm not that user, there's a mistake going on. Compare the pages that Progrock70s with mine, I'm clearly not them as they were constantly editing on Thin Lizzy pages. I repeat my edits are not vandalism and I'm just trying to edit with peace in here, also my last edits on Killer (album) and Camel (album) was to inform the Brazilian user cause they are using different IPs and I just wanted to inform them that I texted them on their talk page. Please don't block me I'm telling you the truth I'm just an ordinary guy who wants to edit peacefully in here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.246.156.199 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the listed ranges for three months; come back if and when they find another range. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous! We're done here. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Repeated spam by Trishamalford

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

---

Trishamalford (talk · contribs) has been warned many times for their obvious conflict of interest regarding the rappers Moneybagg Yo and The Real Poison Ivy. The user repeatedly spreads promotional and poorly sourced material and claims that the The Real Poison Ivy is divine in some way.[135] The user has also received multiple warnings for removing page content and templates. Furthermore, they have accused our users and admins of being "in cahoots with this page [the deleted article on The Real Poison Ivy] being attacked with vandalism by evil celebrities" (?).[136] An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef'd, clearly NOTHERE. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist

I have become increasingly concerned about the editing of TheTranarchist since I first noticed a report about an article on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. That article is about Chloe Cole, a young woman who has detransitioned. The report expressed concerns about impartially. One editor stated that it "reads like an attack page". It is excessively detailed and relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole. Although discussions on the talk page don't seem to be getting very far, the content problems with this one article could, theoretically, be worked out, but this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist.

By their own admission, TheTranarchist is using Wikipedia as a platform to attack people and groups with whom they disagree. They link to their Mastadon account on their user page. There, they have said about Genspect (bolding mine):

These fuckers hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy.

@healthliberationnow and @tsn have done some of the best reporting on them hands down. I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer. Their main strategy is appearing in right wing and far right publications often enough that liberal news organizations start uncritically treating them as merely concerned experts (don't we love the New York Times...).

All hope is not lost though, as a little SEO trick, no matter how much they spend on marketing, their Wikipedia page will still be among the first results displayed if not the very first one. The truth of their positions and actions is on prominent display and they can't lie their way out of it.

Other comments on Mastadon have already been noted on the talk page of another article created by TheTranarchist. Reading through The Tranarchist's Mastadon posts, it is clear that she views Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as "transphobes" or "TERFS" if they disagree with her. TheTranarchist seems to be a tendentious editor and has does not seem to have heeded the advice about neutral editing that she has already been given.

Although I suspect TheTranarchist and I share similar views, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy and attack pages. If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics. Round and rounder (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Round and rounder, you seem to have a history of trying to bring in information about other people from outside Wikipedia, including trying to directly out them, as you rather flippantly responded to here. It's somewhat strange, coming from an account that started editing a month ago right away on the COI noticeboard and has been actively involved in noticeboard discussions since then. Silverseren^C 21:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren Loksmythe brought up TheTranarchist's Mastadon account in this talk page discussion. That's where I saw it for the first time, today. My "flippant" response to that other user came after a bizarre and completely false claim that I had asked them to create an account. I think I was being nice, considering.

Any thoughts on TheTranarchist's editing? Round and rounder (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on their editing? They seem to actively focus on using proper reliable sourcing and call out sources with biased claims, especially claims that conflict with medical and scientific sources and therefore shouldn't be used as a source. There a lot of MEDRS violations in this topic area and TheTranarchist is good at calling that out and other reference problems.

As for Loksmythe, they should also have to respond to bringing up outside Wikipedia info in that discussion over there in order to attack TheTranarchist's editing. Silverseren^C 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Silver seren What did Loksmythe and I do that was wrong? If TheTranarchist has her Mastadon account on her user page aren't we allowed to read her postings? Are we not allowed to quote them here? Round and rounder (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Loksmythe failed to actually discuss any specific concerns or improvements on the page and used my post about the article (published after the article itself) as evidence the page should be deleted. If your argument that the page is not neutral doesn't address any specifics and relies solely on linking to criticisms off the organization off wikipedia, that's not a productive comment at all. In short, they did not actually point out any NPOV concerns, they just claimed my own opinion on FAIR made the article inherently POV. Notably, the contents of that post heavily differed from the content of the article - as while I see no need to restrain my criticism of an organization off Wikipedia, on Wikipedia I stick to reliable sources, even if I feel they aren't explicit enough. If anything my posts show beyond a shadow of a doubt that I stick to reliable sources when writing articles instead of my own opinion. I called FAIR "racist" and "transphobic" on Mastodon. On Wikipedia, I objectively referred to the specific things they are known for campaigning against and not once in the article called them "racist" or "transphobic" as sources failed to specifically use those descriptors. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@round and rounder: Got a bit confused about the sequence of events there, so for clarity's sake: I did some digging and you appear to be misremembering. You asked that user if they were the same person as/were related to a small time tennis player whose article they created. The conversation you linked to only happened afterwards. Licks-rocks (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks That's correct. I asked them if they were that person and advised them to read WP:COI if they were. Later, they made their strange claim after an IP editor accused us both of being sock puppets. That's when I wrote them off and deleted their message. Round and rounder (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've no comments yet, but @Round and rounder: are you sure that you've linked the correct discussion and diffs here? The "in this talk page discussion" is a circular link back to this discussion, to which Loksmythe hasn't contributed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. This is the right link. Round and rounder (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is rich.

In regards to Chloe Cole's article, your claim relies mainly on sources which are antagonistic to Cole is patently untrue, as most sources simply mention her notable actions. The fact that reliable sources that provide WP:SIRS coverage of her tend to be critical is not my fault.

Genspect is widely known for publishing misinformation and supporting forced detransition and conversion therapy, and multiple reliable sources have said so. I have no ethical qualms about being glad that when you search them you get a well-balanced article detailing what they're known for instead of their PR campaign. Notice I never used the word "attack", just "expose". Their is a very large difference between an attack and an objective and neutral accounting of their actions and reception in the medical community. Per WP:FRINGE, an organization with fringe viewpoints is objectively described by noting their fringe positions and how it deviates from the norm. If you can find problems with the article, go ahead and discuss them on the talk page, claiming the article or my editing is a problem because I wanted to accurately cover them is laughable.

Your linked post to support me calling editors as "TERFs" for disagreeing is ridiculous. For a start, Keen has repeatedly referred to herself as a TERF, and even then it is a neutral term not a perjorative. The bout of edits the screenshot is from came directly after Keen publicly complained about her article and it was met with a wave of vandalism, which resulted in the page being protected due to multiple editors having to try and stop it. For the first comment in that screenshot, they were arguing that her activities did not constitute harassment, a POV that only makes sense if you disregard how it's covered in reliable sources and consider activities such as 1) telling trans women they should not be allowed in women's spaces, 2) deadnaming a trans woman and accusing them of hating lesbians, and 3) publicly deadnaming and misgendering a trans child, as not constituting harassment. Ie, their position was very clearly in defense of harassing trans people.

The accusation of "tendentious editing" was viewed by other editors as a personal attack that had nothing to do with the page's content, as it boiled down to just claiming my political position inherently makes the page unobjective. The editor who made that comment has made no effort whatsoever to productively discuss things on talk. The one who echoed the claim of "tendentious editing" has a huge undisclosed COI and a demonstrated pattern of tendentious editing on that article and others, which I have already notified arb-com about.

In short, you have failed to bring up any issues with my actual editing and are just attacking my political positions without evidence they have made articles non-NPOV or that I have failed to seek consensus and work with others to improve articles when serious POV concerns are brought up in good faith.

Echoing @Silver seren's note, at a first glance your account history had seemed woefully suspicious, but I tried to assume good faith. Given the large amount of key-presses you've seemed to devote solely to attacking my editing, I think a check-user should look into your account and activity. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist Just for the record, I haven't attacked your political positions at all. I don't have a problem with them. Round and rounder (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Round and rounder You have raised no evidence that my editing is problematic, just linked to people attacking me for my political positions.

A recap of your argument

• The concerns raised about Chloe Cole on the BLPN were not actually related to edits I'd made, and were criticizing edit's I'd also spoken out against. You said this is only one of several problematic articles created by TheTranarchist, but the problems raised had literally nothing to do with my edits. As I noted there, the person who filed that seemed to do so in retaliation for my work on the FAIR article. A quick look at that section and Cole's talk page will show I have worked to productively discuss any concerns there.
• You claimed I create the article on Genspect to "attack" them. Per WP:FRINGE, neutrally describing what they've done and how fringe their positions are isn't an issue. I take pride in making sure FRINGE ideas and organizations are presented as such, entirely in line with WP policy. Notably, you didn't bother to provide any examples of issues with the article, merely criticized me for describing them as fringe off-wikipedia and saying I wanted to make sure people got an accurate history of their actions and advocacy.
• You cited people calling me a "tendentious editor". The person in question raised no issues with the actual content, refused to discuss anything on the talk page, and and called for the articles deletion solely on the basis of me being critical of FAIR off-wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, the only one to echo that claim has a large COI and their edits are truly tendentious. @CaptainEek, you're the only arbitrator I can remember off the top of my head, can you check the arb-com email and confirm that statement?
• You used a post about laughing about vandals as a supposed gotcha, when the screen-shotted comment in question had questioned whether harassment of trans people really counts as harassment. It is undeniably funny when vandals attempting to edit a page en-masse results in it being locked down. Poetic justice and all that. Keen's far-right ties have been commented on by numerous reliable sources, and per lead-follows-body they should probably be in the lead already.

If she is unable to show that she can edit in a neutral way, TheTranarchist should be topic banned from gender and politics topics - You have given absolutely no evidence that my edits aren't neutral and your main argument seems to be because I've criticized transphobia and transphobic organizations off wikipedia my edits are inherently not neutral. My largest good-faith criticism I've received, which I'm trying to work on, is that my articles contain too many details and should be trimmed. Not that they're not neutral, but that I may be overly thorough. That's hardly worthy of ANI. Your recommendation reads less like a good faith recommendation based on substantive arguments and more a blatant attempt to try and stop me editing because you disagree with my political positions based on spurious grounds. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a boomerang per @Silver seren's mention of Round and rounder's tendencies with outing and general uncivil behavior. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of boomerang, GeneralNotability just blocked Round and rounder for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Question @TheTranarchist: I haven't read through everything above, so apologies if this is already discussed, but there are a couple of things I'd like clarity on. 1: Your userpage appears to acknowledge that the linked Mastadon account is yours. Can you confirm that? 2: Were the quotes mentioned above genuinely written by you? I don't really know how Mastadon works, so it would be helpful if you were to either stand by them, or refute that they were yours. I think that clarifying these points would help us move forwards. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 23:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit I can confirm that's my account - I just object to the notion my posts there should be used instead of clear evidence of problematic editing. Like I mentioned above, while I don't hold back on criticisms there, my wikipedia edits have a very different tone and are based solely on reliable sources. Even when I want to say something about an organization, I have never inserted my own opinions into an article. Just what reliable sources say in language supported by them. Hope that clarifies things! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming that. Just for the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that these words are yours: I myself wrote Wikipedia articles on them to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer? Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can confirm that. Genspect is a fringe organization known in multiple reliable sources for publishing misinformation and presenting as impartial doctors while working with religious conversion therapy organizations. Is it problematic to desire to use Wikipedia to make sure WP:FRINGE organizations and positions are accurately represented?

  Preceding that quoted comment, I'd said they hide behind a very thin veil of vaguely scientific language and marketing to mask an incredibly anti-trans agenda: forced detransition and conversion therapy. This is factually supported in reliable sources on every count. Nobody writes a WP article they don't want people to read or without reasons for doing so. If their are problems in the article, please note them, but otherwise I don't see how saying I tried to accurately represent a FRINGE organization as such is particularly noteworthy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  We are writing an encyclopedia, we aren't investigative journalists. If a subject has already been exposed as a crock of shit, then it's fair enough to describe it as such (with appropriate attribution to the people who did the work of exposing it). Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. Don't crow online about exposing stuff, that isn't what we do. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I am very well aware. There's a bunch of data on Genspect I have not included in the article as they are not reliably sourced or would be OR. I have only used RS in articles, and this seems to be a linguistic miscommunication since to my ear "exposing" does include the act of compiling what disparate reliable sources have said to create a full picture. One could say that while disparate sources may expose certain activities of an organization, exposing said organization includes the act of compiling them.

  Your goal here should not be to expose anything, it should be to summarise what authoratitive sources already say about it. - a summary of what reliable sources say about them still "exposes" them, as the definitions of "expose" include "To reveal the guilt or wrongdoing of", "To make known", and "To make visible". I fully agree with your take on what wikipedia is and is not, and as I said this seems to be a miscommunication. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would suggest, however, that you, in your social media posts, make it clear that they have "been exposed", and you're going to make sure Wikipedia readers know that, rather than saying you're the one doing the exposing. The difference is that you're not engaging in original research: your Mastodon quote implies that you are, and casts doubt (incorrectly) on your contributions here, thus, indirectly, harming Wikipedia's reputation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this should play out. On one hand, it's a problem when we find information off Wikipedia and then use it for discussions about editors on wikipedia. We should largely judge editors by what they do here, not elsewhere (absent things like doxing etc off site). On the other hand, TheTranarchist has shown poor judgement when creating new articles and several editors have tried to raise awareness on their talk page and on article talk pages[137] and they were given a formal warning recently [138]. The originally published versions of Chloe Cole and Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism showed clear bias in source choice, failure to use IMPARTIAL phrasing etc. The off wiki comments strongly suggest the intent was to make these, in effect, attack articles to warn others and that reflected their POV. The on wikipedia product supports that view. Honestly, this is one of the few times I've observed an editor and felt CIR applies. That said, I don't have time to dig up all the diffs needed at this time. I would oppose any boomerang since that ignores the issues with the original works. If the pattern of poor editing continues or a longer history is shown (I haven't interacted with this editor that much) then I would suggest a topic ban so they can prove competency in other areas. Springee (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fully digging out of the bottom of the barrel here - it's funny your first two sources are in regards to other editors with a COI.

Your first link is to a comment made by an editor with a large COI. Them saying "tendentious editing" is not proof I have done so. Others have pointed out how that whole section was a personal attack by an editor who thought that rather than raising any concerns about the content itself, they should say my description of FAIR off-wikipedia (which was very notably not mirrored en-wiki as sources did not consistently use that language) invalidates the whole thing.

Your second link was to an honest mistake on my part. An editor at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull had said another editor had a COI. Since that's a heavy accusation, I double checked to confirm whether it was true, and found it indeed was. I posted a link corroborating the statement as a comment. Wrong venue to do so, and very pointedly I reported the FAIR COI via the appropriate channels. @AmandaNP, was that incident in question proof I have shown poor judgement when creating new articles or merely poor judgement reporting COIs?

If we look at the initial version of the Chloe Cole article and compare it to the current version, where is the clear bias in source choice and failure to use impartial phrasing? Besides, there have been productive discussions on improving the content at the talk page. The only notable changes made have been 1) moving "far-right media" to "right-wing media", which I did myself in accordance with sources, and 2) removing the statement about how medical and human rights organizations have opposed legislation she's supported from the lead, which I did not contest. I initially included that per WP:FRINGE, and have not said should go back into the lead but worked into the body, since it's factually verifiable and true that trans-healthcare bans she's supported have been protested by such groups.

At FAIR, I have attempted to work to discuss and improve the article in the talk page, including in terms of the NPOV concerns. Nobody can seriously claim I haven't. Notably, the first criticism was from an account with an undeclared COI and the second was from a SPA. The questionable sources were 3/41, which I discussed there then took to RSN, which has proved one generally reliable, one questionably reliable (I gave examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS since that was concern raised but have not heard back), and one unreliable (which, given a clear policy reason, I accepted was true). Currently, the article reads like an advert (thanks to the COI editor) - not featuring any of the well sourced statements about their general activities in favor of thinking the lead should just have their mission statement...

WP:CIR is particularly rich coming from someone who spent about a dozen comments on the FAIR article trying to argue that the right to not be misgendered in schools does not actually count as "transgender rights"... Per CIR: It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop and It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor

We should largely judge editors why what they do here, not elsewhere - Then do so. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really having the time nor energy to read this whole thing, I've only read the paragraph I've been mentioned in, and haven't reviewed any contribs other than what I have already commented on. I feel that the oversighted content issue was an oversight in judgement, and from my discussions, I doubt it will reoccur from TheTranarchist. I don't think this rises to "poor judgement" as that would require reckless disregard (aka an intent to disregard), where as I see this as being unaware of the rules in a sensitive topic area. That is why I issued the formal warning and direction to be clearly aware of policies, and didn't go direct to block, AE sanction or similar action. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: Springee appears to have been specifically called here by Round and rounder after starting this ANI section and Springee also appears to be currently arguing on Talk:Chloe Cole that LGBT news sources like LGBTQ Nation are "clearly biased sources" for defining whether someone is anti-trans or not. Silverseren^C 00:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While I can understand the concerns about TheTranarchist having somewhat of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I do not believe it is in any way severe enough to warrant a topic ban. Also, it is very suspicious that Round and rounder's editing history is dedicated almost entirely to opposing this user. If someone else wants to raise issue with TheTranarchist's edits in good faith then I do not object. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• There is coverage of TheTranarchist and other editors in The Culture Wars Look Different on Wikipedia (Noam Cohen, The Atlantic, January 22, 2023) e.g. "The main advocate for moving the page from Gregory to Gloria was an editor named TheTranarchist, and the main opponent was an editor named StAnselm, a self-described Calvinist who has created more than 50 articles about biblical characters and scenes. Yet the discussion on the Talk page was about facts and Wikipedia policies and guidance, not politics. “It didn’t seem culture warrior–ish,” [Joseph Reagle, a Wikipedia expert at Northeastern University] said." Beccaynr (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Weighing in as an un-involved non-admin: this really doesn't look good for anyone involved. Round and rounder seems to be approaching WP:BOOMERANG, while TheTranarchist is likewise approaching WP:NOTHERE. To Loksmythe, I don't know if there are any rules against citing someone's off-wiki activity, but I think conventionally there's a very high bar for it to be considered relevant. There may be merit to the suggestion that Round and rounder is a sock unless they have a good explanation for why their edit history begins with fairly involved challenging of user conduct. And I suppose only time will tell if TheTranarchist can beat the odds and become a rare WP:SPA that's a net positive for the project. For what it's worth, I don't support sanctions against anyone at this time beyond perhaps a warning about WP:CANVASSING, but would invite closer scrutiny on these editors and the application of WP:CTOP restrictions as necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Even ignoring the issues with the actual articles TheTranarchist has created for a second, can anyone explain to me how admitting to writing articles on organisations in order to "expose... these fuckers", or adding polemic diatribes to her user page calling a living person which she created the Wikipedia article of a "nazi", "liar", and "bigot", is not admission of WP:ADVOCACY editing? The last time I remember an instance of an editor admitting they created articles to disparage subjects they have a disagreement with, they received a topic ban from BLP articles. Can someone explain to me how this is different? Endwise (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a proper use of a userpage and that sort of addition should be removed completely. But, outside of that, the main difference is that TheTransarchist does write good articles following what the sources say. You bring up Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull which, if you compare your initial edit link to the current article, has not had much of the original text changed or removed at all, just added to. Because the original article was written perfectly fine (if needing proper sectioning and organizing), following what the news coverage said about the BLP subject. So you can't separate the actual articles from the discussion here. The other editor you're comparing to did actually make blatant attack articles against what the sources said or misusing the sources. That isn't comparable here. Silverseren^C 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See my above comments on the finer linguistic points of the word "expose". The "polemic" is a funny example. She publicly attacked the article and called me an "incel" and "trancel" and I listed that as an honorable mention. I amended "AKA Nazi barbie" after concerns were raised, but it should be heavily noted that the phrase linked to evidence of her literally using a nazi barbie as a profile pic, which was later covered in reliable sources, and as your profile picture is on online representation of how you want to be known, "AKA" fits. It's purely factual that she has said called the article full of lies, I didn't call her a "liar", I noted the irony that she called the article full of lies, while verifiably "lying" about her past comments. Which brings me to the next point, is "you can't call someone who's said all trans men should be sterilized, worked with the far-right on multiple occasions, and has no notability outside of her bigoted campaigning a 'bigot'" really a hill you want to die on? Bigotry includes transphobia, a transphobe is by definition a bigot towards trans people, so unless you want to argue that Keen isn't known solely for her transphobia I don't see how bigot is not a neutral description.

Per WP:ADVOCACY: Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Is their evidence I have compromised verifiability or neutrality? I make no secret of who I am - a trans person. I make no secret of the fact I usually write articles documenting the anti-trans movement. Every editor has a niche, but there is no evidence that my articles are not neutral or verifiable solely because of the topic I tend to edit on. As I have provided ample evidence above, I have not promoted "personal beliefs", I have stuck to the sources even when my personal beliefs are far more critical. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Silverseren here: Tranarchist's articles about anti-trans organizations are pretty good actually. Wikipedia policy doesn't prohibit having a POV or nobody would be allowed to edit Wikipedia. It prohibits letting that POV interfere with your editing, and I don't really see that here. Loki (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I feel at a minimum, TheTranarchist should be banned from editing the GenSpect article directly. Even if we can't identify specific problems with their editing, their acknowledged comments say that the are editing the article for the wrong reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would find it difficult to believe that there's really any editor in such a topic area that isn't editing for POV reasons. Which is why we only care about actual editing and not personal POVs, unless their POV is actively making them edit non-neutrally. Editor Animalparty just below being another example of that. Silverseren^C 03:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors are allowed to think an organisation is a disgusting piece of shit. I think that of Genspect myself. However I do not edit "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer". That's an completely unacceptable reason to edit per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. In cases where you feel you cannot do so, you need to refrain from editing yourself or you will be forced out of the area. It may be that you believe that a well balanced encyclopaedia article is likely to reveal that they are a terrible organisation. I believe that on Genspect. However they key thing is I do not edit to 'expose them and help undermine that thin veneer'. I edit to ensure we have a well balance encyclopaedia article. If the sources disagree with my view, then I accept that and help get that into the article. This is impossible when by your own admission you are editing to "expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since by your own admission you aren't here to ensure a well balanced encyclopaedia article but instead a different reason that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. We have always blocked and banned editors who have admitted they are not here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles but instead for other reasons no matter if anyone can identify specific problems with their editing. Frankly my suggestion we only block them from directly editing that specific article is being generous especially given some of the other things they have said. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to be here to write well balanced encyclopaedia articles. Have you considered that a well balanced and sourced article on organisations like Genspect will by its very nature expose them and help undermine that thin veneer?

Genspect, like many related anti-trans organisations, are well known for promoting fringe ideas and misinformation about trans and non-binary healthcare. Because our articles are based on the reliable sources that those organisations either ignore or try to discredit, any well sourced and balanced article about will have the effect of exposing and undermining them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing you're not acknowledging. The articles that TheTransarchist has written are well balanced and following what the reliable sources say. There are tons of long-standing editors who purposefully created articles on notable topics precisely because it would showcase the negative aspects of them, all while following what the reliable sources say and being neutral even when "exposing" their negative aspects in the process. I wrote Mugged to "expose" the insane far right conspiracy claims pushed by Coulter. And I did so by just accurately writing what the reliable sources said about her book, including ones that praised it. I wrote Questioning Collapse specifically to have coverage on Wikipedia covering the pseudoscience nonsense made by Jared Diamond and his negative actions as an editor of the journal Nature. I also wrote GPS Air to ensure we had ongoing coverage of the company that had harmed so many with their fake products and defrauded schools and businesses in the process. I still covered it neutrally, including info on their origins, products, and awards. So, yes, you can purposefully create articles on subjects whereby their very existence will have a POV outcome on the world, while still covering notable subjects and writing the articles neutrally and completely by what the reliable sourcing says on the subjects. Silverseren^C 03:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) BTW, while Genspect itself is not a BLP (albeit it is likely an article will name several living persons), TheTranarchist frequent editing in BLPs is an added reason why we should not tolerate any nonsense.

To give an unrelated example (albeit one which the sock seems to have involved themselves in) on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sanctioned Suicide we have a discussion about naming living persons. I first saw this thread IIRC with only 2 comments. I looked into it, and my first thought was "holy hell, those 2 people are absolutely disgusting individuals (from my PoV) and I'd really like to name them". However when I looked into it more my conclusion (which I didn't post since I was waiting to see what others had to say) was as much as I feel that way, I'm not convinced we should be naming them. Since removing their names does not seem to significantly reduce context etc. I was able to do so because I recognised I was not and should not be editing to "expose" anyone or help undermine anything.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull is a related example currently on BLPN as well. It's not the first time it came up, the first time I saw it my thoughts were as Black Kite, she seems to be an individual who's views are so out of mainstream that even people who share some of her views on trans issues often don't want anything to do with her. So it's likely that an article on her will be fairly critical. However again I was able to recognise we still have to ensure the article is fair with proper sourcing and wording, and without violating WP:UNDUE etc etc.

IIRC I never got involved in that article in any significant way. And I admit part of the reason is because of my personal views of the subject. Not because I felt I couldn't be sufficiently unbiased but because of how bad her views are I couldn't convince myself to spend the effort. That isn't ideal, but editors aren't required to edit so it's something we accept will happen even with BLPs.

However at a minimum all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles when they are editing. They should never be editing "to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer" since when they are doing so they're not doing that. And so will want to name people even when we potentially should not. And won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV. Etc.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

all editors need to be able to try and put aside their PoV be here to help write balanced encyclopaedic articles is there any actual evidence I haven't apart from speculation that I might have or might do in future? As others have commented, to try and expose them and help undermine that thin veneer is encyclopedic when that organization is solely known for advancing WP:FRINGE medical theories and practices under the guise of impartial science. Are there any flaws with the article itself or evidence that I did not write it from a NPOV? won't care about getting the article on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull right if it reflects their PoV - as other's pointed out, the article was well-written and sourced from the start - is there evidence I did not get it right to reflect my own POV? The linked BLPN discussion was started by the sockpuppet who filed this complaint, other editors did not support their claim it was an "attack page" and merely commented it was overly detailed, and a 5 second look will show that I endeavored to work with other editors to work on that.

Take the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism for example: I included the Mendoza case even though I personally agree with their position on it, and it makes the article reflect better on them (marginally, considering most of their activities are in other fields, but still). I am not in the habit of disregarding what reliable sources have to say on a topic, even when it is flattering.

Sidenote though, thank you for striking Round and Rounder's comments from various talk pages and noticeboards. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty good? By what metric? I'm not here to comment on behavior, but I (and other editors) see excessively intricate detail, WP:PROSELINE, WP:RECENTISM, and subtle introduction of of POV by framing and placement, in multiple articles. Facts and citations are dumped in by the truckload, making it hard to discern the appropriate weight and relevance of any given aspect, contra WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF, etc. A laundry list of virtually everything done or said by or about a subject is neither encyclopedic nor good writing. My eyes glaze over just trying to find the relevant aspects to trim or emphasize. I will say the articles are thoroughly researched, and articles are always a work in progress. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The various uppercase shortcuts you've linked are not generally issues that we block or TBAN editors over. If anything I'd say that they're a sign of perhaps an overeager but inexperienced article creator, which is a skill that can be developed over time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's time to close this discussion. Most of the accusation is based on out-of wiki material that is only not WP:OUTING because the accused linked to their social media on their userpage, and having gone through their edits for a bit, I don't see many edits to article main-space that are actually objectionable, a conclusion that is reinforced by the fact that anyone has yet to actually link to an objectionable edit in this discussion. There's about four or five of links to edits from other editors accusing TheTranarchist of things, but none that link to the actual supposed problem behaviour. As a case study, several of those accusations are about TheTranarchist creating an article about a WP:FRINGE organisation to make them look bad. As several editors here have pointed out, you can't always avoid making an organisation look bad if you want to be FRINGE compliant. Having looked at that article, I did not get the impression any material there was noncompliant or excessive. More importantly, every claim made was well sourced even in the first version of the article in question. The only example of someone linking directly to an edit by TheTranarchist is the now blocked Round an Rounder/World's Lamest Critic, who just links to a fairly short example of... What looks a lot like TheTranarchist complying perfectly to WP:BRD and taking a challenged edit to the talk page for discussion. I do not think there is anything here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that the link to the off site material was not something TheTranarchist posted themselves. If they provided the link themselves and the link was/is on their user page then I think it's is completely acceptable to consider it when reviewing this topic. It's only one step removed form posting it to their user page. Combine that with the use of SYNTH to apply contentious labels to BLP subjects (see many of the proposed sources here "Anti-transgender_activism"? and I think it would be best if they voluntarily step away from this subject area for a bit and edit unrelated topics to show they understand Wikipedia's standards for IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you see the WP:SYNTH there, considering the first source contains the phrase "anti-trans activism" to describe the BLP verbatim. _{I also think it's a bit nauseating that every phrase in this topic space has to be fought over tooth and nail even when it's as blatantly obvious as it is here, but hey, that's probably just me.} Licks-rocks (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per your earlier comments about how WP:CIR, you have spent an inordinate amount of time in the past few days arguing that 1) transgender students do not have a right to not be misgendered/deadnamed in schools and it's just "trans advocates" who say otherwise, completely ignoring the heaps of linked evidence in favor of pushing your own POV at FAIR and 2) arguing that Chloe Cole, who reliable sources call an "anti-trans activist", who is noted in reliable sources to support "anti-trans legislation" (including banning transition even for adults), is not an "anti-trans activist"...

  Also, for context for all those watching, the largest reason I listed my Mastodon on my user page was I saw (off-wikipedia) people accusing others with the same username of being me, and directing harassment towards them. I originally put a disclaimer on my page that I do not use the username anywhere else - I felt it would be dishonest once I created my Mastodon account to not explicitly say it was mine. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so it doesn't get lost in the middle: Round and rounder was blocked for being a sock of World's Lamest Critic. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

...welp. I guess that explains a fair bit. Silverseren^C 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, support restriction on creating BLPs in mainspace without AfC or an EC in good-standing moving it from draft for them. I intially came here to outright oppose any sanction because they have been open to criticism and collaboration on-wiki. However, there off-wiki comments do raise concerns that their motivation and source selection is biased and that protection of BLPs is needed until they show they can operate within our guardrails. Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is probably a good compromise. I would suggest extending it to any GENSEX or BLP topic but otherwise it would seem to address the biggest issues. Springee (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  The expanded universe makes sense given previous community issues and sanctions, support additional restriction. Slywriter (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  There has yet to be any evidence given that there's anything wrong with the articles they've been making. The sockpuppet OP was the one who brought the articles to BLPN and other editors there didn't agree that there was anything wrong with them. So your restriction here of "until they show they can operate within our guardrails" is meaningless, as you haven't shown they aren't already doing that. Silverseren^C 17:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Edits like this illustrate part of the issue.[139] The section heading "Undoing the whitewashing and advertification" totally fails to be impartial (a requirement even for talk page headings). The long list has good sources and questionable ones. How it is meant to be used isn't clear but the simple implication that editors are whitewashing is a problem given the contentious topic. That they would do that while this ANI is open is hard to understand. Springee (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be the one with biased editing in general on these talk pages. Having just the group's mission statement in the lede and not a proper summary of the article is an example of advertification and seemingly whitewashing of the descriptive content. The section title is accurate and the discussion given by TheTransarchist in that section also seems like a good editor trying to make a proper neutral lede summary based on available sources. Some of the sources in their list are certainly stronger and more relevant than others, but those stronger sources still say the same thing as the others, which is criticism of the group. Silverseren^C 22:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Which edit of mine are you referencing? I've made 3 edits total to the article. Which one was the issue? Conversely, are you saying it's OK to accuse editors of whitewashing on an article talk page? Are you suggesting that is a neutral topic heading? Springee (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to have a major issue with LGBT news sources across various articles on topics in the LGBT topic area. And whitewashing can also be an issue of omission than explicit addition of improper information. Not having a proper lede for a group that sources refer to negatively is whitewashing those referenced facts from the opening of the article. Which can appear deliberate and quite possibly is on someone in the editing history's part, but could also just be a long-term editing issue with the article that TheTransarchist is trying to now rectify. Silverseren^C 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any action re: Tranarchist Yes, Tranarchist has very strong feelings about a subject that would inevitably color her contributions no matter how hard she tries to follow WP:NPOV. However, so do many other contributors. It's always an issue with Wikipedia, and you can find subtle biases in even the best contributions. That's why we have multiple editors. This mechanism works well in highly-viewed articles and not so well in rarely-viewed articles, since the scrutiny by other editors is less. Wikipedia is not perfect, and putting restrictions on Tranarchist and other editors with strong opinions (as long as they edit reasonably close to a neutral view) in an attempt to perfect Wikipedia is a fool's errand, as we'll just harm Wikipedia by banning some of its best contributors. The best we can do is recognize that many editors have strong opinions, and, as editors, always think about WP:NPOV when we're editing an article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• All I can say is, it's a good job my Mastodon account isn't linked from my talk page.  Tewdar  18:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see an all Cornwall topics ban in your future. ^{[just kidding]} — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  You mean an 'all topics ban', surely...  Tewdar  18:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any action against TheTranarchist. The person who started this topic has been banned as a sockpuppet, so hopefully WP:Assume good faith doesn't apply when I say this was a gross attempt at intimidating a trans editor. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Trying to create Tim Peel

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

---

Tim Peel was deleted by User:RickinBaltimore in April 2017 as being an "attack page" — at the time, the article subject was an active ice hockey official. Since then, he has retired, and he has significant coverage (both positive and negative) that, I believe, establishes notability. I've created a draft at Draft:Tim Peel. I would appreciate if an admin would consider lifting the create block for this new draft. White 720 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

When 60% of your article is "Controversies", does this meet WP:UNDUE? Daniel (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The person is known as an official in sport; in many cases, mentions of officials in reliable sources tend to be critical in nature. Compare Ángel Hernández (umpire). I also respect WP:OTHERSTUFF, so if Tim Peel shouldn't be recreated with the draft I wrote, that's fine as well. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tim Peel looks like an attack page to me, and should be deleted too.AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Concur -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As a reference the article I deleted in 2017 was just that, an attack page that linked to a blog post about his officiating, and the writers opinion on him. It was repeatedly reposted, which is why I SALTed the page. I agree the current draft also is WP:UNDUE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've G10'd it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Pixius

The editor Pixius (talk · contribs) arrived at a discussion in progress, and introduced themselves with:

the destructive work you are conducting here is against wikipedia policies. The "cancel culture" you are trying to impose on the name of the series and to push the WP:OWN is beyond any normal conduct.[140]

You behave like in 1984 novel the ministry of truth[141]

An uninvolved editor @DMacks warned them about tone,[142] but they insisted No, the tone is quite fine and accused me of using language from MSM (actually from current scholarship which I can cite) not in good faith, but used as a cover for the wrong doings”[143] Finally, they resorted to speculating on my ancestry, something I feel is subject to my WP:PRIVACY, and using it to cancel my ability to edit:

You being an of Ukrainian descent disqualify you from being objective[144]

I asked them to take it back,[145] but they refused.[146]

The user accuses me of Taking only one dubious source and build a narative around it post 24.02. is a part of canceling culture. We were discussing more than one source, and I introduced several others during the exchange, while they offered links to a personal website and an image search. So I don’t think this user’s problem is really about sources. The mention of post 24.02 is a reference to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and de-colonize their scholarship.[147] This user may be attacking me to prevent this from being reflected in Wikipedia articles. I apologize for speculating about their motives: I don’t really care about their motives.

I believe I have a right not to be treated this way. It constitutes WP:casting aspersions, openly justified by racism. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The talk page is for an article subject to WP:ACDS because it is related to the subject area of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed.

The editor was notified of DS nearly two years ago.[148]  —Michael Z. 00:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there.

As you stated above you don't care about the motives - my is to stop the cancel culture which took the EN Wikipedia. It is difficult time for all of us, but "yellow band star of David to mark those Russkies" will not happen again.

Alleged "speculation" of your ancestry (I do not have to speculate), is not under the WP:PRIVACY. Privacy, as written in WP:PRIVACY, refers to your personal information, address, IP address, pictures, documents, your personal information etc... which none of these I have mentioned, nor used, nor written anywhere.

"...and using it to cancel my ability to edit...": No I am not preventing you in any way to edit and to write what you want. But also a new emotional source "academic" forgeries are not WP:RS. These authors have to deal with their problems personally.

Regarding the sources, I gave the sources not under the influence of MSM hysteria. Google, unfortunately, has become part of MSM. Hence the Bing, hence the "private" webpage dealing only with Degas work. Literally the first sentence in talk page of the Russian dancers article is from only one PhD thesis

"The name given by the author is 'Russian Dancers', so the title must be consistent. "Degas himself (mistakenly) titled a series of works with this name"." What was exactly mistaken? Has Degas had a chance to speak with those people? Most of the pictures have red dresses, red boots, a part of Russian culture. Has the PhD thesis taken this into evaluation proclaiming the "mistaken" name? The source is dubious, one sided and fits to the narrative. What you do is a pure cherry picking based on one PhD thesis and all other, the majority of them, sources have appeared post 24.02. events

Even now you are mentioning the Russian imperialism and cancelation of identity.

Stop playing the victim here. "In fact what is happening is that the invasion has prompted academics and institutions to reevaluate longstanding cancellation of Ukrainian identity in favour of imperial Russian and then Soviet narratives, and... " ::This is a pure MSM narrative, and it is not objective. I see no dissing on UK Comonwealth Imperisalism or USofA Imperialism. The whole tone of the article is pure cancelation culture of anything even remotely in touch with Russian. For God's sake, even the cat breed "Russian blue. " was renamed by some feline associations. It is a pure lunacy

When looking on your talk page, you frequently enter into a wars with other users. pushing your NPOVs, deciding what is right what is wrong, what sources a re reliable, which one ar to be frowned upon (example: Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders, you even write the same threatening text and warnings to the other users, and as well to me. You tend to attack people when you face the facts.

Concerning the ongoing cancel culture

Living in the west, in Germany, and having many friends of Russian and Ukrainian descent, from mixed marriages, and all sort of different combinations, I hear their daily struggle, their bank accounts being blocked, frozen, they being bullied at jobs, asking to publicly denounce the 24.02. event, being laid off from work, whole family companies being in blockade, and only because of their ethnicity, now we face a complete cancel culture of everything that it has a name Russ or Russian in it.

Wikipedia is not a place for buffs and vendettas. Don't make the English Wikipedia to spiral down like the Croatian one did.

Pixius talk 02:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Decolonisation time! We should ASAP run a bot to replace every instance of "Russian" with either "Ukrainian" (for good guys and things) or "Orcish" (for bad guys and stuff), merge Russia to Mordor, and site-ban on sight all Russian editors, 'cause they all are mafia who cannot handle criticism and censor those who oppose them. Why we still allow terrorists from a lawless wasteland of bandits to edit our free encyclopedia? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 09:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO Pixius should be blocked the personal attack i.e. claiming an editor cannot be objective due to their ancestry. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would add their comments including on this very thread seem to have strong signs of WP:RGW so perhaps they are enough for an indef. My main poiint is at a minimum Pixius's personal attack which they don't seem to be withdrawing or apologising for should have consequences. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

My warning to this editor at the Ukranian-dancers talkpage was at 14:01 on Feb 10. Yesterday, I checked up on their later contributions, at which point I found that they have been at Talk:Sonja Yelich, hammering on that BLP-subject's ethnicity for over a year via OR and rejecting RS. Timestamped prior to my warning at the dancers talkpage, he responded to a neutral comment from User:LivelyRatification with "do not ask for mercy for the load of stupidity you have wrote there" and "should I call you potato". I left a final-warning about civility in discussions (timestamped subsequent to my warning at the dancers talkpage). Their response was again a rejection of the warning and rejection of our standard of WP:RS for BLP. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: How long does this user need to be blocked? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Prior to their response here, I was at "final warning", having initially had my finger on 31h block as a quick-stop. I usually think 72h or 1wk for a first block for major disruption, or whatever would get them out of time-limited discussions (RFC, AFD, RM, etc.) where they are disruptive. Here there's no such discussion in play, and their response here indicates they need some serious self-reflection and policy-reading and we need some serious time without their participation. DMacks (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Antagonistic/disruptive user

An IP address 46.208.125.66 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.208.125.66) has been editing the article Sons of the Desert some might say excessively. He has not been receptive to criticism, reverting changes and later adding them in as his own, to save face. None of this is that big a deal, but when I get homophobic messages on my talk board (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYouCanDoBetter&diff=1140258198&oldid=1138892340), I'd appreciate it if he was dealt with, at least from contacting me, if not from editing the page altogether. Thank you. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the chance the IP editor thinks you're not a man? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is what I think, very much so. 46.208.125.66 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYouCanDoBetter&diff=1140260177&oldid=1140258780

The use of the term "Mary" is generally associated with gay men. And I am a man. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is childlike behaviour from a self-styled editor who took umbrage because I rejected his advice on formatting the Plot section in Sons of The Desert.

"I'd appreciate it if he was dealt with, at least from contacting me..." shows the level of his ability to phrase. His worthless advice was ignored by me and I continued to edit the section at my own pace, and to the standard of a Ph.D. English holder. 46.208.125.66 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this speaks for itself. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are also many odd, bot-like changes like this that he later reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_the_Desert&diff=next&oldid=1140256440

And (deceitful) insults like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_the_Desert&diff=next&oldid=1140259121 YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is another important point: denying an actual reversion, documented in a link in this very post, along with the "Mary" slur - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:46.208.125.66&diff=next&oldid=1140262869

Between that and grammatical errors in this the Ph.D. comment, I think we're being trolled. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

wikt:Mary#English (meaning 5) confirms that Mary is gay slang for a male homosexual. Given diff1 + diff2 + diff3 it is clear that the IP is attempting to be offensive and I have blocked them for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

👍 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Noissues572

• Noissues572 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to remove hyperlinks on Pakistani Wikipedia articles they come across which I believe is a non constructive and distruptive attempt to reach extended confirmed status. They also ignored my notice of unconstructive edits by continuing their distruptive behaviour). Uzek (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked at, and cleaned up after, all their link-related edits so far. They have removed large numbers of wikilinks from Pakistan-related articles; maybe about 5 to 10% of these are links that probably should have been removed (but would have been harmless if left in place), the rest were definitely appropriate, and so removing them was disruptive. I reached out on their talk page once, which had no effect, and then a second time, with a more strongly worded message. They haven't edited in the couple of hours since then (though it's possible they just haven't been online in that period).
  If they resume any link-related edits in a similar vein without engaging with their user talk page or here, then these edits should probably be reverted on sight, and the user blocked for a short period (maybe they aren't aware of their user talk page? a short block with a clear explanation would help). – Uanfala (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed! Seems to have gone inactive for another day maybe. Uzek (talk)

Bazzascott1234

Bazzascott1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been editing for over a year but, as far as I can tell, every single edit that they've made has been reverted as vandalism. They have a long history of editing in some fake gaming info into the Bongani Khumalo. Notice in this edit that they are self-promoting: 'Barry Scott Jr' is mentioned near the start. They also mention FRZ Mantor, which is the name of one of the three accounts that was vandalising EGames, along with Bazzascott, and ended up getting blocked indefinitely. Somehow, Bazzascott was spared but their two accomplices were not. Further vandalism includes this edit to James N. Butcher (User:Jamesbutcher41 assisted with this act of vandalism). While a few of these acts were a while ago, the most recent Khumalo vandalism was only 5 days ago. Today, they created Dylan Brownsell, a wholly negative BLP with some quite offensive content. The final section of the article was all about Brownsell's alleged body odour and how he apparently doesn't seem to care. The article appeared to be about a minor and also contained what appeared to be some quite derogatory descriptions of his alleged conversion to Judaism. This has now been speedy deleted but, in my view, it's further evidence of WP:NOTHERE from an account that has committed vandalism since Feb 2022. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

IPs adding broken interwiki links

• 180.252.7.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.251.147.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:448A:70AE:6376:FDD4:B335:CF1B:1AF5/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After several warnings, the IP refuses to stop adding broken interwiki links (doesn't exist on tkwiki, doesn't exist on nnwiki, doesn't exist either on nnwiki, etc). By including interwiki links in stub templates, an article tagged with the stub template gets interwiki-linked to the template page, instead of the correct page using Wikidata. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 13:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 - content deleting without any prior notice

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To cite @Plumbago Capensis: "I have seen this user [Onel5969] often deleting articles that were definitely well written and sufficiently sourced, without any prior notice. I do not believe this behavior is very aligned with the collaborative nature of the project, and risks to disincentivize contributions." (User talk:Onel5969#Notability of old buildings)

Here are some examples from the recent time, probably just a tip of iceberg:

• A historical building in Syracuse, New York
• A South African actor
• A really huge dam (has interwikis, had In use template)
• An International Athletics competition (has interwikis)
• A Faculty tracing its history back into 1600s (and with a beautiful Spanish interwiki with many sources)

I tried to persuade Onel5969 to be more moderate in deletions, but without visible success. They should at least warn authors before deletion of their content and give them some time to add sources or whatever, if there is real possibility that the content is notable.--Jan Spousta (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, first off, those are not "deletions." Those are redirects, and there is a distinct difference; no one's work has actually been eliminated. Secondly, those articles were either poorly or unsourced, and in the case of the last one certainly a case of WP:UNDUE; they were good candidates for redirection at the least. For a third, whether an article is "well written" or not is irrelevant; there've been many well-written articles about non-notable subjects which have run afoul of AfDs, prods or redirects.

The key here is sourcing -- the size of a dam or the longevity of a department's faculty do not matter at all -- and while three of your diffs are relatively recent creations, one is a year and a half old, and one is sixteen years old. There is no damn excuse in the world for them to be unsourced, and the article creators should not need extra prompting to do the work they should have put in at the start. I am a good bit less concerned with whether redirects "risk disincentivizing contributions" than with editors who feel that WP:V is somehow optional, or that it's acceptable to create articles without bothering with sourcing. Those article creators ought to be quite able to go themselves to those "beautiful interwikis" if such sourcing exists there. As to that -- what stops you from doing that sourcing work? Ravenswing 13:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These are excellent policy-based actions by Onel5969 that I fully endorse. Editors who want these subjects to have separate articles should overcome the identified problems, such as by finding a good source; then they could restore the article with a new reference. The important element here is that the problem be clearly identified in the edit summary, and Onel5969 did that. This common practice is called WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT—Alalch E. 14:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These are not content deletions. You can always restore them by reverting the edits. But by reverting, you are now the one responsible for the unsourced/unverified content and should introduce sources to back the notability of the subject up. Otherwise, these subjects may end up being at WP:AfD and be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are many possibilities listed in WP:FAILN. But creating a redirect without warning the author is not listed.Jan Spousta (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBURO for why that's not a great argument. Most redirections are performed without notifying the author(s), because it's a non-destructive and easily-reversed action. Although if really want to get bureaucratic about it (I don't advise it), consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context says nothing about notification. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Blank and redirect is common practice in dealing with articles that might lack notability or are otherwise problematic. If you disagree with the blanking, you can undo it and start a discussion at the article's talk page. I will say, though, that Onel5969 should avoid blanking an article multiple times within a short period, as was done at Ntokozo Dlamini. Striking part of my reply since I misread the years. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In that article the reverter did not include a summary and did not address the problem in any other way (making a relevant edit to the article, leaving a comment somewhere), and Onel5969 re-redirected once. —Alalch E. 15:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

While this conversation is ongoing, I had nosed around at the Dlamini article. Might meet GNG now after a rewrite. Then again, I am not sure about the general reliability of South African sources. I use what I can find online. If the new sources need to be removed/replaced, go ahead. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DEL-REASON (policy) in conjuction with WP:ATD-R (policy). When there is a reason to delete the article a blank-and-redirect is a possible alternative. The reason why Onel5969 did these BLARs is that, in each individual case, he identified a problem with the article that could be a reason to delete it. It doesn't mean that it's the definitive reason, he is not the ultimate arbiter of what gets deleted, but he can take this alternative course of action, under a belief that there is a at least a strong potential reason to delete – as a non-final remedy. Editors who think otherwise should then demonstrate that the problem is not of such magnitude or they should simply fix the problem. Again, this is policy. —Alalch E. 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jan Spouta, this is a very easily resolved situation: if you think that reliable sources providing the significant coverage to those subjects that the GNG requires actually do exist, then do the work to source the articles, and all will be well. If -- by contrast -- you don't believe those sources exist, or you don't want to go to the trouble of doing that work, what's the problem here? Ravenswing 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would greatly encourage Onel5969 to communicate in a consistent manner when carrying out this sort of work. The original poster is correct that it can be very demotivating. I wrote a draft on Lothar Abel translating from the German Wikipedia; he was an Austrian architect who died in 1896 and left a number of nationally important works, and books that are still available today; I included the referencing at the German article. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I think the sequence of events was that Onel5969 initially passed the article, I think as a new page patroller (I got fed up after 4 months' wait-time at AfC and moved it myself, I think??), but then a week later kicked it back into draft space without any explanation of why a week's thought had converted it from adequate to inadequate. I am a delicate soul; I haven't felt motivated to translate anything since. I would have appreciated consistency, or explanation. But please don't take this as any more than the mildest of requests for improved feedback; I do appreciate that the work of a new-page patroller or AfC person is difficult, and that opinions will always differ on notability. I do consider that Onel5969's work for Wikipedia is of extraordinary value. Elemimele (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reason why we don't require notifications for redirections of existing articles? Yeah, yeah, I know it's not currently in the policy requirements. But why isn't it? I understand that this is very much a soft deletion, as the history is still accessible and revertable, but you're still making an edit to try and remove an entire article. That seems like something you should be notifying the creator about, along with your reasoning on why you're doing it. At minimum, this would help to prevent any edit wars resulting from such things if you get a discussion going in the first place. Silverseren^C 22:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well the edit will appear in the creator's watchlist so you can guarantee that, unless they've decided they are no longer interested in the page and deliberately remove it from their watchlist, it will show up there. It's not like other actions where it may be more of an issue, we're talking solely about article creators here who will see the Watchlist item for something that's just ultimately an edit and not a delete. Canterbury Tail talk 22:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Christiaanp – Bona fide editing mixed with a little trolling

A quick look at Christiaanp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests that they seem to actually be here to build and to maintain the Wiki. Unfortunately, this comes with a cost in that the editor sometimes dabble in some trolling themself (not convinced? they undid the revert). This includes restoring unsourced content, "me no like. angry? go cry. hehe" and whatever this is. But the most definitive proof of trolling is their long ([149], [150], [151], [152], [153] +extra) history at Morbier cheese, in which they persistently argue that it's actually called "Morbius cheese". Yes, the editor has been warned.

At least partially block this user from Morbier cheese. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If someone is mixing trolling and useful edits then they should be treated as a troll, because every edit has to be checked for usefulness. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I'm puzzled by the cheese meltdown. That's been going on for a year. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Could've sworn ANI was very strict with reporters. At least I didn't write a fountain of fondue, I guess ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We good cops have done our bit by lulling you into a false sense of security. Just wait for the bad cops to come along... Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit dispute that has gone awry

A few day ago I removed some content from a page about the NBA sportswriter Shams Charania. The content I removed had some sources but they were from what I believed to be unreliable sources. Soon after user Gamowebbed reverted my edits and this led to a small edit war between us which I soon stop participating in because it started to get out of hand. However, Gamowebbed soon started to reverting my edits on other pages I have made. I will say that I have should have been more communicative in explaining why I removed the content with Gamowebbed on the talk page but I believe that does not warrant his retaliation edits. I have also made a recent attempt to talk about the issue on the talk page but Gamowebbed has not responded. —DiSantis19 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried to open a talk but you instead used edit summaries (for once) to try and justify your reverts. Only now did you reply. I hope we can calmly discuss this on talk without things getting out of hand.

Regarding my edits, they are not retaliatory. Out of over 3000 edits, less than 5% have included an edit summary.

Besides that, your edits were not sourced either. When I tried to research valid sources nothing came up which is why i reverted them. You are more than welcome to revert those back, I have no objection. Gamowebbed (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A majority of those 3,000 edits are for lists of pages where providing and edit summary would be redundant. If your are speaking about my edits that you reverted on list of nike and adidas sponsorships a majority of what I added were North American colleges and universities which can be easily verified by simply going to its website. Most institutions (especially smaller schools and universities) don't announce their partnerships with these brands so you have to find images on the website to see which brands sponser them. But in the case of Shams Charania I have told you multiple times that the outlets Focus, Vendetta Sports Media, The SportsGrail, BroBible, and HITC are probably not the best sources to use to justify someones alias. The name is a meme and it is not something that he commonly goes by. Putting the name "Rizz God" as an alias for Shams Charania would be like putting the name "Dark Biden" as an alias for Joe Biden. DiSantis19 (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikianon2023

I strongly believe that this account is one near-solely dedicated to the harassment of me and potentially other editors who have taken the same side as me in a recent dispute. The account User:Wikianon2023, which likely is connected to some editor from the dispute, This account was created VERY recently, in light of the recent discussion which led to the TBAN of Jim Michael 2 from Years articles and most likely led to the retirement of TheScrubby, and has left messages not only on Scrubby's talk page requesting that he return but also on my talk page claiming that "I am subject to an independent panel regarding my ethics". I am unsure as to why it was me who received the slamming. The account further claimed that I should not get the right to defend myself since (allegedly) Jim Michael 2 did not get to "defend himself", and per the account's comments on Scrubby's talk page, it claimed that Rosguill, an independent admin who had no prior known involvement in the recent events on main year articles, perpetuated a Kangaroo court against Jim Michael 2. It is possible that Wikianon2023 is a sockpuppet for another editor, but though I have personal suspicions, I do not want to jump to that conclusion now unless the community and administrators believe it should be moved to a sockpuppet investigation; as such, it's been listed here first. If possible and seen as justified by administrators, I would request the indefinite blocking of Wikianon2023 due to them being WP:NOTHERE and for harassment against me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for WP:NOTHERE. There is no "independent panel" looking into your edits. This is clear harassment. Might need a CU to doublecheck for sleepers though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Gurther

• Gurther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. The editor in question has been conducting themselves in an unconstructive manner for a while now. They have been using talk pages to make personal attacks against other editors (accusing them of promoting a certain POV, doing original research, promoting fringe views, dismissing them due to their ethnicity and etc), as well as to soapbox, promote and impose their POV (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). I have informed the editor before not to make personal attacks against other editors and to practice good faith or at least focus on content during talk page discussions (see 14, 15 and 16). Despite this, they continued with the same conduct. They were edit-warring on their own articles Rizo Rizov (see 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22) and Alekso Martulkov. They were also blocked for edit-warring on the latter (see here). I think this requires immediate attention, considering that multiple editors have tried to constructively engage with the editor in question. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)