Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149

Maxim Masiutin controversial bot-like editing

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

On January 24, I blocked this editor from mainspace for one hour to force them to stop their unauthorized bot-like editing and reply to the four objections on their talk page about WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI that had gone unanswered for approximately six hours while they continued the same kinds of bot-like edits. The relevant user talk threads are here and here.

One of the behaviors about their bot-like editing that bothered me is that they are mass changing the template {{Cite}} to {{cite}} in articles. While this may seem like a little thing at first, I really dislike seeing this on my watchlist. It is my belief that all template first letters should be capitalized, because the software will not allow someone to create an uncapitalized template. It's Template:Cite, not Template:cite, so why would we mass convert {{Cite}} to {{cite}}?

This editor is back at it again, for example with this edit today.

I also see some other hints of unauthorized and objected-to WP:COSMETICBOT-like editing, for example at User talk:Maxim Masiutin/Archives/2024/January#Be careful.

Can we get some kind of action to stop this behavior please? This user is cluttering watchlists, not getting consensus for their controversial edits, and is disregarding users who have asked them to stop. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor should be blocked until he promises to stop making edits such as converting {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. His last explanation for this on the talk page was that it was motivated by consistency. That's just inadequate. There is no need for consistency in this area. These are non-constructive cosmetic edits. —Alalch E. 16:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If you think that replacing Cite to Cite are not needed, I would not do that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, great. There is reason to suspect that you wanted to impose this phantom consistency by combining otherwise inappropriate, purely cosmetic, edits with the barest-minimum-of substantive, token substantive, edits, that are not the primary intended change. After I looked again at your recent edits I can not find any edit that consists solely of changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}}. That appears to always be combined with some other change, a substantive change, making all of those edits (that I've seen), consisting of multiple types of changes, technically okay as a whole. But technically okay doesn't mean advisable.

And, really, I don't think you were consciously trying to create a fait accompli as Novem Linguae has accused you, but the friction arising from the appearance isn't worth it. It's great that you should stop converting Cite to cite, because it distracts editors looking at the watchlist, makes it hard to find the substantive part of your edit in the diff, and makes it harder to understand what your edit is about. Editors see an edit in their watchlist starting with words such as: Used lowercase "cite" template everywhere for consistency ... and they think it's a non-helpful purely cosmetic edit. This type of consistency would truly be a phantom. It's a worthless consistency. It doesn't matter if it's "Cite" or "cite". I don't agree with Novem Linguae that "Cite" is correct and "cite" is wrong. Neither is correct or wrong, they are the same. The variation doesn't affect anything.

I retract the part of my previous comment saying that I think you should be blocked, after reviewing more, and after your commitment to stop replacing Cite with cite. —Alalch E. 01:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough investigation and for your detailed comment. I also sometimes change {{short description|}} to {{Short description}}.

May I propose that each template that allows multiple spelling, such as {{Cite}} and {{cite}} or {{short description|}} and {{Short description|}} to have a defined preferred spelling, for example, in the documentation? I mean that such templates must have explicit mention in the documentation that different case variations are allowed, but the suggested (recommended) variant is ... .

Where do you think is a place to discuss this proposal of mine? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you concerned that I use Citations bot to fix article errors or that I change Cite to cite when there is already the majority of the intances are lowercase and just a few uppercase? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention that I used citation expander which is the standard tool included in gadgets that I added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID?

That article had 52 uppercase Cite and 325 lowercase cite, so I thought all lowercase cite would be appropriate. Would it have been OK if I just added Semantic scholar ID and PubMed ID but kept the case of the cite? It would have anyway triggered the update in your watchlist. Please let me know what kind of activity would you like me to stop. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think if you did the following 3 things I would be happy and withdraw my objections: 1) Never change {{Cite}} to {{cite}} again, since I feel this is changing correct code to incorrect code. 2) Read WP:COSMETICBOT and make sure the gnoming edits you choose to work on follow WP:COSMETICBOT and are important enough to merit a diff and watchlist disruption. 3) Pay close attention to when your edits are objected to, and immediately stop until you have consensus. Controversial edits should never be done in a WP:MEATBOT like manner. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! I do (1), (2) and (3). Is that be OK if done a substantial amount of edits to an article on contents (not just technical edits), such as preparing it to a GA nomination, changing Cite to cite should not constitute an (1) event? Are you OK with my edits when I fix errors such as "Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style"? Are fixing those errors merit? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixing CS1 errors doesn't bother me. You can probably keep doing that unless/until someone objects. I will always object to changing {{Cite}} to {{cite}} if I see it, because I believe this is changing correct code to incorrect code. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will not be changing Cite to cite if you object, because I have no interest in it, you (or somebody) probably proposed to start a discussion, but I didn't start a discussion because for me it is not an important point; however, if in the future there will occasionally be a discussion and a consensus on the case of templates, let me know, because I sometimes change "short description" to "Short description" template. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I will ask for advise on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy whether fixing cs1 errors constitute a cosmetic change, and proceed accordingly. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1 might be a good place to ask. I'll bet a citation fixing expert such as Trappist the monk watches that page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I asked in the Help talk:Citation Style 1 instead, as you suggested. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether discussions in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would affect my "reputation", i.e. when someone will complain about my edits in the future, will they be able to refer to this incident to reinforce their arguments? Or an incident report may have a short conclusion that will make things clear? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you continue to do the same things, then yes, someone will refer to this discussion. If they have a complaint about unrelated issues, this probably won't matter much unless they are advocating for a WP:CIR block. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you because I take your concerns seriously, i.e. when you first time contacted me about "cite", I stopped replacing "cite" everywhere, and began only replacing it (1) only when there were other substantive edits, and (2) when the majority of "cite" were already lowercase. But after your raised another concern yesterday that you didn't like it, I promised to never change it unless I work on article content, writing stuff, such as preparing article for a GA or to raise a category, such as from C to B. Would you mind in the future to contact me first, i.e. via my Talk page or via an article in concern talk page, and if we would not resolve quickly, write to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, rather than writing to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents straight away? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel that we already discussed this on Jan 24, and I had mentioned escalating to a noticeboard in that discussion, so a noticeboard was in my mind the next logical step.

Even if I am wrong or not in the majority on my template capitalization preferences here (which is possible), the takeaway here should be that bot-like editing must be exceptionally conservative, careful, and respectful of consensus and complaints. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, that makes sense. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with Maxim's response and consider this

Resolved

for now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Harassment at page "Anies Baswedan"

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

There is some edit warring and harassment here: title=Anies_Baswedan&diff=1206112505&oldid=1206105651

> political buzzer who is trying to revert edits

> keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me

Please look into this. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring between Natsuikomin (talk · contribs) and Asphonixm at Anies Baswedan. I see Asphonixm's edit summary which includes "he keeps bothering me and even trying to track me down so he can kill me." That is indeed concerning. But the editor interaction analyser only reports interaction at that one article and not even on its talk page. @Taylor 49: Please can you clarify why you say there is harassment here? NebY (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian wikipedia:

ngelawan buzzer tolol seperti anda

meladeni buzzer bodoh seperti anda bodoh = stupid

The accusation of attemped murder is most likely false. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The editors are among those editing an article on Indonesian Wikipedia on the same subject, a current candidate for President of Indonesia, and the analyser shows little other interaction there - and of course what happens on that Wikipedia is outside our scope. Why do you call editing on that subject on this Wikipedia (the only one that concerns us) harassment? NebY (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What is it then? The edit summary is unacceptable in any case. User "Asphonixm" repeatedly attacked user "Natsuikomin". Do you claim that there is no problem at all? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it), and I see that a week after you told Asphonixm they were blocked on Indonesian Wikipedia, you've followed them here and raised this ANI report accusing them of harassment. Well. Time to let other editors take a view on this. NebY (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see very rude edit sumaries by "Asphonixm". I was asked by a user on id wikipedia to post this request here. I have no personal need to hound user "Asphonixm" or anyone else. I indeed had informed "Asphonixm" about the block imposed by another administrator, after having checked that harassment/personal attacks indeed had occurred. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

And how will you deal with the defamatory (which means containing false information) edit that the user made? He always restored the edit, and here you were saying that I might have breached WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE???
Bruh, you're the one here who ain't neutral. That's even defamatory, and "you suspiciously defended the defamatory edit made by Asphonixm as if it's just a case of breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE!" Natsuikomin (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@NebY, If you're a sysop and rollbacker or any other special statuses other than editor, those statuses of yours would and should be revoked for being frankly and clearly unneutral, that is, breaching WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:DONTHOAX in a row. Natsuikomin (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They haven't used rollback at all in this edit dispute, I don't see what this has to do with revoking an unrelated permission. Being a rollbacker (or a sysop, although they aren't one) doesn't grant any "upper hand" in content disputes, as rollback should be used for obvious vandalism only. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't edited the article or even the talk page, only this discussion plus an ANI-notice on Natsuikomin's talk page. The above vehemence, the claims that I've breached WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:DONTHOAX, and the accusatory edit summary at the article[1] do not inspire confidence. NebY (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad you didn't do (roll back) that. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

said this after defending the defamatory ('defamatory' means "(of speech or writing) intended to harm somebody by saying or writing bad or false things about them"), even without bothering to check the user's edit against the source he cited. Even after I told you that what Asphonixm wrote on the article was different from what CNN Indonesia reported on their article, you still proudly said this. Thanks. Natsuikomin (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How was their comment in any way defending that edit? They only said: I see edit-warring, I see a possibility that one or the other, or even both, are breaching WP:NPOV by removing WP:DUE content or inserting WP:UNDUE content concerning the candidate (I haven't assessed it)
Which doesn't look like defending any of the edits at all, close to the opposite in fact, and wasn't even making an in-depth commentary but just talking about a possibility. A pretty reasonable position to take before assessing the content in detail. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't much care about all the other stuff right now. Unfounded accusations that another editor is "trying to track me down so he can kill me" - used as a reason that the accuser's edits shouldn't be reverted - is blockable. Like, indef with no talk page access without even waiting for an explanation blockable. I'm going to do that now. Any remaining content or behavioral disputes can be handled in their usual fashion. Any *actual* death threats can be handled thru, you know, the police. Not used to try to win an edit war on WP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fully support this block and the subsequent talk page revocation, that is a ridiculous thing to write to try and achieve a chilling effect on editorial processes. Thanks for your decisive action Floquenbeam. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes indeed. NebY (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that the editor is now using IPs Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1048:35:6985:9A5B:4FC2:6850/64. It looks like they've restricted themselves to editing their talk page and don't seem to have repeated their extreme allegation. Actually they've completely ignored the earlier allegation and the block rationale and instead seem to be ranting about other alleged behavioural problems. However their block was without talk page access so it's clearly still evasion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And yes I did reply rather than simply deleting as I felt it a better solution in this instance since the editor still doesn't seem to get why we blocked them and how to appeal and so it's likely someone whether UTRS or on wikipedia might need to do something to try and help. And having replied I didn't feel comfortable just deleting the IP comments I was effectively replying to. If someone else wants to just delete their evasion, don't let my comments be a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget that the user kept insisting on restoring its defamatory edit on Anies Baswedan. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user also made several disruptive edits in which he/she unnecessarily rearranged the layout of sub-sections. Natsuikomin (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a word of warning, don't post on their Talk page again while they're blocked. The comment you made (under the Shame on you header) can be considered grave dancing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• (crossposting at ANI and user's talk page) While I think this unblock request would probably be better done thru UTRS, if any admin thinks that talk page access should be restored and have an unblock request handled here instead, feel free to do so without talking to me first. I'm not around consistently. However, when talk page access is removed, you can't just use an IP to post on-wiki. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  further comment (ANI only): do not import disputes from other wikis to en.wiki. We have quite enough of our own, thanks. The only reason there weren't multiple edit warring blocks issued is because one person went so far over the top that there wasn't enough symmetry to do that. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistent copyright violations by User:Mejoel

This user has been consistently making copyright violations even after repeated warnings and notices (4 to be exact). I believe this behaviour will only continue if they are not given a proper final warning or a block. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time one of their drafts violated copyvio. Previous draft deletions were Feb 2022 and Jan 2024, preceded by a warning from Diannaa in Feb 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Star Mississippi. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP with obvious WP:COI, plus edit-warring

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

This looks like an obvious WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE. This IP has been rapidly spamming a self-published article posted online in December 2023 (this). Every single edit has been inserting this unformatted reference, without contributing anything else, across five articles so far. The spamming is especially obvious in these, where they inserted it three times in a row in the same article. After I reverted them at History of the Quran and gave them a warning on their talk page ([2]), they edit-warred at that article ([3], [4]) and repeat the same thing at Criticism of the Quran ([5]). R Prazeres (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hr. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Salto Loco and continued tendentious editing

Salto Loco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been blocked three times and warned multiple times for tendentious editing (including vandalism) in RUSUKR topics. Now we had this, which is either vandalism or POV pushing borderline vandalism. Probably a long-term block is needed now. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits such as this one suggest perhaps a topic ban is needed as a minimum. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vandalism, and a long-term block (possibly an indef block) is needed. This is not the first such edit. Ymblanter (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user (to me) seems to be at times productive but at other times a problem. Definitely disruptive and a problem user, but also someone who if improved would be valuable to the project.

I think an indef block (with a WP:LASTCHANCE appeal) would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. If he stops his problem behavior, great, a valuable editor. If he doesn't, its another revert and an extra block. I also support an indef TBAN. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly removing sourced content without explanation

160.39.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Has a history of repeatedly removing sourced information from Greenhill & Co. and Boutique investment bank without explaining why. Has already been warned. Latest edit on Independent advisory firm give me a suspicion user might be trying to remove mention of competitors for various reasons. While user might be using shared IP from Columbia University, it just so happens all these disruptive edits come from this address. AntiDionysius (talk · contribs) seeking your input if any.

I'm seeking a temp block for this IP to see if the message will be understood. If still not then it will be increased to indef eventually. - Imcdc Contact 05:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to add; the combination of unexplained removals and apparently constructive additions is a strange one. I don't know if I think this is a person who is just very bad at edit summaries/general communication, or if there's an undisclosed COI going on. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:GabrielPenn4223

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I began tracking GabrielPenn4223 (talk · contribs)'s contributions after they made this questionable move request last month, and in the time since, I've noticed some behavior that is concerning, to say the least.

They have been combative with other users over edits that are several years old, combative in general, have previously been blocked for inappropriate behavior, has created draft articles in mainspace, was nearly blocked again, nominated numerous articles for GA status despite not being a significant contributor to them, created questionable redirects, made questionable requests for deletion, made questionable requests for page renaming, made requests that would clearly fail, and has apparently done all of these things under the guise of we are not all perfect.

It seems that after being told to stop nominating articles for GA status (and apologizing for their behavior), they have moved on to nominating articles for deletion or redirect, often without any consideration to their subject matter, general notability, or existing references. Ultimately, I believe their intentions, while good in nature, are misguided, and they are creating more and wholly unnecessary work for other editors, and I've seen enough of it that I thought it might be prudent to open a discussion into their editing patterns. Of course, I could be wildly off base here, but as a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I felt like it was time to bring these edits to attention. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I apollogize and I will promise to improve. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm a fairly brand new editor to Wikipedia so you know I make mistakes at times. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I probably need to stop nominating redirects or pages for deletion/discussion? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, GSK. Thanks for the message, and I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia as you know. and I make mistakes. I've stopped nominating and reviewing GA's nearly an entire month ago and

everyone makes mistakes. I clearly have apologized to users who have gave me negative feedback or I got negative feedback over with. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block per User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect. The community should not have to tolerate this much trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to get my best to improve, I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support CIR block the user has done nothing productive for Wikipedia, and has been a massive WP:TIMESINK around the GA process. Many editors have asked that they start making constructive edits, but they continue being disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've stopped making everything miscallenous (GA, moves, AfDs, RfDs, you name that) until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for at least 90 days or something longer, as mentioned at the teahouse. I've started making constructive edits by adding a news source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  By "constructive edit", you mean adding erroneous text which other users have to clean up? What, do you think you should be praised, as you hoped when you posted your self-flagellating user essay on so many talk pages? What is the purpose of citations on Wikipedia, GabrielPenn4223? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-citing-an-article-in-Wikipedia#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20citing%20articles,accuracy%20of%20the%20information%20presented. This states: The purpose of citing articles in Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information to support the claims made in the article. By citing sources, Wikipedia articles aim to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the information presented. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  quora isn't a generally reliable source. we have reliable rules set. see WP:Reliable, and WP:Quora Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's not a reliable source, citations are to provide verifiable sources to define claims made in the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Adding CN tags to nearly every single line of an article is also not acceptable behavior. GSK (talk • edits) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I'm going to stop. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I added a "unreferenced section" template to a entirely unreferenced section. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, indefinite CIR block, no further questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This seems a pretty clear case of CIR to me, and it doesn't appear the prior block has had the required effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a constructive contribution today. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I have already needed to correct your "constructive contribution" because it added erroneous text. Furthermore, I support a CIR block. GSK (talk • edits) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  How long? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block per AirshipJungleman29 and Chris Troutman Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC

• Support CIR block It is always good that a user is willing to admit their own shortcomings, but when their history is overwhelmingly filled with disruptive behavior, the user should be blocked to prevent more disruption regardless of their intent. The Night Watch (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly admit my shortcomings. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GabrielPenn4223: Can you clarify "mostly", please? ——Serial 15:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Generally I ask on a page or the TeaHouse and get advice, and if I get advice I take it most of the time. I stopped making GAs, AfDs, RMs, RfDs, AfCs, etc. not until I read the rules or understand what these are. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  In case it's indefinite maybe try to wait six months with the standard offer? or maybe shorter block GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think they are lucky to not be indeffed already - Blablubbs used the indefinite checkuser block template but only set the block length for two weeks. I'm wondering if that was a misclick. Either way I would support a CIR block now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if it was a misclick GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am apologizing for my behavior; I'm going to improve articles instead and stop the "we all are not perfect thing.". I am new, and it's a hard task to improve articles. I will not make GA nominations, AfDs, moves RfDs AfCs ever again until I clearly understand what these are and read the rules of these. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Gabriel. This is based on the evidence presented here and my own review of their behavior. However, this is not a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor who contributes valuable content... sometimes

I noticed a newly created category, Category:Pro–nuclear_weapons_activists, with only one BLP entry in it. I submitted it to CfD. The category creator is CJ-Moki. CJ-Moki has a long history of deleted categories and deleted articles. So many deletions and warnings over so many years; however, CJ also contributes good content to the project. Have a look at User_talk:CJ-Moki. I am laughing as I type these examples of problem content: Category:Targets of Gamergate, Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Libya, Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do, Template:Nazi discussion, Harriet Tubman folding chair, and Mr. Krabs felllatio. I suppose this could be described as periodic disruptive editing? The problem activity isn't localized to any one topic or namespace, and it is intermittent. OTOH, this is an example of one of many contributions that made it to DYK status by the editor: Behind Closed Doors: Horrible, Filthy, Vile, Disgusting, Inappropriate, Off-Model Drawings by the Crew of a Popular Cartoon Show, so maybe we take the good with the bad? I don't know.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hmm, this seems tricky. I'm looking through their contribs and a lot of them seem to be in good faith, especially the DYK's. However, the unnecessary addition of empty categories, baseless redirects, and especially the attack page you brought up all pull this into a place that is of uncertain to me. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Callanecc said that the newly created category is not an attack page. CJ-Moki (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, I couldn't even see what page FeralOink was talking about, I just saw the warning. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel

Cornsimpel (talk | contribs) is a user who's been active in Armenia-Azerbaijan and related topics since December 2023, being completely inactive for 2 years previously. I’ve noticed their edits in Anatolia article and reverted them because of the extended confirmed restriction on these topics. I have also warned them of the restriction [6] and reverted other edits covered by it. Nevertheless, Cornsimpel reverted me [7] in violation of the restriction, then made a spree of edits claiming “self-rv” [8] when in actuality they still ended up moving the whole Etymology section which covered Armenian genocide, erasure of Armenia mention and place name changes in the aftermath of the genocide, etc, to the very bottom of the article, just like in their original edit that I reverted. Cornsimpel has done the same thing in other articles under the restriction, reverting and restoring their edits [9], [10] claiming "not within ec restriction" (see sections that these articles too are literally under the restriction, with explicit mention of Armenian genocide [11], [12]). And in similar fashion such as in Eastern Anatolia Region, moved down or just outright removed any mention of Armenian genocide, place name changes in the genocide aftermath, see Anatolia.

The user then proceeded to WP:GAME extended confirmed restriction by doing 100+ edits in one day, such rapid activity was never shown before in their contributions history, neither the type of edits like random inconsequential article moves never done before by this user, presumably in order to game extended confirmed faster [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

All in all, it’s safe to conclude the user was violating the restriction while doing POV edits and restoring them, then in one article claims “self-rv” while literally just doing same edit as before (moving info down), and in another claims to not be within ec restriction when clearly the article was under the restriction. Then, presumably in order to justify all of these restriction violations and POV, goes on a 100+ edits spree never done before in their contributions' history, and games extended confirmed restriction. I believe the user should at least be topic banned from Armenia-Azebaijan and related articles simply because they lack the competence and first thing is to revert violating the restriction they've been warned about hours before, edit in a POV manner to begin with, and game the system afterwards. Vanezi (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little take aback by this complaint. Vanezi, you reverted many other editors on the Anatolia article. I did not think that was right and I explained that to you in an edit summary. I asked you to get in touch with me if you wanted me to clean out my own edits. You did not reply to me there or on my talk page where I invited you to raise additional concerns with me. I feel a little bit like you baited me telling me you were reverting because of an EC restriction and then waiting until after I made EC to file this complaint. It's true that I did feel more engaged than after so many of my edits were reverted, but also because I'm very interested in the subject I am working on (earthquakes and geology). I haven't been editing as often because I did a lot of research before making my edits. But, I'm very proud of the work I did today by the way, the tectonic plate articles are very difficult articles and I have been working on them for hours, and all year for the work I did to make today's edits so I don't see it as WP:GAME, I was just very well prepared to make a large number of difficult, substantial edits quickly. Cornsimpel (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cornsimpel reverted again shortly after gaming extended confirmed by making rapid 100+ edits in one day, never done before in their contributions. Their edit is just a tendentious POV change. They added an unsourced section, but what's alot more concerning is that they tweaked the lead and an already existing section of Etymology, both of which were sourced and covered the article's relation to Armenian genocide, Western Armenia, Turkification and Place name changes in Turkey in the genocide's aftermath. From individual summary of their edits, you can see that the edits themselves don't make sense such as removing sourced content from lead and doing original research changes with bogus edit summary [19], removing sources from a caption then adding the same picture with a completely different caption and unexplained quotations [20].

Same thing in another article, again reverting [21] and restoring mostly their POV edits which again include removal of entire reliable sourced paragraph about Armenian genocide and Western Armenia relation to the name change [22].

I think it's evident that the user isn't concerned about POV issues at all which I already mentioned above, and the first thing they do after gaming extended confirmed status is to edit-war and restore their tendentious original research edits which have no consensus and in several instances are just reliable sources removals and original research rewording. That's why I have stated that Cornsimpel hasn’t shown the competency required to edit in a contentious topic area such as Armenia-Azerbaijan, and especially concerning Armenian genocide. Vanezi (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How can the user just randomly change sourced content and remove sources then reword with their own WP:OR? This is unacceptable. Their edit summary makes no sense. They also remove historical info but now from the body. After changing the lead and body, they then remove vasts of citations from the map, remove the map as "fake", then re-add the same map with pov scare quotes, even putting scare quotes on Armenia.

They then make more POV changes (keep in mind this is happening while the ANI is up) adding additional completely unsourced doubt ("some") and scare quotes to the already obscured lead thanks to their previous OR and removal of several sources and changes to sourced content. They add more "some" doubt and a cn tag to the lead they themselves had previously erased sources from, then add the same Oxford source pretending to add a new citation when they were the one who removed the citation in the first place and obscured the wording in a POV original research manner, then restored the same source but now changed the text to add MOS:DOUBT despite it being clear RS. They also keep adding scare quotes as evident by the diffs. And they added completely irrelevant to the article info to the lead and body that has no connection to Eastern Anatolia region's name changes; this seems like an attempt to push more POV in any ways possible, even if the article is irrelevant to the added info and their added source doesn't make the connection to the Eastern Anatolia name change either.

Can admins take a look at this user's behavior? Despite this ANI case, they are continuing to push POV and tendentious editing. Vanezi (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like my edits. I really am. I try to make high quality edits and I hope that others benefit from that work. I do wish this discussion were occurring on the article talk page so there would be a clear history of talk page discussion and editing. For this reason, I am not planning to make further edits to the article. I simply don't find it appropriate for the edits should be occurring independently of the discussion, and I am uncomfortable with the discussion currently, since you are not discussing anything with me. And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work:

1. Quotes are commonly used for place names in discussions of toponyms for conceptual clarify and the benefit of readers, like most forms of punctuation.
2. Are you accusing me of having a too pro-Armenia POV? I thought that was generally a consensus view on this project but, as I have stated, this is not my main area of involvement with this project. Was it my edit calling "historic Armenia" the "native national home of indigenous Armenians"? Or the part that toponyms were changed "to erase the name and memory of the historic Armenian national home that now fell within Turkey's borders"? I don't think these are "original research". I feel the statements are supported by the citations in the article, if not the exact verbatim words I added. Christ, where did I go wrong. Cornsimpel (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• "And because I am shocked, appalled and taken aback, and saddened, by the negative reception to my earnest and good faith work"

The user must be trolling at this point. I have shown diff by diff the problematic, absurd and tendentious nature of this user's edits and even edit-summaries in the article, the user's reply is to describe their "work" as "earnest and good faith". I believe an admin action is due for this case. Vanezi (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person. I hope that you are able to find a way to contribute to this project constructively. Cornsimpel (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly a very troubled and self-deluding person.

This is a personal attack. I strongly suggest you strike it, or else you may face sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours for the clear personal attack. I further think that between the personal attack and the pretty clear GAME editing, Cornsimpel should be indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. However, as they were not given a {{alert/first}} notice prior to these edits, I do not believe I have CTOPS authority to unilaterally impose said sanction at this time and thus am instead proposing it as a community sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Support tban per the evidence above [23], [24]. Vanezi (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by Thomas Basboll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and edit warring regarding the Tim Hunt biography. For several years Basboll has insisted on framing a 2015 controversy regarding comments that Hunt made at a conference that were widely considered sexist as an "online shaming" campaign. After LokiTheLiar recently attempted to alter this, they were reverted by Basboll and subsequently made a post at WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt) Over half a dozen people responded, none of which agreed with Basbolls position. Discussion was then opened at Hunts talkpage (Talk:Tim Hunt) which again found against Basbolls position. Basboll is still reverting any attempt to alter the wording in the article despite a consensus against their postion, and has now opened a discussion at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Hunt which is a clear attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Basboll needs to be firmly told to WP:DROPTHESTICK regarding this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The admin @Firefangledfeathers: has previously warned them on their talkpage, see User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at WP:ANEW, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article. See for instance this diff from about a week ago, this diff from 2019, and this diff from 2020. It's largely due to reading the page history that made me jump to WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at WP:BLPN not WP:NPOVN and I said so repeatedly. At the moment the dispute is about including as quotation a disputed report of the most shameful thing the subject of the article has ever been accused of saying or doing. Getting the story even half-way right, will force us to make it a WP:COATRACK for the entire social shaming incident that he was the victim of. This clearly violates WP:BLP and that is the position I'm maintaining. Also, I have said repeatedly that I am reverting only out of caution (again a BLP concern). The disputed section has been stable for several years. A few more weeks of it being (perhaps too) kind to its subject isn't going to make a huge difference in the long. A few weeks of slander, by contrast, can do unnecessary harm.Thomas B (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOVN discussion, I agree with what Hemiauchenia, Loki, Bon courage, and Firefangledfeathers said. Thomas B is stonewalling by reverting additions to the Controversy section of the Tim Hunt article despite consensus against em. And indeed, this user has been removing large amounts of content from that section for 4 years. I'm also under an impression that the amount and frequency of comments made by this user is distractingly excessive, going against WP:BLUDGEONING. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [25] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future. Thomas B (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt. Thomas B (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms. Thomas B (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an innocent coming to this article from NPOVN thinking it a detail about a scientist's bio, I have since discovered it's a gamergate-adjacent culture war battle that sparked interest in the Daily Mail and Breitbart. The attempt was made there to reframe the issue not as being with a white man, but with the black women (Connie St Louis) who reported his comments.[26] It goes without saying Wikipedia needs to be a million miles from buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like some others, you're on a steep learning curve about this event. As I've been saying from the beginning, it was a major shitstorm, and once the dust settled there were really only two sentences you could say about it in Hunt's bio without feeling dirty. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, scholarly journals and quality news outlets have managed to cover this quite well, and since Wikipedia only need cover accepted knowledge as covered in quality RS we are good to go. There is plenty so long as one ignores the Daily Mail/Breitbart/etc crap. While searching for sources I noticed you have blogged at quite enormous length about this, about how in your view Hunt was wronged a saint and Connie St Louis was the baddie in multiple ways, and you have vowed to take the fight to anyone who says Hunt is sexist. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to consult the policy, but I think you're violating some sort of rule about referring to my work off-Wiki. Do you want to delete it now, or should we look it up? Thomas B (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is what you want. By all means look it up yourself but I am familiar with this policy thanks. Also with WP:COI, where selective linking to off-wiki content is even sometimes necessary to evaluate a case. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. I will be disengaging with you for the time being. Thomas B (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm thank you for that very illuminating piece of information Bon courage Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited." (WP:OUTING) Thomas B (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "outed" you I pointed out that you've been banging on about this for years

Really, I am busy and have spent quite enough time on a topic that you are for whatever reason fixated upon. If and when you condescend to let mere mortals touch the topic I may have some suggestions, but meanwhile you might want to acquaint yourself with the recent Arbcom case where Volunteer Marek really was outed and endangered before you wave that policy around. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for harassment... Am I really hearing this from someone who's painted me as ignorant and incapable of intellectual rigor? Who told me I had no business editing this article? I feel the need to wash my typing fingers now. It's interesting that you mention a name change. First of all it's a good idea, although considering you're still using the exact same phrases, the only embarrassing thing is that you've pretty much obviously already made up your mind regardless. More to the point though, was Bon courage supposed to not look for sources lest it embarrass you??? You aren't making sense. I'm definitely considering changing my name to Thomas, for sure though! It seems to be a free pass at ANI. Do you realize that another editor has taken the exactly same position I have? And it didn't bother you a bit. Guess what that editor's name was. I'm too busy for your BS and Bon courage is doing fine. Ta.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have forgotten, but I have not asked for any of your time for a week now.[27] Be well. Thomas B (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of WP:3RR. The user has been also posting an excessive amount of comments in the discussions, which constitutes WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [28] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[29] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[30] [31]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[32], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea. Thomas B (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

S

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [33] and Bon courage[34]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[35][36][37]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [38][39][40]
  • misconstruing policy [41] vs [42] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [43]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [44][45]
  • [46] and doubling down: [47] and [48] Also [49] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot Support as the disruption is ongoing. in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC); amended 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage, I wonder, do you still consider this page ban proposal moot given Hemiauchenia's and Firetangledfeather's recent votes below? In case your opinion changed, I would like to request for you to update your vote. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NicolausPrime yes, it seems I was over-optimistic. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a WP:TAG team should receive a WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email 08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a block and a ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [50] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's WP:BLUDGEONING and stonewalling. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering Tim Hunt and online shaming and their talk pages. I don't really see how @NicolausPrime's proposal can be read any other way. The aim seems to be to speed the process of implementing changes along the lines of those @LokiTheLiar originally proposed by removing me from the conversation. I do indeed oppose them, and I think that any changes along those lines should be implemented, if at all, very slowly and carefully. I will respect a ban if that's what is decided but I really do think it's a bad idea to remove people who think you're wrong from a conversation about what to do, even (and perhaps especially) if you're very certain you're right. Thomas B (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In light of Thomas B's continuing failure to disengage, I now unambiguously support a block from the talk-page. The discussion is not being helped by the two or three people who evidently are heavily invested in their own individual conclusions about what happened and what it means; Thomas B has had ample opportunity to make his position known. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I am walking away from this. My viewpoint is that both "sides" in this debate are letting their personal feelings get the better of them, and are attempting to right great wrongs (just two different wrongs). The result has been a debate that's gone off the rails, degenerated into a lot of wikilawyering, poor faith, and walls of text. I don't feel I can interact with other editors in improving this article in the current situation. I believe it will only be solved by a structured debate, forced to focus on the article rather than the editors, and therefore I strongly, strongly recommend WP:DRN. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended. I had walked away from the talk page, I had planned that I was not going to edit at all this weekend and do something more useful like cleaning the oven. What is desperately needed at this page is an admin with experience of WP:BLP, because the edits being proposed are in violation of our BLP policy.

I realise that ANI is not the place to discuss content and I do not intend to do anymore than is necessary to explain the background but it is necessary to help with BLP. 8 years ago the Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt attended a conference in South Korea. Tim Hunt who is described by his wife as "socially awkward" and "less than wordly" was asked at the last minute to give a toast during lunch. Extremely nervous he gave a 2-3 minute speech that included a self-deprecating joke that was awkward and ill-advised (in that what was said could and was misconstrued). Nevertheless it was well received by the audience; so much so he was asked to deliver a further speech during the closing banquet. A journalist attending the event tweeted a series of tweets denouncing what he'd said as sexist and misogynist, partially quoting the speech out of context and making two false claims. A Twitter storm blew up and whilst flying home his reputation was effectively destroyed and he was forced to resign from several positions. Subsequently the facts of what was said, what wasn't said came out but had little effect on the commentary that continued to be hostile, until the journalist Louise Mensch investigated it doggedly and demonstrated it to be untrue. The accepted view in the literature now is that he was treated unfairly, he is neither sexist nor misogynist but definitely socially awkward and less than wordly.

This is very relevant to the RFC that is currently being run.

1. A loaded question has been made about including a quote of what was said
2. The edits proposed all make the false claim it was his speech that was denounced as sexist, which is untrue, what was denounced as sexist was based on false reporting.

I am extremely concerned by some of the commentary eg [51] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood.". This to me indicate a closed mind, a refusal to accept in good faith that there are other possibilities and an unwillingness to listen to evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs. It seems that some editors have decided Tim Hunt is a sexist misogynist who should be labelled as such on his Wikipedia article. It seems that editors have learned nothing about the damage that a disparaging Wikipedia biography can do and why we have BLP policies. Are we really in the business of pillorying a socially awkward scientist who has been an advocate for women in science? 8 years ago this affair nearly drove the poor man to suicide.

I have to commend Thomas B for his knowledge of the case and the willingness to stick his neck out for our BLP policies, he doesn't deserve the threat of blocks or page bans. To my mind they are misdirected. It seems that 3RR, ANI and various noticeboards are being abused to try and remove an obstacle rather than seek a consensus.

I have no problem with a BLP if it accurately reflects what actually happened but that is not what is happening here. The talk page is toxic, with editors simply not listening or earnestly engaging with the consensus building process. I've given up on trying.

My suggestion is to extend the page lock until editors propose a reasonable summary of what happened that all can agree on via WP:DRN - a very aposite suggestion. I fear that as soon as the page is unlocked, the edit war will recommence. It certainly needs a good old trouting among all concerned. Now rubber gloves and Mr Muscle^TM beckon, I do hope more sensible heads like Elemimele prevail - I would also commend them for a very sensible contribution I can only apologise if your comments were drowned out. WCM_email 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I would disengage from this and have, but that isn't a license to misleadingly quote me. I meant that I didn't want to engage in house to house combat over the entrenched establishment circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny. Claims of being misunderstood are completely unsurprising.

The dismissal of anyone who objects to the hagiography as ignorant is apparently being allowed to succeed here. Oh well, another day at Wikipedia. I forgot to unsubscribe yesterday but before I do, I want to day that the remarks in their full context are still appalling and that thinking that they are appalling does not demonstrate that one has not read them. That is the level of bad faith at play here.

The idea that anything less than a complete picture should be reported has been imputed to everyone who thinks that this should be discussed as anything but a terrible thing that happened to a good man. I think that failing a page block, dispute resolution is a pretty good idea, since presumably they won't allow all this mud-slinging. Note that given the RFC and previous NPOV discussions, DRN should not be needed to guarantee that opinions can be expressed without generating aspersions, but that is where this is. The clear consensus is being disregarded with cries of BLP, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE waved off. Elinruby (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Young also wrote a piece in Reason (magazine), calling out the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, and how the "narrative [about Hunt] has been falling apart". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that WCM also mentioned this source earlier, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to add this to the article with an attribution, as Reason is considered a reliable though opinionated source. (I think it would be more effective to raise this on the article's talk page) NicolausPrime (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did do, the source was immediately denounced, that apparently is enough to ignore it and continue with the same narrative. Therein lies the problem, this is just me being a "misogynist" "circling the wagons to protect a misogynist" with "shitty sources". Those by the way are quotes from the talk page. WCM_email 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the page protection has stopped the disruption, and I don't see any sign that TB recognizes that his conduct has been problematic. There are people above arguing that a sanction would be moot, but the ongoing conduct makes it clear that is not the case. Above, TB says it'll be ok if he remains unsanctioned because "the constraints of 3RR" will keep him from achieving his preferred version in article-space, and I worry this is a signal that he intends to continue edit warring. The repeated declarations that he'll be stepping back, followed by further bludgeoning and personalization, suggest that TB will continue to worsen the discourse in this dispute. His most recent action is to post a non-serious proposal. He can see no reason that many good-faith editors propose versions he disagrees with, believing they are trying to "vindicate those who originally shamed" Hunt.
  I wonder if those who oppose a pblock would consider a warning, or if they think all this conduct has been just fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary pblock until the RfC is over, but not a permanent ban. The OP was not very clear in their proposal, in my view. And for that matter, a temp pblock for anyone else who is bludgeoning the discussion, regardless of what side they are on about the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I take the point and have withdrawn from the talk page until the RfC is over. I don't know if that makes closing easier. But I think I've taken up enough time. Thomas B (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, consensus is policy, so if your preferred version of the article doesn't make the cut, there really isn't anything more to discuss, is there? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was initially on the fence about this because Basboll wasn't the sole cause of disruption in the discussions, but Basboll hasn't stepped back from the discussion like he promised and his behaviour hasn't improved. His self-admitted non serious proposal at Talk:Tim_Hunt#Counterproposal followed by the comment that my proposal for a consensus version is likewise a completely inappriate humiliation of [Hunt], rehashing the most embarrassing thing that has ever happened to him in painful detail for no apparent reason, other than to vindicate those who originally shamed him is just blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that isn't moving the conversation regarding this issue forward. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry you got that treatment, Hemi. As best as I can tell, you were uninvolved in the dispute, responded civilly and reasonably to the NPOVN post, then noticed that we were a a standstill and started and RfC. You made a concrete proposal for article content and tweaked it based on TB's concerns, and then you got that uncivil response. It's unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding. I produced a version that was obviously slanted in Hunt's direction in order to show well-intentioned people like Hemiauchenia that explanding it with a bunch of (true) details slants it in the direction of Hunt's original accusers (less obviously to many editors here, it seems). Once we get into the weeds, we in effect have to either defend or attack him. That's why I'm not serioulsy proposing the defensive version. I'm proposing (as I have been all along) not to get into the weeds. Thomas B (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was doing a drive-by looking for the "od" template for a WP:GLI entry, when I had a look. I've had experience of this in the past most recently. It is disruptive when the editor is guarding the article to maintain their own revision. Its form of WP:OWN. I have no time for it. An article ban is ideal in this instance. There is many other areas the editor can work on. scope_creep^Talk 13:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support It has become very clear that Basboll has come to the article to right great wrongs and edit in defense of the subject's honor. That, combined with their desire to frame this situation as a "shaming campaign" combines to make them ill suited for editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect righting great wrongs is the motive of some of those editing on the talk page, more concerned with the protagonist in this controversy than the victim. But I am certain that Basboll's motives are to protect wikipedia from a BLP violation not in defence of anyone's honour. WCM_email 08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, yet he had already spilled many many pixels at blogspot defending the subject's honor long before this discussion began. To be completely clear, I am sure the man was joking. I also think that jokes like that are a problem. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He also hasn't edited the talk page for 48 hrs so at this stage any admin action is moot. This is the second time you've alluded to off-wiki activities. You appear to be inviting WP:OUTING and you should really stop that. WCM_email 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have I until just now, since it became clear I was a convenient red herring. I came over to see if the RFC had closed yet. The prior writings merely underline the inability to be neutral on the topic. But that was evident from the start. Meanwhile, strict as the outing policy may be, if it doesn't cover Grabowski and Klein I sincerely doubt it covers the recognizable style of and nearly-identical statements of someone now editing under their own name; I find that your concern is specious and more likely a threat than an actual concern. The fact that I ignore your behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't noted. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I have edited here for many years, and at times been involved in very heated disputes, always in my own name. I've never encountered this sort of behavior before. As a result, I've put in a request to have my username changed. Making editors answer for things they wrote online eight years ago is obviously not helpful to the current debate. Especially in the context of a request to ban the user. Since this is ANI, I had expected an administrator to step in already. Things seem to have changed around here. Not a pleasant atmosphere. Thomas B (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break from editing the article, especially while an ANI discussion is ongoing, does not mean sanctions are unnecessary. And the repeated claims of OUTING are spurious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

what a mess of a situation Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Lock

Given the bad tempered nature of the discussion, I would propose that the Page Lock is extended until a consensus text is worked out through WP:DRN. Consensus building and cooler heads are desperately needed on this topic. WCM_email 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If we went to DRN while an RFC was on, it would be immediately rejected as redundant. This feels to me like a poor attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My take is that we've really made a mess of this and that the page should be locked until a resolution is found. Thomas B (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that a couple of editors (one of whom was edit warring before to stop any change) are worried the RfC is running against them, and want to prevent the likely WP:CONSENSUS being implemented. Let the community do its thing and it will all work out in due course. There is no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a mess:

1. Its a loaded question that should never be used on an RFC
2. The atmosphere is toxic and outside comment deterred by walls of text
3. Anybody who comments is denounced as a misogynist if they contradict the "consensus" circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny [52]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [53]
5. The tactic above is driving away editors like Emimele and myself
6. The content for which you claim there is a consensus is simply untrue and doesn't give a reasonable summary of the controversy. It is in violation of WP:BLP particularly WP:BLPPRIMARY.
7. Editors are basing their edit on a personal conviction the subject of the BLP is sexist and a misogynist based on their reading of a quote taken out of context. [54]

It seems based on this comment by Bon courage, editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" and simply not listening. Given the conduct DRN is desperately needed. WCM_email 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the tactic is evidently to kick up as much process sand as possible in an attempt to derail the RfC (which follows an already extensive discussion at NPOVN). Remember we are WP:NOTDUMB. Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. Bon courage (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. I agree. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

nod, my comment about DRN was intended for the event where the waters at the RfC had been sufficiently muddied by the bludgeoning to obscure consensus, as seems possible. In that event a more structured discussion may be necessary for the benefit of those can't quite process that they are misinterpreting policy. But as Loki correctly points out, there is no point in doing that until the RfC runs has its course, and depending on how that goes it may prove unnecessary. I would have thought a page block a week ago would have been better, but apparently the admins do not agree.

And lest I add to the toxicity here, I will now return to thuch me more civil topic of modern-day fascism. Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" Agree - Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

This thread has gone on for long enough, and as Obama once said, it's "shedding more heat than light" at this point. There's clearly no consensus for any kind of action against Basboll, nor for any other kind of action, and has just devolved into angry arguing. Several threads on the article talk page have also devolved into simiar acrimony, and probably need hatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there was never any need for any kind of action against Basboll, they have raised valid concerns but there is a chorus of editors who WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I really do think that admin action is required and that is to lock the page for an extended period whilst this is resolved at WP:DRN. Otherwise I can easily see this ending at arbcom, this needs to be nipped in the bud. WCM_email 18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you think elevates this to an ArbCom case? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, it does warrant intervention by an admin experienced in BLP cases. Whilst the discussion has improved in the last 24 hrs and I'm assuming because of the scrutiny here. However, if the discussions there had continued in the same vein it was definitely headed there. WCM_email 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what WP:DRN is for? It's not just a place to find a mediator for any conflict. It's specifically for resolving small content disputes where no other dispute resolution process is occurring. Neither half of that is true because of the ongoing RFC.

My personal guideline is that an RFC is more appropriate when the dispute is between a few relatively-concrete options, and WP:DRN is more appropriate for chaotic disputes where exact wordings themselves are hard to pin down. Pre-RFC I could see either of those being appropriate, but now that an RFC is happening, we need to let it run and implement the consensus agreed on there, if any, before considering a separate dispute resolution process in a separate location. All taking this to WP:DRN right now will do is get it closed immediately because of the existing RFC. Loki (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that Firetangledfeathers and Hemiauchenia voted just now, I would like to still wait for a moment before closing this and for the closer to check if there's still no consensus or if there's one now. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Basboll has jumped the shark now and changed my vote accordingly. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd also like to see this closed. Thomas B (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm seconding the closure request. It appears there's consensus that imo is now unlikely to change. The sooner this is closed, the less vitriol will continue to spill, and there's still much potential for that. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this end for a while, to be honest. Does someone have to post it at WP:CR? You'll get no objection from me. Thomas B (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just scroll off if people stop commenting. I think it's best if this is dropped now. I'll give @Thomas Basboll a WP:CTOP alert, and the most efficient course of action, if an editor wants to report a problem in future, is to do so at WP:AE. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a request for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Led8000 on Talk:United States

After I saw Led8000 calling other editors "anti-intellectual" in this post, I wrote "Calling other editors "anti-intellectual" is insulting, uncivil, and inaccurate, and only serves to make other people discount your opinion and be more likely to insult you in return. Wikipedia policies require us to criticize ideas, not people, unless we're filing a report at WP:AN/I or other dispute mechanism." Instead of agreeing to follow these policies, Led8000 in response to this and some arguments about content called me "a very confused and misled power-hungry person" in this post. I let that go and tried to refocus on sourcing and content. But then in another thread I see Led8000 advised another editor "Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally." in this post. I don't want to suppress anyone's point of view, and Led8000 has made some thoughtful contributions to the discussion, but this habit of insulting other editors in the conversation seems like it could easily and repeatedly derail what are delicate negotiations over wording in a politically charged article. Not to mention reduce participation by editors who just want to volunteer their assistance and not be attacked for expressing concerns or making suggestions. I see warnings all over the place that this is a contentious topic and best behavior is required. I'm not sure what generally happens in cases like this, if editors are typically admonished, or topic-banned, or what, so I'm asking about it here. And obviously leaving this up to uninvolved editors, considering I've been one of the targets of these demotivating attacks. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Beland. I sincerely thank you for your message on my talk page about your post here, instead of trying to be covert or misleading in that way. There are too many things that you have not mentioned and left out here concerning this, and I will not be prompted by you to waste time of my life on a discussion here like this. I only advise people to see all of me and Beland's interactions on that talk page, for now. A question to other administrators, is Beland misusing this page? I was under the impression previously that this was actually a sort of page to let other administrators know about site-wide potential compromises or coding problems with the website. Led8000 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your final query, you might be thinking of WP:AN; this venue is correct for this kind of issue.

On your main point: I'd advise that if you think there is additional context missing from Beland's report, you should add it now. Right now it does look like you've made a number of personal attacks, and people aren't going to go hunting for reasons why this shouldn't be actioned by admins. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actioned how, exactly? And what have I done? I have now realized, as I should have before, that Beland obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing, as is a completely logical assumption for any of the top 100 Wikipedia contributors. I am not anti-Wikipedia (my third edit , in 2012, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=497932002 ) . I also did not intend to imply, and I would not want any, probably overall positive, significant contributors to be motivated to put less effort or work in to Wikipedia. Beland is included in that group, in my opinion, just like every other of the top 100 or so Wikipedia editors. I do not intend, and I have never harassed anyone on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the internet, or in person, or any other way, also, in my entire life. The 2 or 3 potentially "uncivil" messages on that talk page constitute what? What really happened, is that this post here by him can be explained by this talk page section, which seemingly has emotionally affected him, thinking that I intend to start a series of complaints to oust him as a long-time admin or something, such is addressed earlier here, based on my assumptions of intentions and perceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Extended_confirmed_edit_request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States&oldid=1206868576#Extended_confirmed_edit_request Led8000 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's some of what you have done :UPDATE. —WELL, THANK YOU, bitter anti-intellectuals,..., You are a very confused and misled power-hungry person,..., Please assess your current state of mind. It seems to me that something is going on in your personal life currently, and you are very disgruntled emotionally., and of course in the comment above "obviously has a very strong emotional attachment to his own Wikipedia editing," and "which seemingly has emotionally affected him". Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be brief. @Led8000, stop making observations about your perceptions of other editors' states of mind, here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's obnoxious, and actionable. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what Acroterion said. Comment on the edits, not your personal opinion of the editor. If you can't stay focused on the merits of the discussion, and continue with your attacks, you will get blocked from editing. It is unnecessary and unproductive. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the third uninvolved administrator to comment, Led8000. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is policy. This discussion has two possible outcomes. The preferable one is that you follow the policy and agree to stop making personal attacks. The other outcome is that you get blocked from editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User: Yotrages

On the article about singer Wizkid, User: Yotrages is purposely altering direct quotes and violating WP: NPOV. Following my correction of his fake altered quotes in the "Legacy" section of the article, he's continuously restoring them despite being notified for it. Even after a lengthy message left by User: Vanderwaalforces on his talk page, he refuses to understand that a statement like “Wizkid is regarded as an African living legend” is not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

DollysOnMyMind is editing per his own opinion and violating WP:NPOV, he has removed lots of fairly written and reliably sourced contents without reason. He's also owning the article, he has already changed the article's lead section, in which I didn't revert. So he's also trying to change the whole page without tangible reasons, and based on some rubbish excuses. And he's even accusing me of being a fan of the artist, in which i'm not. Yotrages (talk) 16: 29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

“without reason”? I have written in every single edit summary of the article the reasons of my edits, that are: removing altered fabricated quotes, change the wording per WP: NPOV, and fixing genres per Wikipedia:Independent sources. Everyone can check that you altered almost every quote in the legacy section, please stop it.DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

These are your edits. You surely have some nerve accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. This is you, caught red handed altering quotes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Note: @SarekOfVulcan: has increased the protection level of the Wizkid article to allow only administrators to edit it, which is a prudent measure to end the dispute between you two. As I mentioned here, please initiate a constructive discussion on the talk page of the article and address the NPOV issues, this is a simple matter that can be resolved without involving any administrator who has other priorities to deal with. The WP:3RR is there to advise us, but you both disregarded it.

@SarekOfVulcan please I would suggest that, in the future, the protection level should be reduced as its current level won't allow other productive editors who are not administrator to edit the article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The full protection is set to expire tomorrow, so this shouldn't be an issue. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Great! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@DollysOnMyMind can you heard that? we both violated WP:NPOV, so don't act like you're doing a good job to the article. And I wasn't caught red-handed or whatever I rephrased those qoutes, and about the first one, I gave you three tangible source deeming him "One of the greatest". so I think you're on your own. Yotrages (talk) 4:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages, no one said that Dolly's edits violated POV, but I'll say that your edits were not productive. Besides the overlinking and the excessive quoting, there's statements like this, "Wizkid's contributions to the Nigerian music industry have earned him several achievements"--no, he did not get a Grammy for contributing to the Nigerian music industry; he got one for best video, apparently. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also point out that @Yotrages: is continuing his editing with personal attacks, removing POV templates to articles with active discussions on their talk pages (1, 2) DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Some more falsified quotes, as noted by @Schazjmd: DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

sneakily removing other editors' comments during active discussions in Schazjmd talk page DollysOnMyMind (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yotrages uses a mobile editor, so I believe them when they said that removal was inadvertent. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

He's still falsifying quotes. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Today you're edit warning over multiple articles. This needs to stop immediately... I've asked for Chris Brown to be fully protected. Moxy- 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, it is not nice for Yotrages to still be making these types of edits and looks like they have a WP:CIR issue. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

New articles about political scandals

I have submitted the article Draft:List of state political scandals in the United States which was rejected for being too long. So I shortened the article by breaking it in to fifty individual articles and reducing the contentof each and the number of references used. I then resubmitted. See example Draft:List of Oklahoma political scandals, etc.

These new articles were immediately accepted by an administrator and encouraged. This admin’s decision was then vigorously challenged by a few editors who caused him to reverse his original decision. Each of the new, smaller articles was then rejected by the admin and these editors for being TOO LONG, and having DIFFERING TEMPLATES, BLP, RECENTISM, and ORGINAL RESEARCH. I challenge their reasoning.

• Being TOO LONG is negated by Wikipedia:Special:Longpages.
• DIFFERING TEMPLATES is addressed by Wikipedia:Citing sources:Citation style. “Wikipedia does not have a single house style for reliable sources.”
• BLP violations are easily remedied by multiple references which were discouraged.
• RECENTISM and ORGINAL RESEARCH are such vague concepts as to be irrelevant.

All these issues were discussed in full at Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States an article in existence since 2004.

I would ask that the reasons for acceptance/non acceptance be examined and the validity of the comments given for rejection be re-considered. And finally, I draw your attention to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Marquis de la Eirron who has been mentioned on this subject before.Johnsagent (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Admins have no special privileges in the determination of content matters. You should discuss this with the other editors involved. If you wish to accuse anyone of sickpuppeting you should do so at WP:SPI with WP:DIFFS showing proof of your claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnsagent, content disputes do not belong at this noticeboard. There are various forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lots of points to consider here:

• The user who accepted the drafts, @WikiOriginal-9, is not an administrator, although that shouldn't matter either way.
• Your original draft article is as long as the longest of Special:LongPages. The issue is that this amount of text hits the limit in terms of templates able to be transcluded, meaning that some citation templates don't render at all.
• "Not having a single house style" means that different citation styles in use, like Wikipedia:CS1 and Wikipedia:CS2 (used in most {{Citation}} templates) are accepted. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia:Bare URLs like the ones you used are okay, as they are much less informative and at higher risk of link rot. Indeed, your AfC declining message mentions that Links such as this [https://www.nydailynews.com] with no text should not be used.
  • It also doesn't mean that any possible way to cite information is accepted. As written in the Manual of Style, Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an
    article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system.
• Your later individual drafts were not declined for being too long or for differing templates. Rather, as it was discussed here, issues such as BLP violations, recentism and original research were indeed brought up. These are certainly not "such vague concepts as to be irrelevant", and indeed original research is highly discouraged on Wikipedia.
  • If there aren't reliable sources describing specific events as scandals, they shouldn't be labeled as such. That's also where the BLP violation comes in, even if the facts are supported by reliable sources (not any source is sufficient), commentary on the facts is not, and describing factual events as "scandals" is indeed a potential BLP violation if not supported by independent reliable sources.
  • The lead sections are definitely full of original research, using your own specific definition of scandal and asserting things such as Breaking the law is always considered a scandal.

In other terms, declining those drafts was absolutely justified, and I warmly invite you to rework them to remove original research, make the labeling of individual events as "scandal" in line with their descriptions in reliable sources rather than your own definition, and ask further question at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need any more information (trust me, it's a way calmer place than ANI).
Also, please don't vaguely hint at people being sockpuppets with no evidence — not only is it bad form to cast aspersions, but it also happens to be useless here as neither the declining users nor anyone involved in the discussions have been blocked as sockpuppets. If you have evidence of any of them actually being sockpuppets, please bring it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than throwing an accusation here without supporting evidence. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow

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

Please look at:

1. Special:History/McAnally‎
2. Special:History/McNally (surname)‎
3. Talk:McNally (surname)
4. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 9#Supposedly conflicting etymologies & reliability of sources
   • This was responded to in the following way (leading to an apparent consensus: Talk:McNally (surname)#Cont. 2): PamD's edits of March 2023; after that, however, there have been many more inscrutable removals and restorations.

Gaelicbow is apparently facing some dilemmas and is repeatedly restoring and self reverting content on McAnally‎ and McNally (surname). After multiple attempts I have stopped trying to fully understand his reasons for such edits. I request that an administrator blocks Gaelicbow from McAnally‎ and McNally (surname)‎, since text constantly appearing and disappearing in stroboscopic fashion can't possibly be a good thing for our readers. —Alalch E. 12:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• @PamD: Do you have any thoughts on this matter?—Alalch E. 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Alalch E. I haven't the stamina to plough through all the changes made since I added a paragraph of careful text citing three different highly reliable sources, but it's pretty upsetting to see that it has disappeared completely over the months. The current version of McNally (surname) has no references nor explanation of the name, is just a list of surname-holders, and the only sourced statement in McAnally is "McAnnally is a surname" (sourced to a 1923 work reproduced on a genealogy website), though it includes the unsourced (and cryptic) statement "The death of the eponym is recorded in the Annals of Clonmacnoise in 1316." so neither article makes any reference to my three sources. PamD 20:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Delving further into the previous discussions, I think I may not have noticed the "ping" on 22 April 2023, or perhaps felt I'd contributed enough with my researches.

  If authoritative sources have something to say about the surname origins, it is appropriate to include that in our Wikipedia article on the surname. Yes, most surname articles are lists of surname-holders only, but where there is sourced information and editors with the inclination to add it, it should be added. If the sources differ, we can say so. If there are other reliable sources with other things to say, then we can add those, well cited. But this looks as if content has been removed because Gaelicbow doesn't like it, which is not a good reason to suppress the correctly-sourced work of other editors.

  So it appears that Gaelicbow's editing here is disruptive, with a WP:OWN approach to the two articles, and that a topic ban from these and any related surnames might indeed be beneficial to the encyclopedia. PamD 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've been watching Gaelicbow's edits for a while (they keep showing up on my watchlist all over the place.) Their edits are disruptive, but on the low end of the scale. They don't give explanations for why they add or remove material, seems to be just personal preference rather than encyclopaedic reasons, and are terrible at referencing information. On multiple occasions after they've been warned and have been very actively engaged in disruptive behaviour, they've removed the warnings and stated that they were "vandalism and/or irrelevant" when they were clearly justified. I haven't had the energy to go further on it but it seems clear that their editing is of the "I don't like it" disruptive manner. This conversation is extremely telling of their combative "I don't like it" mentality, and the only time they engage with other editors is in this manner. Canterbury Tail talk 21:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortly before last Christmas (I left a note on his talk page on the 25th) he started changing people from being Irish in being Anglo-Irish. Without sources. What he defended with: Seriously? They do not need sources when they are self-evident in the content of the article (and the articles of their respective forbears).. So yes, I can imagine that his editing is reason for concern. The Banner talk 22:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples: this, this, this and [55]]. The Banner talk 22:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Gaelicbow appeared making edits on a small article I created a long time ago, Leonard McNally. There was nothing majorly disruptive about their edits but i did notice that they kept making changes, undoing them then redoing them over again over quite a lengthy period. Some of them were nonsensical. I couldn't really fathom what they were doing. There didn't seem to be a POV at play - just slightly WP:CIRish and, well, just strange. DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor page blocked from one article moving to related article

XMcan (talk · contribs) was page blocked from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk page for disruptive editing. Since then, the majority of their editing has been to James A. Lindsay and that article's talk page. Their focus has been to remove mention of Lindsay's promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory([56], [57], [58], [59], [60]). There has been other disruption along the way, such as reverting attempts to add sourcing or labeling edits they disagree with vandalism. I submit that the disruption the block was intended to prevent has simply moved to a new article. Can something be done about this? MrOllie (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• One thing I want to point out here is that XMcan said, here, on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that it was decade since us dinosaurs broached our concerns about that article (in a context where they were generally discussing, and showing familiarity with, decade-old Wikipedia disputes on that topic.) Yet XMcan's edit history has only five edits prior to December 2022, none on that topic. The dispute on that topic a decade ago involved a large number of WP:SPIs, throwaway accounts, and so on, many of whom ended up facing sanctions for the sort of behavior XMcan is exhibiting now; I suspect it's possible that XMcan is among that number and switched accounts to evade scrutiny. Their response when I asked them about this - which I think was a reasonable thing to ask, under the circumstances, in order to give them a chance to explain the discrepancy - was to deflect. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had never even heard of CMCT/FSCT until November '23 when I first stumbled upon the Lindsay BLP. The dinosaur reference was simply an inartful quip about my age. Can we please refrain from making further bad-faith aspersions? XMcan (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @XMcan:, regardless of your age, how can you have "broached our concerns" a decade ago about something you first heard of last year? Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  What I remember about the post in question is that I had just finished reading the 2014 Slate article, which explains the history behind FSCT/CMCT/CM pages and how they were merged. I was excited to learn that even the great JW shared my misgivings about the CM=CMCT equivalency. In my excitement to show how JW and I are on the same side of this issue, I misspoke. BTW, it was that Talk post that led to my p-block. XMcan (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To state the obvious, there's no guarantee Jimbo was ever on the same side as you, at least in a temporal sense. What Jimbo felt in 2014 might not be what they felt nearly 10 years later, and you didn't feel it until recently. Those of us who are actually dinosaurs in a Wikipedia sense have been on various "sides" of this throughout the years. Plenty of editors still feel the same they did 10 years ago, but some don't.

  Anyway if you had offered this explanation when asked the first time, I think plenty of us would have been willing to accept that at face value. (I mean I think we can all accept you misspoke, but there are various ways that might have happened.)

  But the fact you've been persistently evasive about it and we've had to drag something resembling an explanation out if you, means the existing doubts are compounded. There might not be enough for any sanction, but we're all free to disengage from you when it isn't necessary. In this case, while you seem to have raised some legitimate concerns (without having looked at the sources), I have no desire to help someone who could be a sock; and the BLP issues seem to minor to worry so I doubt I'll look into it further. I might not be the only one.

  Consider this carefully the next time you decide to evade legitimate concerns about your activity. Plenty of us actual dinosaurs, for good reason based on long experience, detest socks, and are very reluctant to get anywhere near anything involving them unless it's to counter them and we feel we can do it fairly. If there are socking concerns and these are unanswered, this might lead to the same result. Sometimes the concerns are great enough that we get involved anyway, but not always. Socks never seem to understand that they're generally achieving the opposite of what they seem to aim to achieve.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  To give a different example of what I mean about the temporal issue, let's say an 18 year old, opposed to same-sex marriage says Barack Obama shares the same views as me! In that cases it's an even weirder statement since we actually know he doesn't. Yes when this person was about 2 years old, Obama may have said something similar about same-sex marriage. But by the time this person was about 7, Obama had already came out fully in favour of same-sex marriage Social policy of the Barack Obama administration#Same-sex marriage. So to get so excited about the fact their views matched at different points in time, is just odd. To be clear, I'm not aware Jimbo has expressed any differing views on the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, it's not something I care about. I just find it odd you'd get so excited about something nearly 10 years old, when the world especially the US and Wikipedia, and I'm fairly sure Jimbo Wales has moved on a lot since then. For example, this was before Trump's presidency run and so before post-truth, alternative facts, fake news and the Intellectual dark web took on their modern realities in the US political environment. (For example, consider that Dave Rubin was still with the TYT at the time.) It was also at a time when Fox News caused some concerns but their news arm was often an acceptable source without question especially outside of politics and science since they hadn't yet gone all in with the election results denial angle. I mean heck Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources didn't even exist, and WP:DAILYMAIL style source deprecation had never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether there any reason to believe that extending the partial block to also cover James A. Lindsay would do any good? Having already migrated from one venue to another, taking the disruption with them, it seems likely that this would just be repeated in a third place. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory could do the trick but I am doubtful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

XMcan's reverts here are not disruptive. This article has a blatant BLP issue, and XMcan has challenged content that I have also challenged, within a WP:BRD process. What's being attempted here in this ANI is to silence and minimize dissent through sanctioning. This is a move we've seen many times before, and it's the reason we have a huge bias problem across Wikipedia when it comes to politically-charged topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As Jweiss11 correctly points out, this is first and foremost a content dispute. Editors can scan through the current Talk discussion and assure themselves that my posts are civil and on-topic, unlike some other posts, which have, in some cases, focused on the messenger rather than the message. Whenever I mentioned the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory in Talk, it was solely in relation to the BLP and not as a soapbox about the CMCT article. (e.g., [61]) I’ve learned my lesson from Valereee’s ban not to soapbox in Talk, a fact that they can hopefully confirm in this ANI.

Meanwhile, Aquillion and MrOllie have been repeatedly trying to add new controversial material to the BLP without addressing already raised problems with the existing statements/sources. (e.g., [62][63][64] ) When challenged on policy grounds such as WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and in contravention of consensus from prior discussions, and in contravention of WP:BLPUNDEL, they still restore this content falsely claiming consensus or asserting that there is no need for further discussion.[65][66][67] This approach is not helpful on any article, let alone on a BLP, where the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.

In summary, rather than solving this content dispute through Talk or bringing it to the appropriate venue, such as the BLP noticeboard, MrOllie and Aquillion are attempting to silence and intimidate dissenting voices. This constitutes a misuse of the ANI process. Therefore, a boomerang for both parties should be considered. XMcan (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. XMcan, it's completely appropriate to call out an editor's behavior in a content dispute; that's not focussing on the messenger. It isn't inappropriate to ask about a statement you've made that implied you might be a returned editor using a new account. It's also completely appropriate for someone to bring what they in good faith believe is a behavior issue to ANI.

That said, at a BLP, continuing to argue against content when there's not clear consensus to include it is something we should encourage. Especially when it's at articles about US conservatives. We do in fact have a tendency to treat such subjects less neutrally.

That said, XMcan is a bit long-winded -- XM, I'd definitely recommend you learn how to write short -- and it's very hard to tell whether there's bludgeoning or sealioning going on. I just brought a case of very clear sealioning here, the worst I've ever personally been involved with, and only two admins apparently were willing to read the diffs because proving sealioning requires so many of them.

Is there any reason one of you hasn't opened an RfC or taken this to BLPN or NPOVN or whatever's the most appropriate noticeboard? Valereee (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Question and comment Question: was the tban for a specific article or a topic. If an editor is tbanned from article A then they aren't allowed to edit the article or the talk page. If they are tbanned from the topic A then they can't edit article A or content about A at related articles. I would not view an article ban as a topic ban. Comment: I don't see any clear examples of problematic behavior at the BLP in question. I do see an editor who perhaps should be more brief/selective in their replies but that is about it. Certainly nothing that requires intervention or blocking based on what seem on the surface to be legitimate BLP concerns. Note that one may ultimately not have consensus for their BLP concerns but that doesn't mean their concerns were without merit. Springee (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There was no tban, it was a p-block from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and its talk. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edit warring continues while this ANI is open [68]. This includes deleting a newly added cite to a peer-reviewed journal under the false claim that its use is SYNTH - please, read the [69] article in question and do not be taken in by the misleading summaries offered in this thread. Promotion of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory by Lindsay and the other figures examined is the main topic of the citation. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  It seems that content is in dispute and given this is a BLP and NOCON it's probably best to run a RfC to decide if the material should be included. Springee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Edits like these really make this feel like sealioning. A simple search for "cultural marxism" shows that it's mentioned in the article. There are several other examples including edit with misleading edit summaries. I think it's worth noting that after being banned from editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory wikipedia page, the first thing XMcan did was to attempt to remove any mention of CMCT from another page. I don't think reaching consensus will be possible as long as he is able to edit the page. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing that's confusing a lot of people (and giving the false impression that XMCan is "sealioning") is a failure to differentiate between 1) "cultural Marxism" as an observation about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly and 2) Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that a bunch of Jews somewhere are secretly plotting to destroy civilization. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no difference, it’s just that modern mainstream discourse doesn’t bring up the Jew thing because it looks bad and stupid. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) What? There's a significant difference. The former is Marxist cultural analysis, the latter is the unfounded conspiracy theory based on Jews taking over the world via socialism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) An observation [by the right] about what some contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly is certainly not Marxist cultural analysis.  Tewdar  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "The term 'cultural Marxism' is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an 'antisemitic conspiracy theory' (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish)." - James Lindsay in Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish. They aren't "against the west" because they are Jewish, they're against the west because they want a communist revolution. It's a conspiracy and if not antisemitic on it's face, then it can still be used by antisemites due to it's close relation to the original antisemitic conspiracy theory. A claim can be antisemitic without the claimant knowingly being antisemitic or a self proclaimed antisemite. It's a distinction without a difference (at least in Lindsay's case). Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tewdar, that's an observation that been made by many centrist, moderates, and liberals as well. Pokerplayer513, that's a misreading of what Lindsay is saying. He says more on the topic here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-cultural-marxism/. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Can you give me an example of any centrists, moderates, or liberals using the term 'cultural Marxism' to describe what contemporary leftist political movements say and advocate for openly? The OED says 'cultural Marxism' is used chiefly among right-wing commentators, but I don't really see any use of this sense by anyone I would describe as centrist.  Tewdar  05:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Any RS that say something similar Jweiss? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I don't want to get drawn into an argument about content here, but for the record here is the quote from Lindsay that Jweiss11 says we are 'misreading' - The term “cultural Marxism” is fraught because the neo-Marxists were extremely effective at getting it branded as an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” (with themselves as the alleged conspirators against the West—which is actually true, but not because they were Jewish). It seems to be that Pokerplayer513 paraphrased it accurately. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Pokerplayer513 said "Lindsay's claim is that cultural marxism is a conspiracy and the alleged conspirators are in fact Jewish." What Lindsay actually says is: "The most apt meaning of “cultural Marxism” is that the underlying oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context (see also, conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism)." This is not a "conspiracy theory" nor does it have anything to do with anyone being Jewish. This is a description of leftist political beliefs held by some number of people. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Tedwar, I think you are correct that the term "cultural Marxism" is explicitly used mostly by conservatives/right-wingers, but there are centrist, moderates, and liberals who criticize the contents of "cultural Marxism", as defined by Lindsay, e.g. "conflict theory, neo-Marxism, identity politics, and applied postmodernism." Sam Harris, John McWhorter, and Steve Pinker immediately come to mind. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I’d like to see any of those guys use the term “cultural Marxism”, never mind that Sam Harris is only a few steps away from Lindsay and his ilk. Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Those are two different quotes. The more relevant quote here is obviously the former. Dronebogus (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I think the most relevant quote about what Lindsay believes obviously starts with "the most apt meaning..." Jweiss11 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) No, the most relevant quote is the one where he admits it’s a conspiracy theory. Dronebogus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, a political critique is not a "conspiracy theory" merely because one disagrees with it. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Is it a conspiracy theory when Lindsay calls it one in his own words? I really don't like to discuss content in ANI threads, but this has been a helpful demonstration of what it is like to discuss with XMCan and/or Jweiss11 on Talk:James A. Lindsay or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) You can argue against cultural Marxism being a conspiracy theory all you want but the point is that this isn’t about you, this isn’t about your opinions, and your opinions are based on a questionable reading of an extremely unreliable primary source that is clearly outside your area of expertise (I’m not insulting you— you edit almost exclusively about American football, not political theory) Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC) MrOllie, Lindsay explains that "Cultural marxism" is used differently by different people and then goes on to describe what he things is the "most apt" meaning. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Dronebogus, I'm confident in my reading here. That I edit prolifically about American football here doesn't obviate my ability to understand other topics. A lot of people are offering their opinions here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC) If you want to keep arguing about this, the talk page for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is thataway and full of editors who have heard these arguments a million times. Dronebogus (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) What I'm arguing about, fundamentally, is that MrOllie accusations toward XMcan are flawed, and that XMcan is correct in that we have a BLP violation at the Lindsay article. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) By "That it is possible to see “cultural Marxism” as a conspiracy theory—both legitimately and not" Lindsay means there is a legitimate conspiracy by "cultural marxists" to "achieve some form of communism" and there is an illegitimate conspiracy theory "by (evil) Jews to destabilize Western society for their own gain." Both conspiracies, both led by jewish theorists, but one of them apparently isn't antisemitic because it doesn't blame Judaism. Also Jweiss11, I don't think that quote can be used in isolation. If it said something like "oppressor-versus-oppressed analytical dynamic utilized in Marxism proper is covertly re-appropriated out of the economic context and into the cultural context by it's adherents without the knowledge of the general public" it would be more fitting, but that is something garnered from context. Also RS > primary source. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Lindsay is not asserting that the "legitimate conspiracy" of cultural Marxists is led by Jewish theorists. While Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish, as were a majority of the core members of the Frankfurt School, their Jewishness was orthogonal to their ideas and beliefs, and, more importantly, those advocating for culturally Marxist principles and policies in the current era are not overwhelmingly Jewish. He would point to thought leaders like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Tim Wise, Robin DiAngelo, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Ibram X. Kendi. I don't believe any of those individuals happen to be Jewish in any way, ethnically or religiously. Also, the extent to which the efforts of such people can be considered a "conspiracy" is questionable. Is every political project involving more than one person a conspiracy? Any political campaign for public office is going to involve two or more people coordinating their efforts in service of private, often secret, strategies. So is every political campaign a conspiracy? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Talk page thataway Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC) In fact amateur philosophy department thataway, off the site Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to highlight some recent contributions I've made to the Lindsay BLP that are unrelated to the FSCT/CMCT issue:

1. I identified a missing date of birth in one of the sources.[70]
2. I corrected an error regarding Lindsay's undergraduate degree, which had been incorrectly listed since “forever”.[71]
3. I eliminated duplicate citations.[72]
4. I attempted to improve BLP tags and LP descriptors, although I ultimately abandoned this effort due to a lack of consensus.[73]

In contrast to my contributions, it's worth examining the efforts of those who advocate for my ban. Have their actions truly enhanced the quality of the BLP? Upon reviewing their recent contributions, it becomes apparent that their focus predominantly revolves around portraying Lindsay in a negative light. XMcan (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I’m done standing off to the side on this: XMcan should be topic banned from modern politics. Jumping from an article you were blocked from for pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning to a directly adjacent one is pure system gaming. I’m also calling out Jweiss11 here for defending XMcan by baselessly claiming Cultural Marxism is not a far-right conspiracy theory but rather some moderate mainstream opinion. Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Could Dronebogus kindly provide evidence where Valereee stated that I was p-blocked for “pushing personal fringe theories and sealioning”? It's important for discussions to be based on factual information rather than mischaracterizations and aspersions. Additionally, your comment directed to Jweiss11 feels to me like potstirring. XMcan (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Special:Contributions/XMcan states you were blocked for “disruptive editing”. All I recall you doing during that discussion was not taking a hint that your opinions were solidly rejected, so I’m making an inference here. It’s hard to find the block notice when you’re constantly deleting your talk page entries with no archive. But the point isn’t the specifics, it’s the fact that you were blocked for disruptive editing about a particular topic on one page, then moved on to another page on the same topic. Either you stop dancing around the edges of your editing restriction, or you will eventually get some kind of stronger sanction. Dronebogus (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  The assertion that I am “constantly deleting my talk page entries” is another gross misrepresentation, easily disproven by reviewing my Talk page history. Unfortunately, Dronebogus persists in their months-old campaign of distortions and mischaracterizations.[74] XMcan (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I delete some messages, especially if they look like canned warnings (which I think you understand are often considered patronizing to experienced users). I never delete block messages from admins, in the spirit of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

as i opined a few days ago there, a page-ban from an article should be considered a de facto ban from the topic in any other article. if we aren't willing to extend the blocking rules in that direction then a formal discussion of topicbanning XMCan from Cultural Marxism should be initiated here. ValarianB (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban for XMcan regarding cultural marxism. I'm not sure if this is the right venue for this, but seeing more experienced editors like Dronebogus say the same thing and that XMcan continues to sealion on the James Lindsay talk page then I also agree. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban for for XMcan regarding cultural Marxism. The repeated harping on XMCan alleged "sealioning" is an obvious example of failing to assume good faith by editors who are frustrated to have their opinions challenged. XMcan is fundamentally being punished for vocalizing a minority opinion, specifically a minority that challenges a leftist orthodoxy that is widely entrenched across Wikipedia in topic areas related to contemporary politics. And part of the reason his opinion is a minor one here and now is that other editors that might agree with him have been sanctioned in the past after having similar Kafka traps applied to them. Do we want to rinse and repeat that history or strive for a future of Wikipedia is that fairer both in treatment of it editors and its presentation of content? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure does feel like The Trial. XMcan (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of content is best done on the article talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you’re talking about “leftist orthodoxy” being “widely enforced on Wikipedia” I’m just not gonna take your opinion seriously. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, I’m afraid. Dronebogus (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I agree that reality has liberal bias. But the bias I'm talking about is leftist, not liberal (i.e. left of liberal), much like many of opinion sources that have been cited in the Lindsay article, e.g. Current Affairs, Jacobin. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC) There is not an overwhelming number of “leftist […] opinion sources” cited in the article, even for “cultural marxism”. I’m seeing academic papers and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Plus I don’t think citing a leftist critique of someone misconstruing Marxism is necessarily a bad thing. I’ve seen right-leaning opinion sources cited for some topics as well— it’s just that this shouldn’t be one of them because serious academic literature strongly disputes their conclusions. Dronebogus (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) @Dronebogus, @Jweiss11, @Pokerplayer513, @MrOllie, @XMcan, anyone else I'm missing. Please stop arguing content here. It's absolutely 100% counterproductive to getting admin eyes on the issue. Could someone please collapse all this content stuff, I'm getting like 30 seconds of connectivity at a time. Valereee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm thinking it's probably time to consider some CT editing restrictions for James A. Lindsay. XMcan has made a suggestion that seems helpful. Perhaps a consensus required restriction for sources? (FTR, I am not closely following the entire huge discussion there; I'm out of town with spotty access and am only editing sporadically, I don't actually want to become the enforcing admin myself right now but would support someone else setting it.) Valereee (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need some sort of extraordinary solution implemented across any topics that could be construed as adjacent to “Cultural Marxism”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This might qualify for WP:CTOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz

This user initially wanted to promote a Chinese tech product. After that was speedily deleted, they are now posting random content in their talk page while linking a Thai casino site in some of their edits. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flux55 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nirukz (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NairaKanakMeera

The NairaKanakMeera (talk · contribs) appears to be sockpuppet of User:Kairakairav (who previously had 21 other puppet, all either containing "Naira", "Kuhu", "Kaira"). (Filed for investigation)

Constantly adding uncited information to articles Karna, Chandragupta Maurya, etc., Replacing sourced information with original research. Multiple warnings given by different users. No action taken and keeps doing disruptive edits without consulting.

.245CMR.•^👥📜 12:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked indef and article listed at AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:YaquiWoman Has threatened legal action at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians. They said "That is completely fine as we are having the Texas Band of Yaqui tribal attorney Mia get involved and we will be reaching out with a Seaze and desist letter." here. I've already reported at WP:AN3 but thought I should post here as well due to the legal threat. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed by @Firefangledfeathers. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to overlook the circumstances that led to the legal threat. Will other editors and admins please take a look at Texas Band of Yaqui Indians? There are reasonable grounds for concern, as the article has many things to say about the group that will be interpreted negatively. The cited sources are not great, being mainly primary/government sources, a couple databases, and one news source that doesn't mention the group. This all may be fine, but I think more eyes would be good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Firefangledfeathers very much. I only saw what was being added but after reviewing, the article does appear to have issues that someone might be able to correct. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Lodged an AfD on that article. From my point of view, no independent/reliable sources are provided, likely fails GNG. CSMention269 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@CSMention269 Closed as speedykeep. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Right of reply

Does a visitor leaving a comment on my personal talk page and subsequently erasing the reply function count as a cause for uncivility and ANI? I have had one user doing this in the past few hours during an argument with me twice on my talk page but am not sure whether I can file a report.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207388774
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1207377589

Borgenland (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's odd behaviour, but I don't think they're attempting to remove a "right to reply". You don't need to use the Reply function to reply, you can just edit the section like any other on Wikipedia. I don't think personally I've ever used the "Reply" function so don't actually know how it works, but it looks like it's triggered by a four tilde signature insertion. Canterbury Tail talk 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It just feels suspicious why they need to. Not to assume total bad faith but I do wonder the deliberate urge to make life harder on the part of the respondent by removing the tildes. Thanks though for the insight. Borgenland (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting their own signature in a subsequent edit is a common error made by new users. Please assume good faith, and keep Hanlon's razor in mind. They almost certainly did not mean to do anything malicious. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In all likelihood, they don't even realize they're doing it. At first glance it looks to me like they're just copyediting their comments, and affecting the notoriously buggy WP:DiscussionTools is just an accidental side effect. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll 5: Rio Heist

(Yes, my bilateral relations troll ANI messages are Fast and Furious references. Previous discussion about them here.)

So I once again caught the bilateral relations troll trying to make junk edits to see also sections... but this time, not bilateral relations pages, but rather "X in country" articles. IPs I've reverted so far are 50.48.224.60, 50.48.236.154 and 45.53.108.230. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP and admin involvement

There is an ongoing BLPVIO that have a large number of people, potentially including admins. Doug Weller (talk · contribs) for example warned me for 3RR while the other editor did four reverts and the admin can be seen coordinating with them. In addition, I think I was temporarily blocked but I don't see anything in the logs? This is WP:BLP territory with potential INVOLVED admins that needs other admins to investigate. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Forgot to put a section title on the talk page. Did not mean to delay, obfuscate, or annoy. Sorry. 🤦‍♂️ int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Int21h, you were last blocked in 2013, and that block was removed as it was in error. There are no recent blocks of your account. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Int21h, Doug Weller gave you a detailed response to your concerns, explaining that he is not an involved administrator in this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have the ability to purge logs? (It came up with my last block-in-error.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The log makes it clear that the 2013 block was an error. Nobody acting in good faith could possibly hold that 11 year old mistake against you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Int21h:, I'm sure int21h was blocked recently, they're just confused over the details. User:Doug Weller did block Special:Contributions/89.10.174.232 for 72 hours [75]. int21h if that was you, you're not allowed to use an IP to make edits in the same dispute per WP:LOUTSOCK. The editing patterns makes it hard for me to imagine this was an accident but in any case even if it was an accident you are responsible for any edits you make be they with an account or IP so pay attention to whether you're logged in or not. Note that it was an anon only and account creation block. So this block would not have affected any editing from your account, so you would have only seen that you were blocked when you tried to edit from the IP (or make a new account). If you want to continue to edit from your phone or tablet or whatever that IP is using, please log in to your int21h account. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And whatever any other editor is doing, I note that User:Int21h brought this here minutes after continuing a slow edit war.[76]., basically promoting the subject. Ironic that of my two edits there, one reverted the IP back to Int21h's version. The other was my reverting the IP whose edit summary said fixed typo while, as the later IP edit, changed "pseudoscience" to "science". I would like Int21h to justify their claim that there is a BLP violation in the removal of their edits. My view is that this is likely to end up, and probably should, with at least a partial block for promoting pseudoscience. Or at AE, I gave them an alert a few days ago. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What of the four reverts and coordination with said editor? This concerns the Harold E. Puthoff article as an WP:ATTACK page. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Int21h Please answer my question about a BLP violation - and if the Puthoff article is an attack page, add a speedy delete tag to justify your claim - if it's deleted, as we do with attack pages, it will justify your claims. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, two way street; answer all these question without evasion. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? Totally get that woo woo or magic or whatever is your thing, what gets you going, but you are abusing your admin rights. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Derision is not going to help your case,please drop that. Warnings or sanctions may not be distributed according to your particular liking, that is not a cause for grievance, and this is not an example of administrative involvement. The IP was clearly being disruptive. You are editing in a topic related to pseudoscience; are you contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic, or that the use of that term is a BLP violation? I have left a CT notice on your talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion In fact I didn't have to give int21h a warning as they were taken to AN3 before, although no action was taking. Then of course there was the obvious editing logged out where the block of the IP made int21h think their account was blocked. User:ජපස certainly needs no warnings, they are aware of editwarring. I did post to their page but only to point out that their ct alert was made after mine and thus redundant. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice topic change on a reply. Did you 3RR warn me? Did you 3RR warn the other editor at the time? Did you instead conversate with them? And how often does this happen, in general (not just this particular editor)? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I am not "contending that energy extraction via zero-point energy is not pseudoscience, or at least a fringe topic". I have been explicit about this multiple times and it's cluttering up multiple talk pages by woo woo and magic aficionados. And that wasn't a term that was an entire sentence. And it's a BLP article. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If it makes things easier, I warned myself about edit warring just in case the asymmetry felt unfair. jps (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Could people please take a look at this user talkpage?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:Jcheckler contains some extraordinary content and attacks on Doug Weller and myself, posted today. The post is a response to a warning from myself 12 days ago, where I asked the user to stop misusing talkpages and boards for political speech about things like the "Communist Total Enslavement Agenda against Humanity", or Wikipedia being an "untrustworthy bastion of special interest Leftism/ Liberalism/ neo-Marxism". I also called them out for antisemitic dogwhistles about the Rothschild family, international bankers, and "globalists". Their reply today states that, on the contrary, politics and religion ought to be discussed anywhere and everywhere at all times. Wikipedia has become "a Political, Religious and Ideological Bastion of Anti-American/ Anti-Human neo-Marxist Propaganda due to the Censorship of so-called power hungry authoritarian leftist "Administrators" who want to enforce their Agenda on Society as "Reliable Source" referenced fact". Specifically, Doug's userpage and mine, with their "juvenile authoritarian nutcase bizzare radical content" show our "brainwashed irrational immaturity". In fact, the two of us are probably the same person. When I warned Jcheckler a couple of weeks ago, I had doubts about their being here to build an encyclopedia; now I have more. But I don't think I'm the best person to sanction them. Could ANI readers please form their own opinion? Bishonen | tålk 18:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC).

• I have removed, and revision-deleted, their attacks, and warned them that any future attacks of this type will immediately lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• It must be exhausting being this guy. Just pedal to the floor, dialed up to 11 on the outrage meter (sorry, I meant Outrage Meter), 24/7/365. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  There might be more going on here than just the attacks. Edits such as this accusing family members of murder conspiracy and accusing the treadmill repair guy of intentionally sabotaging his treadmill are not the signs of someone who should be writing an encyclopedia. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• The subsequent responses to the removal (1 and 2) show no signs of understanding as to their disruption, and in effect equal a doubling-down. I have indefinitely blocked for being not here to build an encyclopedia, and I'd suggest that talk page access should be revoked should the generic ranting continue post-block as I expect it likely will. Daniel (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would also have indeffed them for their misuse of capitalisation and capital letters. Why do these people always do that? Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sad part is that he literally replied to the ANI message Bishonen sent by asking if he's supposed to be scared or if we're framing him of something he "didn't do." NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think the cause comes partly from their dear leader's own erratic use of capital letters, and partly is an echo of the sovereign citizen belief that capital letters harbor secret and baleful powers. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

All of the rants come across as if he is paranoid that everyone is out to get him (a common thing from those with extreme views). Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I always just shake my head every time I know someone is out to think that the world revolves around them and that they have power by putting capital letters. It just makes me... lose brain cells. Ugh. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I EnDoRsE this block. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

.kcolb siht EsRoDnE I LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

i SeCONd ThAT Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 20:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Odd thing here is their editing history doesn't show any evidence of this. Has the editor just had a change of how they edit? Have they been hacked? It's rather odd to come back after a 6 month break and launch into long rants and accusations. They've only edited talk pages and went right to particular people and boards. They've barely used a talk page before this so it's very different behaviour from their previous edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They told me that they never sleep and are dying. But given their other comments on my talk page I don’t know what to believe. I was asked earlier if they should be blocked for their own sake. I couldn’t at that point but I think that being blocked is the best thing for them. See [77]. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There was this, eight years ago. Not with quite the same fervor, but something was showing, already then. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bobbylonardo not providing edit summaries, questionable edits

User:Bobbylonardo was created on September 10, 2023; their first 5 months as a Wikipedia editor have included nearly 2,000 edits, most of which are creations of redirects, additions of categories, or other minor and constructive revisions to the encyclopedia. I bring them up here because of a few concerning behavioral patterns:

1. They have never added an originally written edit summary to any of their edits, even after being asked on three separate occasions, by three different editors, including myself (1 2 3), to do so
2. They have added and removed the "Featured article" icon to several articles without following the procedure to do so (additions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11)
3. They have, on at least two occasions (1 2), added material to a talk page with the signature of another user.
4. They have been warned twice, by the same editor (1 2), about their additions of copyrighted content to an article about a television series. They have already been blocked once, on January 27, 2024, for "persistent addition of unsourced content".

I believe that this user can be a productive and effective contributor to Wikipedia, and at the same time I am very concerned about their repeated failure to take any kind of feedback from the community, or to abide by the community's standards for edit summaries and cited information. White 720 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Two examples of content that this user added that likely violate copyright, and that the user has not yet been warned about:

1. This diff is copied from this IMDb page
2. This diff is copied from this DIRECTV episode guide page

White 720 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I investigated what was going on with their edits using other's signatures:

1. <This edit> was an almost exact copy of the top of another article's talk page as it is right now(Talk:Rosie's_Rules), with the signature replaced (original comment was added in <this edit> in 2022, which is a different name in the original because that user changed their username)
2. <This edit> was a copy of a previous warning on their page, by the correct user this time, but with some alterations: <original>.

Not sure what to make of this.

– 143.208.236.146 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC))

You must leave a notice on the talk page of an editor when you bring them to this page. (I have done so for you). ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobbylonardo&diff=prev&oldid=1206365293 White 720 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm used to seeing such warnings in sections on their own, and missed the one you placed there. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries! My edit is easy to miss, especially because I removed a duplicate comment that the user had added in that section at the same time as I issued an ANI notice. White 720 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The user is still not providing edit summaries White 720 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Admins lied to me and should be sanctioned for bad behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rant.

I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was very appalled with the unprofessional way that the users on that talk page conducted themselves. So now that my ip block has been lifted, I want to file a complaint on the matter and call for the users involved to be sanctioned. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page. My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla blatantly lied to me. My ip was banned from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my account. They were clearly on a power trip by making up this easy to debunk and obviously false lie. They clearly just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of that unjust block, so they tried to gaslight me. Shame on them. That behavior is unacceptable and is clearly worthy of sanction on its own. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page where they essentially admitted that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. This was a complete lie, I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for a completely fabricated reason. It was obvious that all 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. They clearly viewed me, as an ip editor, to be inferior and not worth dealing with in good faith. This behavior was absolutely disgraceful on their parts. Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla decided that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, but that was of no concern to Gaelan. He just wanted me gone, so he made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. This was another extremely flimsy excuse. I had made some mistakes on the talk page, but all of those edits were already undone and I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. And it was all on my own talk page, I was not vandalizing anything. Since that issue was already resolved, it’s clear that was not a good reason to have me blocked and was just another flimsy excuse. Again, these admins just didn’t want to deal with an ip editor. They wanted me gone. I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter decided not to remotely engage with any of my arguments, and instead just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. For no reason at all. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block. They completely ignored me. Once again, I was a mere ip user they didn’t care about. Of course they had no desire to deal with me. So, my request is that @OhNoitsJamie, Yamla, Deepfriedokra, Gaelan, and Berean Hunter: all be blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, the same amount of time my ip was wrongly blocked for. They blatantly lied to me and ignored my fair reasoning and requests I gave. They showed utter contempt for ip editors in the way that treated me. Since they wanted me unfairly blocked for 5 months, it’s only fair that these people all be blocked for 5 months in return. I very much hope getting a taste of what they have subjected ip editors to will help them learn to treat ip editors with actual fairness and respect in the future. 174.126.129.226 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter hasn't even edited in 3.5 years. This block was 5 years ago. This is absurd, and I can only guess, a troll. I'm blocking the IP for 30 days. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown This OP IP is part of the BigBuilder1755/EpicTiger87 sock farm. They've posted this nonsense here multiple times under a range of accounts and IPs, e.g. [78]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, EpicTiger87 has previously tried to start a fight with me at DRN over trivial edits to John de Lancie, so if I assume this is the case (and it seems to be) then by all means, other editors/admin should review this block, as I might be considered "involved" even though I had no way of knowing when I made the block. Still looks like a troll to me, although *101's info might explain what flavor of troll they are. Dennis Brown 2¢ 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Solid block. I've also had to deal with this sock farm/LTA myself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I remember seeing them talk about this same issue about a couple of weeks ago. I think Bbb23 had removed the topic or something??? I don't know. But yeah. I told the user that the admins were just trying to do their job. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm especially feeling really bad for Jamie since a couple of months ago, a disruptive user named Garrybcoston was making unconstructive edits to other pages and Jamie politely warned them not to, in which the user rudely responded back. That user has thankfully been blocked by PhilKnight but it still makes me feel guilty that someone would blame Jamie like this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  They are either trolling (likely) or they are so incompetent that they can't tell reality from their own thoughts, so pity them. Admin are used to getting blamed for obviously false things, no worries. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  True. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Courtesy link purely for archival purposes: Bbb23 removed a previous version of this thread: Special:Diff/1205555010). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Discrimination as hispanic

OP blocked and talkpage access removed for disruption and gross incompetence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editor @Netherzone has made a discriminatory question to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnovoa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) FYI  – Signed what appears to be an additional report made simultaneously with the one below. Remsense诉 03:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, that is in regards to a different user. Here is the questioning I am being asked by @Netherzone @Fjnovoa, based on your long messages here, I'm wondering, respectfully of course, about your English competency and ability to understand what is being said to you. May I please ask you why you have chosen to write these articles on English Wikipedia rather than on Spanish Wikipedia? Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] My respose Because I only used Spanish until I was 14 years old, and was sent to a boarding school in Gainesville, GA (Riverside Military Academy) due to the civil war that was going on in El Salvador. My Spanish is basic, used mainly for my research. I have resided in the USA since 1978, and used English for the last 46 years of my life, as my primary language. My daughter undergrad is a BA in English and assists me reviewing my articles. I have an undergrad BBA in Finance from the University of Texas @ Arlington, if you doubt my English comprehension and competence.  Why am I having this line of questioning? I can assure you I am not using any machine translation, Wow! Fjnovoa (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) The above is a copy/paste from User talk:Fjnovoa#WP languages and English comprehension (permalink) where Netherzone asked whether Fjnovoa's contributions would be better on the Spanish Wikipedia. That kind of suggestion is needed with some contributors from time to time. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Being yell at Header adjusted to level 3 to be within preceding topic, also created by the same user. Daniel (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Wikipedia. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) No, a single word like that in all-caps is for extra EMPHASIS, not yelling. Like that. Zaathras (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC) There has been multiple actions that can be reviewed in the Draft:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera article. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Fjnovoa, you have provided no diffs or pages, and any hardly any context so that others may easily understand what has happened. Here is the complete interaction history between the two users. Remsense诉 03:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong With regards to your comment "zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER" Mr. Pedro Núñez Martínez, (https://urukeditores.com/autores/pedro-nunez-martinez/) a writer, went to the Costa Rica National Library to search and research about the subject. There he met with the director Ms. Laura Rodríguez , who referred him to Ms. Xenia Fonseca Quirós. The latter provided the copy of the cover of the subject's book "El Alma de la America Latina", and probably the library (Biblioteca Nacional "Miguel Obregón Lizano")there has copies of the other two books, "Colombia Autógrafa" and "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" or the National Library of Colombia. You are welcome to contact them directly for your verification process. These are the three published books that support the evidece that the subject was a writer. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] You are STILL completely miss-understanding how Wikipedia works, we don't require verification or evidence as such and we certainly don't need any emails please remove them, we requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Theroadislong It is commonly understood in messaging communication etiquette, that when a person capitalizes a word like you have the word “STILL”, it means you are yelling at the recipient or intended audience. This is not the protocol nor respect I would expect from a reviewer in Wikipedia. Please do not attack me personally and let's stay focus on the article and the subject. In the recent past, I have expressed my exception to your subjective message labeling the article “family history project” and I stayed focused on my COI disclosure. I did not appreciate you erasing all my edits, regarding the subject's daughter’s donations when I was working to mitigate recommendations made by @Netherzone. I have apologized to you directly, for the minute-long mistaken edit I made to maintenance notes, in my attempt to produce a clean pdf copy for review support from history and writer academia scholars. And now your new response yelling and attacking me for my understanding level. Per your request, now I have removed the email addresses provided for additional verification of the subject’s three published books: "Colombia Autógrafa", "Album de Autógrafos Hispano-Americanos" and "The Soul of Latin America". Moreover, I have provided secondary citations and reliable sources regarding the subject published books with references #10, #11, #12, #13 and #14, which stands in juxtaposition to your message stating “zero evidence of passing WP:WRITER” Kindly and respectfully, it is my personal opinion as a contributor, that perhaps Wikipedia would be better served if you recused yourself from any further reviewing, if you have developed a bias against me and I am not feeling the impartiality coming from you and allow other fresh eyes to continue the review process, with regards to the subject's writer qualifications. There is an abysmal difference in the spirit and style of the constructive and guidance messages received from @Star Mississippi and @Netherzone in contrast to yours. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This report has absolutely no substance. A WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted, given that Fjnovoa appears to be a single-purpose account (and they have already been blocked on eswiki for this). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) I have been blocked unjustifiably, and have requested review and a user deletes my requests to keep me blocked. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Categorically, vehemently, and unequivocally, this is not a single-purpose account. 5 of my articles have been published and this is the six. Fjnovoa (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC) This appears to concern Draft talk:Joaquín Arciniegas Tavera#zero evidence of passing WP:NWRITER. @Fjnovoa: You are wrong—the use of "STILL" was for emphasis and Theroadislong was merely trying to help by explaining basic procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. COI and CIR issues combined with unwarranted belligerence against editors who put a nontrivial amount of work into trying to help them. And it seems that they were already blocked for much the same on es.wiki, from their block log there: Cuenta con propósito particular: Lleva más de 10 años tratando de insertar a sus ancestros, aunque sean relevantes, asume una pertenencia falsa a los artículos (Single purpose account: Has spent more than 10 years trying to insert their ancestors, even when relevant they assume a false degree of importance to the articles). signed, Rosguill talk 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Unblock request declined and TPA removed. This was never going to stop, based on previous interactions across multiple wikis. This can probably be closed as resolved. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:山登 太郎

• 山登 太郎 (talk · contribs · logs)

This user seems to be causing some problems with articles about paleontology.

• Being single purpose account: All of the their edits are mostly about Satoshi Utsunomiya, a Japanese science writer and paleontologist. Satsuma-utsunomiya-ryu, Satsumayokuryu and Draft:Satsumamukashiumigame are all his discoveries. It looks like this is just promoting him.
• Machine (AI-using?) translation: Additionally, these pages are all machine translations of Japanese Wikipedia pages by the same user, probably using a GPT-type service. This results in disjointed content and mistranslations of researchers' names. (For example, Yasuhisa Nakajima is mistranslated as "Yasutoshi" or "Hoju")
• Reverting articles: Nevertheless, this user seems to have a tendency to revert to his version when his page is edited. [79] Similar behavior was seen on the Japanese version of Wikipedia.[80]
• Copyright violation: This user has uploaded an image that copyright is fairly unclear.[81][82] When I removed the image from the page, the user claimed that he owned the copyright to the image. They do not wanted to provide any proof of that.[83] At least this user doesn't seem to understand the guidelines for uploading images to Commons.
• In the Japanese version of Wikipedia, they caused problems such as deleting page maintenance templates, altering/removing other user's comments, and posting articles in other languages ​​to Japanese Wikipedia.[84]

For the above reasons, I believe that some treatment should be taken against this user. Some of the articles created by this user seem to be noteworthy, but even if I try to improve the page, this user will revert it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I myself take sanctions such as blocks seriously, but there is no crime in the article. 山登 太郎 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User: DaDefeender constantly making disruptive edits on the Asim Munir page.

• DaDefeender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asim Munir (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@DaDefeender has been making multiple disruptive edits on the Asim Munir (general) page over a series of weeks. He has been warned and notified several times, and attempts have been made to communicate with him on the talkpage productively, but to no avail. Multiple other users have also taken note and asked him for his reasoning which is often the same repetitive argument of removing bias despite the information he’s removing containing verifiable sources.

Examples of his disruptive editing:

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] VirtualVagabond (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Having made one revert of a removal by another editor on that page recently, I should probably not act on this myself, but it is clear that DaDefeender is edit warring on the page and is ignoring invitations to discussion. The edit summary name correction when removing multiple sections of cited information is also a likely indication that further action is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 13:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them for edit warring. Only 24 hours for now, but was tempted to also block from that page. Lets see where this goes as they have at least found their keyboard based on edit summaries, even if they haven't understood what reliable sources means and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request not appeaing on list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

YoloMc8562 has had an unblock request open for over a week, but is not listed at Category:Requests for unblock. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And responded to -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Phrasia

• Phrasia (talk · contribs · logs)

User was given a 1RR restriction when unblocked a month ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive358#Unblock/unban request from Phrasia, and has restored the same content (a list of songs sourced to fansite ddrfreak.com) twice to Music of Dance Dance Revolution today. Belbury (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Just to give my side of the situation, to my knowledge, the restriction was not breached. The restriction is geared towards edit-warring, which isn't the case. It is a list article, and the article is very much incomplete/missing content (there is even a template notice which I didn't even add mind you, which explains this). Dance Dance Revolution is a complex subject, (there are thousands of songs that were featured in the series, and that's just the Arcade/amusement side of it, not to mention console and home releases and other event editions such as Disney versions etc.) It seems fan sites, video game blogs, message boards aren't reliable sources. However, maybe an exception should be made, because a similar series Pump It Up has sources from music game fan sites. etc. I did one revert, and that is my only revert, and if my edit was reverted again, then so be it. I'm now looking into getting further help, so my contributions are included on that article, if there is still controversy/discrepancies (which I mentioned on the articles talk page). Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    This first edit could also be understood as a revert, as, even if some parts were technically slightly different, you brought back the vast majority of what the previous editor removed. This, along with your unambiguous revert bringing back the same content minutes later, could be seen as breaking the 1RR. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 10:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    Only technically different in one part: their first edits today added 12k of songs sourced to TV Tropes, YouTube and ddrfreak.com. When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added the same content back minus two reference tags (see a diff of their two edits). When that was reverted as unreliably sourced they added it back again. Belbury (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

    The fact that these long lists of information on other music game articles are sourced to fan sites, etc. does not indicate that we should continue to do so. I've asked folks over at WP:WikiProject Video games and gotten similar criticism for doing the same on different individual entries of Beatmania IIDX. Reconrabbit 13:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Phrasia is a net benefit to the project. Their editing since being unblocked has been riddled with problems. I'm concerned that even after years of editing Wikipedia they do not seem to grasp basic principles like verifiability and reliable sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User resorting to insults

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After creating an attack page which was speedily deleted, @Femzino Must Go is now trying to defame me, stating "Get off my d--k, b---h!" and threatening to ban me when I linked Wikipedia:No personal attacks to him. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's bad. Oh well, they got indefed by Stwalkerster for WP:NOTHERE. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My edits are always reverted in List of X-Men members page.

My username is @Ringardiumleviossa and I am here to seek advice and do complaint regarding an incident. I have been trying to edit List of X-Men members page from last week but one @hotwiki keeps reverting it. I gave all the reasons and I even backed off when I was informed of the certain rules. I "indirectly" got to know that every single of my edits need a refences or talk discussion even if it is a grammatical correction edit (while others don't). And I was made to talk in talk page for even editing a grammatical mistake. I was made to ask to consensus in the talk page for my reverted edit, where mostly this editor decides what is going to be in the page and what not. And whenever I mentioned them, they started calling that I am personally attacking them, by simply mentioning what is happening? Please see/read this Captain Krakoa and Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. These talks are effecting negatively to me as because of that, I left editing for a day but now I am on the verge of leaving Wikipedia. I can't even think enough what to write in this report because it is too much, I can't even think what is right and wrong while contributing in Wikipedia pages. I need an administrator for HELP regarding this incident and take some action whether on me or on that editor on the basis of rules and regulation only or resolve this issue. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you've encountered ownership of Marvel/DC-related pages? It's definitely a thing... welcome to Wikipedia. My sympathies. It's definitely an issue on pop culture pages, and comics pages seem to be the worst. I've recently been told that the WP:MOS instructions on words and phrases to avoid doesn't apply to superhero TV show pages. /shrug. Not an admin, so I'll wait and see what advice you get. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You were reverted simply because of unreferenced edits. You made a dozen of edits in that article without leaving a reference in the article. The article is already tagged for needing reliable sources in the first place. Then when Ringardiumleviossa was asked to provide a reference - their immediate response was "look up the Wikipedia article of those articles". How is that complying to Wikipedia rules about posting reliables. Then questioned me in the talk page of the article, if they should always add references whenever they make an edit (such as adding "nicknames"). Hotwiki (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what happened, that is why I added the talk pages in my report. I can't do this anymore, not with you (sorry). After this article, I am going to retire from Wikipedia. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also if you check Talk:List of X-Men members, I took my time and discuss things to Ringardiumleviossa as civil I could do. The user was throwing personal digs whenever I had an disagreement with their edits, stating that I wasn't letting them edit the article which isn't true. There was also a time in the talk page when the editor, called me bias, simply because of the content posted in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because every edits of mine were reverted, even the ones done separately, even grammatical corrections, even reliable sources were not accepted. I kindly request administrator to check the talks and resolve this situation and let's not get this discussion too long and wait. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like inform that a lot from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talk page (Talk:List of X-Men members) were implemented in the article (List of X-Men members in the past few days, such as adding nicknames to characters, making sub sections, Wikipedia links to comic book titles, etc. So its not true, that the user's changes were simply reverted and discarded. I personally took my time to read the editors' long proposal in the talkpage. Out of all the members that were pinged by the editor, I was one of the only two editors who responded to the editor's proposal. The things I agreed with, were discussed and later implemented in that article. When Ringardiumleviossa asked me directly (in the talkpage of List of X-Men members) to remove certain things (such removing characters), I communicated back and removed those certain things per the editor's request in the talkpage. So its not true that the editor's edits were just simply reverted. A lot of recent changes that remain in the article, came from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal in the talkpage, which went to extensive discussion between me and that editor. Hotwiki (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hotwiki only added names and linked pages because another editor responded positively to that proposal. You were against it before. For example, just like you are against and revert every update on the current X-Men lineup like when I did bold face on Polaris (while other editors' edited reverts can be seen in the history). I know when to back off but you are controlling this like it is your own. I am going to semi-retire now so I won't be able to answer anymore for a day or two. Administrator also check the references provided above mentioned talks and once again I request @Hotwiki to not get this discussion long like we did in the previous ones. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I also added sub sections per your proposal in the talk page. You've directly asked me in the talk page, to remove certain characters in the article, which I did right after you gave me a reference which I asked. So I was cooperating with you in that article. You are painting me as if all of your contributions in that talk page/article was ignored/reverted which is false. Your edits today were reverted simply because they were unreferenced, and I immediately brought it up in the talk page to resolve. Yet you still haven't provided any references to back up those changes. Hotwiki (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I just want to point out before this is closed/archived, that @Hotwiki had left another reply here, but it got deleted ~4 minutes later(diff) when Ringardiumleviossa edited this reply. – 2804:F14:809C:9001:38D2:9DB2:69B3:BEE3 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've restored the comment. Schazjmd (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this is an content dispute, and this is an area that focuses on behavior not arbitrating what content is preferable. While there can be a lot of problems with making significant changes on an article with a lot of vested contributors, you also proposed a huge list of things and gave very little time for a discussion, so I can understand editors like @Hotwiki getting annoyed. And some of the changes have problems, like introducing a whole bunch of MOS:QUOTENAME awkwardness into the mix. Not all the arguments that you've made have been helpful, either; you got testy very quickly about being asked for sources, for example, and did not always react well to pushback. It's not helpful in a conversation to in multiple places directly or indirectly declare that the discussion and the page aren't worth your time.

I know you're making a good faith effort to improve this page, but it would be helpful to take the temeprature down a notch. There are no deadlines here and you proposed a lot of massive changes on a mature, stable page. I would suggest taking a break from this area, and if you're still interested in improving the page, focus on a smaller number of well-sourced edits, rather than a wholesale restructuring that doesn't have support. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: Ringardiumleviossa blocked as a sock puppet of Nekivik (talk · contribs). It's kind of obvious from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa that Nekivik decided to create a sock to double-vote in AfDs and "win" content disputes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

IPs seems to be WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These IPs, who seem to be associated with each other, struggle with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. They also edit war frequently, and throw around baseless accusations.

2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]

107.10.129.126

• [97]
• [98]

-- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A previous discussion at Ritchie333's usertalk page: User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#Help! may be relevant to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

(I've assuming the two IPs are the same editor given the same ISP and geolocation, which can be fine, IPs change.) On the plus side, on both of the current articles (Blue discharge and Shenna Bellows) they appear to have stopped at three reverts. On the other side, I'll share a few diffs that involved me (may be some overlap from the original report). I believe I had reverted a single edit of theirs on Blue discharge, with the edit summary of seems well cited in body (also use T:CN to tag inline in future) diff, and they responded on my talk page with Edit war. You vandal. diff. After they attacked another editor on their talk page (lol you dorks are too funny diff and a new section named Being a fake republican said doesn't help. diff) I decided to issue a warning and after I shared diffs with them upon request, they responded with You are a vandal. That isn't an attack. It is a matter of fact statement. It would be an attack if it were untrue, but you are vandalizing my talk page right now. You don't seek to make wikipedia a better place, you don't follow policy, you vandalize and deceive. diff. I want to WP:AGF but honestly I nearly reported them to AIV or ANEW when the bulk of this was happening. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more diffs: IP 2603:6011 blanked the ANI notice at their usertalk at 01:27, 16 February 2024 [99], reverted at the Shenna Bellows article at 01:29, 16 February 2024 [100] (previous reverts were at 17:43, 15 February 2024 [101], 05:53, 15 February 2024 [102], 05:38, 15 February 2024 [103]) and then commented at IP 107.10.129.126's usertalk at 01:30, 16 February 2024 lol, nice vague threat. [104] beneath the ANI notice.

Also, I posted a request at RFPP based on the persistent disruptive editing by various IPs over the past month at the Bellows article; the page is semi-protected for 1 month and 2603:6011:5905:4B01:44BD:2223:B2E0:48B0 is blocked 24 hours for edit-warring. Beccaynr (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

|}

Disruptive editing of disambiguation pages

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: has been engaged in the mass "drive-by" tagging of disambiguation pages. I was prepared to accept this as in good faith, but recent events indicate that it is not, and the editor is not listening to advice. As context, in November 2023 the editor tagged hundreds of pages that he had found with a report, tagging them {{One other topic}}: there are 687 left in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic from November 2023. This is all very well but was done indiscriminately without regard to what a better alternative might be. Most of my editing (hundreds of edits) in Dec 23/Jan 24 has been going through these pages and cleaning up dozens of these pages and removing the tags. I'd say about 75% were tagged legitimately as pages that could be deleted, the others should have been improved, not tagged. I reverted only two cases, discussed at User talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq#Edit reverts, a discussion I decided to walk away from. So far so good, and not actually disruptive.

The editor then set about redirecting hundreds of disambiguation pages that contain two entries, but one of which is a redlink. This has created dozens of problems and at my rate of progress it will take months to resolve. @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse: notified me of a list of such edits: [105]. Among the issues are:

• The blanking and redirect of WP:SIAs and {{shipindex}} pages are incorrect because these pages are not disambiguation pages. I have not had time to go through them, but from the contributions above, those that involve the names of ships are wrong and need to be reverted. A selection: [106], [107], [108]. All of this is disruptive and will take time to manually revert if that is appropriate.
• The blanking and redirect of pages "Foo" citing WP:PRIMARYRED has left behind dozens of cases where there were incoming redirects of the form "Foo (disambiguation)". Dozens of the entries at the report here here are caused by NmWTfs85lXusaybq redirecting a page but not tagging the incoming redirect as WP:G14. Not in itself disruptive, but deleting my note on their Talk page here [109] indicates bad faith.
• In many cases where a page had two entries, one blue link and one redlink, NmWTfs85lXusaybq has blanked and redirected to the blue link. This doesn't necessarily improve the encyclopedia because it deletes entries which with some improvement are legitimate. In many of these case I have reverted, and instead improved the page by finding a blue link to match the redlink. One egregious case is Tullycarnan. It is blanked and redirected here [110] to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). This in itself is wrong because if there were only one Tullycarnan, Tullycarnan (Ardglass) should have been moved to "Tullycarnan". It's also wrong because the associated incoming redirect Tullycarnan (disambiguation) was not tagged G14, and so a bot erroneously redtargeted it to Tullycarnan (Ardglass). I come along, revert the blank and redirect, and improve the page here [111] by finding a blue link to accompany the redlink. My efforts are rewarded by a revert [112]. There might be a primary topic, but the situation is now doubly wrong: Tullycarnan (Ardglass) is at the wrong title, and there is no hatnote or indication of the existence of "Tullycarnan (Witter), a townland in Witter (civil parish) in County Down, Northern Ireland". My edits to other pages, which I consider improve pages rather than blanking and redirecting them, have been reverted: [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]

A third party may consider, as I do, that these latest reverts are ill-considered and consistent with an attitude of mass-tagging without properly thinking through and following up actions.

All of this seems like gnomery, and I've learned how to do it properly over many years. I have tried discussing with NmWTfs85lXusaybq but twice my Talk page comments have been blanked. I am now of the opinion that they won't listen to me and, on the whole, this editor's mass tagging of pages is not making the encyclopedia better.

Perhaps I should try harder to communicate, but I prefer to spend my time editing rather than dramatising, and this editor isn't listening. What would I like? An independent review of those latest edit reverts, and for this editor to slow down, stop mass tagging, and instead apply a tag only where it makes the encyclopedia better and the page cannot be otherwise improved.

(I'm going to stop editing for a few days and quietly do something else instead, so please ping me, but note I'm taking a break.) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have time today to get too deep into this, but on the surface, this looks like a problem, erasing a lot of db pages without discussion, and doing it at a pretty fast rate. Too fast to be manual, and I'm not sure what tools they are authorized to use. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Although I have tried to discussed with Shhhnotsoloud here, but the response only states that they intentionally refused to "get the point": It doesn't say that, and it doesn't mean that. It just says there's no agreement. You don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you can delete my work. Therefore, I can't see this as in good faith any more.
• The issue of mass blanking and redirect of SIAs has already been discussed, please see these archives: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_74#SIA_pages_-_G14_deletion and Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_86#Was_there_an_unintended_change_in_scope_of_G14?. I can't believe most of edits are still there but I'm willing to revert them myself.
• The discussion of involved automated edits was Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance.
• As for the primary topic of WP:2DAB, there's an argument against WP:NOPRIMARY that was used by Bastun on Stardew and was also supported by Pppery: Disambiguation pages should only exist where we have articles on all of the entries. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I’m meant to be on wikibreak right now due to my mental health so I can’t get too deep into this, but for reference for admins reading this thread, see also a section I opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard about this editor - Special:Permalink/1206975100#Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance (Permalink is to the revision of the page before the section was automatically archived). Given I opened that thread, I consider myself an involved editor with regards to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, but I really think something needs to be done here. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have self-reverted WP:BLAR of SIAs as per

  the update on WP:G14. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• As I'm mentioned above, note my involvement on Stardew was part of New Pages Patrol, where it had showed up. IIRC, it had previously been (correctly, in my opinion) a redirect to Stardew Valley, and was turned into a disambiguation page to that article and to a relatively obscure album containing a non-notable song by the name of Stardew (so no link to anything called Stardew). I think I linked to WP:NOPRIMARY in error, and should have linked to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bastun: I reverted those WP:2DABs with only one extant article to a primary redirect per your note. If this looks good to you, I may consider swapping them back to their base name and cleaning up the related hatnotes per Shhhnotsoloud's request. However, according to the comments they left on my talk page, they tried to force me to do that without a firm consensus which is against the guideline WP:PAGEMOVER. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not interested a bit in technical stuff and in "Wiki trials", but NmWTfs85lXusaybq has edited in a haughty manner that has unnecessarily created lots of waste of time for me among several fellow editors. I mean this move here - no explanation, no ping, no arguments. N.B.: I did of course offer an explanation in the edit summary for my own move when I made it, and editor Aintabli, who is very familiar with the topic and the region, has went along and just added parantheses ("Horon dance" becoming "Horon (dance)"). NmW... then went on to practically set the stage for the removal of Horon (disambiguation) by decreeing here the dance to be the primary topic - again: no ping, no arguments, just stating it's a "cleanup per MOS:DAB" - and then slapping a "one other topic" tag on it. It's like in the joke with the cowboy who shoots everybody at a wedding and then asks the bride: "All by yourself, pretty lady?" There is imho NO self-evident reason why a deity whose name shows up in the Bible should be a lesser topic than a dance from northern Turkey, but that can be discussed, of course if allowed by NmW. I managed to fix it, but it was a clear waste of time better used elsewhere, as is this whole message here. To me it looks like NmW is on an unrestrained crusade, my way or the highway, focused on one narrow aspect, w/o accepting the basic superior principle of "making Wiki better", nor of discussing rather than making all by himself final pronouncements based on little or nothing. Arminden (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Are you trying to complain about everything here? It's Amakuru who reverted undiscussed change of primary topic on Horon made by Aintabli (see Special:History/Horon (dance) after the swap). Thus, I have to swap Horon (dance) back to the base name per WP:MISPLACED. As for the dab, I didn't make any revert. Have Amakuru ever left you a ping? If this dab is so important to you, just add it to your watchlist instead. In addition, Shhhnotsoloud are complaining for not cleaning up the pages related with Tullycarnan but you're trying to do so for cleaning up the pages related with Horon. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I don't want to comment on anything related to behavior but just wanted to correct something. That article was actually titled "Horon (dance)" for quite some time until "I" requested its renaming to "Horon" at WP:RMT in December last year. A few days ago (exactly 2 months later), Arminden readded "dance" (the disambiguator), because Hauron is commonly spelled as "Horon", which I was initially unaware of. And then, I have readded the parentheses. Overall, this was kind of a revert of the initial move I requested back in December which removed the disambiguator. There wasn't a thorough discussion about the primary topic. I hope this clarifies the possible misunderstanding at least partially. Aintabli (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aintabli: Should you make an RMT requested that the disambiguator "(dance)" be added back? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  It will probably be moved to the contested requests section given that it has been moved for multiple times and there is an apparent dispute here. I suggest that a move discussion is started at the article's talk page to save us time as it will be the inevitable outcome of RMT. Aintabli (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• NmWTfs85lXusaybq, those discussions weren't exactly widely attended, so they are not at all convincing that this is with consensus. I'm not taking a side on whether or not they should have been made, I'm just saying there is cause for alarm here. That doesn't address one concern I have, which is the speed of which you are making changes. What tools are you using? I asked this before, but you didn't say. And if you ARE making edits against consensus, this would be a worse problem, as you are doing it at breakneck speed. You have racked up a lot of edits in the short time that you have been at Wikipedia, which makes it very time consuming to check your activities. Dennis Brown 2¢ 23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding the tool WP:PAWS I used (but not using any more), both a smart kitten and I have already cited the discussion Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully_automated_edits_without_BRFA_-_Request_for_assistance (later unarchived). If you want to get a little deeper into this, you can go through that thread and raise any further issues there. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Trolling of various articles by HelperHelper1 after last warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HelperHelper1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [124] [125] (both of those after final warning), almost all of their contributions have been reverted and are about 21st-century politics, NPOV violations [126], clearly NOTHERE and probably a troll. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NorthCheam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user has been vandalising, inserting POV, and adding unsourced content across several articles, despite warnings to stop.

I first noticed when they vandalised the article for the founder of Parkrun, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, by changing his name to Andrew Tate. They then left an edit summary saying "bring back the Parkrun statistics". For context, Parkrun has recently removed some statistics from their website, which this user is clearly agitated about.

Following this, they then introduced unsourced POV on [[Parkrun]] by stating that Parkrun had removed the statistics "without consulting participants" and that the move was "widely condemned", all without a source.

A discussion ensued on the Parkrun talk page about the suitability of mentioning a petition about the issue. NorthCheam engaged in the discussion, but prosecuted their opinion in the edit summaries of their replies, and when editing the main article as well. In one diff, they left the edit summary The petition now up to 15000. Bring back the stats parkrun. God bless parkrun volunteers and participants. Peace and love. When replying on the talk page, they replied with My aim is not to vanadlize but to put in the (well referenced) major story., but left as the edit summary Clarification. Bring Back the Stats. Parkrun HQ (salaried team) did it without consulting event directors or runner on the proposed changes. Claimed it was for inclusion reasons even though no one complained about the statistics according to Paul Sinton Hewitt. This is a disconnect between saying they are only acting to put in notable content, but then clearly prosecuting their own POV in edit summaries.

NorthCheam has also left unsourced inappropriate POV on other articles. On the A219 road, in this diff, they added text about the speed limit, saying it was "a ridiculously low 20 mph (after being 40 15 years ago),.

Most recently, they disruptively edited Andrew Tate, changing "criticism" to "strong praise" in the lead. They then made it even worse, changing their own edit to "strong praise from an enormously wide array of advocacy groups, parents, teachers and world leaders.".

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. GraziePrego (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked NorthCheam as not here to build an encyclopedia. Deliberate and malicious vandalism of a biography of a living person is unacceptable, as is axe grinding and POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yamanhunyaar persistently making disruptive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Yamanhunyaar has been making persistent disruptive edits to the Gondi people page, as can be seen in its history: [127]. This user has been warned more than once, to no avail. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked índefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. See also their hoax userpage which has several times been deleted, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Hirai Atram, an article created by Yamanhunyaar and now deleted as a source-free hoax (full transparency: deleted by me). And various warnings on the user's page. Bishonen | tålk 01:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor - Repeated use of bare URLs, use of fake citation titles and lack of communication

I'm reporting 80.192.53.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because honestly I'm at a loss with this IP... they have been providing useful edits for a while under a couple of different IPs (which is of course normal), but have consistently either used bare URLs for citations and other times made up fake titles for sources... examples are below. I've tried multiple times, from November 2023 to today, to engage this user on their talk page, but have not once received any kind of acknowledgement. They have only once left a message on my talk page, about an unrelated issue - and I prompted them to read their messages on their talk page... but nothing has happened. Is there something that can be done to get this user to communicate, instead of other users having to tidy up their edits every time?

Bare URLs:

• [128] - bare URL with title "6435 gets new owner", requiring manual removal before a bot like ReFill2 can be used
• [129] and [130] - both bare URLs with custom title, again requiring manual intervention instead of a bot
• [131] - Again, bare URL with title

Examples of fake titles:

• [132] - IP used "45690 to visit EOR" when the article linked was titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced"
• [133] - IP used "5593 On sale" with an article titled "Steam locomotive changes at Vintage Trains as growth plans announced". They also used this in another article with the titles "5593 On sale" and "7760 On sale", and another with the title "7760 On sale".

Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will note that I haven't linked each and every issue... In my eyes this is more a lack of communication than a behavioural issue - I would be more than happy to show the user how to easily add citations properly, but I can't seem to get through... Danners430 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to prevent LCSB archiving the discussion before someone is able to weigh in Danners430 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430, bare URLs have some problems, but adding them isn't actually a violation of any policy or guideline. Editors, especially inexperienced editors, need to do their best. Sometimes their best is a bare URL. Wikipedia:Citing sources says that "what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed." If you don't personally WP:VOLUNTEER to be one of those "others", then that's 100% okay, but this is our standing offer to editors: Do your best to tell us what the source is, and we'll help. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means we help each other out.

(Also, the first diff isn't a bare URL. Perhaps you pasted the wrong diff there?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s fair… I understand if it’s not against policy, that’s just how things are - is there a way to get them to engage and respond to messages left on their talk page? I was under the assumption that WP:COMMUNICATION was a policy.

Also, where do we stand on the fake titles? Danners430 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fake titles are a bit complicated, because sometimes you see one headline in the news app, a different one on the website, and the title displayed on the webpage is different from the one displayed at the top of the tab/in the HTML. And that's assuming the website doesn't change the title. So sometimes what looks like a fake title isn't actually fake.

That said, these particular titles feel to me (subjectively, based on my own experience) like something that was just a simple description made up by an editor. Although one might be able to argue that they are what Wikipedia:Further reading describes as "brief notes about the sources" (which "may be helpful"), we don't usually encourage people to make up descriptions instead of pasting in a real page title. The page title is far more useful for combating link rot than a made-up description.

WP:COMMUNICATION is, as the tag says at the top of the page, an essay. But it's still a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What can be done then? Editors are constantly having to tidy up after this user, and they consistently ignore any and all attempts to communicate… how is this a user that’s participating constructively? Danners430 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Constantly tidying up after each other" is what it means to volunteer in a collaborative project. If this particular bit of tidying up irritates you, then leave it for someone else.

Of course it's frustrating when you think that a quick message would change their behavior into something more convenient. But sometimes I think that what we get is already the best people can realistically do. Someone who can't figure out how to talk to us (something that took you eight years? Your first edit was in September 2012, and your first edit to a Talk: page was in December 2020) is not necessarily someone who's going to be able to handle complex formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, and very much understood… it’s not necessarily annoying for me to make these edits to improve the cites, the annoyance is just the lack of communication. I do see your point about user ability though. Life goes on :) Danners430 (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98/Archive Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see the link… although that could just be my caffeine-lacking brain first thing in the morning! Danners430 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A person with user name User:Vikepro is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference. In his profile earlier he praise BJP and scolded Congress by citing fake scam and corruptions. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. Please take proper steps against him. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are required to notify editors when you open a thread on them. As per the top of the page. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The comment two steps above appears to be posted later than the comment below, who appears to be the actual OP. Of course, Vikepro didn't notify this user either. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Might have been my issue in merging the sections. But there's also the empty section, so not entirely sure what either is up to besides edit warring. Star Mississippi 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sharing fake news in Wikipedia

A person with user name User:Aparupa Sengupta 1991 is continuously sharing fake news in Wikipedia without citing reference.I am continuously adding citations about the added article and this user repeatedly removing my article without any proper reasons. Evrytime i am giving proper reasons for my act but this user never bothering fo give reasons to remove my article. This breaks Wikipedia's neutral point of view and promotion of a party. This user is new in Wikipedia as this user joined this platform 26 days ago. I think this user is paid that's why he is spreading fake information.Please take proper steps against him.Vikepro (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have full-protected Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance for a week. You're both edit warring. If the disruption continues to move elsewhere, you will be blocked. Star Mississippi 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sir, i have added the valid citations so wheres my fault? The other editor who is removing my content is not giving any reasons and valid citations. Its mean the ither user is doing vandalism. You can research the news articles which i have given in the citations then you will realise that who is correct. Vikepro (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi Can I ask for a favor? @Vikepro created a user page at the other user with a WP:PA in edit summary. Could you delete the page as it wasn't created by them [134]? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

   Done @DaxServer. That's unsurprisingly, what lead to the prior block: User_talk:Vikepro#November_2023 cc @UtherSRG Star Mississippi 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  This comment of theirs is concerning aswell. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  On second look, both are still edit warring. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 31 hours and @Vikepro for two weeks following an earlier one week block. Leaving longer form notes on their Talks. Star Mississippi 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi The user is just editing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a political party only, [135] Please have a look to this link at last he has written (जय भारतीय जनता पार्टी means Hail Bharatiya Janta Party) and also please see [136]and [137] Here Congress Mukt Bharat is political slogan which denotes end the Congress Party from India. He has defamed a particular party and promoted another political party. Please check his userpage history which is full of promotion and defamation. And many of his edits were disrupting other political alliances by removing some strong parties from it or decreasing its seats tally. And he was increasing seats tally of his favorable alliances. His given sources were not conveying the related claim.

• [138] He is also calling admins "stupid" and "leftist" on @Shaan Sengupta's Talk page. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 11:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is now WP:NPA. Admins, grab the mop. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  He has already been blocked. Star Mississippi 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  There're some blind BJP supporter users like him. Who're continuously doing such disruptive edits. Spread wrong information. They use to attack INC and INDIA related topics. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Great person he is. All admins are communist. Aparupa Sengupta 1991 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lightburst at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like this needs no introduction since it's been the talk of the town, but Lightburst's conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sdkb has been bad, to say the least. From threatening to oppose for tampering with the vote to actually doing it, to saying Amanda's action of striking the mother of all aspersions was out of process, I think it's beyond unacceptable. Thus, I propose a topic ban on requests for adminship for Lightburst, which has been a long time coming since weird RfA conduct has happened at multiple RfAs (and there was one on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 that I can't access because it was oversighted), only culminating in this "protest vote" today. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Lightburst RfA TBAN)

• Support as proposer. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Upon reading the diffs and thread, I'm seeing what LilianaUwU means about disruptive behavior. The behavior seems contrary to the purposes of the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Tampering with votes is disruptive (senseless votes should be ignored, not removed). If all involved simply ignored the lone oppose vote, there would have been no drama in the first place. Pavlor (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lightburst's conduct has been less than ideal and I hope they take heed of this before sanctions become inevitable. But casting unpopular !votes is not in itself disruptive. I believe that WP:Thank you for your vote should be standard practice and that violating it is far more disruptive than protesting its violation. Oppose-badgering is the most disruptive thing that happens in a typical RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support The RfA vote in question was not based on sincere concerns about the actual candidate's fitness to serve, but was rather a pointy protest vote that functioned only to get people further riled up. It also served to draw more attention to an evidence free (so far) personal attack on the candidate, giving the nasty aspersions undeserved credibility. That vote was either trolling or the functional equivalent of trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: I agree that this conduct has been less than ideal, but c'mon, folks: RfA has been broken for twenty years, and people have been allowed to get away with far more disruptive and specious voting over long periods of time (Kurt Weber, anyone?). Beyond that, stop and think here: are we really analyzing an editor's voting record to ensure they're doing so for the "right" reasons, and place restrictions on them if we don't like what they have to say? Ravenswing 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I see this similar to Thebiguglyalien and Ravenswing. Disagreeing with an admins/bureaucrats decision isn't against policy. And their vote is just 1 out of 250. If you want to warn them for tampering with the vote and for the language they used, sure. But their votes are fine. Nobody (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - over-reaction or what? This is an attempt to police !voting and as such is unpalatable. Ingratis (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - the behaviour is disruptive but did not brake the system. A good troutingwhaling will do to. The Banner talk 10:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose His right to be point-y, having a less-than-stellar rationale is hardly grounds for a TBAN. AryKun (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if anyone should/have been sanctioned, it's Homeostasis07 who made the original unfounded allegation of one of the worst thoingbs an editor can do, and then lied about having evidence. For various reasons (mainly due to only a minority of crats having the resolve to do anything about it, while others seemingly believe either that was acceptable behaviour or that it's not their job (!!!)), Homeostasis07 has, of yet, received no sanction at all and yet created the drama in the first place. So those who posted because of it can hardly receive a greater sanction, whatever they may/may not have done in the past. ——Serial 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose everyone made their Point there. Let's move on. Star Mississippi 14:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I really couldn't care if they threaten to move to oppose: there are already over 225 supports. One oppose does not matter, I would need to see a lot more than that to have a TBAN. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but agree with Serial that Homeostasis should have received a sanction, and that the ability to make such accusations without evidence or consequences is one of the reason why RfAs are the hellscape they are today. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, "even more votes must be removed/prevented" is the wrong lesson to take from this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the need for sanctions here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floquenbeam. The Night Watch (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above. It's a slippery slope. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The posting of voting rationales in the support or oppose sections should be banned, but for everyone, not just for individual editors. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Lightburst has been vocal about (known) issues with the RfA process, and also been concerned about striking of votes. (In the latest example, Amanda could have struck the aspersions, warned the editor, and left the actual vote. And we wouldn't have had this blow up quite so much). I see no need for a ban. ResonantDis_tortion 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hardly TBAN-worthy. Suggest that this be withdrawn. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed blocking of User:Ілля_Криворучко

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

On their talk page, – there is a pattern of articles being moved to the draft space among other disruptive work. They were also warned for potential blocking due to being engaged in an edit war. Recently, I moved their article to the draftspace as it had no content. There is a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue, so I'm proposing a temporary block. TLA (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a proper edits to the draft. Thanks for your redirect to draft and recommendations. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For Draft:Inna Makhno and Draft:Alina Chaplenko, both were moved while @Ілля Криворучко was actively working on them and before the recommended hour, per NPP guidelines. Inna Makhno was created at 11:11 with ongoing edits until 11:19 and moved at 11:21. They immediately recreated Inna Makhno which is a fully formed article (created 11:22, editing until 11:56). Alina Chaplenko was created at 9:27 with ongoing edits until 9:35 and moved at 9:37 so it appears reviewers are not giving enough time to develop the articles before moving them. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the user being reported has racked up an astonishing 5000+ edits since November of last year. I believe he is editing in good faith and is working on an area that doesn't get much love. The issues with his editing perhaps stem from the sheer volume of contributions - maybe rather than a temporary block (which I don't see helping and risks alienating a potentially valuable contributor) he could be instructed to go through WP:AFC for a few months? That should slow him down a bit and help him polish his editing style while not preventing him from contributing. Ostalgia (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a couple suggestions on their talk page but I don't think any restrictions are warranted at the time. They have created 43 articles and only two so far have been deleted, one was at their request (Yevgen Koptyelov). The other, Yaroslav Lavreniuk, was deleted 5 minutes after creation for being blank but subsequently successfully recreated. They did a have stumble around the January 28th time frame for edit warring and couple other issues but nothing since that time. From what I can tell, they do act on feedback. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a new page patrol, didn't realize that it is recommended to wait an hour before "patrolling". They have good contributions, yes (though a good chunk of it stems from publishing every edit), It was completely blank, though, and doesn't that still warrants some kind of a recommendation to incubate articles in the draftspace, at minimum? In creation template would also work. Thanks all. TLA (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are not an NPP reviewer, I suggest reading WP:New pages patrol to ensure your actions are within general standards. The moves to draft and the deletion were not in-line with those standards. Outside of egregious violations, like an attack page meeting G10, editors should be given an hour to develop a new article. So no, there is no supported action to take and I suggest you withdraw your complaint. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a learning experience, for sure. But @S0091, I believe there still should be some kind of instruction to the user as @Ostalgia pointed out as well. Unsourced, blank, among other issue BLPs aren't too great. TLA (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla as I stated above I did leave a note on their talk page with a couple suggestions but to be clear, they are not nor should be required to follow them just like any other editor is not. Experienced/autopatrolled editors start articles directly in article space regularly with no sources or maybe just one source. It's not a big deal if they continue to develop the article within a short period of time. Take a look at WP:A7 for example, which states as long as there is a credible claim to significance even with no sources it cannot be speedily deleted, including BLPs. The lesson to take from this is give an editor at least an hour. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn Ah, I see the talk page message. Thank you for that. Really strongly suggest @Ілля_Криворучко to consider working on a draft, as I believe other editors/"patrollers" will also have concerns. TLA (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You got the wrong message. TLA. Ілля Криворучко has done nothing wrong. You were incorrect with your draftication along with your other assumptions. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Guidelines at WP:BLPPROD came into my mind, but the article looked promising, so that's why I did the draftification so Ілля_Криворучко could work on it before it's in the mainspace. TLA (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment by Skyerise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is harassing me; I have twice requested Skyerise stop writing on my user talk page (diff, diff), and he has stated he would continue (diff, diff). It started after I made a single edit (diff) in good faith to List of Thelemites which he reverted. I really couldn't have cared less about the reversion, but what I didn't expect was a berating on my user talk page which included almost 3 dozen edits in rapid-fire succession while I attempted to respond but had difficulty due to numerous edit-conflicts.

Instead of complaining about that edit on the article's talk page, Skyerise had brought it to my user talk page (diff) with a vengeance. Per WP:REFACTOR, I moved the comment to the article talk page (diff) where I planned to respond/explain (eventually did), but he deleted it (diff) and brought the issue back to my user talk page... additionally angry that I moved "his" comment (diff).

He has used inappropriate edit summaries including "I'm angry at you" (diff) and "bwahahaha" (diff). He twice called me "rude" (diff, diff), and challenged "Who do you think you are?" (diff) Several times he used the language "you don't get to" (diff, diff, diff).

He repeatedly accused me of violating talk page guidelines while he has ignored and repudiated the 3 wiki policies WP:REFACTOR, WP:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and WP:Talk page guidelines § Personal talk page cleanup which explicitly give me the right to remove comments from my own user talk page. He even ordered me "You do not have my permission to move this comment" (diff).

He has escalated the harassment by twice demanding an apology [for moving his comment] (diff, diff) and threatening me with ANI (diff). He insists the discussion "belongs on [my] talk page where [he] started the conversation" (diff), and finally accused me of gaslighting him (diff). Though I have muted him (minimally helpful), I am at a loss as to how to keep him from my user talk page or get the harassment to stop. I appeal to the ANI readers.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 12:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My pronouns are "she/her". I've got no desire to get into a pissing match with you, I just want you to acknowledge that it was wrong to move my comments to another talk page without first asking and receiving permission. I'm not watching your talk page, I'm only replying when you ping me. Pinging someone who you don't actually want to reply could also be considered harassment. I have already agreed not to post on your talk page as long as you don't ping me there. See also WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So, I will briefly weigh in because I think this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Grorp, I do believe Skyerise is correct that you should have received permission before moving the subject comment, per WP:REFACTOR. That said, Skyerise, this actioon strikes me as more of a venial sin, since Grorp would have been well within their rights to simply erase the comment without explanation. The issue, then, is posting to the article page. You correctly cite to WP:TPO and the language never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, but I don't see the move as changing the meaning in any way? It does change the audience, but this all strikes me as having been done in good faith. Finally, while I think it is more a matter of etiquette than policy (though anyone should feel free to prove otherwise!), I agree that pings invite replies. Perhaps this is just me, but I am inclined to say that one ping with a 'stay off my page' message is appropriate. It would be after that when pings would become problematic. Tangentially, Skyerise, while not a violation, a review of the history of Grorp's talk page does leave a bit of a bad impression.

So, TLDR: does Grorp owe an apology? Yes, I think so--they made a minor error. Skyerise's reaction, however, strikes me as a bit much. I'd say apologies should be exchanged, but more realistically, perhaps the editors should just agree to avoid one another in the future. A Happy Friday to one and all! Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"I'm only replying when you ping me" is a falsehood. I pinged Skyerise exactly once. Skyerise made 7 more edits on my user talk page after, and 22 before that—that's 29 pings for me (because it's my user talk page). And that is no agreement to not continue posting on my user talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I am allowed to copyedit my responses. Sorry you don't like it, but there is one reply by me per ping. Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

For those not familiar with WP:REFACTOR, Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved ... Refactoring has a number of uses, including: ... Relocating material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate. ... Material can be ... moved to a different page where it is more appropriate. The words "permission" and "ask" do not appear.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See the "Pruning" heading - Pruning text – should only be done with the original author's consent, or with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I appeal to the ANI readers I really wouldn't do that. The last people you want examinining your edits are ANI readers. ——Serial 13:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd say Checkusers would be worse. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

arbcom would be pretty bad too I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please shake hands, go to neutral corners, and edit until you both find the legendary "perfect edit", spoken of in Wikibooks of lore. Anyway, both seem to have edited in good faith and now with some steam blown off, maybe this can be closed with no harm done and a lesson or two learned. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to @Grorp: for overreacting. Skyerise (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, even IF the act of moving a content-comment to its related article talk page was against policy, it would neither warrant nor excuse the barrage of abusive language and personal attacks that followed from Skyerise. One would be an error, the other is deliberate and knowing disruptive and abusive harassment, which has continued even after I twice asked them to stop. I have not responded in kind. Skyerise has been brought up at ANI several times for harassment, and also been blocked for the same (the last time just a few months ago by Doug Weller). I have not.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Grorp, you brought this complaint to ANI and it received attention from other editors including some thoughtful words from Dumuzid. Skyerise has apologized. This would be the time ordinarily that this discussion would be closed but it seems like you are looking for something specific to happen next. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, thank you for asking. I don't expect an apology; I do expect action. This is not Skyerise's first rodeo for harassment. They've been sanctioned prior (last time blocked for a month), and it obviously has had no lasting effect on changing their behavior. Indeed I want them sanctioned with whatever the next level is.

Dumuzid's comment is the only one above which supported my action to have moved a comment, "Pruning text – should only be done ... with good cause under policy. One example is "Relocation of text to different pages where it is more appropriate." I did nothing to escalate Skyerise's bad behavior, which started before I moved the comment. I brought this to ANI so an admin can DO something about Skyerise's atrocious actions, but instead I got further harassed by the victim-blaming peanut gallery whose attention somehow got stuck (incorrectly) at one point in the middle of a series of events—no doubt courtesy of Skyerise's immediate response which focused everyone's attention on that one point.

No, Skyerise did not apologize. Coupling the words "I apologize" followed by a 'feeling' they had (Skyerise's impetus for their actions) is not the same as apologizing to me and the community for the damaging actions they did, have done, and will do again. There is no element of contrition, no sense that they actually understood what they did, or that it was wrong, or that they would stop doing it in the future. Every element of an apology is missing except vacant words. It is no different than saying "sorry I got mad" or "sorry I hate you" or "here's your pretend apology so we can go home". Worse, their "apology" edit summary, "now see if Grorp can acknowledge", is just a snide repeat of their several earlier demands for me to apologize to them. Hardly an apology.

Skyerise started the fuss, continued it over several hours, derailed this ANI off focus, then deleted my ANI-notice to them with the mocking edit summary "thanks, that's just what I wanted you to do".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp There is no consensus for any administrative action to be taken against Skyerise. You need to drop the stick, or else you might find yourself subject to sanctions instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300: You are not an admin, 24 hours hasn't even elapsed, and the discussion was sidetracked. ANI is not a game to see who can sway or manipulate the gallery. It is a tool for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems".   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You know that nothing in this noticeboard requires that only admins reply to your queries, right? I'm sorry, but you do not get to ignore the point I've made just because of one false "gotcha" moment. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, comment all you want, but I don't think you get to "declare" this discussion over or resolved. There was no gotcha moment, just Skyerise trying to justify their actions ("hE mAdE mE dO iT") and some of you falling for it. But there is still no legitimate reason to act aggressive and harass another editor.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just accusing me of something I never did. I simply advised that things likely won't end the way you think they will if you keep flogging this dead horse. Whether you take it or not is up to you; but don't be surprised if you face a disruptive editing block for ignoring it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A reminder that admins do not have "command authority". Grorp, you need to drop the stick as TheDragonFire300 has pointed out. At least give some rope to Skyerise. If they are acting in bad faith, they'll repeat the behaviour. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soapboxing acc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Calebman127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A few months old account, looks like all the activity is soapboxing in Ukraine war - related pages [139] [140] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

His contributions (besides 1 in a talk page) have been reverted. Clearly NOTHERE as well. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Calebman127#Indefinite block. El_C 06:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam-only sockpuppet accounts need taken care of

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to bring to administrators' attention, these two spam-only accounts:

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

I highly, highly suspect that Karkiwiki is a sockpuppet account of Sachinsuper, created to attempt to avoid scrutiny. Sachinsuper has been involved in adding the same 'cinemakhabar.com' and 'gamekhabar.com' spam websites across a variety of articles (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4), and I've given that user a final warning today. Well guess what happens several hours later after that final warning? A newly-created account, 'Karkiwiki' comes and adds the same spam website to the Sarfaraz Khan (cricketer) article, added as an inline external link to 'Romana Zahoor' once again like with the previous account (diff).

Even if they aren't sockpuppets of each other, they both seem to be only interested in adding the same spam external links to Wikipedia articles. I have informed both user accounts on their talk pages of this ANI report. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (both). El_C 06:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quintus rex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quintus rex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Edits are full of juvenile personal attacks and evidence of a battleground mentality, including this vulgar insult. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

(I am being genuine when I say that it speaks to my feeling of true belonging in this community that it took such a long time for someone to throw a homophobic remark at me. Shout-outs to all the friends I've made here that I'm gonna keep hanging out with after this person is INDEF'd.) Remsense诉 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Quintus rex#Indefinite block. El_C 09:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist vandalism-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As of the time I am writing this, all four edits by Whentheimposterissu (talk · contribs) have been vandalism. Their first two edits were adding racist comments to the Chip (snack) page, and their last two edits were adding the date of the September 11 attacks to the Undertale Soundtrack page. Whentheimposterissu appears to be a vandalism-only account. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Clear cases of vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV instead of here. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amaury needs to go

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has had a history of reverting user's edits without explanation whatsoever. Like, for example, he will revert edits for companies that are unsourced (take Kickin' It and Raven's Home as examples). He is also notable for listing "only editors for films" on pages that he has involvement with. And finally, he is recently getting heat over the Template:Nickelodeon Movies page for restoring an edit that is a "last good revision". He is nothing but a power-hungry tyrant. We need him kicked out as soon as possible, that way we can start fresh without any of his controversies plaguing us. 2001:8003:1D9D:3B00:1007:F1DD:AE39:2822 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not going to respond to the WP:TROLLING IP directly here, but note that this person is abusing multiple IPs. Amaury • 10:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP, you neglected to notify the user, as required per the big red notification at the top of the page. I have done that for you. You have also failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing, so I expect this will go nowhere except into File 13 where it probably belongs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at contribs, maybe the /64 of this IP needs to be blocked. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a long-term abuse IP editor who has been around for at least a year now. That editor has been making nonstop disruptive edits to various TV series articles such as Fantasy Island (2021 TV series), as well as constantly harassing users who revert them such as Amaury and YoungForever on their user talk pages, resulting in User talk:Amaury getting indefinitely semi-protected. The aforementioned Fantasy Island article is also indef protected because of disruption from this same user too. I think this ANEW report is where it all started (or at least, that's my first encounter with this clearly unwelcome, highly disruptive editor).

Maybe we should create an LTA infopage for the people unfamiliar with their behaviour? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I had a look at the block log of the /64 range of the original poster IPv6 address here, and it's been blocked four times in the past, the last block being three-months. And well guess what. A person from this IP range is returning to apparently harass or troll Amaury just within two days after that last three-month block has expired. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Bye bye IP. 6 month block this time. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad to see User:Amaury does not necessarily need to go, just as they're getting trolling from ip socks. Must be doing something right. BusterD (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LingoSouthAsia's behaviour on 2024 Pakistani general election

LingoSouthAsia (talk · contribs) has been persistently making problematic edits on the 2024 Pakistani general election page, despite warnings on his talk page which he repeatedly ignored and deleted. He is continuously deleting properly sourced content using invalid reasons like copyvio, commentary while adding his own commentary to the page.

For instance, today LingoSouthAsia removed sourced material about rigging in the election with the edit summary "Copyrights issue" despite there being no evidence of copyright violation. When Discospinster (talk · contribs) reverted his edit, LingoSouthAsia restored it again with edit summary like "WP is not a news paper". LingoSouthAsia then added a chunk of OR without citing any reliable independent source which also include his personal commentary.

Similarly yesterday, LingoSouthAsia repeatedly added and added then again the same personal commentary which was later removed but instead of listening, he opted to add it again today.

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Pinging Borgenland who may also have something to say how LingoSouthAsia's use misleading edit summaries to remove sourced content. --Saqib (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite the filing of this report, LingoSouthAsia persists in removing sourced content and adding OR. --Saqib (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In just few days this is second time this politically active PTI supporter Saqib is here on Admin notice Board. Admin may consider following facts 1. All changes in LEADE has been explained on Talk page [141] still six times [142] he has approached my Talk page to warn me and avoid any usefull discussion on relavant articles talk page. I am feeling harrased and has repeatedly requested him to not intimidate me on my talk page and discuss in a positive manner on the relevant article's Talk page. LEADE has been balanced by me and after changes it covers everything, First detailed electoral process, Second results national as well provincial, Third controversies (Allegations of rigging) and Last Govt formation . Over emphasis of one point agenda has been nuetralized, I mean it was like an official political news paper page with no election information but rigging allegation with words like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan This is subjective commentary. History is compared on WP article ? I request Topic ban on Saqib. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits are always based on reliable sources. I recommend retracting your accusations that I am a politically active PTI supporter, which I perceive as a personal attack. And do not forget you are already partial blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#LingoSouthAsia) for making false claims in talk page discussions by Black Kite, and for harassment by Bishonen. --Saqib (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we use a punishment to repunish ? Yes I have been punished with edit ban on a single WP page Saraiki language but please remeber I declared before the ban that I will not edit that page in future and positively accepted the punishment. This amounts to good behaviour not any weekness which user Saqib wants to expolit here. Please stay with current topic. All Saqib's edits on PAKISTAN GENERAL ELECTION 2024 are example of the fact that he want to use this article as newspaper by labelling elections with subjective wordings like most rigged election in the History of Pakistan. I have not removed rigging stuff which is 70% of the article thanks to Saqib's continious agenda driven editing. I would request Admin to visit that article history and article content. It looks like a rigging PTI rhetoric newspaper which termed Supreme court justice as controvertial showing biaseness and non nuetral point of view. Then check my edits. Saqib also removed four sources of recent surveys by top Pakistani surveyors Gallup Pakistan, IPOR and IRAS just because they pionted out PMLN lead in Punjab province. I accepted it with patience but now I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. A topic ban on Saqib is requested. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yap, yap, yap. You are not proving anything here except that you are good at making false assumptions against other editors that disagree with you. Also: I am surprised and feel that Saqib is not here to improve WP with nuetrality but one sided wishfull editing. Surely you meant yourself in that statement? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

sorry editing without logging. I am Lingo south asia. Corvette had I been such then would have left no traces of rigging allegations on Leade. Saqib is all about rigging chery picking. Hope you check edit history and my talk page efforts before giving your valuable statement here. 116.71.187.210 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User ShirtNShoesPls, Blatant Months-Long Disruptive Editing, Multiple BLP Violations, and Now Openly Vandalising Pages With Manufactured Quotes/Claims by Misrepresenting Citations

Bringing this here after advice received from admin.[143]
ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Over the last few days/week or so I've come into repeated contact with the named user above. This emerged out of a report I made about their edit-warring on the article for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.[144]
• They have a habit of creating very basic draft-level articles with little to no sourcing and abandoning them immediately after (some of these I've moved to draft[145][146]) and making larger edits likewise with relatively poor sourcing for what's claimed.[147][148]
• However this behaviour has now moved on to BLP articles, which raises the scale of the problems they cause.(new article:[149])(edits to Joe Biden article:[150])

While I don't believe much if any of what they've done is nefarious there seems to be major issues with their ability to usefully edit and understand policy, and therefore stronger action likely needs to be taken as a result.Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to make a new section. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, added it in. Silly error on my part. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You're good. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Update, 15/02/2024: After further consideration of the matter and further actions by the user I'm changing this report to being one of deliberate policy breaches and frankly WP:NOTHERE.
On the above cited article they've created for "Ageism against Joe Biden" they have repeatedly reinserted BLP violations, claiming the removal of this material is "vandalism" [151], [152].
They have since moved on to removing reliably sourced information claiming that it is instead WP:OR and BLP violations (almost seemingly parroting back why their own material has been removed to try and sound credible)[153], or just removed sourced content based on absurd and obviously false reasoning.[154].
They have also engaged in obvious use of talk pages to advertise their own article.[155]

I see no potential for a change in this behaviour and therefore ask for swift action by an admin to resolve. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that user is not here after removing sourced content and engaging in disruptove editing. They also are logged in (i suspect) with an additional IP: @208.102.167.48 - idk if they understand the 3RR but if it is the same user then then they are avoiding it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if they're that IP, but they're certainly aware of the editing warring policy given they've been warned by several users on their talk page and have been blocked for it once, and every time they've been warned they've stubbornly refused to take the hint and insist they're right (WP:IDHT). Even at the block for edit warring I've diffed above they repeatedly insisted WP:ONUS suddenly applied to the removal of content rather than inclusion and seemingly invented "other editors" who agreed with them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Further Update, 16/02/2024: Following discovery of what appears to be examples of manufacturing quotes from supposed cited sources and asking for advice from an admin I have put this issue in to the Vandalism noticeboard, leaving this here for now as it should probably still be archived. Rambling Rambler (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Righty ho, now getting told at the vandalism noticeboard that it should be on this noticeboard. Anyway here were are, user manufacturing quotes to POV-push, namely inventing quotes from "medical experts" regarding the health of Joe Biden ([156]), and in the United States article just going to town spreading false claims that the US deliberately committed a "campaign of extermination" that killed 100 million Native Americans (edits, investigation). Can an admin please step in and resolve this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

See [157] Note the deletions, eg first landing on the moon, etc. Let's look down the article to where they add " According to historian David Stannard in American Holocaust, this is the largest genocide in world history, and led to an estimated 100 million deaths",. You'd think that the US did that. given the new section heading and the sentence before that says "The campaigns of extermination prompted a long series of American Indian Wars west of the Mississippi River.". But American Holocaust (book) says " The book surveys the history of European colonization in the Americas, for approximately 400 years, from the first Spanish assaults in the Caribbean in the 1490s to the Wounded Knee Massacre in the 1890s--the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America have suffered dispossession, oppression and exploitation. During that time the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere declined by as many as 100 million people.," Note that the article already said " The Columbian exchange was catastrophic for native populations. It is estimated that up to 95 percent of the indigenous populations in the Americas perished from infectious diseases during the years following European colonization;"

I'd argue that's deliberately misleading especially given other edits by him. Eg the addition of "Through its policies of settler colonialism and white supremacy," without mentioning that "Settler colonialism was especially prominent in the colonial empires of the European powers between the 16th and 20th centuries. The settling of Boers in South Africa, British, French, Portuguese and Spanish expansion in the Americas as well as the settlement of the Canary Islands by Castile are classical examples of settler colonialism."

Then there's "By 1900, rapid industrialization " to which was added "achieved through the exploitation of labor". When was any industrial revolution achieved without the exploitation of labor? I think that the edits in this diff are misleading and attacks. and violations of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The worst thing is that none of his edits look to be supported by any source whatsoever, with them almost insidiously altering existing sourced statements radically to say something completely new and hope no one checks that the citation no longer supports the new claim. There's zero possibility that this is anything but deliberate at this point.

Also if you look at the edit warring notices on their talk page (of which they have several) and the edit-warring discussion I've linked near the top there's just a general pattern of behaviour where they'll seemingly just make stuff up and then when called out on it just full on deny anything they've done is wrong, in fact everyone else is the problem, and several supposed users supported them (though I've yet to find a single person support any of their edits). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden habitually overly aggressive, assuming bad faith and incivilty on CT talk pages

Special:Diff/1207413857 - That last sentence is needlessly aggressive
Special:Diff/1208223248 - needlessly aggressive tone in ES
Special:Diff/1207824422 - putting words in my mouth in ES
Special:Diff/1208228313 - Trying to start a back and forth argument on a talk page, when I made a single comment without further involving myself in a single dispute while reviewing his behavior. I honestly tried to avoid getting into a back and forth with him the best I could.

He's been involved in previous disputes as well where people have taken issue with his tone, looking back through his talk page, and almost always has an extremely aggressive tone about him.

I've unintentionally come off as rude or confrontational without meaning to a few times, but I always try to apologize for it. For him, this is a pattern of behavior where he doubles down on the aggression.

Thinking a single, short, agreement someone left in a dispute he hadn't replied to yet after leaving a polite request to be civil, while checking to see if it was a pattern, is hounding is well, it shows an "elevated emotional state", to put it nicely. Hounding requires ill intent, this is assuming bad faith. All I wanted to do was see that dispute in there resolved that hadn't been replied to, but he kept on re-reverting the other editor without discussing. This feels like WP:BATTLEGROUNDing to me. I wanted to not involve myself too much in the dispute, just give my short "i havent heard his side yet" message, waiting for further explanation, with my honest opinion. It was entirely in good faith.

I don't want him blocked or TBANned, I just want him told to take a chill pill and not be so overly confrontational. I don't know any admins personally (and therefore don't know who would be willing to act outside of ANI), and I don't want to take it somewhere so public but really, I have nowhere else to go. There isn't a content dispute ongoing, so I cant take him to 3O or DRN. :/ DarmaniLink (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

pages by a blocked user

Globally blocked user Special:Contributions/Mykytal (bodiadub's sockpuppet) has created many spam promo pages, which are eligible for deletion under G5 speedy deletion rule. Here are some of the latest pages:

Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group Daria Zarivna Viktor Andrukhiv Viktor Andrukhiv Andriy Smyrnov Yulia Yanina 2A02:810A:8E3F:FAA4:D45C:1A7E:10F2:80DD (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Get the bad ones with CSD I'd think, I'll start with these ones. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. This is clearly not wanted. @Bbb23, you seem to be connected to this. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

G5 only applies to articles created after the block, and only if there are no significant edits by other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

58.176.1.159

58.176.1.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Nationalist POV pushing IP, already warned 13 times on the talk page. Half of the edits have been reverted. Edits consist of asserting Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (#1, #2, #3), over Hong Kong; removing sourced material related to 2019 Hong Kong protests (link); and sometimes just really obvious POV pushing (the protest's goal is that "China fall completely into the abyss", adding scare quote to pro-democracy camp) or adding questionable or conspiratorial claims (#1, #2, #3). Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. NM 07:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Northern Moonlight. All the diffs you have provided are from the first half of 2023, and this is an IP we are talking about. Please refile your complaint if you perceive there is *recent* disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ed, for what it's worth, the IP has already edited disruptively several times this month, and I highly suspect that this will be a continued pattern into the future. They come once every few months to sneakily push a non-neutral POV, then disappear, etc. I have taken the liberty of reporting them to WP:AIV for more immediate intervention. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Supporting an indef ban until this user can demonstrate neutrality (unless community consensus isn't welcomed/necessary, in which case, I can remove this comment). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  @That Coptic Guy, IP users are usually not indefinitely blocked. See WP:IPBLOCKLENGTH. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see, thank you! Well some sort of block is nonetheless needed here I would think. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stale. I'm wary of blocking due to collateral. But feel free to relist if and/or when recent violations occur. Which looking at the nature of these, will almost certainly amount to sanctions of considerable severity. El_C 08:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet disrupting pages

2001:D08:D8:D574:A406:46BE:3755:1247 has been making unexplained and unsourced changes in multiple pages and is also a possible sockpuppet of @Earth6282. Probably not here to build an encyclopedia. As of now his last edit was on the page Malay-Portuguese conflicts, which has been subject to many disruptive edits which I believe come from him. It seems that every time he gets blocked he creates another account to continue disrupting this and other pages. Javext (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this belongs on WP:SPI? (This seems like LTA)

Either way, it's WP:QUACKING pretty hard to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for replying. I am fairly recent to wikipedia and I apologize I didn't know WP:SPI existed. Like I was saying, he keeps disrupting pages every time he creates a new account. It's pretty clear to me it's the same person. There are many factors like, editing on similar subjects, same grammar errors, making the same edits as the previous accounts. Let me know if I have to do anything or move this to another page in order to report him. Thanks. Javext (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 122.161.65.115 continues to remove sourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the page Institute of Chartered Accountants of India an IP address continues to remove sourced information disruptively and I have undid it three times. They did not give a single reason why in the edit summary either after the page was covered by copyright violations. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No warnings? I agree their deletions without explanation aren't helpful, but this seems a bit premature for AN/I. --Onorem (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have warned, but this discussion may not continue, so okay. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greyplod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User making political propaganda, adding irrelevant sections to various articles with explicit promotion of politicians' names. He also added a fake redirect in Guaçuí, also politically motivated. Goldencerebro (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Rimonslamaa22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User @Rimonslamaa22 has been undoing my edits on Shams al-Baroudi without providing sources to back up his changes. Unlike me

Instead of addressing the issue on talk page, He resorted to personally attacking me by calling me a refugee (cuz I'm Syrian)

Special:diff/1208004397 Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA. What a bother/ I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: yeah, that attack was over the top. I realize they are very new, but they'd need to provide meaningful assurances if they are to regain their editing privileges. HTH. El_C 07:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND

Greetings! Please review the behavior of Alexiscoutinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• [158] removes academic estimate from the infobox, returns Prigozhin claims into the lead infobox, [159] again returns Prigozhin
• [160] removes academic journal while keeping Prigozhin claims in the lead infobox
• [161] equates academic journal estimate with Prigozhin claims, [162] returns edits again after the partial revert

After being reverted, removes academic journal estimates [163] after being warned [164] on WP:BATTLEGROUND.

In talk, advocates for "WP:DUE weight" while ignoring that it should be achieved using reliable sources, academic sources preferred.

Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gilbert W. Merkx and the Journal of Advanced Military Studies seems relevant. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It's starting to look like you're on a mission to suppress Prigozhin's estimate and force push those bold Western estimates. I would also point out that this accusation is distorted. As such, I'll try my best to show the full picture because this is a long story...

1. Regarding the first two edits, there has already been a long discussion at WP:RSN which casted a lot of doubt on the adequacy of including that JAMS estimate. The citation was dubious as the original author of the estimate isn't clear at all (LCU even suggested not citing it and other uninvolved editors seemed to point to the argument that all are simply estimates and reliability should be checked only for the publishing source, which was fine for Prigozhin), yet for some reason, ManyAreasExpert insists that it should be included and that it should override Prigozhin's estimate that was in the article for a long time. If ManyAreasExpert is bringing this issue back up again, it seems he isn't satisfied with the discussions. Let me also point out that it was ManyAreasExpert that connected these two topics.
   1. In this edit sequence, ManyAreasExpert removes Prigozhin's estimate in favor of the dubious estimate he insists is academic. So it appears like he's in favor of something, not me, I reacted to his original actions.
   2. I obviously partially reverted these new edits in 2 parts, [165][166], because they never had consensus, and then extensive discussion in RSN and the talk page highlighted those problems.
   3. Then I adjusted/fixed the new citation to highlight the concerns we were discussing.
   4. Then he arguably edit warred and removed Prigozhin from the infobox yet again. I didn't check the timings, but I guess we were already discussing in the talk pages when these happened.
   5. I responded in kind and restored the original version that had Prigozhin's estimate properly attributed in the infobox for months.
   6. Then he edit warred, removing Prigozhin from the infobox yet again, arguing that he's not reliable. An argument which was not inline with the discussion at WP:RSN. There, LCU said that Prigozhin is reliable for statements for the Wagner group and recently Alaexis said this "It goes without saying that each side of a conflict has many reasons not to be fully truthful about their own and the enemy's losses. In this case the question is whether these numbers are cited by reliable sources. I see that the Jerusalem Post cited Prigozhin's estimate of the Ukrainian forces (80k) [194]. Are the losses numbers also cited by RS?" Which shows that the reliability discussion is deeper/has more nuance than simply saying Wagner's leader is unreliable.
   7. He fixed the {{vs}} tag here, cool.
   8. Then I responded in kind and restored to the "status quo" version. I also asked him to not edit war in the edit summary and said some other things. I recommend you check the edit summary.
   9. We stopped before reaching the 3RR.
2. Regarding the 3rd edit ManyAreasExpert linked, it's an example of seeing patterns where there aren't any. He provided a better, more recent estimate by a think-tank similar in tone to that dubious JAMS, but this time properly attributed. I had no problems with it. I only pointed out (not necessarily then, but also in subsequent edits) that it was important to use WP:INTEXT attribution to explicitly show where the estimate comes from and to not use wikivoice to cite it as a statement of fact (something estimates aren't by definition). I thought it was the perfect opportunity to solve the previous big problem and get rid of the burden of that dubious JAMS citation. I substituted the dubious citation with the better one (he provided that new citation by the way). There should have been no problems, the new citation had similar numbers to the problematic one. It should have been a win-win for us. But no, ManyAreasExpert, out of the blue, draws the connection with Prigozhin yet again and reverts the edit. That edit had nothing to do with Prigozhin, but unfortunately he did not WP:AGF and drew incorrect conclusions. I must also point out that I suggested more than once to remove all the multiple estimates from the infobox and put them all in the casualties section. Cinderella157 was also inline with this. If I remember correctly, ManyAreasExpert never commented on it (correct me if I'm wrong). It should be of his interest to do that. Doesn't he think that Prigozhin's estimate isn't worthy for the infobox, but ok for the article body? I'm not obliged to implement that. I gave him the greenlight to do it and potentially solve the issue. It is not of today that I try to minimally edit in Wikipedia. It consumes a lot of my time, thus everytime I see an opportunity for someone to make an edit I support, I let them do it. I only push myself to make edits that maybe no one else will do, or when I have to counter edits and try to reach a compromise on changes I see as inadequate. Therefore, I view that second indirect accusation as disingenuous.
3. Regarding the 4th and 5th links ManyAreasExpert provided, I don't see any real issue. If I recall correctly, somewhere in the long WP:RSN discussion, someone suggested using estimate ranges, I think for the infobox to summarize the different estimates. I agreed with that notion and thought it was very applicable to that statement linked by ManyAreasExpert. That statement is in the Aftermath section and talks about the casualties of the battle. It is used to give context to future statements that argue that the battle was a pyhrric victory. Most of the statements ManyAreasExpert wrote in that paragraph I thought were quite good and balanced. However, I thought that statement about casualties was unbalanced. How would it not be? It only voiced a single estimate and the most extreme in favor of Ukraine on top of it. Even if it's a more recent estimate by a Western think-tank, it's not the "last chip in the bag".
   1. Initially, ManyAreasExpert wrote that statement without inline attribution. I found that inadequate as wikivoice was being used to make a statement that seemed like a statement of fact, but was ultimately not. It's simply one of multiple estimates, albeit one of the better ones arguably, and should have proper attribution.
   2. Instead of plainly reverting that statement arguing for "no consensus", I decided to fix it/reach a compromise and added intext attribution to that and other statements, among other things. See the edit summary. So far so good.
   3. But then I also remembered and thought that it would be even more appropriate to show an estimates range (as was probably suggested in the RSN discussion) in that casualties summary statement. Once again, attempting to improve/reach compromise. Although, the principle/idea was good, the execution of the edit, in the first instance, wasn't ideal. I wrote the estimates range, but without attribution. As such, ManyAreasExpert's argument of equating Prigozhin's estimates with the IISS one was valid.
   4. ManyAreasExpert reverts my change to that statement.
   5. I acknowledged the mistake and decided to readd the range, but properly this time (with attribution). There's no stubborness or edit warring, only an effort to reach compromise and do the things right. It is only an expected coincidence that the lower bound for Russian casualties would come from Prigozhin himself. So what? That statement is a summary of the casualties section. It's only adequate to fairly represent it with WP:DUE weight and WP:INTEXT attribution.
   6. Then at 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC) ManyAreasExpert created a new topic in the talk page.
   7. Despite saying "Greetings!" and "Thanks!", his frivolous accusation of please stop pushing Prigozhin claims with edit war angered me since I wasn't doing edit war (I've explained the latest events above, I was trying to reach a compromise and fix the estimates range statement, Prigozhin popping up again was an expected coincidence) and he himself participated in edit war in the past (that first engagement about Prigozhin and JAMS). I naturally started the replies with the left foot, not particularly amicable. Between 21:34 and 21:42 I replied this. Yeah, I was annoyed.
   8. But what made me even more annoyed was his revert at 21:46. At the time I discovered it, several minutes later, I found it quite provocative, because I thought we were trying to discuss the matter in the talk page before deleting stuff in the article. We had already exchanged several replies (between 21:49 and 22:01) in the talk page, before I noticed the revert in the article. Needless to say, the discussion was unconstructive. I viewed the concerns of that discussion a done deal (from the previous discussions) and understood that, for ManyAreasExpert, those two estimates could not coexist and no compromise would be reached. We both exchanged deflective replies, as if we weren't on the same tune. He also brought up some conduct links like BATTLEGROUND and "strawman" which I found quite inadequate as his conduct as a whole wasn't exemplary either.
   9. Well, and then, as I said before, I noticed he removed the lower bound of the Wagner estimate and argued for "no consensus". My subsequent action at 22:03 speaks for itself. I thought it was kinda dirty for him to ask for talk in the talk page but at the same time revert the edit he disagreed with. At the time, I didn't know that he first reverted the edit and then replied to me in the talk page. However, that doesn't diminish his unfortunate mistake, he should have checked the talk page first, especially because he created that topic more than an hour before. Finally, as show in the last edit summary, I used the same argument of "no consensus" he used to remove the entire contentious statement about casualties.
4. And this is where we're at. After my final revert in the article, I made two more replies which were left unanswered, by him. Sure an IP editor did chime in there but that's beside the point.

So this is my defense. I know I haven't acted perfectly along the way, but the motivations and principles were legit and my actions were reasonable overall, given the circumstances (considering ManyAreasExpert's conduct wasn't exemplary either, prior discussions, etc). As such, I would also suggest others to weigh in on ManyAreasExpert's conduct when analysing these several events and also the context in the multiple relevant discussions. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• May I also point out that ManyAreasExpert created a topic in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page that publicly linked to this ANI request. While I genuinely believe that he did that in good faith, I found it extremely inappropriate because he had already correctly notified me in my talk page and I had already explained all my actions above. That situation felt somewhat like the classic scene where the boss of the office "tells off" an employee in front of all his coworkers. It's embarassing. That's why I believe ANI notices are made in private. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  created a topic in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page that publicly linked to this ANI request
  — User:Alexiscoutinho 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't heard it's forbidden. I need to link to this ANI for the reason I stated there that you provided no arguments regarding IISS removal in this discussion here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't heard it's forbidden. Yeah, I expected you wouldn't think it was a problem. That's why I made sure to "assume good faith". But keep that in mind in the future. ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  He resolved the problem. It's fine now ;) Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. This should be on the article talk page or at WP:DRN, not here. voorts (talk/contributions)

• There is more to this than what is evidence by the OPs links. One needs to look at the fuller context of other edits to the article page. As Levivich notes, this discussion at WP:RSN is also relevant as are this and this discussion at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. There is also this discussion at the article's TP, initiated after filing the report at ANI. This report appears to me to be an attempt to weaponise ANI to resolve what is essentially a content dispute that should and can be resolved through consensus building discussion at appropriate venues. What do you call a stick that comes back and hits you in the head? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mewyprime

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

An account created solely for vandalism and spreading POV. All its editions are falsifications of data regarding Russia and the USA (favors Russia, attacks the USA). I am calling for an indefinite ban for this account. TravelerFromEuropeanUnion (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insults 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Baba Mica has seemingly learned nothing from the previous discussion about them and has just gone on a massive rant on their talk page referring to numerous WP editors, including me specifically (I am the one who initiated the deletion discussions regarding the Alley of Angels article originally), as "a bunch of degenerates", "evil idiots", "not human", and "demons", as well as making racist comments referring to editors as "Anglo-Saxons" that are "racist by birth". This is not anywhere near the first time they have done this, as demonstrated by the previous discussion + many other comments. I do not think this user is going to learn from their actions or change their behavior - they've been on the site for over a decade and have continuously been disruptive and uncivil, intentionally ignoring clear consensus for deleting/merging articles when they don't like it ([167], [168] [169]) and showing disdain for policy and other users when challenged ([170], [171]).

I am not very knowledgeable about ANI procedures so I deeply apologize if I am interpreting the guidelines wrong, but I have to assume an indef is warranted here because it seems to me that this user is not interested in engaging with the editing community, consensus, or policy. HappyWith (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.