Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User running citation bot on others sandbox/draft pages

I have a concern about @Dominic3203: running the Citation Bot on other users' userspaces/sandboxes/draft pages without being asked to. I noticed that this happened to every single one of the draft articles I have in draft (see User:The C of E/unfa and User:The C of E/tfl for examples) I've had a look at the citation bot logs from the 10th of this month backwards shows he's done it to others too (User:Maxim Masiutin/sandbox/time being one such example @Maxim Masiutin:).

I've asked him why he did it but seems to have ignored me. I do think this is a little WP:INCIVIL to be doing this without asking editors if they'd like it. Can I ask if this would be something the admins could assist with please? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Less WP:INCIVIL (that's more for if the user responds in disrespectful ways) and more WP:COMMUNICATE (user not responsive). 172.56.234.76 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like he also tried to get AWB privileges, but didn't respond to a question there so it was denied: Special:Permalink/1225165878#User:Dominic3203. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, there's a tremendous number of edits invoked by Dominic3203 on other's userspace pages. I see a few other third-party uses, but it's very sporadic, 1 or 2 edits, unlike what Dominic3203 did. One problem is that Dominic3203 has a pattern of editing for a few days or as much as a week or two, then going away for a month or two, so the user may literally be not here to answer your query. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I must be old OLD school because I don't understand how an editor "runs" a bot but it leaves no trace in their own contributions. He otherwise doesn't look like a very active editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I guess because he's using the toolforge expand citation bot so the bot runs on a page but it handily tells us who ran it on the edit description. I think that's why because its the bot making the edit but the bot also points out who's responsible for it.

@Rsjaffe: I had considered that but given he has edited (and run the bot) after I left him a message, I felt concerned that it best to report here because it feels annoying at best and disruptive at worst to be doing things like that in people's userspaces. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's your responsibility to do so, but just FYI, for a low drama way to stop this, you can put {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on your drafts. I agree it's sort of uncool what they're doing, in a hard to define way. Not saying this is necessary at this point, but out of curiosity, is there actually a way to prevent someone from doing this? It's not on-wiki, so a block doesn't work. I don't know that there is a Citation Bot blacklist. Finally, not as an accusation but as a genuine question, did the Citation Bot run actually harm anything? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose not in terms of damage because its easy to just revert it but when its every single draft page page, its more of an irritant and very discourteous to be doing it without asking. I didn't know about the tag but it seems odd because no one expects to have someone to do this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, concern here is the waste of resources when the citation bot is running from the same common instance https://citations.toolforge.org/ also used by other Wikipedians, who end up with their requests processed slower. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Edits of my sandbox pages make no harm to anyone, but the excessive use of the bot on non-productive means which effectlively slows down the bot used for legitimate purposes of expanding citations on the main namespace - that is a point of concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Excessive misuse is a cause for concern in my view. Especially with the aforementioned declinations to engage on wiki with people who have questions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Any excessive use of Citation bot without double checking the results afterwards is cause for concern as well. I don't understand why Citation bot runs in namespaces other than 0 at all, and editors should not be modifying pages in the userspace of another editor without good reason (copyvio, povforks, blpvio, impersonation, etc are all good reasons; "a script might think it can improve citation metadata" is not). imho Folly Mox (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at Citation Bot's edits in User and Draft space and it's not limited to this editor, apparently many editors do this. Now that I've seen experienced editors setting up bot runs, I don't think this editor should be penalized. It's unusual given their level of experience but it's done by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you do need to be unblocked to Oauth for the bot to run. However, I am not saying this user needs a block for this, as it is basically harmlessly eccentric. Andre🚐 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I wasn't angling for a block for him at all. Just really wanted him to know that that sort of eccentric behaviour is not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be a little disruptive. I was hoping if the admins could impress that on him (as indeed consensus seems to say) and maybe find a way to stop it being used on userspaces without permission (albeit I know that last one might not be technically possible). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

At least the user should reply quickly if they run a bot. Running a bot and not replying I consider a harmful behaviour. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially since he has been editing since the notification and chosen not to come here to explain. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, OAuth was implemented for the bot such that edits did appear assigned to the editor, but there were immediate complaints about that behavior, so it was changed to the current behavior. I would have preferred otherwise, but so it goes. A consensus could conceivably come to another arrangement, but that's a discussion for another page and time for what seems like a minor annoyance... IznoPublic (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Izno, thanks for the clarification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Reporting a disruptive user & myself

Greetings. I require this board's attention on user RealEricson, who continues to publish disruptive edits while also marking them as 'minor' edits. I have reverted most of them, but the user continues. Now they are also trying to mock me by repeating my edit summaries with their new reverts. Last month [1], they also violated WP:PERSONAL but I did not report it.

Here are some diffs of their recent reverts/changes. Where they remove the sourced text, mostly replacing them with unsourced text, or adding poor quality refs that are not suitable: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

They also appear to be abusing multiple accounts/ban evading. (as per another user @Fylindfotberserk)

RealEricson is currently under investigation for sock puppetry as well.[9]

I request you guys to kindly look into this matter. And do what you think is best regarding the user.

Now about me, I unintentionally violated the 3RR rule at Sindhis today, I kept reverting to the stable ver. I was about to self-revert but it was too late. I would understand being temp-blocked for that as it is well within reason. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding your own edit warring issue, you technically didn't violate 3RR (the four reverts were made across two days, and not in a 24-hour span), although it is a "bright-line" rule rather than a formal definition of edit-warring. While you did still edit war, the fact that you stopped and realized the issue shows that (in my non-admin opinion at least) there shouldn't be a need to block you for this, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, here is the SPI case in question. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First thing I want to clear is that I'm not a sockpuppet, my account is old enough to be an indicator for this. The user who edited the sindhi page alongside me isn't related to me, and neither is this Hammad Baloch account.

Secondly, my edits aren't disruptive in any way, in fact atleast in one case one of your revisions of my edit can be considered disruptive, as you removed a genuine source that I added (see edits on Jadgal people page).

None of my revisions seem to be problematic? In the case of the Brahui page I saidd in edit logs that I removed Nazir Shakir Brahui's source as he isnt reliable especially on ethnography, his ideas being controversial.

The only problematic edit I might have made was removing Dravidian people from the related groups box, but I have sources to prove this that I didn't find the need to post (TLDR, dna tests have proved that brahuis have no genetic link to dravidians and are only linked by language, hence linking the brahui ETHNICITY to dravidians as a whole would be completely wrong).

The rest are small changes and there's nothing wrong with them, they are uncited because your own sources confirm the words mentioned (for exampe the gichkis being baloch regardless of their past origins which I also have doubts about).

My previous personal attack was due to my unfound assumption that you were on a spree of cultural appropriation of Baloch tradition and tribes, but im letting that go for a fair and proper debate, since my problem is with the edits not the editor. RealEricson (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

While Brahui's are very similar genetically to Baloch, "no genetic link to dravidians" would be an exaggeration since a large chunk of South Asian ancestry, shared by all, is IVC derived. It is also explained in the research paper linked in the Brahui article alongwith theories on various migration paths of those people. Not to mention Dravidian speakers are quite diverse themselves, varying along caste/coummunity/grographic lines. More importantly, the "related ethnic group" parameter isn't particularly restricted to ancestry, but linguistics as well. For example, the Macedonians (ethnic group) infobox includes Southern Slavic-speaking groups only, despite the fact that Greeks and Albanians are closer to them as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say Brahuis had no links to Dravidians, just that any DNA they shared was not much different from the DNA other neighbouring groups like Balochs shared with Dravidians. There has been a study done on this (L Pagani , 2017) , the researchers coming to the conclusion that Brahuis show no relationship to Dravidians and proposed some theories like total replacement, similar to what happened to the Magyars in Hungary, a stark shift from Finno-Ugric+Turkic Admixture to purely Central European. Just like Hungarians today are most closest to Slavic speaking Slovaks instead of their Finno Ugric ancestors, Brahuis are also closest to Iranic speaking Balochs rather than their supposed dravidian ghost ancestor.

Your example of Macedonians doesn't fit this example as Macedonians do have trace amount of slavic ancestry, more so than Greeks and Albanians. In the case of Brahuis there is no genetic component that makes them more dravidian shifted compared to their neighbours.

Based on this, I think only Baloch people should be placed in the related people section of the info box. If a source needs to be added to the infobox to confirm this, then so be it. RealEricson (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently my comment was rather "simplistic". I should have elaborated: 1) A major chunk of south Asian DNA is Harappan/IVC related, which in turn is mostly derived from an Iran N population related to Belt Cave hunter gatherers and Ganj Dareh herders (Rakhigarhi sample gets around 83%~ Iran N ancestry, and other InPe samples show similarly high percentages). This particular Iran N ancestry in question is alluded to as the carrier of Dravidian languages from Iran into South Asia by later papers (Narasimhan 2018, 2019, Shinde 2019). As for Pagani, it is a year older (2017) and didn't use aDNA from IVC and InPe areas, hence compared the Brahui with "modern Dravidian speakers from South India", but they did find a good chunk of the said component. In the "Fig 3" of the paper, the "ochre" colored component at K5, which is associated with "DR-Indians" or the "southern Dravidian group" does occur at 20-25% (some outliers getting much more) in both the Brahui and Baloch samples. They did talk about an "ancient Dravidian genetic substrate", though the total replacement theory wouldn't be correct. What's likely is that the (Proto)-Brahui were largely derived from remnant Dravidian speaking high Iran N IVC groups who later mixed with incoming west Iranian speaking (Proto)-Baloch groups, the latter bringing more ANF rich / BMAC like Iran related to the region, resulting in genetic similarity of both groups.

2) The second point is regarding linguistics, which is why I mentioned Macedonians (ethnic group). They, according to plot, are as much close to Greek and Albanian groups as to other southern Slavic populations (the Croatian/Slovenian samples and Greek/Albanian samples are equidistant from the Macedonian average), but the infobox parameter - "Related ethnic groups" only mentions other "South Slavic groups" and not the Greeks and the Albanians. The only reason I see for this exclusion seem to be the language families. If that's the case, what's stopping us from adding "Dravidian people" in the Brahui article? When they share the same language group (as well as substantial (historic)ancestry as explained above). I wouldn't have a problem including both "Baloch" and "Dravidian peoples" in that parameter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

" What's likely is that the (Proto)-Brahui were largely derived from remnant Dravidian speaking high Iran N IVC groups who later mixed with incoming west Iranian speaking (Proto)-Baloch groups, the latter bringing more ANF rich / BMAC like Iran related to the region, resulting in genetic similarity of both groups. "

I would agree with this theory, this seeming the most viable explanation for brahui origins, but the main thing going against it is that Brahuis and Balochs do not have any difference in their ancestry compositions. I have seen both compared side to side and baloch samples did not have more ANF and bmac related ancestry than Brahuis,instead having the same amount or sometimes less. Same with Brahuis,no extra Iran N or AASI.

To make sure, I also have samples from Iranian Balochs,who wouldn't have encountered this proto Brahui substrate as they live further west. But still the same ancestral composition, and no higher amount of ANF or BMAC. The one or two outliers having more ANF seem like examples of mixed people (Balochs with extra Persian or Kurd-like ancestry).

As for your last proposal, I would be inclined to it but the fact is that the Brahuis have no unique cultural or genetic links to Dravidians that aren't already shared by neighboring groups like the Baloch or Sindhi. Putting them in the related info box purely for language seems disingenuous if only 15% of the vocabulary is dravidian, the rest derived from indo aryan or Iranian languages. RealEricson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not the appropriate forum for content discussion which should take place on article talk pages. This noticeboard is for discussions about any alleged misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I won't continue this discussion regarding the Brahui info box anymore since I'm mostly ok with both Balochs and dravidian people being added.

I've already given my argument regarding so called misconducts quite far back. Read it if you want. RealEricson (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason I removed nazir Shakir Brahui's rise of a brahui consciousness is that it's a political text, promoting a political ideology (Brahui nationalism), which shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia page solely about ethnicity. It would be like citing white supremacist texts in the Wikipedia page about White people.

And it's unreliable and wrong on many of it's wording. It says that Brahui is spoken natively by the Brahui language, HOWEVER a large part of the brahui people adopted the language (this being recorded in their folk history as well as written sources). This includes the Lehri, Langove and Bangulzai tribe,who previously natively spoke Balochi, or tribes like the Zehri or Mengal, who previously spoke Jadgali.

Second is the word Brahuistan itself, which actually isn't used by Brahuis for their homeland.Instead they call it Balochistan. He says that folk tradition of Brahuis calls their area Brahuistan, yet one of the most famous Brahui folk songs Danah pa dana calls the area Balochistan, if you want to confirm this go listen to the song and also read the caption.

Lastly, he says the British contemplated renaming the area Brahuistan in account of the fact that Brahuis ruled the region and were a majority, which he is right about. However the british went forward with Balochistan not because of the great game (i don't know what the great game has to do with this) but rather the wishes of the Khan of Kalat himself, who styled himself Ameer e Balochistan

I would be inclined to delete the entire page about Brahuistan based on this but I've only removed Nazir's bogie source since Brahuistan is a good term to describe the area where Brahuis live. Also Nazir Shakir's own ideology is a failure and has limited support,with most Brahuis backing the more popular ideology of Baloch nationalism.

Basically, don't use political manifestos as sources.

@Rasteem RealEricson (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please add @Rasteem to the ongoing report for personal attack (accusing me of sock puppeting despite the fact that the case going against me is inconclusive according to one admin's opinion), edit warring and pov pushing, most evident on the page about Bhurgari, where said user overrides my edit without reading my edit summary which provided a fine reason. Also see brahuistan, where the user engages in the same behavior.

I will stop edit warring on these pages and let an admin read each of our arguments and determine the way forward. RealEricson (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@RealEricson, I'm not the only one who believe You're a sock of @HamadBaloch: but Fylindfotberserk[10] also believe you're socking here. Do not ping me again as I'm not involved in this discussion. I've reverted your non-constructive edits made with misleading/false edit summaries[11][12] & removal of sourced content.[13][14] You should start discussion on related article talk pages for the consensus or use content dispute resolution. ®asteem Talk 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, you are now a part of this discussion and a party to ongoing report. You have taken sir calculus's stance on every edit you have made, and the fact that he has reported himself as well (meaning that we are both defendants and plaintiffs) means you will be part of this discussion too.

Also,like I said the report against me for being a sock has been given the status of inconclusive by an admin, so you have removed my edits for a still ongoing report which hasn't concluded.

Lastly, I gave my reasons for removal of sources content (now added to the talk pages of each article too), yet you reversed the edits without taking them into account, which reeks of POV-pushing.

Don't try to run away now. RealEricson (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I reported myself for unintentionally violating the 3RR at Sindhis. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The user who edited the sindhi page alongside me isn't related to me

The timing is very odd. An account with only 7 edits returns to make a similar revert.[15] Furthermore, they also removed an academic reference just like you did at the Dodai tribe article.[16]

my edits aren't disruptive in any way, in fact atleast in one case one of your revisions of my edit can be considered disruptive, as you removed a genuine source that I added (see edits on Jadgal people page).

You removed sourced content, you also removed the academic reference and instead added a ref regarding a nationalist opinion on an article about an ethnic group rather than an academic ref about the group. That's not 'genuine'.[17] Here you replace the sourced text and POV-push.[18] What is also odd is you posting all that as 'minor' edits.

None of my revisions seem to be problematic? In the case of the Brahui page I saidd in edit logs that I removed Nazir Shakir Brahui's source as he isnt reliable especially on ethnography, his ideas being controversial.

Other editors clearly disagree. Your recent edits have been reverted by others, and you have also been warned regarding the removal/blanking of cited content. Regarding your edit on Brahuistan, you removed an academic ref as well.[19] Now about Nazir, first establish which 'ideas' in the article are controversial?

The reason I removed nazir Shakir Brahui's rise of a brahui consciousness is that it's a political text, promoting a political ideology (Brahui nationalism), which shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia page solely about ethnicity. It would be like citing white supremacist texts in the Wikipedia page about White people.

It is clearly not a political text or a 'manifesto' as you claim. And relating it to white supremacist texts is simply ridiculous. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It quite literally is

Nazir Shakir Brahui is the most vocal proponent of Brahui nationalism, a fringe ideology who propose the establishment of a Brahuistan separate from Balochistan in the territory of Sarawan and Jhalawan.

The fact that the ideology is fringe is shown by the fact that no prominent Brahui has shown support for it in Brahuistan itself, it's support coming entirely from Brahuis living in Sindh (and their opinion doesn't matter, since they don't live in Brahuistan). Nazir Shakir himself is a Sindhi.

The ideology promotes various pseudo historical claims, like Brahuis being descendants of the Indus Valley (proven wrong by genetic studies, Brahuis have more genetic links to civilizations like the BMAC instead like neighbouring Balochs).it also promotes vicious anti baloch hatred,which has been one of the reason it hasn't taken off, and also why I gave the example of white supremacism here.

If my given source by a jadgal baloch nationalist can be removed,why not this? Since both are political in nature. RealEricson (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also please read the rest of my argument where I completely debunk each of his points. RealEricson (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I removed the academic reference on the Brahuistan page by accident, because that source was being used to cite a completely different piece of text. The text itself shows the range of Brahuistan,while the text it cited said something about the goals of Brahui nationalism,probably from Nazir's manifesto. RealEricson (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Lastly, about the sockpuppet allegation. The grammar seems too rudimentary to be me, I've always given links to hypertexts and capitalized important words. RealEricson (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask you some questions.

On the Jadgali Language page, your own source has to say this:

www.elararchive.org. Retrieved 2024-04-08. Jadgal people......... Only their language distinguishes them from others in the region. They share the same traditions and customs with the Baloch people

Yet you cherrypicked another line, and didn't add this one. Clear example of POV pushing. RealEricson (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

your own source has to say this

Yet you cherrypicked another line, and didn't add this one.

At least verify what you are writing. I neither inserted that ref in that article nor did I insert its quote. Another editor did.[20]

I do not add such sources. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To quote Liz above, ANI is not the appropriate forum for content discussion which should take place on article talk pages. This noticeboard is for discussions about any alleged misconduct. If there are suspicions of sockpuppetry, then let the existing report work and submit evidence there. I note the talk page in question is blank; discuss content there. In general, discussion (and other steps in WP:DR) should be attempted before either reverting a bunch of times or ANI; less drama, more progress. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've already created two requests on the talk pages of separate articles that I changed. I'll discuss the problems I have with content there.

I'll also agree that anything about me being a sock will be discussed on the talk page of the above report.

But this AN incident thread should still continue for some problems.

For example, SirCalculus and Rasteem's allegations that i'm POV-pushing and edit warring,and my own counter allegation that they are quite literally doing the things they accuse me of themselves.

Anyways, I don't have anything to say for now till one of the parties reply or an admin intervenes. RealEricson (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

and my own counter allegation that they are quite literally doing the things they accuse me of themselves.

Read WP:PERSONAL. If you have accusations then provide diffs. Like the other editor and I did. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have provided examples for you in the Jadgali language page, where you removed my given sourced text, and also on the Sindhi page where you continuously removed my added image for no reason.

And for rasteem for removing normal edits on the Bhurgari and Sardarzehi pages for no reason, other than possibly POV pushing. RealEricson (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted Jadgali language because of your unconstructive edits. The citation you claim I 'added' was not 'added' by me. It was a result of this revert. I also already provided the diff proving that in this thread above.

Regarding, Sindhis, the reason was provided in the edit summary. You made a controversial change by removing a longstanding image, with a misleading edit summary. That image too is scheduled for deletion.

Your edits on Sardarzahi were not just reverted by Rasteem, but another editor as well, who believes you were block evading. Furthermore, Rasteem seems to have reverted most of your recent edits clearly to prevent possible disruption. As some of your edits include removal/blanking of sourced content. In the diffs, provided in this thread, some of the references were RS. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The Friday Times article clearly does not appear to be a 'manifesto'. Just your words alone do not make him a supremascist. A citation to support your text will. Regarding your bottom text, it is because the article is about an ethnic group. Not for nationalist text. Regarding Nazir, kindly cite some sources of him being a nationalist or a supremascist. From what I surfed today, he does not appear to be a supremacist. He's a director at the Brahui Research Institute per his Linkedin. If he is what you say he is, then I have no objections over his ref's removal. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Go to his quora page page and have a look.

/profile/Nazir-Shakir-Brahui/https-www-quora-com-Do-the-Baloch-people-of-Pakistan-share-any-cultural-or-historical-ties-with-the-Sindhi-people-answ https://www.quora.com/profile/Nazir-Shakir-Brahui/https-www-quora-com-Do-the-Baloch-people-of-Pakistan-share-any-cultural-or-historical-ties-with-the-Sindhi-people-answ?ch=15&oid=107022520&share=926c742b&srid=F3ePZ&target_type=post

According to him:

"Yes. In the fifteenth century, Baloch settled in Punjab and Sindh. Then the Kalhoras kept them as hired killers, then prepared an army against them. Then the Baloch took over the government of their Kalhora and founded the Talpur government in Sindh. In 1843, the British defeated the Talpurs badly and established the British government. The Baloch nobles accepted the slavery of the British and obtained large jageers. Now they exist as feudal lords in Sindh, Punjab and modern Balochistan.

Common Baloch people do theft, extortion, robbery, murder, kidnapping. This is their real profession." RealEricson (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, reply to my post debunking his claims in the Friday times article. RealEricson (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Good find! This is conclusive. I have no objections on removing his ref at Brahuistan (region). Sir Calculus (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Yemen meh's unreferenced edits

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

@Yemen meh: was warned four times in their talk page for unreferenced edits, and to use the edit summary. This is the editor's most recent edit [21]. All edits from the editor are unreferenced and without an edit summary. There's also no communication from the editor. Hotwiki (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The editor is new to Wikipedia as their account is just 8 days old. Therefore, I think a little time off will do, and also recommending them to familiarize themselves with the basic guidelines will do. We have all been there, and we've worked our way up. Just my opinion tho. dxneo (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that this editor is either not noticing or ignoring user talk page messages. A block may be necessary to make them take notice. Back in the day, before people started trying to follow Facebook et al., we made sure that people read talk page messages by splashing a banner right across the page when they were editing anything. I yearn for those days. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

After being reported here, the new editor is still not posting references.[22][23][24] Still no communication as well. Hotwiki (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Phil, temporary block will do. Seems like they are interested, but just don't know how it works. dxneo (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

Afil has died. See ro:Wikipedia:Wikipediști decedați/2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not notice that the account is globally locked, so it does not require admin intervention. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My condolences to their family, friends and colleagues; thanks for letting us know. All the best, Miniapolis 22:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Memory eternal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Condolences. But please it's not an incident. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ahri Boy, that's not necessary. But typically, these deceased notifications are posted at WP:AN not WP:ANI. But I don't think anyone will object to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You might wish to post at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I've crossposted it there, thanks tgeorgescu for posting this. jp×g🗯️ 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

64.189.18.X resumption after 1-month timeout

Not much else to say here, other than 64.189.18.0/24 (talk · contribs · count) (recently 64.189.18.13) has resumed the destructive behavior detailed in this ANI post that resulted in a 1-month block by @Black Kite, without any acknowledgement or adjustment whatsoever. Remsense ‥ 论 04:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to be impatient and fatalistic: I would appreciate an admin replacing this block sooner rather than later, since I have had to resume the reversion of nearly every edit this user makes since it expired on the 14th. I cannot stress enough that their behavior is perfectly identical to before, including the total lack of interest in communication or discretion. Remsense ‥ 论 23:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone takes a look: they will likely never stop behaving in this remarkably ignorant way, making messes like this one for others to clean up. Their behavior grates me particularly, but they also routinely make disruption exactly that noxious to the general community almost daily. They do not communicate, they do not care, and they need to get sent on their way. Remsense ‥ 论 08:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the /24 for another three months. If the editor begins to communicate this might be revisited. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent WP:VGSCOPE problems at Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX series articles

• 60.241.241.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not surprised this has been going on for the past week, but this anonymous user is persistently adding unsourced in-game information to these articles. I've seen most of this editing at the article about 2, where it became full-on edit warring on 13 October, which led to a 24-hour block immediately after. This repeated addition has since resumed at 2 immediately after the block expired, and does not appear to show any signs of stopping (bar the gaps between edits since). The problem here is that the information at issue violates WP:VGSCOPE#6: lists of characters without secondary sources, and WP:VGSCOPE#7: unsourced lists of levels.

At this point, I would like to see to it that an admin looks into this and take action as appropriate. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The disruption seems to be coming in intermittent bursts, which makes this less of a "it's stale" issue. I blocked the IP editor for two weeks to avoid semi-protecting the articles. If that doesn't do it, contact me, and I guess we can try other stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at WP:ITNC by Kasperquickly

User:Kasperquickly has been making personal attacks and repeatedly disparaging the agreed-upon criteria of WP:ITNR, events automatically presumed notable enough for ITN. They had received a final warning PA warning in August 2024, likely for their remarks on the Sinking of the Bayesian, where they equated the topic's appearance at ITN to the Titan Submersible incident last year, and stating that but i guess one has to have an iq of over a 100 to be capable of that. That was in August 2024, and this type of editing has continued to this day. The IQ comments had begun earlier in July 2024.

More recently, on 6 October, an item on the Sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui, a ship from New Zealand, was in ITN, where their vote included "unimportant country (I didn't even know they had a military or a navy)". After a few editors (including an administrator, if I recall correctly) reacted negatively to that comment in particular, they responded with there is such thing though, this palce has been filled with news about elections in pacific micronations with populations of 10,000 people for no other reason than the local editors wanting to virtue signal others how liberal they are. The remarks disparaging sports and ITNR elections continued here on 11 October.

The most recent act has been today on October 17, on the ITN blurb discussion for Liam Payne, who recently died. Their first comment on the topic had instantly veered into questioning the ITNR status of worldwide elections, calling it sloppy. Later on, they replied to another editor defending ITNR by stating it's not about being far away, it's the geopolitical improtance, you're either feigning ignorance or your actual ignorant if you think elections in CAR or Micronesia are just as important like those in Germany or Indonesia. Following this and another editor's explanation of ITNR, as well as Kasperquickly's usage of forum terminology, they responded with this comment, repeating phrases that had gotten attention for bordering personal attacks.

I was not involved in any of these, however the action of consistently disparaging the existence of ITNR and ad hominem attacks at those rebutting them, as well as repetition of personal attacks, is not helping the ITN project. I think that this user should have a topic ban imposed on them from the ITN project for this behaviour, if one is appropriate; no comment on their non-ITN space edits. These personal attacks aren't meant for specific people, but rather anyone in the ITN discussion that disagrees with their positions. (By the way, this is my first ANI post; I believe this is the correct place for this, please tell me if it isn't. Cheers!) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Was blocked in July for 1 week by Star Mississippi for "personal attacks or harassment". Doesn't seem to have learned from that experience. The above is quite a rap sheet for an editor with <700 edits. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Daniel for the ping. I blocked based on this ANI and noted I went high for a first timer due to the same behavior that has apparently continued. I don't have time to dig into the links above but endorse a longer block. Star Mississippi 21:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Kasperquickly for one month for disruptive editing, which includes POV pushing and trolling such as this gem yep, kek is a known nazi word only nazis use (wikipedia says so, must be true), and retarded is a word only sexists and racists use (wikipedia says so, must be true). seriously man, touch grass. Not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the second time on ANI tonight that I've seen the quote, "Touch grass". What is that supposed to mean? Old timer, here (I guess). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

it's zoomer-speak for saying someone doesn't go outside enough - wikt:touch grass ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clueing me in and providing that link. Wiktionary says To spend time outside, off of the Internet and that makes sense. Much appreciated, Sawyer777. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst making poorly disguised personal attacks and hosting WP:POLEMIC content in his userpage

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

---

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

I know, I know, we all thought we were done here, but LB is posting childish attacks on his userpage [25] apparently thinking he is very clever to be posting the names backwards. He clearly has a serious issue with knowing when to drop the stick. This immature foolishness needs to stop. I don't think simply undoing the edits is sufficient, this is a deliberate, malicious provocation right after a thread about his uncivil behavior was just closed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How about we just ignore it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Easy for you to say, you got "godfather of trolls" on his list of dicks. Top billing even. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, how about you just ignore it. Since you're complimenting AndyTheGrump on his "top billing", you're clearly not offended in the slightest. Suggest you find someone else to interact with, for a year or several. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. [26] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, simple, policy forbids this kind of content anywhere, specifically on user pages. There's no reason to be doing this and nothing good can possibly come of it. It is indefensible. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

JSS, you complain that Lightburst needs to drop the stick, but it looks to me like you are the editor who needs to do just that. I saw the user page edit, was mildly puzzled by it, but didn't understand the meaning (spell the usernames backwards) until you explained it here. After you posted this and this on Lightburst's talk, you did the opposite and kept watching, looking for something to raise here at ANI. You should unwatch, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You've arrived at a conclusion not in evidence. I was not looking for something to raise here at ANI and I don't think shooting the messenger is an appropiate response to trolling. You don't seem to have considered other possibilities, including a third party letting me know my name was being dragged into user space trolling. I didn't expect this, or want it. I never would've imagined that he would actually be this infantile and I don't want anything to do with him, but he keeps bringing my name back up. He's not a victim here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What's truly indefensible is the conduct of Wikipediocracy users these past 8 months. The guideline you cite says "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". The list was related to Wikipedia, in that it relates to the conduct of Wikipedia users on WPO, who have acted in disruptive and hounding behavior. If you don't like Lightburst, simply stop interacting with them. Remove their userpage and talk page from your watchlist. Simple enough solution, instead of dragging them to ANI yet again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you know? it’s in some kind of complicated indecipherable code. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that Floq removed the userpage content that has been objected to here. I agree with that, and I think it solves the problem. I hope that we can all more on, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

So, we're just going to let trolling pass from someone who was just at ANI for their ridiculous behavior because one of the targets of the trolling happen to notice they were being accused of trolling/being a dick? Seems totally reasonable. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's how you see it, then don't feed the troll. (And, strictly speaking, you didn't just "happen to notice".) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Why does how I became aware of trolling make it not trolling? Is this a special rule just for me or does everyone now need to explain how they baecame aware that their name was being besmirched by a troll? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear that the community is going to be able to resolve this matter. Perhaps it’s time to refer the matter to Arbcom, including WPO’s influence regarding the entire mess. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I was about to post the same. I don't know the full history here but this seems like an longstanding, intractable dispute between groups of multiple users. It's clearly not suddenly going to be resolved in this ANI thread, especially given the off-wiki element. Pinguinn 🐧 00:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no off-wiki element to LB openly trolling other users on his WP userpage. It's obvious, childish, malicious trolling. Usually that gets a person a block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how that could work in practice. As much as I appreciate ArbCom for their help in regards to another issue I was involved with earlier this year, I concur with the user who suggested in the last ANI thread that the Trust & Safety team may be the more appropriate venue for this now. There are at least 1-way interaction bans that should be issued against several of the users who have been hounding and gaslighting Lightburst this past year... if not outright site-bans. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As has been frequently remarked here, in relation to other topics, nobody needs to obtain consensus or consent here at ANI to start an ArbCom case on anything. The same applies to contacting Trust and Safety. My only advice to anyone proposing to do either would be to take into consideration that their own behaviour is also certain to receive scrutiny. And in particular, that the repeated use of noticeboards etc to make allegations about alleged improper behaviour, unaccompanied by evidence to actually back it up, even after it has repeatedly been requested, has real potential to rebound. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't get the full image, but the userpage diff provided is surely an evidence of unacceptable behavior (uhh, crossing the red line?). If someone can point me out where users are "hounding" LB (as Homeostasis07 said) that'd help me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Such evidence cannot be linked on a public forum like ANI. For instance, AndyTheGrump accused me in the previous ANI of an "utterly evidence-free attempt to link me with imaginary doxxing on WPO." I was indeed doxed by a certain user on Wikipediocracy, who not-so-cleverly repeatedly misspelled my username as "homostasis" when posting what they thought were my personal details. I'm not homosexual, but I have LGBTQ+ friends and family members, so I consider the repeated intentional "misspelling" of my name to be a derogatory slur. But I can't provide a link to those WPO posts without one of the WPO regulars accusing me of doxing them. That's a fairly typical example of WPO harassment, obfuscation, and gaslighting that users here have been dealing with. And it needs to stop. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I guess ANI thread isn't doing the job anytime soon then. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I can find no evidence whatsoever that anyone was 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy under the misspelled name 'homostasis' I am going to formally request that Homeostasis07 provide evidence of such supposed 'doxxing' by email to a member of ArbCom. Pick any ArbCom member you like. Just ask that they confirm or deny such evidence exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I object! Not to all the hot air being blown in this thread, but to my old nicely-organized userpage being turned into a chaotic mess! Images? On the side??? Put them in the centre, like a normal person! Lightburst, you can do better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Htap T - Soldier troll"?

More baseless guilt by association bullshit that lacks any merit. This is the third time in a week that LB has called me a troll. ATG got a block for less than this last time. Do we have different standards for different editors depending on whether there has been pile ons regarding civility in the past? TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if Wikipedia users weren't associating with WPO users provably guilty of wrongdoing, it would be much easier to dispel any talk of "guilt by association". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Take your gaslighting and excusing bad behaviour elsewhere. I'm not interested in it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wait, as an admin completely uninvolved in whatever off-wiki drama keeps getting alluded to here, do we have an editor (i.e. Lightburst) who, while in a dispute with a number of other editors, posted their names under the not-so-cleverly concealed header "dicks" and proceeded to label them as trolls on their user page? And most of you in this thread are, like, ok with that? If I had seen that post before I saw this thread, I would have blocked for 48 hours. Is Lightburst an exception to our policies regarding civility? Because whatever is happening (vague hand wave) over there is one thing, but this is unacceptable behaviour here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  So if Editor X trolls Editor Y on WPO, that's OK, but if Editor Y then trolls Editor X on Wikipedia, that's not OK? Levivich (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are incidences of trolling happening off-wiki involving Wikipedia editors, then evidence can be provided to Arbcom. Accusations of such behaviour are not carte blanche to violate our policies here. Are you suggesting that anyone who is in an off-wiki dispute, whether it be WPO or otherwise, can host personal attacks on their talk page regarding active editors on this project? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not "if," we are all 100% sure that trolling is happening on WPO, because it's public. You can go verify that for yourself if you want. Evidence has been provided not only to arbcom, but also posted on wiki. When WPO trolls Editor X, I wouldn't characterize Editor x as "in an off-wiki dispute." Levivich (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

WPO doesn't have any policies against trolling WP editors, there's nothing we can do about that. But WP does have policies against trolling and LB knows that, so what he did was wrong, and he knows that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

WPO may not have policies, but Wikipedia does. Our policy on off-wiki attacks states that personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it and that Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process. So I'm not sure there's strictly nothing we can do about the former. We can and should do something about the off-wiki behavior as much as we can and should do something about the on-wiki behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but what LB did was still wrong and he knows that, which is why this report was initiated in the first place. And as you correctly point out and quote, we do have a policy, and there is a process to follow, but for some reason, LB chose not to use that process, and instead, engaged in the same behavior as his tormentors, which can now be used against him as admissible evidence. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me that LightBurst hasn't even seen fit to come here and apologise for his behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are we heading?

It's kinda easy to tell this 2nd ANI thread is not going to resolve the dispute. Even if this ANI is closed, the same issue would fire up some time later and get taken to ANI again. Where are we heading with this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Based on the result (or, more likely, lack thereof) of this discussion, I may file at RFAR. Sincerely, Dilettante 02:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Perhaps a block on LB’s account until they commit to cease the personal attacks? Could be over and done in minutes. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

LB is provably not the user responsible for personal attacks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Those edits to his user page are concerning and could be considered PAs. I can’t speak to the harassment on WPO, but I take you at your word that it’s happening. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A block of LB would prevent further trolling. TarnishedPath^talk 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is going to fly to Arbcom, isn't it? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Something going to ArbCom doesn't prevent the community from taking any action. Stating that it should be only handled by ArbCom may be a stalling tactic especially in the absence of an actual case. Even if a request is made to ArbCom for a case, there is no guarantee they will take it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning left-and-right here, after taking a look through the mentioned WPO threads about LB and Homeostasis (and WPO site admin's "comments" on it), and examining how the thing in the thread has gone so far. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand you and that stuff may result in a ArbCom case, however there is zero excuse for LB's wilful trolling. It's simply not justified. TarnishedPath^talk 04:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not start this thread as an intentional prelude to an ArbCom case, I expected an admin would see this childish trolling and issue a block of some sort, as it usual when someone with LB's level of experience suddenly just starts out-and-out trolling. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming I do think this may be a case of the community not being able to handle certain issues and it may be time for a case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would add that that nobody in any of these comments is expressing surprise or puzzlement that LB made a "list of dicks" using an infantile secret code. Nobody seems to think this is out-of-character and the account may be compromised, they are just finding other excuses for it. It says something that this is the case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out somewhere (maybe the previous section would have been better? maybe this section but not as a reply to JSS? too many choices too late in the day on a Friday) that the list has been off the page for a full day now. Not all policy violations require a block. Some of them can be smoothed over by removing the problem, letting tempers simmer down, and seeing if it recurs. Removal instead of blocking is not condoning or "finding excuses for it". I do not condone LB's post, nor their attacks on several WPians whose only "crime" is being a WPO member. That can't continue. But I can give afford to give some small amount of grace to someone who is being harassed by other WPO members, and see if just removing the list works first. LB has not edited WP since then. let's see what happens. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hear you but also WP:ANIFLU is a thing when one knows they have just done something monumentally stupid and out-of-bounds. That's worth considering. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are about as far away from AGF as it is possible to get right now, beeblebrox.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

CBAN proposal

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

---

For engaging in wilful trolling as demonstrated by the diff provided by JSS I propose that LightBurst be indefinitely CBAN'ed. TarnishedPath^talk 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, looking at how LB tried to avoid detection by reversing usernames I guess IBAN won't do anything but generate a 3rd ANI... I'm leaning towards supporting a CBAN. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Slight Oppose I agree that wider investigations needs to take place. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. It has become clear in the discussion above that a wider examination of the entire circumstance needs to take place, either at ArbCom or even the Trust & Safety team. This is a preemptive CBAN proposal by a potential involved party, presumably in hope of the wider examination not taking place. So if anything... a WP:BOOMERANG for obfuscation. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your statements about my intentions are entirely lacking in evidence of any sort. I'd ask you to strike your WP:ASPERSION however given your WP:ABF I won't hold my breath. TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Seems excessive. If LB wants to look infantile on his user page, it doesn't harm anyone but him. There may well be broader grounds for a block (the socking some years back, and the subsequent personal-attack-ridden denials come to mind), but they need to be discussed properly before any CBAN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, unchanged opinion since the last time I !voted at one of these, which wasn't long ago, and am close to supporting one for Homeostasis07 as well for their disruptive defense of LB which includes multiple castings of WP:ASPERSIONS of their own. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Can_comments_from_Wikipediocracy_be_linked_directly_on_a_request_for_arbitration_case? Because enough is enough of the harassment. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and kick to ArbComm. ANI isn't going to resolve this and enough is enough. @Lightburst I say this politely: enough. Whatever the merits you feel with the Camp & Lake, trolling isn't the answer. Star Mississippi 03:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. LB has demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behaviour and so a CBAN as a preventative measure is justified. TarnishedPath^talk 03:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - In one of the multiple threads in the public forums on WPO about Lightburst, somebody named "TarnishedPath" posted an ironic message, The suggestion that canvassing had occurred it pure idiocy. Somebody else named "Beeblebrox" has posted there more than 10 times. I'll email the link to arbcom rather than posting here. What I don't understand is whether you guys think we won't notice this? Or we won't care? Or it's OK to do this? But I do support Floq's removal of the ill-considered userpage content, and @LB: don't sink down to their level, let it go. Levivich (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know what you meant by WPO, but holy damn that thread's a hug concern for me. I guess that's why ANI failed us this time? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if that was a comment I wrote, there is absolutely zero evidence of me engaging in harassment. Claims of misbehaviour require evidence supporting them, not just stuff you don't like because hey fuck it lets just hang everyone for the vaguest of connections. TarnishedPath^talk 04:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

When one editor talks about another editor on both websites while pretending they're not talking about the editor on both websites, and then expresses indignancy at the other editor complaining about it, even going so far as to propose a CBAN, I find that behavior so blatantly duplicitous as to be morally repugnant, even more-so if the editor uses the same username on both websites. It stirs strong feelings in me and compels me to take action like emailing the link to arbcom. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You're talking out of your backside. You and I both know that any comments I've made have not been personal attacks. I first became aware of WPO precisely because of the complaint that LB started about ATG. I find your guilt by association bullshit morally repugnant. TarnishedPath^talk 05:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment LB is not a new user and has had numerous conduct related issues come to this forum and others in the past; so given that context I find it absolutely baffling why anyone would think it's acceptable for them to make a "List of Richards" (e.g., "dicks") and not merit sanctions. This isn't a user who didn't know better. This is someone who took time and effort into making and then masking a direct personal attack against several other editors. I am not voting one way or another because I don't know if a CBAN is the right sanction or not, but a slap on the wrist and "don't do that" is beyond insufficient. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

But the fact is, Swatjester, is that LB is aware they are under scrutiny and they had to know that this addition to their User page would be noted pretty much immediately either here or on WPO (or both). And that's what happened. So, I don't really think there was a serious attempt to hide anything. It seems like basic trolling to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's assume you're correct -- does that make any difference? Either way, it's deliberate and intentional, and we expect better. The issue isn't the poor attempt at hiding the personal attack, it's the attack itself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that if anything "knew they were under scrutiny and deliberately attempted to provoke their perceived opponents" is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one here. Wikipedia userpages aren't a place to settle personal scores with 'enemies'.

I don't fully understand all the off-wiki background here, but if there is really an actionable case then LightbreatherLightburst should have taken it to ArbCom, who are capable of dealing with off-wiki evidence, rather than acting like the schoolchild who keeps poking at their classmate until they snap at them in order to get them in trouble. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC) (corrected by mix-up in editor names Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC))

And.... that's ok to you? Lulfas (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, assuming Lightburst doesn't do anything monumentally shortsighted like restoring the user page. WP:BRINE aside, I don't feel comfortable with a cban given the circumstances. With that said, Lightburst has a history, and I can't promise I won't support if there's a next time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, excessive. Nobody (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose since this incident has been handled by Floq, however, if the conduct continues, I'd encourage an admin to take decisive action and block LB to prevent another ANI timesink. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're nowhere near that point yet. But that list was a major violation of user page standards (and of course of civility), and is a black mark on Lightburst's record. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but Lightburst is on thin ice and the ice is getting thinner. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nowheere near CBAN territory, it does matter how the reporter found it, this report reads like an attempt to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - out of proportion to the matter, which has been dealt with by an admin. An indefinite CBAN would require community consent to overturn, and that would be an unfair bar to clear, particularly as this seems to have been created in a fit of pique, and is not the measure of the editor. But it would be helpful if Lightburst would recognise that TarnishedPath did them a favour here in proposing the most stringent ban and not something more targeted and moderate. In the barely closed thread above I pointed out the aspersions being thrown around, and some fairly disgraceful comments intended to discourage a proficient editor [27] I say again what I said there: this has to stop. Sadly that thread was then derailed onto discussion of alleged provocation of Lightburst, but nothing excuses these repeated attacks aimed at that editor.
  Because that thread was closed early, the behaviour was not challenged, and Lightburst doubled down, e.g with [28] And it is not just the aspersions against one editor either. Guilt by association is also an aspersion. Yngvadottir sided with Lightburst throughout the discussion, and, it seems, does not hide their identity when posting on the taboo site. But here they are told that they cannot say they are not a troll simply because they post messages where alleged trolls can read them. Guilt by association. Aspersions. If there is off-wiki coordination to shepherd something off the platform, the evidence needs to be presented and action can be taken. But we are not going to assume every Wikipedian who has a Twitter account is a troll simply because they cavort on a platform filled with bullies and trolls. WP:ASPERSIONS are sanctionable. But not, I think, by a community indef. At least not here. Lightburst needs to bear this carefully in mind. Provocation is no more a defence here than the time I stood before my headmaster trying to explain why KS had suddenly acquired a nose bleed. The Tipex on my blazer was deemed irrelevant. We can behave better. This has to stop, and apologies are overdue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. But I think the community has limited patience for this type of thing, so I would suggest there is no repeat of it. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and kick to arbcom I'm not happy about what lightburst did to me specifically the other day, but there needs to be an arbcom case here. The behaviour of editors on WPO is not acceptable either, and makes this case more gray than it otherwise would be. There's no reason to call it coördination (as lightburst seems to think), but I think a good case can be made for harassment. And when you don't seem to mind when the comment directly above yours is stuff like this... Look, the named wikipedia editors might be too smart to be the ones slinging insults directly most of the time, but they're still still playing a role, even if that role is coached in civil language. WPO has some lofty goals, but I don't think it's achieving more than upsetting editors through low level harassment in this particular case, and I want them to cut it the fuck out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• I think LB has very clearly earned a block of some sort for this overt malicious trolling, but I don't think a case has been made (in one place, at this exact moment) for a cban. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see this as trolling of other Wikipedia editors, so much as trolling people at WPO. (But yes, I do realize that quite a few of these people, including JSS, are also editors in good standing here.) I think someone who understandably feels mistreated by people at another website can vent about it without being CBANned for it. Floq removed the list of backwards names (and I removed the header), and Lightburst has not (at this time) restored any of it, so a CBAN would be very excessive. And a block would potentially be punitive, rather than preventive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Lightburst was clearly attacking people from another website who comment on Wikipedia. Sure, these people happen to share the usernames of Wikipedians, but we have to assume they're not the same until they publicly disclose the account. Userspace should not be used for polemics of any kind and this was correctly removed, but it doesn't carry the full weight of personal attacks against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we assume, for the sake of common sense, that they are the same people, the context makes it distinct from personal attacks on Wikipedians. (If, purely hypothetically, LB were to have edit warred to keep the userpage material after it had been reverted, I would be taking a different position on a block.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  So, if a troll attacks people who we aren't sure are Wikipedians trolling is fine?

  That's putting aside that several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO, and (I know the haters won't like this as they assume the worst at all times about WPO) the mods there actually do their best to verify such things and will block accounts they suspect are using the exact same name as known Wikipedians if they seem to be impersonating them. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, here on WP are baffling to me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let's be fair here, the WPO people are trolling back at least as hard, and there's a couple more of them, Several of whom I would immediately seek sanctions against if their behavior were to be on wikipedia itself. Repeatedly calling an editor on wikipedia "brainfart" in lieu of their actual handle is not exactly the kind of behavior that invites a civil response. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that. And under these circumstances, I feel that the best thing to do is to deescalate the dispute, rather than to roll out the banhammers, and that's what motivates the comments I have made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  We have different rules because we are an entirely different thing than a critic discussion forum. We don't allow trolling here, or at least we aren't supposed to. Different spaces, both real and virtual, have different expectations. People don't generally act the same at their workplace as they do in a bar in the middle of the night, because the expectations are different. This is not a complicated concept. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  And yet I would still step to HR if my colleagues kept referring to me as "Brainfart" at the bar after work.Or saying things like "A pod of Levivich's as he reproduces the only way he can... asexually. ". A joke @AndyTheGrump: elected to participate in without even a hint of objection, by the way. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  while this discussion was ongoing --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am 100% sure you are a Wikipedian and so is everyone else on that list. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, on WPO, is baffling to me as well. Levivich (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways: I must confess I'm at a loss as to what your actual opinions are about the extent to which Wikipedia's administration should police conduct involving offsite venues.

  1. "It's none of our business and we can't police the whole Internet"
  2. "We need to make sure people aren't baselessly impugning the integrity of WPO"

  jp×g🗯️ 20:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it's neither of the things on your list there.

  As far as admin actions based on WPO posts, it should only be for the most extreme type of behavior (and probably actioned by ArbCom as it would likely involve material that should not be reposted here). For example actual doxxing, which is vanishingly rare over there, if everyone keeps in mind the rather large gulf between what doxxing actually is and WP:OUTING as defined here, which is much stricter than pretty much the entire rest of the internet.

  It is also worth pointing out that, as you are doubtless aware, there is considerable disagreement over there about some types of outing, in particular the posting of images of people without their permission (which seems to have stopped). And, as you are also surely aware, the main person who makes such posts is not an active Wikipedian at all and therefore entirely beyond the reach of any on-wiki authority. That, to my mind, is probably part of what motivates some people to vilify others who post there but do not partake in that sort of behavior, as a sort of proxy punishment for that person who is frustratingly out of their reach. We've seen again and again that you and others vigilantly read pretty much every single post, looking for material you think should be brought up on-wiki, almost always accomplishing exactly nothing.

  If there is actual canvassing that could also be taken into account, but if people are just saying "look at this" and discussing it, that isn't canvassing. It's a forum, the entire purpose of it is discussion of what is happening on Wikipedia, without the rules that constrain what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Some may not like the tone of those discussions, which is fine, I often feel the same way and there's tons of stuff there I don't even bother looking at, as others are also free to do.

  This is not to say that WP itself should not have those rules, as I've said this is a different environment with a different purpose, and a level of decorum and civility is expected here that is simply not expected on an informal chat forum with avatars and animated emojis and reposts of YouTube videos.

  As I and others have expressed repeatedly, commenting there is not a blanket endorsement of every other comment that has ever been made there. Collective guilt is not a concept that should be applied here.

  Some have suggested that I could've ignored LB's childish trolling here on WP, without adding how incredibly easy it is for him, you, or anyone else to completely ignore WPO if they don't like it. You're clearly an avid reader of it, I assume you have an account but don't actually post, you just use it to get material for shit-stirring on-wiki. That is not the moral high ground flex you seem to think it is. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't find ignoring an entire group of people in a different site harassing me easy. Everyone has different views and levels of tolerations on this. While the userpage list was completely a childish attack, no matter the background that led to it was, I'm as much as concerned about the provided information about what might have led to this. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would not call it "incredibly easy" for editors to ignore when some crazy guy on a message board vigilantly stalks them and posts their real names and photos of their families, actually.

  I would, however, call your unctuous I'm-the-real-victim-here routine "repetitive and disgusting". jp×g🗯️ 23:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe don't complain that I shared my opinion after you made a short list of what you imagined my opinion to be and pinged me in apparent anticipation of a direct reply. I didn't troll LB, either here or elsewhere. We have disagreed at times but I never resorted to trolling, while he very clearly did. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I asked what your opinion was about WP's policing of WPO conduct, so I appreciate you answering the question. I am not complaining about that -- I'm complaining about all the other stuff you said, which makes no sense. jp×g🗯️ 08:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG - You're feeding the WPO trolls. Please don't giving them attention by calling them out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Is this a joke? Your suggestion is that we just obey whatever orders they give us, and then half-assedly hope they don't decide to screw us over anyway? jp×g🗯️ 06:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm outta this thread. People just wants me to be mentally hurt I can't even bother throwing a user warning. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for a community ban for being a gargantuan net negative and an ongoing timesink. Acalamari 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I wouldn't be shocked if this is where Lightburst ends up someday, but given the circumstances, now is not the time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support for some block being issued, although I think a full cban is not warranted due to the fairly limited scope. It must be said: the thing that prompted this thread to be opened was unimaginably dumb. An utterly worthless thing to do. A list of dicks on your userpage? What in the world is the goal of doing that? At best it is pointless childish provocation, and at worst a deliberate attempt to waste a gigantic amount of people's time, as Lightburst often is wont to do, by sparking a giant pismire thread like this one. There really has to be some limit to how much of this nonsense we put up with. jp×g🗯️ 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. LB has, let me think, a minor violation of NPA, some arguing over an AFD, and perhaps some long-past sockpuppeteering. On the other hand, CBANs are mostly handed out for the worst of the worst, harassers, serial sockpuppeteers, malicious trolls, etc. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Topic ban for Homeostasis07 on Wikipediocracy

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

---

With the exception of an ArbComm case or providing evidence related to, Homeostasis07 is not allowed to discuss Wikipediocracy. This is at least the third discussion where they have made unsubstantiated accusations and been told how and where to provide them. They have not followed up and we're going in circles. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that the ban be lifted immediately if and when actual verifiable evidence is provided - privately by email to ArbCom if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  absolutely, and no issue with them actually providing that evidence. Alluding to it in multiple AN threads without the evidence and with no indication they'll stop is the issue. Star Mississippi 03:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump and if they fail to front up with evidence supporting any instance of their wild accusations, would it be your argument that the TBAN would stay in place? TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given the repeated stonewalling we are seeing (both here and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests [29] I'm beginning to wonder whether a TBAN is sufficient. The requirement to back up allegations regarding contributor behaviour with evidence is core to the running of Wikipedia, and apparently this isn't the first time Homeostasis07 has done this. [30] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: They have made multiple allegations and personal attacks, towards others (myself included) about supposed actions elsewhere without providing the slightest bit of evidence on any of the occasions. A TBAN as a preventative measure will ensure that Homeostasis07's disruption does not continue. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support with proviso stated by ATG. Formal sanctions are what happens when a user can't/won't listen to repeated warnings, and given that Homeostasis07 hasn't listened yet, I see no reason to believe they are about to start listening. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be more than happy to never talk about Wikipediocracy for the rest of my life. As explained here, comments made on Wikipediocracy cannot be linked on-site because it would constitute "outing". I'm awaiting confirmation from ArbCom as to whether those links can be posted publicly on an Arb case. In which case, I can provide dozens of links to doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. Not just regarding me, but for several users, many of whom I've never even interacted with. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just how many times do you need to be told that ArbCom will accept evidence submitted by email if there are privacy concerns? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just how many times do you need to be told that the issue needs to be dealt with publicly, but can't because of an RfC that determined posting links to WPO on Wikipedia is "outing". The harassment of Lightburst has clearly expanded on-site, with the multiple ANI discussions, so the overall issue is not just WPO conduct, but on-site conduct as well. The 2 need to be linked, which can't currently be done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then you need to submit the evidence privately instead of dropping hints about it here in a forum that can't do anything about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Best served in a public Arb case. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  You're entitled to that opinion, and I'm glad that you've finally reached out to ArbCom to inquire about the possibility of a public case. If only you'd done that in the first place, we could have avoided a lot of needless drama. As ATG has noted above, this is not your first go-round on the issue of unsubstantiated claims. When are you going to learn your lesson? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Homeostasis07: I do not think you understand how it works. If you have evidence you can't post, you are correct, you certainly don't post it. Instead, you email the committee your evidence. They then privately debate any off-wiki/outing concerns, etc., and decide upon the merits of a private vs public case. The point is: you do not get to choose whether the case is public or private. You can't: all you can do offer your suggestions. But ultimately they will decide whether the community is best served in a public Arb case or not, and that decision will be based on policy, rather than your opinion. SerialNumber54129 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is a public forum thread on WPO entitled "Homeostasis07" where they posted links to what they believe are Homeostasis's social media accounts, as well as details about the person they believe Homeostasis to be based on information from those social media accounts. There's also a lot of mockery of Homeostasis in that thread. I recognize six names amongst the dozen or so who posted there (so far), and will email it to arbcom (along with a request that some arbs recuse themselves because they have participated a lot and/or recently at WPO). (Star, I AGF that you didn't check WPO before making this proposal?) No, I do not support preventing victims from talking about their bullies. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is such a thread, certainly, though your description is a little partial. The thread was started after Homeostasis07 posted entirely false allegations about an alleged 'doxxing'. Like Wikipedia, Wikipediocracy takes note when people start bad-mouthing contributors. Would you expect any different from any other forum, anywhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So the ongoing mess escalated from retaliations against retaliations? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It escalated from specific allegations made on Wikipedia, by someone who has refused to provide the slightest bit of evidence to back them up, even privately via email to ArbCom. Regardless of what goes on at Wikipediocracy, that is an issue for Wikipedia - and evidently this isn't the first time Homeostasis07 has done this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely expect differently, yes. Doxxing is psychotic and threatening. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sure WPO has many fine contributors in addition to those whom we see posting here, but it is generally a toxic site with occassional redeeming features such as outing severe COI editors. The idea that WPO contributors need protection from Homeostasis07 is laughable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is suggesting that WPO needs protection. It is the ongoing on-Wikipedia disruption resulting from these repeated evidence-free allegations that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I thought Lepricavark presented some evidence, well the best that could be done without including a link to the discussion thread.

  And, just to acknowledge what is going unsaid, everything said on Wikipedia about Wikipediocracy, including this discussion, is fodder for comment and analysis on that website. So be aware of this. And I say this as someone who was also doxxed on WPO many years ago. But around the same time, I was also doxxed by Gamergate folks on 8chan and I was much more worried about what those folks would do than I was about WPO users. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this is enough to warrant a topic ban, then half the site would be topic banned from one thing or another. I don't have an issue with the fact that Wikipedians aren't supposed to identify offsite accounts. But I don't know what you expect to happen when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  ...when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly is precisely what LB and HS07 have been doing. SerialNumber54129 10:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support I have no idea whether Homeostasis07 is being harassed and bullied off-wiki, but what I do know is that Homeostasis07 is fully aware that there is a process to follow in cases like this, and Homeostasis07 also knows that endlessly talking about it on WP is not part of that process, so a TB seems appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Getting beyond silly at this point. Lulfas (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A series of unsupported allegations, and pouting insistence on a public case; enough is enough. ArbCom's e-mail is thataway. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately, it comes down to trust, and what HS07 says regarding WPO is by now thoroughly discredited and untrustworthy. Basically, he is so likely to lie about the site, its members and its discussions that it is a waste of the community's time trying to uncover any kernel of truth. ArbCom can do that better, and it will give HS07 the opportunity to submit his case against those he claims are are trying to discredit him. SerialNumber54129 10:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Continued unevidenced allegations is WP:casting aspersions and needs to stop. A topic ban seems minimal here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose with the caveat that if arbcom come back and so no to public appeal than homeostasis should drop the stick at that point. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lavalizard101: Ah. So HS07 needn't drop the stick until some point in the future? I'm not sure that's a healthy aproach to a collegiate community atmosphere, but YMMV of course. SerialNumber54129 10:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's getting to the point of ridiculousness that HS07 can make claims on-wiki and then when their veracity is challenged, say "well I'm not allowed to link to the evidence". Either take it to ArbCom or stop bludgeoning every related discussion with it, either is fine. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support This user's activity on the topic as of right now is profoundly unhelpful --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support if HS07 wants to endlessly threaten to contact ArbCom or T&S, they can put their money where their mouth is and actually do it. Since they can't give up the soapboxing, this topic ban will have to do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Homeostasis07, if I may suggest: if you want a public case so badly, you should try to request one before this topic ban goes into effect? I'm sure the extensive documentation you've built up will be very helpful in doing so quickly and with minimal research in the time before an admin places the TBAN. If ArbCom accepts the case, I'm sure they will grant you an exception to the TBAN. Sound good? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support At this point, the failure to acknowledge that there is a proper procedure for reporting private evidence is being used as a cudgel to cast aspersions with no consequences. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is getting ridiculous. SirMemeGod  14:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per AndyTheGrump, and allowing that proviso. Bans are preventative. Constantly raising this issue without evidence is disruptive. It derails discussions, and draws editors into partisan support, which is unhelpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Homeostasis' refusal above to provide private evidence to Arbcom because "Best served in a public Arb case". If you're not going to let Arbcom handle what they're best equipped to handle, you're going to cause disruption. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Not the direction I thought this would go in, but yeah, Support as their commentary on this subject has been disruptive, with them filibustering discussions with unproven accusations and refusal to use the proper channels. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Levivich, but also because I feel like the idea of a topic ban about WPO is kinda nuts. If someone made accusations they were being harassed on reddit, and it was true that there were threads on reddit heavily criticizing them, we would not in a million years topic ban them from talking about reddit no matter how over-the-top they were being about the accusations. A topic ban just isn't the relevant sanction here at all. If HS07 is casting aspersions, and I'm not convinced he is, then we ought to impose a sanction about casting aspersions, not a topic ban about an external site. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, technicially everyone is already topic banned from casting unfounded/unproven aspersions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  You'd think very differently from this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  If they kept angrily bringing up specific harassment on Reddit for which there was no evidence of existence and claimed to have private evidence that they wouldn't provide ArbCom, and continued to do so disruptively, they'd sure as sugar be topic-banned from discussing Reddit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I want to see evidence of this behavior and its disruptiveness before someone gets ballgagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

How many chances would you like us to give them to put up or shut up before we are allowed to acknowledge there's a problem? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to see evidence of this behavior and its disruptiveness before someone gets ballgagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support at minimum, and I think this is too lenient. The last time I remember this editor's username was Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sdkb when they claimed Sdkb was engaging in inappropriate offsite behaviour to facilitate editwarring (etc), and that evidence was being "Compiled now" to be sent to ArbCom. Unsurprisingly nothing was sent and Homeo disappeared for the rest of the RFA (ie catching the flu). These were blatant aspersions and are completely inappropriate. They're impossible for editors to defend themselves from. No action was taken at the RFA, action should be taken now to show these kinds of personal attacks are completely unacceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer if the ban is interpreted to include any kind of accusations editors (including vague, unnamed groups of editors) are engaging in inappropriate offwiki behaviour, as that seems to be the pattern in these instances. That's regardless of whether Wikipediocracy is explicitly mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, no editor should be making unfounded accusations against other editors. On the other hand, from what I've seen from Wikipediocracy from when I occasionally posted there years ago, these accusations seem very likely to be true although Homeostasis07 seems to be accusing the wrong editors of harassment. But having seen harassment on that site back in the day, there is no doubt to me that it has occurred for years and probably still does. It would be best if a topic ban came out of an Arbitration Case but that won't happen any time in the near future, unfortunately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Liz There is now a thread about HS07 on WPO, however it was started on Wednesday when he/she started throwing all these accusations about. No-one, including the mods, at WPO can find any evidence or posts to support any of HS07's accusations about historical harrassment or doxing. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Or who "the dancing man" is supposed to be. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, and the next time we have one of these brouhahas, can we have separate sections for people based on whether they posted in the WPO thread in question? jp×g🗯️ 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that require that we actually had evidence that 'the thread in question' existed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Searching Google for site:wikipediocracy.com homeostasis07 yields many results. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  This topic ban proposal was specifically started because Homeostasis07 repeatedly made entirely false claims about being 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy, while refusing to provide the slightest bit of evidence. Prior to that, there had been nothing on Wikipediocracy referring to Homeostasis07 beyond a few mentions in passing, and absolutely nothing which even remotely attempted to link him with any specific identity. Anything posted since is a direct result these false claims. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Wikipediocracy should ignore these false and malicious claims, without response. If a few WP:ANI regulars think that evidence-free assertions are sufficient grounds to go around perpetuating complete falsehoods, that is Wikipedia's problem - Wikipediocracy is under no obligation however to engage in such charades. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, God forbid people on a website make scandalous accusations to damage reputations and then fail to back them up with adequate evidence, who would want to hang out in a place where that happened?

  Better add a clarifying note to my comment, so that it doesn't get quoted on there, along with a bunch of random additional stuff I didn't say and don't believe, and maybe an additional paragraph of demented tinfoil calling me a child molester or a Nazi -- this is not an argument that everyone who has a WPO account should be banned, or whatever garbage people are going to pretend I said, instead of what I actually said, which to be clear is not that, thanks in advance. jp×g🗯️ 20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - At some point all these insinuations have to run smack into WP:HARASS. There is a reason ArbCom handles matters implicating the privacy or real-world identity of others in camera, and it's to keep people from being revictimised again and again while they deliberate a case. If you keep making these insinuations in public in an attempt to drive off other editors, then either ArbCom needs to get involved or administrators need to 86 you from the project. And since the latter is pretty much off the table based on the above, he needs to be sending this to ArbCom via email instead of continuing this bald-faced harassment campaign publicly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Harassment of who, the website? jp×g🗯️ 20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Too restrictive without prior escalating consequences. Bruxton (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's an odd remark considering this would be a tban from discussing one particular website in on-wiki discussions. It's an extremely narrow restriction designed to curb one specific issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support If Homeostasis07 had reported the issues in a way that others could properly assess and respond to the issue, we wouldn't be at this impasse. They have had plenty of opportunities to fix their report and have failed to do so. Arb com is still available. In the meantime, this prohibition won't harm Homeostasis07's ability to contribute to the project and will hopefully put an end to this particular circus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Proportionate and necessary to avoid a dose of inconvenience and conflict in the future.—Alalch E. 22:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. They have provided the links to back up their main claims and any measure would just have a chilling effect without improving WPO-related discourse. One can argue this faff was due to Homeostasis07 misinterpreting a joke, but if that's the case it's perfectly normal to get flustered and confused when you're being made fun of; it shouldn't warrant a block. If Homeostasis07's interpretation is correct, I don't need to explain why a block would be wrong. I request a closure is held off until at least 24 hours after when Homeostasis pinged everyone. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  The joke was made in response to claims Homeostasis07 had already made about supposed 'doxxing'. Claims for which absolutely no evidence has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Two-way IBAN between LB and ATG

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

---

Lightburst and AndyTheGrump are subject to a two way interaction ban appealable after six months. This would only apply on-wiki since ANI, to the best of my knowledge, does not have the power to regulate off-wiki comments. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Though not every dust-up or argument in this history is between these two users, it certainly exacerbates the issue and would be good for both of them. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support a one-way IB for LB. SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose two-way IBAN; Support a one-way IB for LB. The disruption(s) here is squarely on LB, not ATG. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral (only because I'm about to hop on a cross-country flight w/ limited responsiveness, otherwise this would be a Oppose). I don't see the grounds for Andy being subjected to this. Unless I've missed something somewhere, JoJo Anthrax is right -- this is a one-sided thing. And with regards to that, I am not sure even a one-way IB against one single person would have any impact on the core problem that brought us here. Sanctions are likely in order but this is the wrong one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• I don't see the relevance of this to a dispute between JSS and LB. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tryptofish. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose two-way IBAN, supporting one way IBAN per JoJo. IBAN probably is needed to stop one of the greatest issues that has been brought up (The "List of Richards"), and considering how this already would have been a TBLOCK (citing Ponyo on this one). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 1-way because ATG has been writing negative things about LB on WPO long before, and more often, than LB ever wrote negative things about ATG on-wiki, so I strongly disagree with the suggestion that this is one-sided. Neutral on 2-way as I hope the both of them will voluntarily leave each other along so it won't be necessary, though I understand if others don't want to extend any more rope here. Levivich (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral on the iban itself, but we should consider the practical aspects. A two-way ban would remove Lightburst's ability to comment on ATG, but it would not stop ATG from directing comments at Lightburst. In this situation, we will be incentivizing Lightburst to escalate so he can respond in kind, which would absolutely have spillover back into the community and bring us right back here again with greater animosities. If an interaction ban were to go through, Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks would need to be considered. Actually, that's policy. Why isn't it already the main focus here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose two-way IBAN. Support one-way IBAN on LB per JoJo. This disruption is squarely on LB who continues to make evidence free aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose IBans rarely work in practice. Editors think that IBANS mean fewer ANI discussions between editors in a dispute but it actually increases complaints when one or both of the editors bring complaints about the other editor breaking the IBan. It can become a game of "gotcha". They only work if the parties truly agree to have nothing to do with each other and in this case, it would be imposed on them and so it is less likely to be honored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Preach it, sister. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see a compelling reason for this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to note

At this point, I'm largely just staying out of all the nonsense that WPO harassers have been instigating over the past few weeks (and months). (Personal attack removed) Fun Catch-22 that is, huh? Silverseren^C 15:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

JSS states several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO just further up this thread. Regardless, this is a blatant violation of NPA and I request you strike it, Silver Seren. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If JSS is not one of the people supporting the CBANned trolls and harassers, then I'm not referring to them, as I pointed out above. And it is not directed at anyone on Wikipedia, so how is it a violation of NPA? Silverseren^C 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

RPA'd. Don't wikilawyer, User:Silver Seren. When you say everyone on WPO, that encompasses everyone. It's quite clear from above in this thread that numerous Wikipedians reply to banned users, and are thus encompassed by your statement. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

So, when I specifically point out only those on WPO that positively support the CBANned trolls and their harassment activities, that means everyone on WPO? So every user there is participating in said harassment, you're stating? Silverseren^C 16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Silverseren: Everything I said in re harassment in my argument for a TBan above applies to what you wrote. Your post was dumping kerosene on a low fire. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering your argument above doesn't whatsoever address the well known and well documented years long harassment of Wikipedia editors by WPO users, driving many off of Wikipedia and personally harming several, I don't see how your statement there even attempts to respond to the topic at hand. You seem to be acting as if such claims are made up. Silverseren^C 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was the target of a notorious LTA who only finally got 86'd last year because of tangentially-related legal troubles, all your post does is waste your breath and insult/encourage those trolls. (No, I'm not linking to any articles about the legal troubles, but suffice it to say there are news articles about his sentencing.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, no-one has endorsed your post—or even claimed it's a constructive contribution—besides you. I recommend you log off or move onto another area of the wiki, come back in a couple hours, and see if your views are accepted by even just a decent portion of the community, or just facile wikilawyering. You're not convincing me, merely digging that hole a little deeper. 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Other than the people thanking my posts. I do wish they would speak up, but I understand why they wouldn't want to get involved with WPO nonsense. Silverseren^C 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Since my previous post was off by a grand total of one user at the time, I think it’s only fair I amswer your questions rather than dodgin them. So, when I specifically point out only those on WPO that positively support the CBANned trolls and their harassment activities, that means everyone on WPO I made it quite clear I was objecting to the first sentence of your second paragraph where you stated it was addressed to everyone on WPO and to the claim that no-one has explicitly connected their two accounts on-wikis. If you’re asking for my opinion, however, yes, most WPO users support trolls and harassment. I’ve made it quite clear I’m more-or-less anti-WPO elsewhere so this isn’t exactly a gotcha question. So every user there is participating in said harassment, you're stating No, but most are encouraging it.

Do you disagree with either of my previous three sentences? Sincerely, Dilettante 14:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I wasn't going to reply to this, but as you bring the issue up I must state that I fully endorse Silver seren's posts here. It is time we got rid of the cowardly, childish bullies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

+1. The WPO bullies have gotten out of control. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll also endorse Silver seren's posts. Although I have not (yet) been the target of WPO bullying myself, I have seen its effects. We are all seeing the effects of it right now, it has pushed an editor over the edge to the point of making personal attacks against the editors they believe started all this. I will not defend Lightburst's actions, but this and similar cases will only continue until we take care of the problem at the source. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't cut it. Next time you have to specify that all of the Wikipedians who engage on Wikipediocracy publicly as themselves are very fine people. You're only engaging in personal attacks against the Wikipediocracy accounts that are not publicly connected to any Wikipedian (even if they happen to have the same username). That way you're not violating WP:NPA, as it only applies to attacks directed against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a really sad post and not the "gotcha" you think it is. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Silverseren^C 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

(I saw you self-reverted, so I'll just leave my reply here) The point of it is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. The active harassment and even doing so in the personal lives of editors by WPO users is actively ignored and allowed. A large part of this is because so many Wikipedia long term editors and admins here are a part of that WPO harassment group and so defend any sort of attempt to deal with the problem. It has been an ongoing issue for years and despite explicit evidence being shown time and time again, and despite off-wiki actions being covered by WP:NPA as well, they repeatedly use the defense of "if it happens elsewhere, then nothing can be done". Usually falling back on the "but you can't know they're the same users" defense. Silverseren^C 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Please check your trolling at the door. For someone whose largely just staying out, you've got plenty of personal remarks to make and the fact that you don;'t name names does not make them less personal attacks. Homeostatsis07 has tried something similar: be mindful. It merely shows you do not understand WP:NPA (or WP:POLEMIC or WP:FORUM for that matter). Your new "section" is based on your opinion, and does not have the traction you think it does. SerialNumber54129 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I could name tons of WPO user names. That's not difficult at all. You likely are already aware of all the ones I would name and already know about their activities harassing Wikipedia editors. Please, do explain WP:NPA though and the application of off-wiki harassment through claimed unrelated accounts. Does WP:NPA policy apply or not? It seems like the answer has long been no, no matter what the harassment is and no matter what real life harm is incurred (though only so long as the ones doing and protecting the harassment are long-standing Wikipedia editors, it appears). Silverseren^C 16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The point of [the post] is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. That seems spot-on for WP:POINT. I'm glad you didn't revert the redaction. If your intent is to convince others that WP:NPA as-written has flaws and should be fixed, perhaps making a discussion at WP:VPP would let people engage on the merits and perhaps develop a solution, rather further inflame an already heated discussion and have your points dismissed due to context and presentation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

They did revert. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07 You might wanna protect your Twitter account. Just saying. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Something that I just want to note is that this entire grouping of ANI threads is reaching the point of diminishing returns. JSS feels badly treated by LB, which is understandable. However, there is little chance of there being consensus for much of anything in the way of sanctions against LB, with the understanding that LB, whenever he returns to editing, needs to accept the reverting of what he had on his userpage. Increasingly, editor comments are becoming unproductive. Pretty soon, we would do best to just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I check in on Wikipediocracy from time to time. There are several participants there that I think are inappropriate, but to be honest, I sadly think WPO discussions overall are more civil than those here at WP:ANI.

I suggest we up our game here! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Outside of, you know, actively harassing Wikipedia editors off the site and the multiple cases of them even doing things like contacting the employers of Wikipedia editors, among other harassment. Silverseren^C 01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What?!? You've sent this evidence to ArbCom, right? That's a really severe allegation. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

They already know about it. There's been multiple incidents (and even Arbcom cases) over years involving WPO users doing such things. Many of the threads involving that are even in the archive here. It's well known information for those of us that have been here a while. Silverseren^C 17:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the stuff on the site is basically fine, and often a great boon to us as editors, although I must say the psycho dox stuff is a rather substantial and hard-to-ignore negative presence there. jp×g🗯️ 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the site as well. The WPO members involved in this dispute are a minority of WPO members; AFAICT most don't engage in negative behavior, but the few that do have become increasingly hard to ignore. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll third that. There's a range of outright doxxing issues to general harassment/following that really get a be a problem over there. There's plenty of just venting, etc. over there that's not an issue, but at the least Silverseren is bringing up a very legitimate issue here that I'm concerned seeing how it's been dismissed in some comments here. Unfortunately I don't think we're going to get a solution for the issue here though. KoA (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This time last week I didn't care about WPO and whatever feuds they engage in. But now this is all just... sad. This single-minded rampage against everything about them, this sophomoric complex that they've developed over there, it just makes everyone seem really childish—and some more than others. Like, these little arguments and gossip forums are really what they want to dedicate their lives to? I'd say kick to arbcom at this point for their own good, since that seems to be what everyone wants anyway, but this particular iteration of arbcom has been rather inactive and hesitant to address issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

This thread is derailing.

Seriously though, LB hasn't moved an inch since this thread fired up, and this is just turning into a battleground of WPO and anti-WPO. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it's the old tactic when for those who find themselves defending the indefensible, broaden the discussion with vague assertions to muddy the waters until everyone is distracted from the issue. SerialNumber54129 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't say I blame LB for hiding/waiting it out, he obviously knew what he did was completely indefensible, but that if he shut up others would defend it anyway, but other than the topic ban for HS I don't really see any admin actions forthcoming, so yeah, it could probably be closed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: you've been talking about this guy on two different websites on like a daily basis, now you're complaining that he's withdrawn. It seems nothing will stop you. Would you please take your proverbial foot off of his neck and give it a rest. Maybe just one week without commenting on any website about what Lightburst is doing on Wikipedia, please. Levivich (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the nuisance ping. Please, somebody close this thread. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Links to public WPO harassment

I no longer need to self-dox in order to expose doxing on Wikipediocracy, so am happy to proceed. The WPO user I referred to as "the dancing guy" here is the WPO member "Midsize Jake". For the purposes of this public thread, I will not post a direct link to their doxing in WPO's private forum. However, I sufficiently agitated their ego in the preceding link that they owned up to doxing me on the public forum here. The response is full of the usual WPO snark, but the user says "That's me, I think." and "All this nonsense about "continents" is just [Homeostasis07] not knowing the difference between an island and a continent." ArbCom know where I live. It's clearly a direct response to what I wrote here, and an admission to doxing by Midsize Jake.

The entire website is being used to dox and harass multiple Wikipedia users. One need look no further than their home page to see evidence of that. The last 3 "news" articles they posted dox and insult three different long-time Wikipedia users: [31], [32] & [33]. So between me being doxed and the very public doxing on their homepage, the claims that doxing doesn't take place on WPO are patently false.

Although the claim that users cannot delete, edit, move, or in any way modify their posts is true, this does not mean that posts written on WPO can't be deleted, edited, moved, or in any way modified. The forum was created using the phpBB script, so has the exact same tools used on every other phpBB forum created since 2000. This official phpBB support document for forum creators clearly states that admins/moderators can indeed delete, edit, move and modify posts.

As I'm sure you're all aware by now, in their attempt to discredit my claims of being doxed and harassed on the site, a Wikipediocracy user has created a public thread about me, where they post links to my other social media accounts, along with a ton of harassment and insults. I thank @AlphaBetaGamma: above for advising me to protect my Twitter account, but the babies can have that bottle. In addition to this, there are multiple threads on WPO that are being used to coordinate and insult dozens of Wikipedia users. In addition to the one about me, there is also one on Lightburst that has been used for almost a year to coordinate harassment of that user, as well as "News from ANI", where vested users can look up what's being said about them on ANI so can dog-pile on any discussion about them. More to come. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back, Homeostasis07! When you refer to "WPO's private forum", are you admitting to having an account over there? And when you link to this post by "Midsize Jake", which I had thought to be a joke—guess the joke's on me—are you admitting to being Carrie Ann Inaba? Because otherwise, you're still not providing evidence of doxing (I believe you mean outing), rather to the contrary. Have you sent ArbCom the private evidence that you assert exists? ... Also, don't Wikipedians have the right to know when they're being talked about at AN/I? (If by "them" you mean WPO as a whole, that would make for a shorter thread than the "News from ANI" one; the forum doesn't often come up on this noticeboard, it's not that interesting or urgent.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed this is a comically inept attempt to prove doxxing. Here's is the text of the entire post:

"That's me, I think. This sort of thing has been a problem ever since I won Dancing With the Stars with my partner, Doja Cat (T-H-L). And I didn't dox her here, I doxed her on my first appearance on the show (that's "Dancing With the Stars," folks, in case y'all missed it the first time) when I discovered that Homeostasis07 is, in fact, Carrie Ann Inaba (T-H-L).

All this nonsense about "continents" is just Carrie Ann not knowing the difference between an island and a continent. I wouldn't worry about it."

So, 100% not an actual confession to doxxing.

20+ Wikipedians have endorsed banning Homeostasis07 from discussing WPO already, this just adds fuel to that fire, rather than proving any sort of confession to doxxing them. I don't know if Homeostasis07 thinks enough people are afraid to even read WPO that this wouldn't be fact-checked, or if this is some bizzare backwards trolling, or what, but clearly this needs to stop. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that Midsize Jake posted "an admission to doxing" in the thread linked [34] is absurd beyond belief. The comments are clearly and unequivocally intended as a joking response to WP:ANI drama. And isn't 'doxxing'. Not unless Homeostasis07 Jake really won Dancing With the Stars alongside Doja Cat, and unless Homeostasis07 really is Carrie Ann Inaba. Absolutely no evidence has been offered to support Homeostasis07's claim that Jake (or anyone else on WPO) had attempted to dox him "earlier this year". Just look at the date stamps for the two posts. [35] As for the waffle about phpBB support, this is an utter non sequitur, given that one can say the same about any data saved in a digital format, anywhere. Homeostasis07 previously claimed to have saved evidence regarding such alleged material "on webcite". [36] No links to such material have been provided, leaving us with nothing but pure conspiracy theories to support the evidence-free claims of doxxing by WPO that led to a later WPO response. The only think that can be verified with regard to this alleged 'doxxing' is that after Homeostasis07 made a claim for which no evidence had been provided, WPO responded - by noting the lack of evidence, and by taking the piss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Me having an account on WPO is irrelevant. Are you suggesting I post on a website that doxes Wikipedia users to inform them that they're being talked about at AN/I? You, Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways and AndyTheGrump seem perfectly aware of this discussion, and immediately available to jump to WPO's defense. With regards to the text quoted from Midsize Jake's post, as pointed out above, the text relating to Doja Cat and Carrie Ann Inaba is just sarcastic nonsense. For one, I see no evidence of Doja Cat ever being on Dancing With the Stars, but Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island, which is true, and would only be known to the doxer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Midsize Jake makes specific mention of me residing on an island"? Nope. Jake makes a rather lame joke about Ms Inaba "not knowing the difference between an island and a continent". Interpreting that as 'doxxing', or even as evidence that Jake has the slightest clue where Homeostasis07 lives is pure paranoia. Or at least, that's how it seems to this island-dweller. I suspect that most island dwellers (9% of the worlds population, according to Google) would think the same. Along with the in-continent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any worth in continuing to engage Homeo directly. They are clearly either trolling or just lying, badly. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. Nobody is going to take this nonsense seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

AGF please. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't you get booted off ArbCom for sharing private ArbCom info on WPO? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to this strange claim that Carrie Ann Inaba is somehow known for confusing continents with islands, I see no evidence of that. What I see instead is me saying that the doxer linked me to the wrong continent, no information about me residing on an island being publicly available anywhere else, Midsize Jake publicly stating in reference to me being doxed that I reside on an island, and a bunch of WPO defenders rushing to the website's defense while ignoring the multitude of other evidence linked above of other Wikipedia users being very publicly doxed on the website. I don't know what AndyTheGrump, Beeblebrox and Yngvadottir think they're doing here, but their true intentions are blatantly transparent. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Or..... Midsize Jake invented an absurdist DWTS alter ego to fit the description of the "dancing man" figure you claimed tried to dox you, syncretized you with DWTS judge Carrie Ann Inaba, and incorporated the detail of her being born on an island into your narrative about the doxing being "off by a continent".

If you really have all that evidence of deleted posts doxing you, what's stopping you from scribbling out any personal info in those screenshots and uploading them here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Your description doesn't really make much sense to me. An "absurdist DWTS alter ego" based on a Dancing with the Stars judge who was born on an island off a continent to "fit the description of the 'dancing man' figure" I described previously... well, that just seems like a reach. And I seriously doubt any uploaded screengrabs with redacted information would last very long if hosted on-site. And externally-hosted URLS would probably last a lot less. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, is it just me, or did AndyTheGrump just refer to me as an "in-continent" above, i.e., incontinent, when they were blocked for a week back in July by ArbCom for personal attacks? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just you. And I have never been blocked by ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

....Midsize Jake jokes that Carrie Ann Inaba doesn't know the difference between a continent and an island, possibly a reference to her being born on an island that is technically not on the same continent as the country it is part of. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I would give my first born pet for this entire LOOONG discussion to be closed. But there are several outstanding proposals that have to be closed first. I urge editors to not respond defensively and just let this conversation sputter out from exhaustion. Don't allow yourself to be provoked, that doesn't end well for anyone. Find an article to edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Would be fine with me. Like I said above, I'd be happy to never again talk about Wikipediocracy on-site after this, so me being topic-banned from discussing that website is no skin off my nose. Just Step Sideways/Beeblebrox made an interesting point above though, many of the supports above said they were waiting for links. Now that they have been provided, it's only courteous to ping them to review. I know I don't watchlist high-traffic pages like ANI, so out of courtesy: @Star Mississippi: @Lepricavark: @Lulfas: @Malcolmxl5: @Lavalizard101: @Black Kite: @Licks-rocks: @AirshipJungleman29: @CoffeeCrumbs: @Sir MemeGod: @Jéské Couriano: @Rsjaffe: @Alalch E.: I don't care if you change your votes or not, and completely understand if you don't want to be involved any further, but thought you'd appreciate the ping. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging a bunch of people who already support sanctions against you for refusing to drop the stick to a thread in which you are once again refusing to drop the stick is certainly a choice. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Factspear direct attack, POV pushing, edit warring

Relevant article: Yoon Suk Yeol. Factspear has attempted more or less the same edit 3 times in violation of WP:3RR (1, 2, 3). I think the edits are giving WP:UNDUE weight to an unflattering fact about a WP:BLP. I don't even like Yoon, but putting that in the first paragraph of the lead is not appropriate.

On the third attempt, the edit comment was "Seafooddiet go fuck yourself". Don't think they're WP:HERE. seefooddiet (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Quite aside from that Factspear has not, in fact, backed up the assertion with sources. Ravenswing 08:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It's being added to the lead so shouldn't need sources since it should be in the body. That said the body doesn't quite say the same thing. It says he attempted it over nine years. (Earlier saying he kept failing over those 9 years.) I guess you can take it once per year hence 8 times but this isn't directly stated in the article. I suspect but don't know it may be clarified in the sources. Either way I'm not convinced this belongs in the lead. That said I also dont understand why this is at ANI when the talk page is untouched since July. Perhaps the personal attack is enough for a block but since it came on the third attempt there was ample time for some one to try and discuss this before that happened. Also 3 edits may be edit warring but it's obviously not a bright line 3rr violation since 3 is not more than 3. In fact the first edit doesn't even seem to be a revert as the material was just added. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually I see an IP very likely Factspear added it just before so Factspear's first edit would count as a revert. Still only 3 though. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Seefooddiet: You need to read WP:3RR again. It is about reverting 3 times - not making 3 of the same edits. And although it's not the end-all-be-all of edit warring, you are citing it incorrectly.--v/r - TP 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, to violate WP:3RR, one must make more than three reverts, so the operating number there is 4. El_C 15:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is the fourth edit. [37]. I'll post on the talk page. seefooddiet (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I really should read threads from the beginning. Way too much from a brand new user; almost indistinguishable form trolling. Blocked indef. El_C 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mellk, unreasonable reverts and possible POV-pushing

User:Mellk recently reverted the bold of the article "History of Ukraine" with an obnoxious summary "pointless addition", while that was agreed to be put in by two other editors, me and User:Alaexis, who did a review of my changes and decided keep them. The bold like this is presented in all kinds of History articles like "History of Poland", History of Israel and "History of Netherlands". I addressed this to Mellk and explained why this changes were kept, but they instead ignored my explanations and switched to personal threats like threatening to block me. They were already criticized for unreasonable reverts in Ruthenium article. Much like then they did obnoxious summarising like "Complete nonsense", they continue this type of behavior with recent "pointless addition", which suggests that they are completely basing their reverts of their POV, and they showed no intention for changing their attitude.

I suggest for you to just keep an eye on them for now, and intervene in case they won't step back and won't be willing to cooperate. Shahray (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shahray was blocked by Asilvering on 13 October for 24 hours due to continuous edit warring during an ongoing ANI discussion. They made an unblock request where they indicated that they wanted to resume edit warring, but by asking another editor to do this on their behalf (and of course this was declined).

Since the block has expired, they have not made improvements on their behavior. On history of Ukraine, they made a large edit to the lead of the article before the block was imposed. They were partially reverted by another editor, and I made a partial revert as well, but they have restored this multiple times now since the block expired,[38][39] claiming that since the other editor did not remove this, they have consensus for their change. I started a talk page discussion about this, since there was never any discussion about that change, but they decided to restore the change. The discussion is still ongoing, and I asked them to point to this agreement or else to self-revert, since they claimed: this changes were agreed upon by two editors.

It is a similar story with Yaroslav the Wise. They made an initial unsourced and POV change before the block and despite being reverted, they have restored their change multiple times after the block expired [40][41]. Like in the previous ANI discussion, they are still claiming that they are simply reverting unreasonable reverts, so it is clear that nothing has changed here. Mellk (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Their latest remark is I don't see any productive discussion with this other aggressive editor.[42] I should also note that their very first comment minutes after being unblocked was bad-mouthing me: I am glad you actually give explanation for your reverts unlike some editors.[43] Mellk (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocks of other people doesn't make you innocent. The fact that you pulled out that quote and took to personal account suggests that you are well aware of your unreasonable reverts yet you continue to push them rather than improve upon your unconstractive behavior. Shahray (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Shahray#Block_2. That said, Mellk, pointless addition falls short; seems more like convention, rather. You need to be more responsive on your part, too. I am formally warning you on this. Noting that I've blocked you in the past for edit warring as well (for one week as well as it happens). I presume when Shahray writes above The fact that you pulled out that quote and took to personal account, they meant personal affront or something to the effect...? Possible language barrier, but this is the English Wikipedia, so we do have a competency threshold there. And one must use clear language especially when in conflict in a contentious topic area. Thank you. El_C 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @El C. For what it's worth, my read of the situation is that Mellk lost patience sooner than the other editors involved, but that Shahray really has been driving people up the wall, and is clearly something of an unreliable narrator when it comes to summarizing talk page discussions and reporting whether any particular change achieved consensus or not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@El C, just wanted to add my 2 cents, since I was mentioned in the original post.

I hope that @Shahray will start following the rules and norms of Wikipedia, especially the ones dealing with consensus and resolving disagreements with other editors.

A formal warning seems a bit harsh. The discussion on the talk page was rather exasperating, I myself ended up suggested seeking external feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 21:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis, would you mind summarizing your experience from your point of view? Shahray is currently using an interaction with you as evidence that they can collaborate successfully with others. It didn't look terribly successful to me, and I gather from your comment that my read was correct. It may be helpful if you could explain what exactly has been exasperating about the experience. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, to give one example, Shahray added the term Ruthenia or piped links to it to the article a few times and has been arguing about on on the talk page (see Talk:History_of_Ukraine#History_of_ukraine). The term is an exonym that has a range of meanings, from the whole East Slav lands (aka Kievan Rus') to certain parts of it. It's not widely used by the historians writing about the medieval Rus', as far as I know.

u:Rsk6200 and I left comments on the talk page (see my link above) explaining that there are issues with the term. To his credit Shahray brought sources but they didn't really support his position as they also used this term very rarely. Again, to his credit, Shahray did not continue edit warring over it. However, the amount of discussion at the talk was way more then necessary and I'm still not sure that Shahray understood the reason why his changes were challenged by other users. Alaexis_¿question? 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it's helpful to hear this from someone who was involved in the disputes directly. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking for help how to contribute to wikipedia

I looking for way to change some things I think Wikipedia got wrong in the Israel Hamas war, I Have noticed that the article are locked and I am unable to edit them so I tried to talk with their owner:

1. I have wrote a message in the owner talk page, So I reached out to him regarding his opinions on his talk page and basically trying to start a conversation with him to try and try to persuade him to use more neutral language in the future.
2. I have pinged him when he did not answer
3. I have comment on one of his edit requests I saw in another article that he want to make some change
4. the user @M.Bitton posted something on my talk page regarding ABECR and reverted the 3 other changes I have made

in the stuff he wrote it says: "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing." but he have "reverted the 3 other changes I have made" so I assume there are "issues with my editing"

a. I would really appreciate to know what I have done wrong in each of my edits. b. What I should do Instead to be able to express my opinions in that area, its is seams to be controlled by article owner who I cant talk with. c. I am looking for someone to guide me and help me understand how I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia and help keeping the neutrality of the project, if there are any volunteer who are willing to help me understand this platform better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.53.152 (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As a user without an extended-confirmed account, you are unable to edit about anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the war with Hamas, as it is a formally designated contentious topic. I'll post some information on your user talk page shortly. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

hey just to make sure I understand,

I am not allowed to Express my opinions regarding this topic in A Civil way in ANY WHERE on the site at all????

It is seams to me very obscure and goes against the five pillars of Wikipedia I learned about at school 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. You aren't meant to express your opinions. See WP:FORUM. Note this applies to everyone. I'm an admin here and nobody cares about my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be inappropriate for me to express my opinions on that, here. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok I may have used the wrong word, would appreciate if you could help me find the right term for the situation:

if two editors disagree, You think that x is the correct way to say something because the reliable source support it x,

and the other editor Y think that the correct way to say something is Y because he brought is own reliable source that support that, what word do you use to express the disagreement between thus different _________(replace with word that isnt opinion)? 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that in most topic areas, you should discuss concerns about article content with other editors. However, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a formally designated contentious topic- I assume you understand why that might be, given the strong feelings on each side of the issue. That means that normal rules do not apply, as you have found out. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to get makeAndToss to Communicate with me on the contentious topic, as the policy says:

"Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something but not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus."

I must say that it dose not feel friendly to have all of my contributions deleted and getting told "you are not allowed to voice you opinion in that area" in a site that have on is flag "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute".

seams more like the "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, but only selected members with the same agenda can edit, and distribute" 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't be getting anyone to talk about it because you aren't permitted to talk about it here. Being a website with free content that anyone can use does not mean you are allowed to speak your mind on any topic, this is not a free speech forum, this is a private entity that can have rules about what is said here, just as you can have rules about what is said within the four walls of your residence. See WP:FREESPEECH. You are conflating speech with an project to write an encyclopedia. If you find the rules here to be unfriendly- well, you are free to go somewhere with rules that you find more palatable, or work to change the rules(which won't be happening). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't be getting anyone to talk about it because you aren't permitted to talk about it here.

I have posted bellow the policy I have followed that pointed me to ask that on the user page, I did not know that I was not Allowed to talk about that topic, I was simply trying to address some edits that were seams to me a bit biased and that they go against COI policy so I have tried to address them and now I understand why the articles are locked 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Respectfully, it is not a question of agenda, but of experience. While it doesn't apply to everyone, a lot of newcomers might not be familiar with the norms about collaborative editing, or might even join the encyclopedia solely due to strong feelings about the topic. Especially on a contentious topic, this often has the tendency to exacerbate conflicts between editors.

The extended-confirmed user right is granted automatically after one month of activity and 500 edits, rather than given out to individual users. There is no question of agenda here, and there are both staunchly pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors working on these articles, although the more controversial changes are often settled based on consensus-building discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you were already given that information. Please review it carefully. The only possible contributions you can make in that topic area without an extended-confirmed account are to propose formal edit requests that are completely uncontroversial(like fixing spelling or grammar). 331dot (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Articles don't have owners, least of all that one. Contacting the last person to edit will not be very useful, or asking the person who notified you of the page restrictions to edit on your behalf will not be very useful.. And M.Bitton isn't an administrator, contrary to you assumption on their user talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I was under the Impression M.Bitton is and administrator, because of the way he revert my attempts to discuss with MakeAndToss 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Any established editor may do that, since you were in violation of the article restrictions, which apply everywhere. And see below, please do not try to circumvent the restrictions that way. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression I am allowed to talk with fellow editors:

"You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles." 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

On contentious topics you may not do that unless you qualify for editing privileges in the restricted topic. User talkpages aren't a means of circumventing the restriction. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, asking editors questions like this [44] to try to elicit information about themselves is at least frowned upon, if not out of bounds, particularly in a contentious topic area. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey thank you for you comments,

could you please direct me the guideline/policy that says that? 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OUTING. Editors are not obligated to respond to you at all if you're asking them for personal information, least of all in a contentious topic area, where an editor might be trying to discredit somebody solely on evidence of their background. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on individual editors' experience. Acroterion (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to follow the policy as I understand it to the word but my post in @makeAndToss was deleted.

I do no understand how to continue from here to follow the guidelines on conflict of interest

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest

Thank you once again for talking to me 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop these efforts. Even leaving that aside, you haven't shown a conflict of interest- and you seem to gravely misunderstand what one is. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

The IP 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:1DD6:8C00:5D5E:F46F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently engaging in disruptive editing on several pages. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

1) You haven't notified them of this discussion, which you're required to do (see info at the top of the page). 2) I highly recommend that you provide diffs if you want this to be taken seriously. 3) Less seriously, it doesn't look like you've done anything to advise the IP that their edits are disruptive? DonIago (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago Apologies for the oversight, done so now, here are the diffs: [45], [46], [47], [48] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive about these edits? 331dot (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Firstly, they are a recently blocked sockpuppet targeting my edits in retaliation for the report I filed against them, which constitutes wikihounding and block evasion. Secondly, their edits are problematic, as they are re-adding an unsourced birthplace to the BLP article about Shahzad Qureshi. On constituency articles, they are restoring incorrect election results, which also involve living people, seemingly just to spite me. They are not here to build the encyclopedia but rather at retaliating against me for having their account blocked. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If they're a sockpuppet, that should be handled via the SPI, not this board. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@331dot They typically don’t connect IPs. Additionally, several other issues are involved, including wikihounding, block evasion, BLP violations, and edit-warring. The BLP violations alone should be sufficient grounds for a block. Not being here to build the encyclopedia should be enough for action. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems and I see nothing urgent or chronic, intractable in the edits of this IP. Just my 2cents. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, OP came straight here without even trying to discuss with the user first. I have to say that is somewhat troubling to see from someone running in the admin elections. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways Kindly refer to my response to @331dot for the reasons I believed a discussion with them would not be productive. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just Step Sideways, I really hope @SheriffIsInTown start using the talk page more often, which isn’t the case at the moment and are more considerate, even towards IPs. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Here is another IP 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:1469:5D46:4CEE:F862 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the same location just here to revert my edits. Should I just put up with them? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment It does look like a sock is targeting Sheriff but other than playing whack-a-mole with IPs I'm not sure what we can do here. Perhaps a range block or just wait it out till they get tired? RegentsPark (comment) 22:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark Thank you for understanding the situation. They've now created a user account Diddy need no consent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Take a look at the edit summaries they’re using: [49], [50], [51], [52]. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  You can't really blame anyone for not realizing what the context was when you made no effort in your original post to provide said context. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways I apologize; it wasn't my intention to place blame on anyone. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing and stonewalling of consensus by Snokalok

There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:Cass_Review#New_Source_in_the_BMJ_addresses_Yale_white_paper_and_BMA about inclusion of a certain source. Initial discussion focused on how to include this source into the article without creating bloat, but then developed into an often off-topic dispute about whether the entire source was reliable. The issue of how much consensus there was on the reliability of the source has come into considerable dispute; by my count, up til the 16th of October there were 5 editors considering the source reliable (User:Void if removed, User:FirstPrimeOfApophis, User:barnards.tar.gz, User:WhatamIdoing and myself (editing as Special:Contributions/212.36.63.7). Against the source's reliability, there was just YFNS and Snokalok, although User:Usr Trj expressed mild (may be overdoing it and Some may be an exception) opposition to inclusion of responses-of-responses in general. YFNS' initial claim of 'red flags' in the paper shows clear signs of POV-pushing: she's not actually arguing against the source based on any WP:RS or WP:MEDRS policy or guidelines, she's just arguing that the points it makes are wrong and so it shouldn't be included. This is just using WP:OR to oppose the inclusion of a source. At this point, seeing a clear, policy-based argument from 4 other editors that this constituted a WP:MEDRS providing important context to claims already included in the article, and seeing only two editors disagreeing based largely on tenuous connections to an allegedly WP:FRINGE organisation, I felt it would be reasonable to add a short, single-sentence summary of the source in question, hopefully avoiding concerns about page bloat. This edit was then improved by User:Flounder fillet (and later VIR), before being reverted by Snokalok. As established, the 'strong dispute against including this source' consisted only of Snokalok and YFNS.

Snokalok was then asked to justify this reversion by FirstPrimeOfApophis, who pointed out that this behaviour looked a lot like WP:STONEWALLING. Snokalok in reply said There is not a consensus that these issues are sufficiently mitigated, irrelevant, or overcome. I don’t even know if there’s a majority opinion, though that is certainly still a lower bar than a consensus. Again, reviewing the thread up to that point shows that there were more than twice as many editors in favour of the source's status as an applicable RS than opposing it (especially if Flounder's edit counts as approving inclusion). In a later edit Snokalok said {{You have your policy based arguments, other editors on this page have theirs which they’ve already stated, but at the end of the day, no matter how invalid you think other editors’ arguments are or how answered by your points they are, you don’t have consensus, and per WP:SATISFY, no one is obligated to satisfy you.}} In the face of clear evidence for a consensus against Snokalok's arguments, this was hard to read as anything but stonewalling; so I put the source back in; Snokalok again reverted, claiming It is absolutely not, half the editors in the thread are still against it. This is, as discussed, false, so I reverted again; Snokalok then claimed on the talk page that they, YFNS, Trj, User:LokiTheLiar and User:Maddy from Celeste had all opposed inclusion of the source. Trj, again, had expressed only qualified concerns about responses-to-responses in general; Loki had said nothing about inclusion, and Maddy had not commented in the thread whatsoever and later expressed neutrality on the issue. I can believe this was an honest mistake, but people who can't keep the level of opposition to a change straight in their head have no business serially reverting it.

I couldn't work this into the narrative account above but I also have issues with Snokalok repeatedly bringing up the Lancet MMR autism fraud in response to users pointing out that this source is a peer reviewed paper in one of the top medical journals: 1 2. This is obviously not WP:MEDRS policy, and could be applied to literally any medical study ever published, including sources that Snokalok has pushed for inclusion of. It's a standard that obviously can't be applied everywhere, so it's only useful as a double standard for the purposes of POV-pushing. I've spent enough time right now writing up this submission, but reading Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing it's striking how many of the behaviours described are ones I've observed in watching Snokalok interact on Talk:Cass review since April. It should also be noted that last month Snokalok brought an arbitration request against User:Colin, a highly experienced and respected contributor to Wikipedia's medical pages who has been (sometimes excessively) vigorous in demanding neutrality and adherence to sourcing policies. This ended in a logged warning for Colin but it should be noted that a presiding administrator found that Snokalok had repeatedly misrepresented Colin's edits in their report: There is too much misrepresentation in this report: an editor trying to collaborate and treating their colleagues in good faith could not produce this. This incident is part of a broader pattern of problematic conduct. Frank Forfolk (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think bringing this to ANI is a good idea, and Snokalok's characterization of my position is totally accurate. This is a content dispute and there is in fact no consensus for inclusion. Loki (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No opinion (yet anyway) on this in general, but as a point of information on sources the BMJ article is a WP:SECONDARY source (review article) in an reputable (MEDLINE/index medicus) journal, so a golden WP:MEDRS source. Wakefield's fraudulent paper was primary research so not WP:MEDRS and at the other end of the quality spectrum (indeed Wakefield's paper is one of the informing factors of why MEDRS is, as it is). Comparing the two sources would therefore be very odd. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't get beyond how much this post was quacking, a trip to the edit history[53] only makes the quacks more thunderous. Based on the level of WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG I think the primary editor we should be discussing here is Frank Forfolk. If Snokalok is an issue someone else can bring them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No comment on quackiness, but for context, Frank Forfolk claims to be 212.36.63.7, who has been participating on the talk page for at least a month. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you that context, that really is key although I have to say that[54] doesn't give me all that much more confidence. The eight edits before they got involved in this dispute are an unsourced addition[55], unsourced and confusing changes to a BLP[56][57][58][59] (it kind of looks like vandalism), an unsourced BLP addition [60], another unsourced BLP addition[61], and another BLP addition this one with a source which does not appear related[62]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The edits from before 5 July 2024 are another individual at the same IP. The edits from then to now are all me. I have been observing Wikipedia and editing very sporadically for over 10 years; as I have never previously edited any CTOP or GENSEX related articles or been subject to any sanctions, and due to the controversy and toxicity associated with this subject, I believe I'm complying with WP:GOODSOCK by creating this account for privacy purposes. If you're not satisfied with my interpretation of that policy could you raise it on my talk page instead of continuing it here, though? Frank Forfolk (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand, are you saying that when you made the IP edits you also had an active wikipedia account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not active, no. I’ve not used it since before I got involved on the Cass Review page. Frank Forfolk (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so if the edits on the account are covered by WP:GOODSOCK what are the IP edits covered by? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The approach taken in the written policy seems to be that IP editing is treated the same way as editing through a sockpuppet account. Frank Forfolk (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Response forthcoming Snokalok (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a matter for ANI. Two editors have labelled what is obviously an RS as unreliable through specious reasoning, their reasons are obviously motivated by a POV. It is just civil POV pushing to disregard something that is obviously a fine source. This is just stonewalling to try and either waste time or get editors to give up and move on. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let’s go through this one at a time.

1. The following names were arguing against inclusion: Myself, @Usr Trj[63], @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[64], @LunaHasArrived[65], and our dear @User:LokiTheLiar[66] as shown above.

And as for your reduction of Usr Trj’s involvement to mild opposition, they’d been directly opposed to including the specific source on grounds of responses to responses - grounds which I directly echoed when questioned by Apophis[67] - and I’d like to remind you of the policy I cited several times in our conversation, which is that no one is obligated to satisfy you. An editor who states their opposition once and ceases to respond is perfectly valid in their opposition all the same.

In the face of clear evidence for a consensus against Snokalok's arguments What evidence did you present though? Because I’m reading back through your edits on the talk page, and you never actually listed off the editors for or against, you simply kept edit warring while saying that there was consensus without ever actually backing it up. To my reading, the closest thing you ever presented to evidence was saying “read the writing on the wall” while threatening admin involvement.[68]

Additionally, I did initially think Maddy from Celeste was part of the list because of her participation in the thread (it really did get jumbled into multiple topics simultaneously), but when I looked back and saw I was mistaken, I immediately struck her from said list I presented at the time once it was clear I’d misremembered her involvement[69] - which happened long before you ever replied to the comment, so all your invocation of her reads as now is a deliberate ignorance of that very visible correction to paint a worse picture.

But regardless, when you have several editors arguing against an edit in talk, and you go in and reinsert an already reverted edit simply because you don’t find their arguments satisfactory, that’s generally pretty frowned upon.

And on that note, let’s talk about YOUR behavior. I want to start by looking at the edit war you waged to keep reinserting that material despite editors other than I reverting you just as surely - in particular, how you chose to respond in the edit summaries to being reverted: You are outright lying.[70], This is unacceptable, a couple of POV-pushers who are never, ever going to change their minds[71]. At best these are failures to assume good faith, worst they’re personal attacks but either way - they’re a refusal to collaborate with and show proper respect for editors which may disagree with your point of view. (Honorable mention: [72])

Finally, since you seem so familiar with the Colin case, let me give you another quote from one of the three presiding admins in that case:

I think Colin's communication style makes it easier to assume their snark is targeting editors, and as it contributes to a battleground it makes it less likely that editors will assume good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith that there were some misreadings, rather than misrepresentations here.

Finally - I’ve cited my list of editors’ involvement, I request now that you do the same. And yes, this post quacks like the largest duck I’ve ever seen. Snokalok (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m afraid I’ll need to reply piecemeal, but I think this is important to flag up for those who who may not be paying close attention to the timeline: the evidence linked for Luna and Loki agreeing with Snokalok comes from after my edits were reverted on the basis that ‘half the users in the thread’ disagreed. At that time neither had said anything whatsoever about the topic! This makes Snokalok’s claim that The following names were arguing against inclusion another misrepresentation.

I would appreciate knowing what I’m being accused of quacking like. If you’re accusing me of being a sock of another involved user or some outside figure I can assure you I’m not. I am a complete nobody and I have not engaged in this topic in any way beyond my acknowledged edits.

I’m not trying to defend my own conduct here. Edit warring was a stupid way to act even given my conclusion that you were ignoring and stonewalling emerging consensus that the source was reliable and probably due, which is why I’ve done the more sensible thing of bringing the issue here. I will note that as a fresh account I cannot edit the semiprotected page any more anyway. Frank Forfolk (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

the evidence linked for Luna and Loki agreeing with Snokalok comes from after my edits were reverted on the basis that ‘half the users in the thread

You were perfectly free at any time in the conversation to compile a list editors for vs editors against, as I did for the against side. But you never did, you never even challenged that point or provided evidence against it. Why you chose not to is beyond me, but if you wanted to challenge that at the time you were perfectly free to. Additionally, I openly added Luna after she replied to my current list saying she agreed, because I wanted to keep things in good faith from sprawling with the assumption that edits plainly available in the page history would be seen as open and good faith gestures and not some underhanded attempt at misrepresentation or what have you. Certainly not like making a minor edit which the summary says is to fix a linking issue but actually changing the title of the ANI thread long after the fact.[73] Additionally I notice you have a running pattern of assuming bad faith, first in your edit summaries and now here.

which is why I’ve done the more sensible thing of bringing the issue here Fascinating choice of venue. Snokalok (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not like making a minor edit which the summary says is to fix a linking issue but actually changing the title of the ANI thread long after the fact. I changed my own words (I cringed a bit at how ‘denial’ sounded), how is that misrepresenting anyone else? If people have a problem with it I can change it back…

What other venue would be more appropriate? It was not being resolved on the talk page no matter how many editors, including ones experienced with MEDRS, explained to you and YFNS that the source was reliable and the arguments you were making against its reliability had no basis in policy. Outside arbitration seems like the best option, no? Frank Forfolk (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait. This is your choice of venue. You invited me to take the issue to ANI 8 hours before calling it an ‘interesting choice of venue’ on my part. Did you forget that you’d done so? Frank Forfolk (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you're relatively new here, so let me explain something to you:

When someone tells you to take them to ANI, that does not literally mean "I think ANI is the right venue for resolving this". It means "I think your accusations are obviously bullshit and I'm going to demonstrate that I'm not intimidated by inviting you to tattle on me".

Snokalok calling ANI an "interesting choice of venue" is in this context perfectly consonant with what they said before, in that it's another way of saying "I think your accusations are obviously bullshit". Loki (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

On conduct issues I think this is a clear boomerang case (given the edit warring, including reverting by other people)

On content issues (if those should be discussed here) I don't see how this BMJ article is due, nobody has discussed it and it really doesn't talk about the Cass review. Given that we don't repeat any claims from the integrity project white paper in wikivoice and it is clearly not fringe (been repeated by medical institutions) I don't see the need to include this. Now if in the coming days rs's start talking about this review my opinion could change but that is crystal ball territory.

I should say the main reason that the Yale white paper is due is because multiple papers have reported it and it's cited in lots of Cass criticism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

especially if Flounder's edit counts as approving inclusion

I neither approve nor disapprove. I merely noticed problems and fixed them immediately. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I only skimmed the discussion after seeing a bit of spillover on another article talk page, but I must say I am very surprised to see it here from what I saw. I frankly do not have the energy to look into conduct in this case on my own initiative, and the evidence presented is not very clear cut in my admittedly not-conduct-experienced and did-not-really-look-at-the-conduct opinion, but might I suggest (regardless of what actions, if any, are taken here) that should a similarly deadlocked content dispute take place in the future, one might seek out our content noticesboards, such as WP:FRINGEN and WP:RSN, as a first point of call, as suggested in our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy, rather than escalating it to ANI? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I'll take it there if this carries on. Frank Forfolk (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've been trying to look in on this article every weekend. While I do believe people are genuinely doing their personal best, my experience is a bit of a mixed bag. Some days you see garden-variety wikilawyering. Some days it's just blatant POV pushing. Imagine, e.g., if a certain prominent US presidential candidate said something, and was criticized for it, and the editors who agreed with the critics declared that we should permit the original responses in the article, but reject responses to the critics (even though some of the responses are misinformation spread through social media, e.g., early cries of "they rejected 98% of the scientific evidence!"). We wouldn't accept that in AP2 subjects, but it's happening this week at Talk:Cass Review. Some weeks it's painful to see how personally threatened some editors feel by the subject matter. Perhaps the most common thing you see is editors struggling to differentiate between "what I personally believe to be true, based on my experiences, my values, and what I hear in my personal filter bubble" and "what the reliable sources say, including sources whose POV I disagree with/I decided to downplay when I formed my personal beliefs". I don't say this to suggest anyone is trying to set any WP:CPUSH records; I say this to agree that this can be really, really hard, and to acknowledge that they really are trying to do the right thing by the article, as best as they can see what the right thing is.
  What IMO has gone well in the article is that some editors have been patient with explaining things when I've asked, and we don't actually see as much edit warring in the article as you might guess from the endless contention on the talk page. They are a pretty welcoming crowd. Also, we're not seeing a surprising level of vandalism. The challenge here is mostly a WP:YESPOV issue. I think that most people who hold strong beliefs about this subject area want to see those beliefs represented as The Truth™ (I believe this; I am a reasonable person; therefore, all reasonable people believe this [or they would, if they knew as much as I do about this subject]) are having trouble really believing that there could be a POV that differs from their own, but which is equally reasonable.
  If you are gentle and patient, if you are familiar with Wikipedia's goals and rules, and especially if you don't feel strongly about trans stuff but can have compassion on people who do, I invite you to drop by the article and see if you can spend a couple of months supporting the formation of an article on this subject that represents the best of what Wikipedia can do with a complex, contradictory subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I really appreciate your involvement both here and on this topic in general since the review got published. I do have trouble seeing how we can muddle through to a consensus on the talkpage that upholds Wikipedia's policies when that process depends on users being willing to back down at least somewhat when they don't get what they want. And on that talk page right now there are very vocal users who respond to requests to explain how policy can justify a MEDRS being dismissed as fringe when it seems to do the opposite by just dumping links to WP:FRINGE as though it's self-evident. This was particularly concerning when, as at the start of this mess, there are only two editors holding this position but they're brazenly stating that until they agree no consensus can be reached. The situation has evolved since then and this ANI thread should really be closed (it was obviously the wrong venue in hindsight), but I hope an RFC or a WP:FRINGEN discussion can properly settle this instead. I think I'll avoid being the one to open it this time, given others have expressed interest in doing so and given how much I ballsed up this attempt to break out of the cycle of talkpage stonewalling. Frank Forfolk (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring in Balkans-related articles

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

This editor's already edit warred in an awful lot of Balkans-related articles and refused to stop despite several warnings (here, here, here, and here). For example, they seem determined to replace the term "Bosnian" with "Bosnian and Herzogovinian" (see this edit, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one) even though the former is perfectly fine and much more common than the latter. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, their edits seem correct, though. The country's name is Bosnia and Herzegovina, the league is Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc., with Bosnia per se., whether piped or otherwise deemed "informal." What am I missing? El_C 18:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, edit warring is edit warring, who is editorially correct generally is not considered a mitigating factor (which... I mean... you know that...right?). And I am seeing warnings not just from the OP but from several other users to cut it out, so it does seem there is an issue here. I woudn't go so far as to say a NOTHERE block is justified though. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(To the parenthesis) Not really pertinent to my above note. El_C 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Surely, in such a contentious region, there must have been a consensus reached about how we should refer to the country and its citizens? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

They were warned that Balkans topics were deemed contentious back in August after edit-warring with User:Joy. I suggest picking up that ball and running with it. SerialNumber54129 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that will not be me now. But hope it works out. El_C 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully my indentation suggests I was replying to the OP. SerialNumber54129 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I knew that. I was just wrapping it up on my part. If another admin is gonna patronize me when I'm just beginning to conduct my inquiry, I can leave the matter to them. There's no shortage of reports on this noticeboard that could use attention. El_C 19:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, apologies for any confusion. SerialNumber54129 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for your timely replies! Well, I don't find these edits correct cuz "Bosnian" had been used for many years on Wikipedia when this editor began replacing it with with "Bosnian and Herzogovinian" (per this conversation); also, I haven't discovered a single reliable source that called Lana Pudar "Bosnian and Herzogovinian". Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Bosnian" being used for many years isn't really a good argument against changing it to "Bosnian and Herzegovinian", since things can be wrong for years and years before being noticed. The reliable source argument is much better. As for the issue at heart here, it looks like this is someone who wants everything to be standardized, a very common type of wikipedia personality and not in itself evidence of WP:NOTHERE-type behaviour. I see they asked a bunch of times for a link to a discussion on whether it's appropriate to call people from Bosnia and Herzegovina "Bosnian" - is there such a thing anywhere? An RfC or something? -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to preface this remark by saying that it is WP:OR and that language is often illogical, but isn't it impossible for anyone to be Bosnian and Herzegovinan? Surely if we want to acknowledge both in describing someone's citizenship the form should be Bosnian-Herzegovinan? If no consensus has been reached about how we describe people from that country I'll check out later how we describe citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, which may or may not be informative. Can anyone think of any other countries with "and" in their names? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a few countries with "and" in their names, generally the casual demonym is either one or the other. Usually one is more prominent, as is the case with Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I went and had a look at some Bosnia and Herzegovina UN speeches to see what they themselves used in formal English, and my observation is that they studiously avoid needing to use a demonym. CMD (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

A Google search finds several dictionary definitions defining Bosnians as citizens or inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have an article Bosnians with some discussion of the name in the talk page archives. TSventon (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

One example is Antigua and Barbuda, for which the demonym in the infobox is Antiguan and Barbudan - though I wouldn't be surprised if individuals called themselves one or the other. There's also the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (five major demonyms), and in some contexts England and Wales; too deep a rabbit-hole to go down here.. Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I see our article on Viv Richards says, "Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards KNH KCN OBE OOC (born 7 March 1952) is a retired Antiguan cricketer...". If I was emphasizing his citizenship I think I'd avoid a demonym altogether and say something like "from Antigua and Barbuda". Maybe something similar would work for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, what I'm getting from all of this is that if we do have some kind of RfC or guideline on the topic, it's so buried and no one knows about it, that we might as well not have one at all. Which means, I think, the argument against making this change everywhere that @Adelbeighou can be referred to is MOS:VAR; that is, in the absence of some substantial reason, changes of this sort are not acceptable and can be reverted. Since people are indeed frequently referred to as Bosnian, we have no such substantial reason. We also have clear instructions for what to do if you disagree: If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

They're not edit-warring literally right now, and only seem to be around infrequently, so it seems to me the best thing to do is explain this on their talk page and warn them that if they make another edit of this nature without first seeking consensus, they will be blocked from editing. Between that, the CTOP alert, and the myriad warnings on their talk page, they'll have had plenty of opportunities to change course. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Adelbeighou has removed the ANI notification from their talk page here so they are aware it is happening. TSventon (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder to post on their talk page. They haven't made any more edits of this nature so far, but if they do, give a shout here and I (or whoever) will block. Though if anyone else wants to get to the indef part early on the basis of that "get a life" edit summary, I can't say I'll feel motivated to object. -- asilvering (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen "Trinidad and Tobagonian", "Trinidadian" and "Tobagonian" to describe people from Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia (the latter two most likely describing the island the person in question is from). Not sure what the consensus on that would be though. Procyon117 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

A good example. I can easily imagine statements in wikivoice like "a Trinidadian sportsperson who represents Trinidad and Tobago" or "a Tobagonian politician in Trinidad and Tobago". (I express no opinion on the Bosnia/Herzegovina issue.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Adelbeighou is an infrequent editor, the last time they edited regularly was more than a month ago, so I don't expect them to respond here any time soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is another problem, that Adelbeighou seems to prefer "Herzegovian", when the correct form seems to be "Herzegovinian". TSventon (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Conduct of user FlightTime towards other editors

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

---

I write to raise concerns regarding the recent conduct of FlightTime towards other editors. I have not had a great deal of involvement with them, but I believe their behaviour to be unwelcoming, rude and incompatible with AGF. My goal in raising this incident is that it will prompt FlightTime to review and change their behaviour.

Specifically, this editor continues to revert others (often in the name of vandalism), but refuses to engage with the other editors when they ask for an explanation. The reverts are sometimes justified, but the general dismissive attitude towards other editors contributions - in my view - is not. I first noticed this conduct regarding the Eddie Van Halen article, but a cursory review of their edit history shows this was not an isolated event (the additional examples below are by no means exhaustive):

On 13th October, FlightTime reverted 2 ([1] [2]) edits by Cebran2003 to Eddie Van Halen and left a warning on their talk page. They then proceeded to report them to ANI for edit-warring (a report they later withdrew). When the user responded, they said "Then please use edit summaries, tell us what the hell you're doing". FlightTime did not respond further, or restore the original pages but proceeded to remove the note I placed on their talk page about biting newcomers (which they are, of course, entitled to do - but this is a common theme).

On 18th October, FlightTime removed 178.232.112.187's comments on Talk:Ghurid dynasty. The IP user followed up on their FlightTime's talkpage, these comments were also promptly removed.

On 17th August, FlightTime reverted GeoWriter's contributions to Obsidian as OR. Valid or not, when the user discussed it on FlightTime's talk page, they removed the comment with the note "ty tldr just reverted your edit, didn't ask for a class".

On 1st August, FlightTime reverted SeanMatton's contributions to Tim Chapman ([1] [2]) branding them as a "Vandal" and reporting them to ANI for vandalism. SeanMatton commented on FlightTime's talk page to query the reversions, but their comments were removed.

I can relate to sometimes editing or reverting too quickly, but the correct thing to do is to acknowledge you were wrong and apologise. FlightTime is a long term contributor and has clearly committed a lot of the project, but I struggle to believe their general incivility and refusal to engage or explain their reverts is acceptable - especially given their elevated status as a member of VRT.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Today they rolled back in one go (just as twice within minutes five days ago), concurrently, my 100-byte (this time) initial contribution on a second article and a 137-byte contribution by someone else in the same paragraph. "Unsourced" was the one-word explanation. (I am relieved not to have been criticized again today, having in truth been a little late in furnishing a directly to-the-point citation.) Cebran2003 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, they are less responsive about and more hasty about wholesale rollbacks than might be readily inferred from @OXYLYPSE's and my comments above. Five days ago, I chanced to guess wrong what content required speedy citing in their view; the reversion of this wrong guess constituted the entire difference between rollback 1 and rollback 2 (timed a few minutes apart). In fact, I have yet to receive from that person any indication of what they wanted cited (though I appear to have wound up guessing correctly a day or so later). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately not bothering to try to justify their call for citations with respect to my contribution of today, that person actually rolled back only the following where my 100 bytes were concerned. I had noticed an improbable statement characterizing two boys, two years apart in age, as being concurrently in a single grade in elementary school. I tracked down which of the two later reported (in an interview) having been in that grade at the relevant time. I corrected accordingly. I then deleted a dead link (for that interview), possibly thus setting the person off (unless I had already done so with only the correction). As I was preparing to carry over a good link from a related article to today's, the person took the opportunity to roll me back. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cebran2003 Hey Cebran. I get you're trying to thoroughly explain the situation here, but try not to excessively comment here on this thread as it might be disruptive. Doing so can bloat a lot of text on screen and deter possible contributors with this giant wall of info. Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My intention was only to cover the main points. I already considered myself done, and now in view of Toby's feedback I am declaring myself done, with thanks all around. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The perception of trolling explaining all, apology accepted. (I have yet to interact at all with FlightTime's talk, and my edit from yesterday actually included the citation from the outset rather than *the latter's* following by some minutes.) (Pardon the grammar, what with the occasional lapses like that.) All good now. Cebran2003 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cebran2003:, Thank you. Stop by my talk anytime. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to bring attention to Cebran's talk page, specifically the alert I gave them here. Although that section is generally pretty weird, I'll specifically refer to this one sentence, I do love a good fi- er, challenge (Edit: Removed [74]), referring to this thread.

1. I don't know what they mean by "fi-er". Is this censored or something? Is this a WP:PA?

2. The fact they refer to this as a "challenge" makes me concerned about the possibility of some WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Could this be some WP:BOOMERANG situation? The amount of comments Cebran has published also makes me concerned about WP:BLUDGEONING, especially considering I've already warned them about bludgeoning here. TheWikiToby (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The above has been shocking, to say the least. There was an earlier warning about something else, but I have seen no previous one about bludgeoning. I have not engaged at all in bludgeoning, battling, or PA; nothing that I have written (not gratuitously but in response to some intense criticism) appears to me to lend itself to boomerang. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see (another element of) what you did there. Your link to the bludgeoning article was meant to serve as a warning. I didn't notice the link at all before, but I will have a look at the article now. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheWikiToby I'm glad you brought up Battleground.

It states "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. [...] Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia."

Would you care to explain how FlightTime's diffs I've linked in the original post and below demonstrate that, or are you just here to rip into Cebran2003 for being overly verbose and passionate about the article they (were) contributing to?

If you too cannot see the problem with FlightTime's behaviour, well, you're clearly ready for adminship with the old boys.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

On "being overly verbose and passionate about the article": I resemble that ... portrayal, of course without at all resenting the characterization put in question form. Thank you. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Toby’s alert on my talk page: "There is currently a discussion at [ANI] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [this very one]. Thank you."

That looks like the simplest of boilerplate, not like something to which a provider of alerts would want later to draw attention at all, let alone concerning which they would encourage (or themselves draw) specifically so much as one inference. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with FlightTime is I think he's usually right on the merits, but isn't very good at communicating this with people who don't understand Wikipedia policies, leading to all sorts of unnecessary conflict. Usually it's because somebody's added unsourced content, or has rejigged some minor part in the article against consensus. All in all I can't say it's more than a mild annoyance. However, if people can find a lot of hard evidence of WP:BITEing, as opposed to minor bits and bobs, we can revisit this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone involved, at the time I thought the article(s) and my talk were being trolled, I was obviously wrong and thought I fixed everything, again wrong. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm about to look again at those edits on Eddie Van Halen, and I think I might roll them all back. It's perfectly understandable why User:FlightTime reverted some of them. Those edits were unverified and totally unexplained (how is it that his place of birth was moved from Amsterdam to Nijmegen), and contained a number of errors of various kinds. Asking editors to a. explain and b. verify is fine, and this response Cebran is not. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanx for cleaning up Van Halen. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Drmies has made a series of absolutely incorrect comments (with one notable exception) just above. Eddie was indeed born in Amsterdam. Correction of my small error on that narrow subject apart, by no means does anything warrant rolling back, particularly for real en masse, my edits of the past week. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, between Alex's 1953 birth and some time after Eddie's 1955 birth, their parents moved the family as so constituted from Amsterdam to Nijmegen. A previous editor had called Amsterdam Eddie's birthplace through what I thought until this evening to have been an understandable error. A certain Jakarta Post piece might well have been misread by that person to bring on the error if there was one, given what I saw of the interplay between source and body text citing it. To repeat, in the form in which I left them, my edits were almost uniformly accurate and were otherwise appropriate. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am mystified about how the impulse to engage in gratuitous and unfounded rollbacks has spread with respect to this article. Someone else repeated FlightTime's second rollback (of my nine initial EVH edits) six days ago, and now Drmies has set out to join the club (evidently with respect to dozens more). It is not supposed to occur at all, right? Cebran2003 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And somehow "tell us what the hell you're doing" is acceptable? - OXYLYPSE (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed proceeding to carry out a (3000-byte) gratuitous and unfounded rollback of their own (before functionally disappearing, that is, reverting another 500+ bytes, potentially and counting, in a trio of additional edit variants), Drmies cited as authoritative a NYT article to which I lack access: Farber, Jim (October 7, 2020). "Eddie Van Halen, 65, Rock Original With Lightning in His Fingers, Dies". Perhaps the specific detail purportedly in the article was present and correct, but again I have been questioning whether it was both. With due allowance for the subset of tweaks by Drmies that may have been good, obviously (and not only in terms of slashed word count) the article is markedly poorer overall for their several unilateral acts of owning it. Cebran2003 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That NYT article states Edward Lodewijk Van Halen was born on Jan. 26, 1955, in Amsterdam to Jan and Eugenia (Beers) Van Halen. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you. Partly given the two-fold improper because anachronistic surname prefix capitalization, the correctness of the location statement did remain in momentary doubt. (Perhaps the style manual's mandating such an ahistorical rendering is well and good, but this treatment is sure glaring now.) Cebran2003 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Particularly enlightening is this gem, a key element of that absurd 3000-byte rollback: "an editorial note on Dutch last names or whatever is unnecessary, etc. etc." This was characterized by Drmies as unexplained and not a good edit. The note was in fact, as I had explained in the immediately previous history entry, inserted by me to replace a hatnote (not mine, of course) that was failing -- and has *resumed* post-massive-rollback its failure -- to do the matter justice. (I did not know, and indeed have yet to explore, how to tailor a hatnote; replacing it was evidently the best move for the time being.) Et cetera indeed. Cebran2003 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that it was from (as can be readily seen by anyone troubling to "View history" for the EVH article) the Jakarta Post article that I found documentation of the two overseas stays of about half a dozen years each (1943-49 in Indonesia, afterward in the Netherlands) that in both cases preceded Eddie's birth (the latter stay destined to continue until the 1962 move to the US). Cebran2003 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cebran2003: All this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The actual issue being large-scale and gratuitous and at best uncertainly founded rollbacks, rather than the initial and long-gone misunderstanding between the two of us, FlightTime, evidently the discussion does continue to belong here. Maybe a new topic is called for, partly to ease your understandably possibly desired distancing from it? Cebran2003 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Having inspired through one of their deletions an improbable find that finally furnishes an irrefutably authoritative data point (potentially so for the body of the EVH article itself), Drmies does merit a little bit of credit. Amsterdam it was, as noted in a citation (thoughtfully left intact though now uninvoked at all) for which Drmies opted to delete the invocation. Substituting for said active online Dutch source the access-impaired NYT article would not have been my choice, but where there's a will to set even one element of the record straight, I must acknowledge there being a way. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in the article history Drmies has also opined, "'settled' in Nijmegen is a bit of an exaggeration"; what is interesting here is the evidence of their having imputed the wording to me, when in fact I had simply left that word intact in formulating my fairly extensive edit about the family's time in the Netherlands (relegated at this moment to "coverage" in a single sentence). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You can be as verbose as you like, Cebran2003, but "The Dutch prefix 'van' was capitalized by the boys’ parents during the family’s immigration" is not verified by this, of course, and there's no racism "because of their mother's ancestry" after they moved to the US in this source, and who knows what a "a welcome expanded role" is; it's not in here. So I'll just let your edits speak for themselves. I'd like to think of "not verified by sources" as irrefutable authoritative data points. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My inference as to who did the capitalizing was nevertheless an extremely strong one, in light of its evidently not being the immigration authorities despite the common myth (refutation of which I duly sourced) about that. The matter of racism (actually alluded to in the title and content of the NBC News piece -- identified just above by Drmies as "this source" -- and probably touched on by Eddie, although I am not in the mood to check just now) "because of their mother's ancestry" was, again, not my wording. It is the slash-and-burn substitute for a strategy on the part of Drmies that speaks for itself, just as throughout this discussion; no failing or failure of mine does so in any meaningful way. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone capitalized the prefix. It was not the immigration authorities, again despite the canard about its having supposedly been those officials so acting for many new arrivals. It was very probably none other than EVH's and AVH's parents in the course of immigration, possibly as shown in the ship's manifest or if not probably quite shortly after arrival. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm Cebran2003, you said, "Drmies shows 'worrisome' signs of meriting a strong fate." Did you put a hit out on me or something? I don't believe in fate, by the way, but I do believe that editors on this collaborative project should not make ridiculous and vaguely violent threats. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I meant nothing more than meriting some admin sanctions. Ill will on my part? Well, no. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the comments made just above by Drmies about those second and third sources are plenty revelatory, about the commentator of course, in and of themselves. The NYT source, yet again, was not mine, merely because it was in place when I began my very first edit. It did not become mine on account of my having occasion to cite it in an additional location in the body text. With respect to Eddie's help with Beat It, his doing more than providing the solo was explicitly and enthusiastically welcomed by MJ; I suspect that Drmies didn't deign to give that article a look. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to reflecting on another's possible practices of sourcing inadequacy, the standpoint held by the occasional content-editing critic, including of my own words in particular, is far from authoritative among data points. To review how I used the relevant phrase in particular, the Dutch document is irrefutably authoritative, whereas the content produced by the NYT (currently cited in the body text, substituted for a cite of the Dutch document) has less than a 100% accuracy record and is, moreover, not all that readily accessible. Nothing is apt to impress less than wrenching phrases far, far away from the context of their previous usage. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Collaborativeness is, though, staying put as where I am at. Bludgeoning activity, oddly imputed by implication to me by someone else here, is evidently where others (whose espousal of collaborativeness may at times be in question) are to be found. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, that's a lot of words that hurt my brain (WP:WALLOFTEXT). TheWikiToby (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying: you got the wrong number. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

To express it more simply (though not in comparison to my one-liner just above, of course), as Toby has implicitly advised … Collaborativeness is always my intention, and I usually act accordingly. Meanwhile, despite their first mention here of collaborativeness, Drmies is the one to have been doing all the bludgeoning and little else, leaving me to do little else than to fend off a few of their repeated personal attacks (or to point out some of the damage done through their rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Very happily indeed, the collateral damage from the precipitous rollback by Drmies of my every word for the EVH article has chanced to be startlingly minor. The improper restoration of an unknown infobox parameter bearing on a radio station, coincidentally removed by someone else on the 14th of this month, was inevitably achieved through the resorting by Drmies to a revision-in-spirit-and-effect-of-rollback going pretty far back. (No wonder 3000+ bytes, about 5% of the article word count, got slashed in one fell swoop, scarcely fathomable though it has been up to now why such a large number, never mind percentage, of words.) Cebran2003 (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, yet more has been lost from the article, by implication as well as in words. "Eddie cited [an Alex-and-others-accompanying musical] performance when he was in the fourth grade as key to his desire to become a professional musician"; citation currently in effect, one dead link, restored by Drmies. Someone else's allusion to school segregation (documented as having been mentioned by Eddie in the interview, definitively in effect in the school district, likely in effect even in the elementary schools), a topic that I had not introduced but only added some comments about, is gone. Mention of his mother's being Eurasian, likewise not made initially by me, is gone. And that is only what I see to be changed down through the "early life" section, which chances to be as far down through the article as I had made it when FlightTime and I had our minor and fleeting dust-up. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 So you accept there is a problem with FlightTime's conduct that leads to "conflict", even if right "on merit"?

I do particularly appreciate how FlightTime was active but did not respond to this noticeboard, even after a request from Liz, however then musters up a brief response a mere six minutes after your comment of support. Intriguing indeed. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that multiple administrators have come to support FlightTime's conduct (love an old boys club!), I'll just leave these here and withdraw at this time:

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84] OXYLYPSE (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors are free to remove comments from their own talk pages - see WP:OWNTALK. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of replying concurrently on behalf of @OXYLYPSE and in my own name, I thank Daniel but add moreover that thread-launcher @OXYLYPSE has not placed this discussion in their talk and that I have nothing to gain from removing and indeed zero incentive to remove anything related from my talk as it now stands. (FlightTime and I have, again, resolved our own differences, as of some hours past.) Cebran2003 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(A handful of misplaced words there have wound up duly eaten and removed; apologies to anyone who may have taken them for anything bad, on account of poor phrasing and/or on account of being unexpectedly in the audience.) Cebran2003 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, please feel free to weigh in on this rollback issue now brought more acutely into focus. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No thanks. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel My original post covered how editors are permitted to manage their talk page, had you cared to read it before you hastily replied to defend. The issue here is the pattern of making a revert and then either refusing to engage or engaging in an uncivil manner when queried upon it, a point you said "no thanks" when asked to consider.

So far @Liz seems to be the only administrator that has been willing to consider that behaviour a problem. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to speculate why that is.

This whole thing is a farce and has been successfully derailed by the old timers turning it into a content dispute.

-OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to give Daniel himself as well as Toby the benefit of the doubt. And now I will move on to @Liz ... Hers is a familiar name that I fondly remember from a probably related conversation. So, @Liz, I certainly hope that you will "feel free to weigh in on this rollback issue now brought more [and more] acutely into focus" (if I may repeat myself in this way). Cebran2003 (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As the esteemed user whose latest revision (the edit immediately preceding my first-ever contribution to the EVH article) was what Drmies chanced to restore, @Hipal too may care to share their thoughts on the matter. Cebran2003 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Drmies forecasted: "I think I might roll them all back"; I am getting myself to give FlightTime too the benefit of the doubt, with respect to their thanks for this, as I choose not to believe that they noticed in saying thanks the scale of that late-breaking rollback. So, all is still good with them as well. Cebran2003 (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder for Toby: to love a good challenge is to love meeting same, not to go on offense. (Please bear with and consider even closely reading the scantly break-graced wall of text to follow.)

It is remarkable that last evening’s rollback inflicted on that oddly salient EVH article by Drmies has yet to be touched at all. Here is why.

In the sharpest of contrasts to my editing perspective and conduct that one can imagine, Drmies has engaged throughout this discussion in nothing but attack against me, casting the essence of shade on my abilities — including to write sentences that make sense.

I would never have imagined falling victim, on this platform and especially here in the ANI, to a gratuitous and groundless and one-sided and deeply personal flame war. And yet it has just happened.

As you will surely infer, I am particularly puzzled about how and why, having already contributed content to a fairly broad variety of other Wikipedia articles, I suddenly find myself under sustained heavy fire over an article about EVH in particular. Cebran2003 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see myself mentioned here. But after reviewing this complaint, I'm completely lost on what is occurring here and what the problem is. The complaint started to be about FlightTime and now I see objections to Drmies. But the discussion is all over the map and I think it should probably be closed as there is no singular and clear goal being sought. Feel free to open a new discussion on a specific subject that you feel warrants review. But continuing to post your unhappiness about other editors and to vent is unlikely to lead to any changes and might just reflect poorly on you. If you have issues with a specific editor, I recommend discussing the problem with them on their User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, at just about the time that FlightTime was apologizing for his incivility of a week ago (and I was promptly accepting the apology), Drmies took up the attack, literally, and not only flamed me far more viciously and more repeatedly (without actually inviting any of the explanations that Drmies declared my having never provided) but in the first moments of their opening flame incident rolled back -- with no little collateral damage to the material -- my 3000-byte contribution to date (5% of the word count) for an article that Drmies claims as some de facto owner (despite having evidently added no content in connection with or after the massive rollover). Cebran2003 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Rollback, not rollover; sounds like another Freudian slip on my part. In any event, please note that Drmies is obviously unapproachable by me on their User talk page, and that I previously tried running by FlightTime (fences mended, clearly) the idea of starting a new thread from which they could readily bow out if they chose. Cebran2003 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let me take a different approach. You have explained your dismay at Drmies' edits and approach towards you, Cebran2003, but what do you expect will happen from this ANI complaint? What proposal do you have to make? If this complaint is just serving to air your disagreement without you having an achievable goal, then this complaint should probably be closed before there is any blowback on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing that the absurd rollback be reversed, and that any undoing of the reversal be impeded to whatever extent may be feasible. Just to be clear, I have no personal stake in the article and am intending to walk away; its recent degradation by Drmies is the only matter that still concerns me, as a matter of principle (although I continue to think that any admin sanctions that can be brought to bear should be brought to bear). Cebran2003 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have spoken for myself only in offering up the proposal above. @OXYLYPSE, who launched the thread and just paved the way for me to reach out directly to you, @Liz, may have a broader one to make here. Cebran2003 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

SheriffIsInTown’s POV-Pushing, User Conduct

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

---

I believe SheriffIsInTown, a user on Pakistani Wikipedia has been constantly POV pushing against Imran Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), figures in Pakistan’s political crisis. Not only this, but he has constantly used aggressive language in user discussions. Firstly, he recently put false information on Imran Khan’s BLP article that was not supported by any of the 3 citations he gave and likely citation bombed to make it seem like a proper piece of information. Secondly, he cited an opinion piece for 2 paragraphs of information on Imran Khan’s page without even mentioning it was an opinion piece. Thirdly, he discusses in a debate style, often with WP:IDHT. He has threatened to “take it to the next level” and uses language like “before you open your mouth” with me. He has accused me of writing for the Tehreek-e-Insaf party and has accused me of portraying Imran Khan as suffering which I simply did not do. He appears to purposely prolongs debates and ignores points while POV pushing against Khan and PTI. I am not worried about his language, but he is an editor of 10 years and he is still engaging in actions like adding false negative info to a high-priority page like Imran Khan. He has been accused of bullying by Saad Ali Khan Pakistan in the past here, here and here, and you may see his edit history and talk page for his constant agitation to other Pakistani users and POV pushing against Imran Khan.

For context, the political crisis in Pakistan involved the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf running as Independent candidates due to legal issues, and all news reports termed PTI (Imran Khan's party) the biggest party in the February 2024 elections. For an example of his POV pushing, Sheriff has seemingly tried every attempt to remove PTI's presence in election pages by removing Imran Khan from the Infobox and reducing the number of seats from 93 to 39 on the 2024 Pakistani general election because of technicalities, completely ignoring the de-facto situation. He also has removed the PTI flag from the 2024 Sindh provincial election despite every other Pakistani election page including political party flags in the place of leader images. There are many examples of his anti-PTI and anti-Khan POV pushing, including attempting to conceal negative information about Asif Ali Zardari, a political rival of Imran Khan's. I believe Sheriff's editing pattern follows WP:CPUSH and WP:POV WARRIOR. Titan2456 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked into the first example (the one linked in "false information"), and I agree that this is a misuse of the sources. This could easily have been a mistake and I wouldn't conclude from this edit alone that anything untoward is occurring, I'm just stating it so no one else has to duplicate the work. The statement added to the article is However, his critics contend that his struggle is driven by personal ambitions and self-interest. It is sourced to three sources. In the Guardian and ST articles I didn't find anything similar. The BBC has His opponents say that all his policies while in power were only about his own ego and whimsy. When in power, they say, he spent more time hounding his opponents than he did running the country. I don't think "driven by personal ambitions and self-interest" is a good reflection of that statement, but given the three articles I've read, I can easily believe it to be a true and verifiable statement about what Khan's critics say about him in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering That's exactly what happened, and I explained it here in my second-to-last comment in that discussion. I believe there's an ulterior motive at play, aimed at tarnishing my reputation as we approach the admin election, in which I'm a candidate. Some individuals have started making accusations like POV pushing, but in reality, I'm the one striving to maintain NPOV, and I can provide examples to prove this, if needed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. Do you have a comment on this diff? (The second example in the original post.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sheriff, it may be good to lower your tonnage or bring in a third party voice. The talk page appears to show that, so you're probably fine here. OP needs to also understand that adding content without a source, regardless if others do it or not, is easily ready to be reverted. To Sheriff, WP:AGF, they seem new and likely need assistance. To OP read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND and maybe move on to something else in the project. (non-admin comment) Conyo14 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 I've actually been quite patient with OP, as they tend to exhibit a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles. Much of their content is heavily promotional towards PTI, which is why I felt the need to step in to maintain balance. They argue over images and challenge every change made to content they've introduced. They demonstrate a pattern of WP:IDHT behavior, repeatedly making the same points in discussions without relenting from their viewpoint. One example is when they insisted that sources weren't necessary in certain cases, only backing down after @CNMall41 intervened. Frankly, a WP:BOOMERANG should be issued against them, as they are often the ones pushing a biased POV in most situations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I see quite the opposite that you have a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles, especially election ones and viciously trying to erase signs of PTI, converting them to Independents. You can check my edit history I have never threatened Sheriff while he has constantly used intimidation tactics with me and other users. Sheriff also only backed down after @Borgenland intervened removing the not cited information of Sheriffs. And just saying, Sheriff’s behavior has been everything but patient. Titan2456 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I request administrators to take serious action against Sheriff. Because of people like him, editors get dishearten when they work hard to edit and people like him revert or remove edit by a single click. I have seen in Indian election articles that even before election they add party lists and candidates in their constituency pages before polls so that after results it would be easy for them to edit and complete articles but when I started adding candidates names in constituency pages like NA-1 Chitral, he started reverting my edits without telling me. It was decided by the editors that in light of Media PTI backed Independents will be shown separated instead of showing with other independents because PTI backed independent candidates got party ticket and support from PTI but he still imposed his rule in all constituency pages. I support taking action against vandalism but imposing your order like you own this site is insane and bullying which is not good. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I acknowledge that Sheriff has been hauled here multiple times but based on my personal experience I do not believe that said user is acting out of malice. As for the revert I do not recall that specific incident but I acknowledge making multiple reverts in Pakistani politics primarily on copy-editing and ensuring statements are watertight with citations. In fact, Sheriff has been helpful in helping me kick out a WP:SOAPBOX hyper-partisan PTI editor who turned out to be an LTA sock who kept bludgeoning me and the 2024 Pakistani general election with a non-credible source and resorted to vile WP:IDNHT, WP:NPA and WP:CIR attacks. Borgenland (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Burmiester and my talk page

After I reverted some anonymous edits based on tourism review sites, Burmeister arrived on my user talk page. After a rather spirited discussion on my talk page at User_talk:MrOllie#Three_magi, Burmiester is refusing to accept that the discussion is over. I have asked them to stop posting on my talk page. Would someone please have a word, they aren't listening ([85][86][87][88]). - MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If I catch a ban for this, so be it. I'm just tired of being pushed around by petty tyrants on Wikipedia who refuse to allow for a neutral point of view and gatekeep articles. I've made thousands of edits over the years. This used to be fun for me. It's not fun anymore. I'd also like to add that instead of responding to my visible frustration with understanding and discussion, he escalated the situation with snarky comments. What I did was not right, and I understand that. But what Mr.Ollie did was also not acceptable, at least in my opinion.(Burmiester (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC))

As a general principle, user talk pages are a poor place to engage in content disputes. Try discussing such issues where others can join in and there's less room for petty tyranny, real or imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Hostility just gets old.(Burmiester (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC))

Burmiester, it looks like all MrOllie is asking for is that you stop posting to their User talk page, at least about this issue. Can you agree to that and moving your discussions to article talk pages? In general, on this project, when an editor asks for you to stop posting on their User talk page, that request is honored except for notifications that are required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hostility, Burmeister? Your prolonged ranting and raving and repeated personal attacks on MrOllie's talk page was way over the line, and exemplifies hostility. If editing Wikipedia is not fun for you, then the solution to that problem of yours is obvious. Find another hobby. If you choose to keep editing, you cannot blow your stack if another editor questions the reliability of sources that you use. Never do that again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Petty tyrants is below the standards expected, and should be withdrawn. MrOllie is entirely entitled to ask an editor to stay off their talk page and this should be respected, per WP:USERTALKSTOP. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, you marked the wrong user, your issue is with "Burmiester", not me. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for that, Burmeister. Do you think that the other editor is trying to impersonate you? Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Burmeister's account was registered in 2007 and Burmiester's in 2009, so unless he's playing a very long game, I don't think impersonation was intended when the account was registered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe in impersonation, just a similar user name. Burmeister (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive category additions by 68.69.37.6

68.69.37.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps disruptively adding categories to articles where the subject of the category aren't discussed in the article (see WP:CATVER), primarily adding "Category:Works about rape" to articles where rape is not discussed. Continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings - these category additions have been an ongoing issue from this IP for months. Recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That IP may be WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this. I noticed they also add categories "x about violence", when a video game or film which have violence in it isn't necessarily about violence. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User disruptively moving articles to userspace

User:Fakolyabuoz has been moving several articles to their own userspace. I've been constantly warning them not to do this, but they keep insisting on performing these moves without heeding any of my warnings. Klea Pineda is an article that was kept as a result of this AfD, and they keep moving it to their userspace for no reason at all. I also suspect they could be involved in sockpuppetry, since they appear to edit other users' userpages (including User:Vicky Montenegro and User:Kaloypangilinan) and moving articles to their userpages as well. They also fail to engage with anyone at their talk page, a behavior that is also evident with these other accounts. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I move-protected the Klea Pineda article and its talk page for a while before I saw this complaint, I hope that drives the message through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also request protection on pages vandalized by aforementioned sock accounts. Borgenland (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that they also stole Rere Madrid, which was created by another user, before other users could get a chance to review or contribute constructively to the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

195.224.252.228 Persistent edit spamming, abusing IPs, and refusing to engage in talk.

195.224.252.228 (talk · contribs) is edit warring on Chengdu J-10 while abusing sockpuppetry. I recorded the user's behavior at the Talk:Chengdu_J-10#October_2024. This user abuses multiple IP addresses: 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:C94D:E416:C690:81FE (talk · contribs), 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:B1D7:7E5D:5B8C:F65F (talk · contribs), 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:847F:B167:67E2:9C8B (talk · contribs), 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:68C1:EE16:48AB:D375 (talk · contribs) and much more. This users also vandalized other articles such as Guizhou JL-9 as 2A00:23C5:CDA5:EC01:F5C0:B8B2:5ED6:A98E (talk · contribs). These IPs can be geolocated to a single location, but due to the sockpuppetry, I cannot track when, where, and what this user is doing across Wikipedia. Collectively, the user's actions are well past the fourth warning and some enforcement action is necessary to stop his abusive usage of multiple IPs.-Loned (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who passes by, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for guidance on requesting an IP check for possible sockpuppetry. Steven1991 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The edits of this user may be abusive (I haven't checked) but no evidence of sockpuppetry has been presented. All of the IPv6 addresses presented are from the same 64 range, and presumably it is a different device from the one with an IPv4 address. Usually the user has no control over the IP address used. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I believe they are the same person is when I reverted an edit from one of the IPv6 addresses Special:Diff/1250014290, the IPv4 address logged in and reverted my edit and angrily told me that his edit isn’t vandalism, as in Special:Diff/1250090197. This pretty much confirmed these both IPv4 and IPv6 is the same person. None of the edits added by this guy have any source. He just edit the title paragraph everytime using a new IP. I believe the best solution now is to semi protect the Chengdu J-10 page so only auto-confirmed user can edit the page. -Loned (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Return of the Diddy / Fistagon vandal

The vandal / troll / sock who has brought so much fun and enjoyment recently has returned under the name Diddy need no consent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The account has already been blocked, but if someone could revdel the worst of the edit summaries, it would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Now sorted by Daniel, to whom many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, they are linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499/Archive#09 October 2024, and were recently blocked following my report. After that, they began reverting my edits using IP addresses, which led to them being reported under WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP. Now, they've created this new account and have continued, this time with offensive edit summaries. It would be best to run a CU and establish the connection. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

They are a sock of Fistagon and are listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of FiveSidedFistagon, where you'll note the other 'Diddy' related accounts. This is the 10th(?) time they've targeted my edits (along with other people) for their own type of vandalism. Their post on their user page referred to Fistagon as well. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was just curious as to why they would target my edits, given that I've had no previous interaction with them unless they are both one and the same. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Meenaneelesh it may have a WP:COI or connected to a politican?

I want to request a investigation to this user User:Meenaneelash that they create a article Santosh Meena, it seems this user is the behind of the article was this Facebook account that connected to his wikipedia article <link removed>, it maybe this is have a WP:COI. And I nominate for speedy deletion a upload of file File:Santoshmeena.jpg that are deleted now due to copyright violation. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 13:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Did you forget to use the four tildes to mark off your comment? In any case, I think a more appropriate venue would be WP:COIN. Also isn't this WP:OUTING? Procyon117 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think it suitable to WP:COIN, thanks! Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 13:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  It may exemptions to WP:COIN WP:OUTING because this is the evidence that was the behind or wikipedian user or have a connected on that article made. Royiswariii | D-GENERATION X | u can talk me :) 13:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  It has personal information on that page though, which is why I raised that concern. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In any case, it's at AfD now. Procyon117 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User report to personal talk page

An editor posted the following to my talk page a few minutes ago. They claim to not want to be noticed by the user they were reporting in case of reprisals, so I doubt that they would actually bring it here if I advised them to do that, and specifically asked for me to remove their talk page post if I took any action on it — but since I'm in the middle of other things and don't want to get involved in something that isn't my circus or my monkeys, I'm simply reposting it here verbatim for somebody to address or ignore as you wish. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I ran into this edit on the Islam wikipage. I checked that specific user's history and they've vandalised a Jewish page too. They've been IP blocked before but appealed that it's an error. They mention on their talk page that they used to have a Wiki account with over 500 edits, but I can only extrapolate the meaning of that. So far they don't stick around, they hit & run and move on until boredom strikes and vandalise another page. I don't want to reach out to them incase I land on their radar and so by deferring to you, I'm hoping I can maintain a degree of separation.

Feel free to ask me any questions. But before you decide to take an action, like speaking to anyone else about this, can you please delete this talk entry? Don't archive it, just edit > backspace > save.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

(Signed, the other user)

Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to notify Hadjnix. I've done it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit to World Zionist Organization seems like a "poorly considered but not necessarily vandalism" type of edit. The edit to Islam, on the other hand, is basically hate speech, but all they got on their talk pages was an NPOV notice, which I do not think is sufficient. So, let's be real clear here: @Hadjnix: if you make even one more edit like that, you can and should expect to be blocked for it. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to display your personal prejudice. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering it vandalism is extremistic as Islam is the grass hiding the snake of ISIS. Hadjnix 14:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said the Islam edit was vandalism. It's hate speech. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The edit to Islam[89] should at least result in a formal warning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean given the comment directly above by them I'd support blocking them for disruptive editing WP:HID etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I had hoped there would be some kind of response. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:RoyalCream persistent unsourced edits after two blocks

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

This user has been blocked twice now for unsourced edits and on the last occasion they were given a final warning that if they continued, the next one would be indefinite ([90], [91]). And indeed, they've continued to do the same, including:

• Unsourced additions: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], etc.
• They created this completely unsourced article and then, when moved to draftspace by another editor, they ignored the feedback and simply moved it back to mainspace ([98]).
• Unexplained, disruptive deletions here and here.
• And continuing to edit-war over their unsourced edits here: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103].

They've been warned many times and made no further attempts to communicate since the first block. Citing sources is not hard, this is WP:NOTHERE. Please indef. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed, I've dropped an indef. They have created entirely unsourced articles since the last block.--v/r - TP 17:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

IP address persistently adding unsourced information

Special:Contribs/2001:D08:2941:5530:17FA:FCE7:A7D3:E9FF keeps adding unsourced information. Even given a final warning, they continue being WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Affinepplan (Wikihounding, disruptive behavior)

Over the past 6 or so months, user @Affinepplan has engaged in consistent disruptive behavior on talk pages for articles I've edited, despite multiple warnings and previous administrator intervention for edit-warring and sockpuppetry. User was first identified as a potential problem user after edit-warring (c.f. this thread here. @Aydoh8 may remember the incident and be willing to comment.) User has repeatedly violated policies on civility and personal attacks.

In retaliation, they seem to have resorted to wikihounding by repeatedly injecting themselves into talk page discussions involving me, despite the user having made no edits to the the article. Examples can be found in their contributions, which consist exclusively of edits to talk page discussions I've been involved it. I've also been informed of apparent off-site canvassing behavior in the r/endFPTP subreddit, with examples (EDIT: examples of this user doing so) in the comments here and here.

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

oh for the love of god stop trying to get me banned because you don't like that I disagree with your edits Affinepplan (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"you've been informed of off-site canvassing" I don't see what that has to do with me? Affinepplan (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To quote the notice at the top of this board, When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. I have done this now. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to handle that. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a claim like User has repeatedly violated policies on civility and personal attacks can be evaluated without specific diffs. Likewise, without more particulars, it is not easy to tell wikihounding from simply having common interests (in this case, voting systems). XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing my extension that groups edits by page together makes things clearer:

The thing separating this out as hounding is the user hasn't actually made any contributions to articles on voting systems; they've contributed 0 characters of text outside of talk page discussions about me. Their only two edits have been removing well-sourced information, and the first edit resulted in sanctions after I reported them for sockpuppetry and edit-warring. The thing to notice here is that in the past 4 months, this user has not made a single edit outside of talk page discussions involving me. Except for... a single edit trying to add me to an essay on Civil POV pushing early this month?

Diff examples, from the Spoiler effect article. I may provide more in a while. I've seen worse, but when the user involved has made zero offsetting positive contributions I'm basically of the opinion that it's enough.

1. Example 1
2. Example 2
3. Example 3

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been consistent in my attempts to reduce the impact of your POV pushing on social choice articles. I don't see how that would constitute "wikihounding"

If you feel like I am making too many criticisms of your changes, perhaps you might want to consider making fewer politically motivated and technically inaccurate changes to existing articles. Affinepplan (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing text is a constructive contribution when the text is flawed; it doesn't need any expansions elsewhere to "offset" anything. Those comments are blunt (or maybe I'd say "acerbic"), but I don't see anything that rises to the level of a personal attack. This looks like a content dispute first and foremost. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The AN thread linked above doesn't have any indications of off-site canvassing, AFAICT. It ended with the affected article being put under EC protection for a month and a warning to Affinepplan about editing without being logged in. The r/endFPTP subreddit thread has one comment from Affinepplan that expresses some animosity about Closed Limelike Curves but does not call for participants in that community to do anything here. That's a disagreement about content and/or a personality conflict, but it's not canvassing. If anything, the tone of that comment suggests that Wikipedia is a morass of bureaucracy that isn't worth dealing with — anti-canvassing, one might say. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Closed Limelike Curves, as XOR'easter points out, for any action (or even any consideration of action) to be taken, you must supply "diffs"/edits of the behaviors you are talking about. You can't just say to look at an editor's contributions and expect other editors to spend time going through all of the editor's edits. Highlight at least 3-5 examples of the disruptive editing you are complaining about so that any editors reading this can easily see what you are talking about. As we say about claims in articles, facts must be verifiable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This user's first edit is a talk page edit explaining why they added a maintenance tag and their second edit is "reinstate "multiple issues" tag as no substantive revisions were made". Sock? jp×g🗯️ 21:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also this strange edit with "removed irrelevant and unrigorous political commentary". Well anyway.

@Closed Limelike Curves: There is a very high bar for something being considered an annieworthy conduct dispute and not a content dispute; the burden is very much on the filer to demonstrate that any given thing meets this. Preferably, not only diffs of the person being a chode, but also evidence that some other means of conflict resolution (like a 3O or a RfC or something) was attempted and failed; hence why the page says "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Looking at a filing that does have diffs already involves a great amount of work for anyone that's processing it, and one without diffs is just an enormous use of time. jp×g🗯️ 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any indications of sockpuppetry, only that an account was created after making an IP edit first (and then not using that account consistently, for which they were already and correctly warned). XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Intermittent vandalism and aggressive participation

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase § List of antisemitic incidents in the United States and related articles

 – Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• List of antisemitic incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Intermittent vandalism and aggressive participation (e.g. repeated personal attacks) by an non-EC user, who has refused to stop after being politely told several times that they were violating the WP:ARBECR by involving themselves in Israeli-Palestinian conflict-associated editing.

Examples of the said user’s ECR violations: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.

Also this by another non-EC user.

P.S. In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. It has basically intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Steven1991 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To provide more context, within the past several days this user has made multiple attempts at trying to prevent other users from engaging with the page: 1, 2 , this just appears to be a latest attempt.

They were told by an admin, Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history ... On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit

They were also told, In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to ... show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here

On the article's talk page they began spamming (1, 2, 3, 4) me with alerts regarding ECR, when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR applying to the article, and were told (1, 2), You know they're already aware of ECR, they were aware before you started alerting them.They're allowed to edit this article, just not be involved in WP:PIA. Now stop harassing them by spamming alerts at them. You've been told before not to do this with other users ... I already pointed out that they are allowed to edit this page as antisemitism as a whole is unrelated to WP:PIA & just because some aspects under ECR are included in the article, does not mean the entire article is under ECR.     Now please, leave them alone, stop aggressively trying to kick them off the page, & focus on content Wikipedious1 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

III.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” so as to de-escalate for any disputes the sake of de-escalation.

IV.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

V.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown any signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

IV.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything “malicious” unfriendly when what I desire is respect.
You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages. You don’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”.
Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your first point is the only one that seems reasonable to me, I did make edits and discussion regarding protests related to WP:PIA, which may be incorrect, however I have refrained from discussing the conflict, or taking a side, other than describing what I perceived to be Biden's side in the conflict (this was relevant to a disputed incident in the article). In other words I made edits and discussions about protests, and a public figure's opinions (Biden's), only when it was relevant to specific incidents on the list that were in contention. I do not believe the entire article is related to WP:PIA, however, and I would dispute that, and I would guess that that is not the consensus among the editors. I want to point out that I have refrained from editing the page until a consensus to the current impasse is reached. I also think it's strange that I was blocked for making improper edit summaries (including what you're referring to, I don't understand why you're still bringing that up or presenting it as an ongoing issue when it has been settled), which means an admin or admins saw my edits, and decided that I hadn't broken any rules other than making improper edit summaries and not properly discussing my edits. It just seems strange that only within the past <24 hours it appears to have become a problem, when I was blocked on the 12th of October. For any admins my question would be why no one seemed to have caught this additional, earlier breach.

You don’t appear to have apologised to me either. I referred to you as the "Steven Entity" several times in 2 separate occasions, once on your talk page and once on the article's talk page, separated by the IIRC 48 hours of my block period. I thought it was all in good humor especially as a newer Wikipedia user who has not really engaged in discussion on an article talk page before, but since engaging with other editors I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor and not to seriously hurt other's feelings -- is an impediment to civility and consensus, and I have shed the earlier immaturity. I also noticed that you did not tell me to not refer to you in this way, so I thought it was okay to do so. In day to day civil discussion, as an example, I would expect someone to correct me immediately if I were to misgender them or mispronounce their name - in this situation I was only told by other members not to refer to you in this way, and you did not remark on it until after I already agreed to stop referring to you in this way. While it seems that this has been a major slight to you -- which is fine, you are of course allowed to feel that way -- I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me, in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute rather than something you believe at a genuine level would allow for more meaningful contribution to the article. Though these points do not take away from the fact that my nickname for you was wrong. I do want to apologize to you for referring to you in this way on 2 separate occasions, and I do want to point out that I did agree to not refer to you in this way, and I have not done so since, I also want to thank you for improving my netiquette and my ability to use Wikipedia through engaging in our dispute. I'll repost this to your talk page as well, though I do question why you're bringing it up on this page and what relevance it has here, as well as what relevance some of these matters that appear to be settled have to this request for protection. Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've since realized that creating nicknames for others -- only meant in good humor

It is not just a nickname. Calling a living person an “entity” is a form of dehumanisation. It’s not an isolated incident. It happened repeatedly. My perception of it being in violation of the WP:NPA is thus legitimate.

While it seems that this has been a major slight to you

Still, you do not appear to be acknowledging that it is inherently wrong. It is not my subjective perception but an objective fact that it is under no circumstances acceptable to be doing what you seem to have ultimately shown the slightest bit of willingness to somehow feel apologetic for.

I do get the feeling that it is being weaponized as another "point" you have in your dispute against me

Still, you are casting aspersions on me. I am sorry to say that you haven’t appeared to show the willingness to acknowledge that what has been done is inherently wrong under literally all circumstances in daily life.

in the same way your request for page protection seems to be another weapon you've decided to fire as part of the dispute

Because the issue has continued. I have been pretty patient, polite and humble throughout the process, but what did I get in return? It is hard to describe, isn’t it? Steven1991 (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

V.) Your quoted user has apparently NEVER never been involved in the editing of that article at any point of time, not least the period 1 September~19 October 2024. The user is a disinterested party who made a highly subjective judgment based on very limited information and he has no administrative powers on the site and who’s supposed not to get involved either.

VI.)

when no one else agrees with WP:ARBECR

It does not require any participant’s “agreement”. It is a site-wide rule applicable to every individual participating in Wikipedia’s editing activities. You were reminded by other users of such requirements in some of the entries pertaining to the discussion as well, which you don’t appear to have followed.Steven1991 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking to see if protection is necessary. I could see protecting at EC level as related content for a limited time, like a year or so. But there needs to be diffs showing that more than a couple non-WP:XC users are engaging the topic area on that page. Sorry, the above is just too lengthy and disorganized for me to easily parse, so I suggest compiling the evidence concisely, with diffs alongside names and dates. Thank you. El_C 18:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regarding non-WP:XC user participation, this and this user were also participating substantially in the article concerned and had made been making a significant input touching the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are not supposed to have engaged in the first place until they have acquired an XR status, but such a site-wide rule has seemed to be ignored by them since they started their participation in the article concerned. The former non-XC user even posted about the matter associated with the article concerned on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, despite being reminded by an uninvolved admin to stay away from the topic area.Steven1991 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, if it's just a couple of users, then it's more of an WP:AE/WP:ANI matter, but otherwise falling short of applying ARBECR (it'd be different if it was a primary article, but not for related content). Anyway, if those two users repeat the violations, they should be dealt with by warnings/blocking rather than protecting the page for everyone else. I'll leave this open for a while more, in case you have more evidence to submit that shows there being more than two non-XC users violating the remedy. Also, no links to talk pages or contribs, WP:DIFFs only, please. El_C 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your clarification. Steven1991 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@El C hello I'm finding this user is using this event to harass me at this point by repeatedly linking events in unrelated discussions with admins such as this. I didn't want to make this post a mess but it seems it's beyond that point, the user Steven1991 has been engaging in mass edits on this page as detailed heavily here by SerialNumber54129, a large part of the editing included the continuous addition of articles related to Israeli-Palestinian which many of us have been arguing aren't related to the topic of the page. Regardless of the relevance it's hard to argue to the page being locked down and several contributing members being locked out if a single user is the one pushing for entries that force it to be locked down.

Sorry for the long posting I don't want to drag out this request any further but feel input is only fair if I'm being dragged into the comments. Galdrack (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of any of that and even now still largely am, Galdrack, but as mentioned this board is for brief requests that are live usually for a day at most (you need only look at any other request to see that). So this would be a matter better suited for WP:ANI, but I'll still ping the blocking and unblocking admins @Cullen328 and Zzuuzz: here. But this request will likely be archived by the end of day, probably without additional (protection) action. If you do submit such a report to ANI, you can cite the following permalink for this request up to this point. Sorry, I'm writing in haste right now, but I hope the matter gets resolved soon. Feel free to WP:PING me to any further submissions regarding this, but I'm not sure I'm be able to commit to a deep dive here, if that is what's warranted (which looks like it may well). Thanks you. El_C 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to stress that the user apparently engaged in forum shopping by posting about this matter on different Talk pages, which is not supposed to have been done, as it’d draw disinterested parties (those never having edited the article concerned) into the dispute who may make uninformed comments due to lack of perfect information (already happening), which would have a significant impact on my engagement and the process’ fairness. It’s rather me who feel harassed by what the user above is doing, not mentioning that the user had been advised repeatedly by another admin to stay away from this topic area, which the user doesn’t appear to have followed. Steven1991 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

mass edits

I was correcting grammatical mistakes. Words that got removed were largely presented with strikethrough. Would you please assume good faith avoid mischaracterising legitimate acts to try to get someone sanctioned over any disagreements? Steven1991 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please use Template:tq instead of Template:blockquote when you're quoting other editors on talk pages? This is really hard to follow. -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Above conversation moved from WP:RFPP. Section header copied from the original report reason. Any comments with a timestamp before this timestamp are from earlier discussion on WP:RFPP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is incredibly troublesome. Steven1991 already has opened another thread about these very things at WP:AN, where participation is ongoing. Now they've started yet another thread, with even more aspersions and battleground behavior. The two threads need to be merged (that one moved here, or this one moved there), and Steven1991 needs either a TBAN from antisemitism, broadly construed, or an indef. Enough already with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and the WP:FORUMSHOPPING to get other editors sanctioned. Grandpallama (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not start another thread. It is the admin moving one thread from another part of Wikipedia (application for article extended protection) over here. They are separate requests. It is not “battleground behaviour” to request extended protection for an article, nor is it such for responding to users replying to my post. Would you please look at it carefully before making accusations against me? I am not the one casting aspersions for pointing out instances of suspected WP:NPA violations of another user in an editing process in which you are not involved.Steven1991 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the admin moving one thread Which you initiated. Stop falsely claiming you didn't start another thread. Grandpallama (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not, because they are of different nature. You are not a party to the issue, I don’t see why you seem to be going after me making a series of allegations to which the admin has already clarified that it is not the case? Steven1991 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It requires evidence to make an article extended protection request, so there would unavoidably be overlap in content, I do not see where the issue lies in? Steven1991 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any problems with initiating a process when a user repeatedly engaged in suspcted WP:NPA violations. Steven1991 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's right, Steven was not the OP here at ANI. As mentioned, this was refactored by Daniel Quinlan, who said: Any comments with a timestamp before this [22:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)] are from earlier discussion on WP:RFPP. Accordingly, this is my first comment in this ANI thread, all my comments above were at the RfPP request (permalink again). While I did propose opening an ANI report, I was unaware that there was one at AN. And that suggestion was (mainly) made to another user, rather than Steven, in fairness. El_C 00:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, El_C, I understand that this started at RFPP. But they opened that request and started a thread there despite knowing a thread (opened by them) about this topic was already at WP:AN. Despite more than one editor at AN telling them that there were problems with their claims about ARBECR, they opened the RFPP thread, anyway. That's straight up forum shopping to eliminate the ability of Wikipedious1 to edit the article in question. Grandpallama (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

As said, they are separate requests of different nature. As you are not involved in the editing process of the article, there are technicalities that you may not be fully aware of, so I would say that it does not sound good to make such a judgment based on pretty limited information available to you.Steven1991 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see, forum shopping by way of RfPP. Sorry, Grandpallama, I misread. El_C 01:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Please avoid making accusations without clear evidence, which may be considered a WP:NPA violation. Steven1991 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not an accusation, I just misunderstood what he said. El_C 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the evidence was provided above. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is totally one-sided. Steven1991 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it highly questionable that an editor who themselves was violating ARBECR [104] less than a month ago [105] [106] [107] after I'd warned them to cut it out which they acknowledged by deletion [108] is now the one leading complaints against other editors? This doesn't mean it's acceptable for any other editors to violate ARBECR, but it does make me wonder if Steven1991 might also be part of the problem even if they're now allowed to edit A-I content. Nil Einne (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't mean it's acceptable for any other editors to violate ARBECR

Please focus on that user rather than me. It would be great not to cast aspersions on a complainant over past events when entirely different cases are involved. Steven1991 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Every party is under similar scrutiny, be they the filer or user/s whom they are reporting. You are not really in the position to dictate to reviewers what to comment on. El_C 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, though I would be happy to know how some of users commenting on this thread have a stake in this case. They appear to be disinterested parties who may not have perfect information of the series of events surrounding a particular article in which they may have never participated. I am simply not in full knowledge of the most complicated part of the rules as I wasn’t active again on Wikipedia until summer this year, but I have the impression that some of the allegations made by them against me may constitute WP:NPA violations. I cannot say for sure, but would like to know more about the technicalities. Steven1991 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a standard part of ANI that the behaviour of all editors involved in a dispute is considered. But this is even more so in an CTOP case. Also I already provided 3 examples of where you violated ARBECR after an explicit warning that you needed to stop, so it's no an aspersion to say you did so. But more examples [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I understand, though I am not the one doing it right now. Steven1991 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In case there's some confusion over why I feel this is relevant, as I said it's less than a month ago. While definitely any editor who is violating ARBECR needs to stop, I think it's fair to question whether an editor who less than a month ago was doing the same thing and should have already well known by the time that it wasn't acceptable, is engaged in battleground behaviour since it's a fair question to ask why they suddenly feel it's a problem when less than a month ago they thought it was okay for them to do the same thing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

battleground behaviour

How? By discussing personal attacks that I have endured from another user? Are we not allowed to be upset with personal attacks and raising concern over it via appropriate avenues? Steven1991 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note I made no comment until now about the personal attacks. I don't think they were acceptable, in fact if Wikipedious1 hadn't said that the entity comment was an extremely poor attempt at humour which they seem to recognise they shouldn't try again, I'd be supporting an indef. But personal attacks aren't the only issue you raised.

You made a big deal over them violating ARBECR after being told to stop. You're even asking for the entire article to be protected. All of these are perfectly reasonable. However, when they're coming from an editor who was themselves doing the same thing, then yes, it's also IMO reasonable to ask why this editor is now suddenly so worried about complying with ARBECR when it's an editor they are in disagreement with and when they didn't seem to care less than a month ago. If you'd just been given a CTOP alert with no followup we could conclude perhaps you simply didn't understand. Likewise if if it had been several months or longer, perhaps they'd come to better appreciate why it matters based on their experience.

But I gave a specific warning where I explained it a bit more detailed and highlighted examples where IMO you'd violated ARBECR. You deleted my comment as allowed to but it means we can assume you read it and had no further questions. But then you seemed to continue with this behaviour. I did not pay any attention so didn't notice this at the time.

I first became aware that your ARBECR violations continued about 2 weeks ago when there was a thread discussing your behaviour. I noticed you'd gain EC so there was no longer any concerns over ARBECR. I did a quick check and it looked liked you'd stayed away from problem area even when editing articles where it might come up (primarily anti-Semitism ones) after my warning before you gained EC which was only ~5 days or so from my warning. So started to comment that since you did seem to be learning (as you'd stopped after I asked you to) perhaps it's fine for editors to just let it be now that they'd explained their concern .

However I dislike making mistakes so double checked before posting and then found edits that seemed to be continued violations. By that stage since you'd well gained EC and from my quick judgment even if we subtracted your violations, I didn't see much point discussing it further. But also the comment I'd planned to post defending you was not true so I didn't post it. It's only when I saw this thread where you are making a big deal over ARBECR that my concerns were again raised for the reasons stated.

As largely an aside, I read about but didn't check the AN thread until just earlier. Even having read it I still feel my comment is more appropriate here than in the other thread even if there were more editing discussing concerns over you there. As stated, I don't feel the ARBECR violations before you gained EC are by themselves such a big deal hence why I didn't post over them before, it's only when we get the dichotomy of you making a big deal over ARBECR that they start to become a concern and that's mostly in this thread. And you started them both (even if this one not originally in ANI). Anyway I think I've said enough.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be right for most parts of your reply.

However, when they're coming from an editor who was themselves doing the same thing, then yes, it's also IMO reasonable to ask why this editor is now suddenly so worried about complying with ARBECR

However, I cannot agree with the above as I don’t see any correlations. I am not “worried about” the quoted issue. I don’t need to “worry about” an issue in order to bring it to the attention of the responsible personnel. An ill-defined “worry” is not a prerequisite for regulatory matter to be discussed. Logically, it in no ways prevents me from doing so and I struggle to understand why it would be such an issue. It appears to be made up for the sake of discrediting me and trivialising the nature of the matter. Steven1991 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit (cited above by the OP) is not an ARBECR violation. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

where you are making a big deal over ARBECR that my concerns were again raised for the reasons stated

What do you mean by “making a big deal” ? Because the original post (before being moved here) was exactly related to an article extended protection request, which would not have even been considered by the admin team if it had not been tangentially related to ECR violations. As such, it had to be brought up to satisfy the handling personnel that there is a such need. I do not see how this would have constituted what you referred to as “making a big deal” ?

You seem to have ignored the other examples being provided in my replies above. Steven1991 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But it's still not a violation to the remedy, which might suggest a more scattershot approach to evidence. Which would be problematic. El_C 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

To expound more on Steven's scattershot, or scattergun, approach, please see these linked remarks that I think touch very precisely to the same troubling issues many editors are seeing from Steven over a period of time

They [Steven1991] have a somewhat scattergun approach. As noted above, they opened a WP:AN thread on other editors (one of which they never even notified), attempted to remove one of his editorial opponents through a possibly retaliatory SPI—having already been found to have socked themselves!—canvassed, attempted to protect the article in their favour, bludgeoned the article talk page (over 70 comments in the last week, twice that of the next editor), where it has been suggested that there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own.

There is a certain tendency towards battlefield editing, WP:OWNership of the article, walls of text, and a passive aggressive treatment of other editors, combined with the attempted weaponisation of several of our administative processes. Considering their block log—which I wouldn't usually raise, glass houses, etc, but three in a month, all very recognizably involving Disruptive editing edit warring, deceptive summaries, battleground territory—something needs to change, and fast. I suggested yesterday that they might find another, less controversial area to edit, and they agreed. Twice. It is a shame, perhaps, that they have not yet done so.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. May I ask why you issued me an “apology” on my Talk page if you somehow seem to believe that I am the only person in the wrong? Steven1991 (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of your last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which you’re not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

II.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries you didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address your “concerns” for the sake of de-escalation.

III.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from you/other users concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

IV.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by you at any point of time. You do not appear to have shown signs of improving your manner in your correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

V.) It is not “spamming” when you appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. They are reminders – gentle reminders. I advise you to follow the WP:AGF and avoid mischaracterising my actions as anything unfriendly when what I desire is respect.

VI.) You were asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in your replies to my polite and humble messages.

VII.) Rather than listen, you appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process, so I would appreciate if you can stop insisting that I am in the wrong.

Steven1991 (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, Steven1991, please stop with the line breaks. Just use the threaded discussion like everyone else. El_C 02:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Steven1991 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an instruction, Steven. El_C 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Steven1991 (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's another baseless accusation. M.Bitton (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you can avoid using charged words or judgmental language that may constitute the type of accusation that you allege me to have made. Steven1991 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

But it is baseless. Because, again, it does not violate the remedy. That's not a charged word in this instance. You cannot deflect from criticism by way of hypersensitivity. El_C 02:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn’t. I am simply stating my perception. It may be right, it may be wrong. It is hard to tell. But what is the fact is that the user as mentioned in my #1 post engaged in several suspected WP:NPA violations which I am entitled to point out and seek appropriate assistance. Nothing beyond that. I would leave it here as I have basically put forward all my points. Thank you so much for your attention. Steven1991 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like semantics. In any case, if your evidence was compiled more clearly and without redundancies, it'd likely receive more pointed attention from reviewers. El_C 02:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In the content of the article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times while “Gaza” 3 times. How is the article not intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Steven1991 (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that they've seemingly developed a pattern of accusing users they disagree with of sockpuppetry.

First attempt: @Wellington Bay, @Insanityclown1, & @Wikipedious1

Second attempt: @Grandpallama & @M.Bitton Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. It is not an act of accusation when a person perceives the existence of suspicions warranting attention. I would appreciate if no mischaracterisation is done. Steven1991 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991, glancing through this complaint, it does seem like you are repeating yourself here. To get back to the original complaint of yours, what remedy are you seeking? I like to hear what the purpose of the filing is when I am weighing the evidence presented. Also, as a general rule, unless a lot of editors join in the discussion, I've found that the longer a complaint on ANI is, the less likely it is that action will be taken. Just something to keep in mind for future ANI posts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, as it is the decision of another admin to move my article extended protection request from one section of Wikipedia over here, I am not sure what the best course of action would be. I was not active on Wikipedia again until this summer, so there are still a great deal of rules and technicalities I am not sure about. Steven1991 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal - Indefinite block for Steven1991

Four blocks (three in the last 30 days). Three long, bludgeon-y noticeboard discussions (in addition to this one). [114][115][116] An attempt to misuse WP:ARBECR in order to silence users who disagree with them. Incessant sealioning in a WP:1AM fashion at Talk:List_of_antisemitic_incidents_in_the_United_States. Two frivolous SPIs against established editors because they happen to disagree with Steven1991. [117][118] Ongoing casting of aspersions and battleground behavior in this thread and the parallel one at AN. WP:IDHT and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK as they ignore every single editor who has tried to advise them in these threads. And any number of other issues--including refusal to thread their comments properly in discussions, insistence on changing comments after others respond to them (despite multiple warnings about that behavior), and harassment of editors by dropping WP:NPA templates on user talkpages willy-nilly. Steven1991's approach to editing is decidedly uncollaborative and at odds with the expectations of the WP community. While I had initially believed an indefinite topic ban from antisemitism, broadly construed, was enough, I've since come to believe after watching them WP:FORUMSHOP that Steven1991's refusal to engage in constructive and collaborative editing is a disruptive drain on editor time and energy that is a net negative to the project. I therefore propose the time has come for an indefinite block for Steven1991 until such time they are able to convince an admin that they are prepared to contribute in a non-disruptive manner. Grandpallama (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, even though I am apparently potentially no different from Hitler, according to Steven. Grandpallama (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I hope that you are not proposing this for the sake of eliminating a user you personally disagree with or to cover up any wrongdoings on your own. If you have nothing to fear as you claimed in the sockpuppet investigation page, why do you seem to be such concerned to the point of trying to get someone eliminated from a platform? Steven1991 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of the complained user last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which the user is not supposed to have got involved in the first place.

II.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries the complained user didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address the user’s “concerns” for the sake of de-escalation.

III.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from that user concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts.

IV.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by that user at any point of time. The user does not appear to have shown signs of improving the particular user’s manner in relevant correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating.

V.) It is not “spamming” when the complained user appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders.
The user was asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in relevant replies to my polite and humble messages. The user doesn’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”.
Rather than listen, the complained user appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process.

Steven1991 (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Having just taken a look at the latest SPI Steven1991 started, [119] I can certainly sympathise with the above block suggestion. At the risk of violating WP:CIVIL, I'd summarise it as bullshit 'evidence' accompanied by sanctimonious waffle. But don't take my word for it, look for yourselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Repetition of the preiovusly posted text

I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of the complained user last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which the user is not supposed to have got involved in the first place. III.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries the complained user didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address the user’s “concerns” for the sake of de-escalation. IV.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from that user concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts. V.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by that user at any point of time. The user does not appear to have shown signs of improving the particular user’s manner in relevant correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating. IV.) It is not “spamming” when the complained user appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. The user was asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in relevant replies to my polite and humble messages. The user doesn’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”. Rather than listen, the complained user appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Reposting the same wall of text you've just posted above seems an odd response to accusations of 'bludgeon-y noticeboard discussions'. More so, when it appears to have no relation whatsoever to the comments I've just made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  The next time you post the same wall of text, I think it would be more helpful, at least, to provide diffs to strengthen your claims and provide context to what you're talking about. I think something similar was told to you earlier by El_C that may have fallen on deaf ears. You have provided where you believe ARBECR was breached, but I would personally like to see even specific places where you have been "polite, civil, and humble" (as the user you are referencing in these filing(s) and in this message, I cannot recall any times where you were), I'm also interested in seeing the diffs of your claims of NPA and HA, beyond the two diffs you've already supplied. I also would like to see where we can find myself(?) "persistently employing offensive language in relevant replies to my polite and humble messages". I think using diffs to establish a timeline of where "the complained user" refused to listen and "continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations" would be important. But zooming out, I'm sure Andy the person you're responding to, must be confused because this doesn't seem to be an appropriate response to their message. Just some thoughts. Wikipedious1 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is funny that you are in denial of your aggressive manner in several editing summaries when they can obviously be found in the editing log, not mentioning your continuous use of entity to refer to me which you did not know that you should apologise until yesterday. Steven1991 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

frivolous fillings

Hard to tell, unless investigated. I personally got accused frivolously of sockpuppetry twice and had to present my IP evidence to prove my own innocence, which I succeeded, as well. So...are you open to an investigation to prove that you are innocent? Steven1991 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: I am not fully certain if you are accusing Grandpallama of being a sockpuppet due to your indenting, but you need to drop this. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I will let the CheckUser decide. Steven1991 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not think the diff linked by Steven is comparing someone to Hitler. He appears to be cautioning that popular things aren't always correct or justified. In his brief period of activity on enwiki, Steven1991 has indeed been dogged by accusations that in my opinion do rise to the level of a WP:BITE even though Steven1991 first created an account on zhwiki in 2009. Steven1991 has indeed been accused frivolously of sockpuppetry himself. His filing may not be well-taken, but last I checked we don't indef people for frivolous sockpuppetry fishing. In fact, several users seem to make inconclusive SPIs reasonably often. Nor, honestly, is the interaction analysis in that filing terribly different from those on other SPIs that I've seen experienced users file sometimes. Steven has been editing in controversial areas and in my opinion his edits are improvements and a net positive, and I'd rather channel his activity productively, but it seems that other users do not see his changes as improvements. However, in doing so, we're being unfair to a contributor that in good faith appears to be essentially doing what he sees other editors do. I don't see how we can block for that. Andre🚐 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much. I appreciate your appraisal a lot. Steven1991 (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think the diff linked by Steven is comparing someone to Hitler. He appears to be cautioning that popular things aren't always correct or justified. Yes, by comparing me to the man responsible for the WWII. So maybe it was instead comparing me to Stalin?

  Look, you are entitled to your opinion and your Oppose, but the argument that the SPI is entirely normal and like others that are filed is just ridiculous (which is probably why it was speedily closed by the clerks) and completely devoid of diffs to demonstrate any similarity. Even a casual investigation, though, would have turned up interactions that suggest if M.Bitton and I are the same person, we apparently lose track of it and have a history of disagreeing with one another. An Oppose is fine, especially if you believe Steven is a net positive, but please don't whitewash their behavior. Grandpallama (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I've been trying to mediate with them for over a week & though I thought for a period of time that we'd started to settle issues, now all I can say is that I'm honestly exhausted.

They've shown chronic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, seem unwilling to believe other users are editing in good faith, & has been regularly dismissive of comments at all critical of their conduct as being ideologically driven or suspicious. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan, I'm not sure how you can write all that without seeing the glaring issues in their behavior here. They are continuing to cast aspersions & spam copypastes at people in this very thread. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Because your accusations are not true. Steven1991 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You are the person casting aspersions over here by accusing all of my (a few) complaints and fillings of being made in so-called retaliation over something you assume to be when it is not the case. Steven1991 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Repetition of the preiovusly posted text

Such accusation is totally unfair to me. I.) Isolated instances of reversing edits that apparently violated the WP:VANDAL and WP:ARBECR are not considered edit warring, when some of the complained user last week’s mass deletions of well-sourced content comprised a few to no reasons, as pointed out by one of the admins who intervened ( “Lol” is not a reason ), not mentioning those entries were directly associated with the A/I conflict in which the user is not supposed to have got involved in the first place. II.) Last week, I made a significant compromise by removing the vast majority of the specific entries the complained user didn’t want to be kept in the list so as to address the user’s “concerns” for the sake of de-escalation. III.) I have never ceased to follow the demands from that user concerning any other disputed content, despite my personal disagreement – I removed those entries accordingly without much questioning when it’s supposed to take place prior to any mass deletion attempts. IV.) I have tried my best to be patient and keep all of my replies as polite, civil and humble as possible, none of which however seemed to have been reciprocated by that user at any point of time. The user does not appear to have shown signs of improving the particular user’s manner in relevant correspondence, which I find considerably intimidating. V.) It is not “spamming” when the complained user appeared to have violated the rules of engagement repeatedly and got relevant reminders. The user was asked repeatedly, as per the WP:NPA and WP:HA, to stop referring me to as an “entity” (dehumanising code word) or persistently employing offensive language in relevant replies to my polite and humble messages. The user doesn’t appear to have apologised to me either despite your claim of having “reformed”. Rather than listen, the complained user appeared to have continued the suspected WP:NPA, WP:HA and WP:ARBECR violations. Reminders were given repeatedly as I didn’t want to bring in the specialised admins when they’re already busy enough – I have exercised maximal restraint throughout the process. Steven1991 (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's the third time you've posted the same wall of text in this thread. Are you trying to get yourself blocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Because I witness totally one-sided allegations that do not represent the full picture of what had really happened with regard to the editing activity of the specific article. Steven1991 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you understand that you're proving my point by again copypasting this same unrelated wall of text towards me.

You continue to refuse to actually acknowledge the content you're replying to in any meaningful manner. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

How am I supposed to when it is not true? I am entitled to respond to allegations that are totally one-sided, devoid of context and do not represent the full picture of the series of events surrounding the specific article concerned. Steven1991 (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken in suggesting that the wall of text had been posted three times in this thread - it was in fact the fifth time it was posted. If it is posted again, I'm going to support the block proposal on the basis of trolling and/or WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, I will stop posting it as I have made the points clear. Steven1991 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an investigation into a regulatory matter is both a user right and an ordinary procedure. It is not an act of “frivolous fillings” when a person perceives the existence of suspicions warranting attention. I would appreciate if you refrain from mischaracterising people’s behaviour by leaving out most of the context for the sake of achieving sanctions on someone you are in disagreement with. Steven1991 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Trying to engage with Steven has been very difficult. As we can see in the talk page of the article where this started, on their talk page, and in this section, Steven is fond of repeating the same message numerous times, making walls of texts, contradicting every claim that a user makes, replying multiple times to users, deflecting especially when someone brings up one of their own inconsistencies, derailing conversation (even derailing their own attempt at resolving a dispute instead of civilly engaging with others on the subject), being passive and aggressive (spamming others with warnings but claiming they are just "gentle reminders"), refusing to acknowledge in anyway how their own actions may have been disruptive or unhelpful, refusing to change their behavior even when the same exact points about their problematic behavior have been brought up across multiple filings and talk pages, etc. I have seen them most polite and civil when someone agrees with them or seemingly "takes their side", like @Andrevan either in this discussion or in the article talk page, or as another example when their page protection was being considered earlier. Forgot which policy it is but Wikipedia isn't about winning. The effect of this and other battleground behavior is that discussion becomes swamped/bludgeoned and it becomes impossible to resolve differences much less parse what is going on. I think what's also damning is the top editors on the article talk page, Steven currently has 154 edits on the talk page, next user has.....31 but somehow there have been persistent NPA and HA made against his "polite and humble" messages. It turns out Steven was blocked last month for battlegrounding and I don't think they've meaningfully learned from that experience. I saw WP:BITE linked earlier and as someone with less than 150 edits and who only had 1 edit to a talk page before last week when I became involved in this, yes, this behavior, consistently observed, is very off putting and discouraging. Wikipedious1 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  You caused the conflict by repeatedly calling me an entity in the first place, you apologised on my profile for it as well. Remember that everyone has the right to call me out, but I would advise you to think about how you behaved throughout the course of participating in the editing of that article, the egregious violation, i.e. mass deletions of well-sourced with Lol as a reason, that got you blocked by admin for 48 hours. If my hands are not clean, much less yours. Steven1991 (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  But the difference between you and me is that I have taken some responsibility at acknowledging my shortcomings and trying not to repeat them, which I did: 1, 2, 3, 4, also your talk page (sorry these are not diffs). Even when it came to one of your linked alleged NPA/HA made against you by me, it was a topic I started on your talk page trying to figure out how to resolve disputes when I didn't know how to as a new user. I have made my own violations of WP guidelines, but I've always tried figuring out the proper way of engaging with other users, and there's no one who can say that I didn't listen to them when they pointed out such a shortcoming to me. The entity thing that you are still talking about, I agreed not do that anymore several days ago when I was unblocked, when I realized after it was pointed out by other users (not yourself, though, since you did not make any remarks about it at the time) that it was not at all helpful for engaging in wikipedia discussions or taking this more seriously. So I don't think comparing us is meaningful when our conducts have been pretty radically different. Again, you're deflecting when facing someone being critical of you, in this case you're bringing me up which is a logical fallacy, whataboutism. You are unable to take responsibility or own up to your own shortcomings. Wikipedious1 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, yours are brought up because the complaint is about you. I advise not to deflect your blame onto me. Steven1991 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would rather you think about how many times you got warned and blocked within 3 months instead. Steven1991 (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I want to report that Steven is engaging in WP:FOLLOWING which is part of WP:HA. Can someone please do something about this lmao. They have reverted edits I've made in the past 24 hours on different articles: 1 2 3 4. @Andrevan as an admin are you able to do something about this? Wikipedious1 (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  So you are the only user allowed to engage in mass deletions of random content on a certain article but not some legitimate reverts by anyone else? It does not sound reasonable to me. Have you ever thought that your edits may not be perfect or that a random article may not be owned by you? Before you accuse me of not taking responsibility, would it be better for you to take a step back and apply it to yourself? No offense but simply pointing it out to balance Steven1991 (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Mass deletions incident Steven1991 (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin. I already gave Steven1991 some advice which I guess he isn't heeding. Andre🚐 09:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah okay, my apologies. Wikipedious1 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Also has appeared out of the blue at the currently contentious Zionism talk page to make some apparently random interventions. Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The Grandpallama SPI goes beyond assuming bad faith. I think it should be the example on WP:ABF. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  +1, yep, that's a pretty random filing based on nothing, really. Looking at the AN board as well, a lot of battleground stuff. Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please everyone accept my apologies as I'm not sure if I'm ok to weigh-in on things like this (I'm not EC or anything). That said, I really agree with what you've written, LilianaUwU, insofar as this is starting to look like bad faith, regardless of original intent.

  This is the first time I've felt strongly enough to get involved in anything official, since I'm not seeing any growth or change, just constant hostility that's impacting everyone who touches it.

  It's awful to see anyone get so stressed by something. I'm seeing someone who's genuinely upset, but I'm also not seeing any clear attempt to put an end to it, just constant challenges and stick waving - the SPI shows this is branching out into (inadvertent?) attacks on others and the underlying behaviour isn't changing. I'm not sure it's even possible at this point without a decent cooling-off period so they can take a step back from the situation?

  Steven1991, I totally understand that you're upset. I understand WHY you're upset. But you're passing that feeling on to other people and making things worse for everyone, especially yourself. Please take a breath and step back - look at this another time (perhaps with a neutral third party) with fresh eyes, when the emotions have cleared.

  Ok, I'm going back in my corner to lurk, thank you for reading and apologies again if it isn't my place to get involved, I just really wanted to say something after seeing so many of you impacted by this. If I need to amend or remove this, please let me know! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Andrevan; From what I'm seeing on the page and his user talk page looks like the OP may have been offended and annoyed by certain comments (or edits) which caused him to get stressed; obviously you can't stop stress once it begins, and when you're stressed you can make mistakes and (sometimes) incite drama. I think everybody should try interacting with him in a more specific way in comparison to other editors, and should be reassured carefully and in a way that doesn't cause him to get stressed. As a neurodivergent myself I also become stressed at specific edits even though they may be made in good faith, and I usually hold back and do something else. He has agreed at the moment to "spend less time" working in the Antisemetic incidents topic. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 09:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Supportindef / time-limited block of a month / Tban.

1. They opened a WP:AN thread on other editors (one of which they never even notified), attempted to remove one of his editorial opponents through a possibly retaliatory SPI—having already been blocked on suspicion of socking themselves,
2. They attempted to protect the article in their favour
3. They bludgeoned the article talk page (over 70 comments in the last week, twice that of the next editor)
4. It has been suggested that there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own.
5. There is a tendency towards battlefield editing.
6. There is a tendency towards WP:OWNership of the article.
7. There is a tendency towards walls of text, and a passive aggressive treatment of other editors
8. They repeatedly weaponize several of our administative processes.

Considering their block log—which I wouldn't usually raise, glass houses, etc, but three in a month, all very recognizably involving Disruptive editing edit warring, deceptive summaries, battleground territory is not the behavior so-far that indicates a likelihood for change. I suggested yesterday that they might find another, less controversial area to edit, and they agreed. Twice. SerialNumber54129 12:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Re: the latest promises: They've had several chances. I advised them to step back (twice, I think), Grandpallama has advised them, Andrevan has advised it (and though he is one one of their few sympathisers, even he suspecteed it would be ignored). Taking other editors' advice when it's proffered is the height of collegiality; grudgingly agreeing to it because it's finally sunk in that one is drinking in the last chance saloon cuts little ice. They have gaslighted, bludgeoned, edit-warred, hounded, treated articles as a battleground, their oppononents as enemies and weaponised several internal processes to that end. Wanting more time and the community's patience is wearing thin; they've had plenty of both already. SerialNumber54129 16:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, from what I could tell, the sock was a false positive & immediately removed? I'm not contesting anything else you've brought up but thought it best to note here, since someone that brought it up earlier & this is so messy it's best to be clear on that point. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mis-ban. I proved my innocence by supplying my IP address. Steven1991 (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The assertion made by the user is false. I have never committed sockpuppeting. The admins investigated twice and vindicated me both times. Steven1991 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. I said blocked on suspicion: the point being that since you already know what it's like to be unfairly accused, which, if you showed the slight degree of introspection would have made you think twice about accusing (not suspecting, as you claimed, but outrightly accusing) someone else of socking. But you didn't. (This also attends to B;ue-Sonnet's point above.) SerialNumber54129 12:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what would you like me to do in order to let me continue participate? How may I convince you that I am willing to make an effort to familarise with all the rules to act in accordance with the expectations? I wasn’t active on Wikipedia editing until summer and am so not familiar with a great deal of rules, which would definitely take a pretty long time given the complexity. May I ask whether I can be given a chance if I drop the sockpuppet investigation requests and issue a statement apologising for the rule violations being pointed out? Steven1991 (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 Yep, that was the intent of my post - you were clear in saying they were only "accused", but Stephen1991 is clearly aggrieved so I wanted to make sure that the focus was on the many issues you've raised, rather than the sock report being true/false. Sadly I think I've had the opposite effect. Apologies. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per SerialNumber, history of and continuing battleground behavior, doubt it is going to change any.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Have you looked at the evidence and arguments by me and those who oppose? Steven1991 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  User:Steven1991 I hope you can see that I'm completely new to this and honestly trying to help you. If someone gives their opinion here, please AGF and assume they've made an informed decision after looking at everything they can (there's a lot here, as a relative newbie it took me a few hours!). If one of the concerns is that you are being overly combative or pushy, immediately jumping on someone who says something you don't agree with really won't help your case. Please take a step back as I'm concerned you're continuing to make things worse for yourself. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, sure. Steven1991 (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your appreciative efforts in trying to help, @Blue-Sonnet. It just goes to show that there's still time for people to adapt and change, and I believe it can take just two days for a user to do all of that negative stuff on one day, and on the second day when someone notifies them of their wrongdoing, acknowledge that what they did was unnecessary and change so that they won't be doing all of that ever again the next time adversity comes their way. I think Steven1991 fits into that mould. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 13:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I wouldn't be trying so hard if I didn't think User:Steven1991 wasn't worth the effort, and I could see how hard everyone else is trying too. I was hoping a neutral party might help and, whilst I'm not sure how successful I've been, I don't regret reaching out to try. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Would you mind bolding the word oppose by placing the word inside a if you oppose the ban? Steven1991 (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, can I check who that comment was addressed to? It looks like me, but here's a loooong chain so I'm having trouble seeing who's replying to what! If it's myself, you can see that I initially agreed with a ban, but also wanted to see if I could reach out and calm things down a little - I also have no idea if I can vote or not! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  You may respond to the proposer directly to inform them/all of your change of mind. Steven1991 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Blue-Sonnet: you do not need to tell the proposer at all if you have "changed your mind": this is not, actually, a vote—see WP:!VOTE—but a discussion to achieve consensus through strength of argument. It is not decided by numbers aone, unluckily. SerialNumber54129 13:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I should not have used the word "vote" there - I am kicking myself for saying that now, sorry! I have less than 500 edits and can see that Steven1991 has previously raised concerns over the validity of input from non-EC users like myself, so I'm a little weary of putting an opinion forward. That said, I'll do my best to review the previous ban history and recent interactions and, if my opinion changes, I will definitely say so. I'm pleased to see you're calming down though, User:Steven1991! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: an indefinite block does not require any sort of consensus to implement. From my view (as an uninvolved administrator), User:Steven1991 crossed that line when they filed an unfounded SPI, apparently retaliating against the editor who opened this block thread. The admins who have commented here have extended abundant good faith to User:Steven1991. Following that example, I see a wikipedian who needs to put a wikibreak notice on their talk page, step away from the keyboard, and not log in for a few weeks. If Steven1991 can themselves step away voluntarily, I'd be somewhat impressed and extend them some patience. If they continue to edit today, I suspect myself or some other sysop will be forced to block them in order to protect the pedia (based solely on the user conduct self-presented in this self-started thread). That's me being nice about it. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say it did. But I heartily agree with your broad assessment. SerialNumber54129 14:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  My initial statement was pointed at the discussion not any single contributor. If I gave that misimpression, sorry. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  No worries, BusterD, I could've been clearer myself. SerialNumber54129 14:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  As of this datestamp, I see Steven1991's last edits (in a collegial user talkpage discussion) at 13:25 utc. I urge them to stand down, and enjoy the lovely day away from keyboard. Please. BusterD (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'd start with a week or a month, since it looks like Steven1991 is doing more damage to themselves than to the encyclopedia, but otherwise, endorse. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  BusterD, now that El_C has indeffed, this point is largely academic, but I wanted it in the discussion when it's archived. Apart from questions about what type of sanction is/isn't appropriate, or whether an editor deserves another chance, or even whether a sudden change of heart is legitimate (or just a panicky 11th-hour realization that a sanction is incoming), I think there is the question of protecting the integrity of the community. There are plenty of editors who had rocky starts who later "reformed", for want of a better term, and became productive members of the community. But we had two editors here--Wikipedious1 and Galdrack--who were even newer than Steven1991 and who were subjected by him to targeted harassment. Experienced editors like me and M.Bitton are entirely capable of defending ourselves, but Steven1991's behavior had an adverse effect on other editors who were watching to see what the community would do. In cases like that, there is an obligation to demonstrate to those users that harassment against them won't be tolerated, period. In that sense, whatever the sanction was going to be, I don't think it was sufficient for it be anything other than involuntary. Editors need to be reassured we won't tolerate them being harassed. Grandpallama (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose indef, support Tban from antisemitism and Judiasm, weak support for time limited block There are definitely issues, but I don't think that lesser sanctions wouldn't also solve them. Steven appears to be a highly energetic editor, and has picked up things very quickly. For instance, I noticed some MOS errors involving overlinking and sea of blue, informed him, and haven't seen those errors repeated. I've also noticed a partial reduction in WP:BATTLEGROUND since the last ANI. From a technical standpoint, I feel Steven could be a valuable contributor and have shown an ability to improve.

My impression is that the problems arise from Steven contributing to an area about which he feels very strongly. I've noticed a pretty strong POV in his contributions, and may be having emotionally charged responses to having those contributions challenged. I think the ideal outcome is that Steven stops engaging with anything involving Judaism, contributes to other areas for a while and learns the technical and social customs of Wikipedia, and if he is able to contribute to Judaism-related topics, appeal the T-ban in not less than six months. If a T-ban is not in the cards, I would hope that a time-limited block would provide space for the reflection I've already seen him demonstrate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think a Temporary topic ban from Jewish-related articles and encouraging him to edit for awhile in areas he isn't emotionally invested in may give Steven experience in editing in a cool and dispassionate manner. Once he has grounded himself in a more professional approach for a few months and proven himself, he could return to topics he has strong views on. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone should be aware that while this discussion was occurring, Steven1991 was engaging in straight up harassment, which mostly reinforces for me the need for a siteblock rather than a TBAN. [120][121][122][123] Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  It looks a pretty clear cut case of WP:FOLLOWING; in each of those articles they only appeared in order to revert an editor they were in dispute with. The edit summaries are both disingenuous and misleading. The former because while exhorting the other editor to 'go to talk' they do not do so themselves, and the latter because they berate the other editor, demanding they AGF, claimimg they are in breach of WP:OWN when the other had made a single edit. At least one of the edits they reverted appears to have been an attempt to report the end of a lergal case (in teh article subject's favor), which means now there is a report of an accusation but no finding of innocence. Completely at odds with both BLP (which they call upon) and WP:N. SerialNumber54129 15:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Those edits, with battleground edit summaries, are clear cut cases of harassment. Deliberately following an editor to reverse their edits which appear to be genuine improvements. This editor is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry that it happened when I was still aggrieved by the previous series of insults from the said user (in another article). I have just promised admin BusterD on his Talk page to stay away pro tempore for cool-down and re-familiarising with the rules of engagement, which admin BusterD endorsed. I hope that I will be given the time/patience to change as I was not active on Wikipedia until recently, i.e. not as familiar with the expectations as some others. I promise that this will cease. Steven1991 (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I did a fair amount of reading before my initial post in the thread, and the flurry of edits from 11:44 to 11:59 certainly drew my attention. FTR, the user has announced to me an intention to stop editing for now. I will accept this offer at face value. Other wikipedians should not feel limited by my brief and conciliatory interactions with the user. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I hope that other users will share your sentiment and accord me the time/patience for me to change. I will recuse myself from editing for now. This shall be my last message. Steven1991 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  • The problem is you've already been given several chances but are still engaging in Battleground behaviour and have even reverted to the use of misleading edit summaries, behavior that resulted in your first block. Your excuse is that you were "aggrieved" - but you should not be using Wikipedia as a platform through which you work out your grievances. I don't go as far as calling for an indef block as you have shown some capacity to improve, but your inability to control yourself even while there is a serious ANI discussion assessing your behaviour is not encouraging. If you can't behave when all eyes are on you how can we expect you to behave when people aren't watching? At a minimum there should be a three-month project-wide ban and a longer or indefinite topic ban. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is clearly inappropriate behaviour, same crappy edit summary in each case too. Secretlondon (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block, though as noted above, an admin doesn't need consensus here to do that. To engage in blatant following/harassment as noted by Grandpallama above while in the middle of an ANI discussion regarding conduct is either trolling or abject cluelessness. If Steven1991 is incapable of understanding what the issue is with such behaviour, after all the advice offered previously, that is his problem, not ours. And no, I see no reason to take the latest 'promise' into account, given the obvious attempts to shift blame. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Yeah, this is way too much. As mentioned in the block notice, if Steven wishes to have their edit privileges reinstated, it'll need to be with the added burden of an unblock appeal having been met. That is, providing convincing assurances to the reviewing admin that these multiple behavioural problems will not be repeated upon returning. Thank you. El_C 16:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

IP user re-adding unsubstantiated dates for next Ukrainian elections

Hi, there's a new user User:178.149.18.255 who has been repeatedly editing the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2019 Ukrainian presidential election and next Ukrainian parliamentary election pages to show the next election date as 2025 (or "on or before June 24, 2025") with no source.

I have reverted this as there has been no information on when martial law will be lifted and elections will be held, and no sources were provided to show that this status quo has changed. However, the user has just re-added the 2025 claims with the edit summary "election proposed".

I have left messages on the user's talk page, but haven't received a response. These are the user's first edits so far.

Thank you!

Helpful Cat (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks: User talk:178.149.18.255#Partial blocks. El_C 00:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@El C Thank you! Helpful Cat (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. If these issues persist, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. El_C 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits and Misinformation by User "Ratnahastin" on AajTak Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I would like to bring to your attention the disruptive editing behaviour of the user "Ratnahastin" on the AajTak channel's Wikipedia page. The user has been repeatedly making edits suggesting that AajTak operates under the influence of the BJP, which is factually incorrect and misleading.

Despite previous attempts to revert these edits and maintain neutrality on the page, "Ratnahastin" continues to reintroduce this unfounded claim, which is compromising the integrity and neutrality of the article.

These actions are in violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and the repeated additions of misinformation are causing confusion for readers. I request that the user be warned or blocked from making further disruptive edits and that the page be protected from further vandalism.

Please take the necessary action to maintain the accuracy and neutrality of this article.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnuragBisht108 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

All editors are expected to cite sources upon editing. It is clear that Aaj Tak is a BJP mouthpiece. Did some search on the web. Sources: 1 Ahri Boy (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• AnuragBisht108 has violated 3RR by making 4 reverts to whitewash the page on Aaj Tak.[124] This is after he already engaged in sockpuppetry.[125] Recommend imposing a WP:NOTHERE block until he realises where he is wrong. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• AnuragBisht108 is still edit warring and has surpassed his 3RR violation.[126] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  7RR and counting. Borgenland (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

One more. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is the citation provided above not being added to that passage, as that is seemingly their objection? Also, they ought to be informed of WP:3RR / WP:EW before blocks concerning these to come into effect. Ahri Boy, you cite it here but not in the article? I'm at a loss. But I will be p-blocking them from the article nonetheless; still, it's puzzling. El_C 17:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@El C: Multiple sources are cited at Aaj_Tak#Reception for this information. Per WP:LEADCITE they are not needed on lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then where is it in the body, Ratnahastin? El_C 17:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

See the sentences such as "condemned for being partial and supporting the ideology of the ruling government of BJP" and "Aaj Tak was fined ₹1 lakh and asked to broadcast apologies for fake news regarding Sushant Singh Rajput." Ratnahastin (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that. I apologize. El_C 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked for 31 hours. Change it if you wish. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nah, that's fine. Spares me from doing it myself, thanks. El_C 17:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

They were warned about edit warring at the bottom of User talk:AnuragBisht108#October 2024. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, the other account, fuck me. El_C 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

76.88.55.135: recent MoS + warning disregard and en masse grammar edits

The IP user 76.88.55.135 first began their grammar editing spree in April this year, had a few sporadic months, and they've been churning out these kinds of edits since September. I think they're doing their best to be constructive, but the quantity and speed at which they're churning these edits out is honestly quite disruptive and disturbing. Their contributions page says they've made almost 500 edits in the past 24 hours, and I am half jokingly starting to question if they're okay.

Regardless, down to the meat and potatoes of this matter. Their most recent editing spree has been an en masse removal of the "the" from any instance they could find of the sentence chunk "the Scripps Institution of Oceanography". If it were spelled Scripp's or Scripps', with an apostrophe, then they would be correct in changing the grammar. However, this isn't the case. While the matter is muddied by the fact that the Scripps Institiution of Oceanography is part of the University of California San Diego (and therefore might fall under WP:THEUNI), I brought the issue to ANI because the IP user has neglected the style consistency guidelines and failed to seek consensus before changing every single instance of the sentence chunk mentioned above to their preferred version.

I understand that providing diffs in the form of links is preferrable, but the IP user has made so many so quickly that it would simply be more efficient for me to just show this:

The IP user has edited approximately 400+ articles that so much as mention the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Despite having been warned in the past by other users, and most recently by @Dr vulpes and myself, the IP user has disregarded these warnings, blanked their talk page, and continued their edits. Diffs will now be provided.

[127]: Talk page warning being subsequently blanked

[128]: the warnings by User:Dr vulpes and myself being blanked

[129]: more talk page blanking

[130]: IP user's edit summary admitting they used a bot to do all the edits, despite them previously telling me they did all the edits manually

[131]: continued insistence of their preferred version

I would like to make a note for any admins that review this: I believe that the IP user's behaviour, while definitely disruptive, was not out of ill will. They have made multiple good contributions to articles in the past, but the use of a bot to enact en masse changes without seeking community consensus or even asking for discussion sticks out as blatant disregard, not ignorance. Nuking all of their edits is not really a viable option, they have almost 2300 edits on their IP address at the time of writing. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am the IP editor. I just like a clear talk page. I thought I read I can do with it what I want. I am a constructive editor that acts like a WikiGnome, just fixing links and grammar. If there was an issue, I apologize.

I searched the term I wanted to change and it was less than a 500 count page of instances so I just changed it manually. If you all think I was in the wrong, go ahead and revert those edits regarding the subject. I thought I was right considering the organization themselves uses no "the", as well as a large amount of media. Is there a specific manual of style guideline to refer to? 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also where is it in that edit summary do I admit to using a bot? I do this all manually, you made that up??? 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, that was me replying to a revert by a spam bot that I am not affiliated with. Did you even check that before accusing me? Everyone of my edits are in good faith and made myself. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Bottom line, revert the edits regarding this subject if they were wrong to make. I don't know how to do something that complicated to be frank. I appreciate the fact you all are trying to help improve Wikipedia, so I don't take any of this negatively. Have a good discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't doubt that your edits were in good faith, it's just that while you were making your edits, you literally averaged 2-4 edits per minute for almost four hours. I (wrongly) assumed that no one would use four hours of their time to just... do that manually. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Very well, but the edit summary point was plain wrong. I was referring to a random spam bot 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I also ask that ALL my edits NOT be reverted, if decision is made to revert the edits in this subject. Thank you to OP who maintained that note.

They are all constructive, in good faith, and made manually 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The specific guidelines I was referring to are WP:THEUNI, which talks about when and where using "the" is appropriate when addressing a university, and MOS:VAR, which is the first section of the Manual of Style main page and states, verbatim, "When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change[...] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable."

I apologize if I overreacted by bringing this to ANI, but there was no real evidence to the contrary that you were listening to the warnings Dr vulpes or I gave you or that this pattern would stop. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I get you're just helping, and my bad for the policy break. I am done editing on that subject. I guess the admins will decide whether or not there need to be reverts on it. I myself don't hold a strong conviction on either side after seeing the discussion. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies as well, it was not my intent to come off as authoritarian or "OBJECTION!"-like. I'm still getting used to the odd formal-informal style of Wikipedia discussions. Feels like you're writing an email to your boss but your boss is also your friend, if that makes sense. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Make an account and join us! You clearly care enough to do these small edits and I know that your contributions will be important and valued! We all make mistakes I know I have but we're a really welcoming community and I hope that I see more of your work going forward. If you ever need help or have questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can make all that effort, go through this "scolding", calmly accept it, and say afterwards you don't hold a strong conviction on either side, you are my hero! I agree with the good editors above: SIGN THIS IP EDITOR UP! We need more wikipedians just like them. BusterD (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This editors actions in blanking their talk page so that others had to work to understand the issues and the failure to correct themselves the Scripps Institution of Oceanography episode suggests a problem deserving administrator action. There is a bot at work and attempted cover up ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not use a bot. I literally just edited a lot for a few hours last night. I won't blank my talk page anymore, I thought that was allowed. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If so you could have started reverting your edits by now of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at your previous rate to show good faith instead of leaving others to clean up after you. You have been able to blank your talk page, which is allowed as its acknowledgement that you have read the page on several occasions since issue was brought to your notice. ChaseKiwi (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am waiting on an admin to reverse those edits if they were wrong to make, as they would have the tools/know-how to do so much quicker than myself.

I do not use a bot, and would like to see some proof that I do if you still insist I do. I don't even know how to use a bot.

I do think it is an interesting conversation on a nuanced topic, do the Clippers play at "the Intuit Dome" because it sounds better? It rolls of the tongue, but official media from the Clippers themselves and informed journalists omit the "the". How about the former Staples Center? Was it the Staple Center? Or just Staples Center? Did we remove the "the" when it changed to Crypto.com Arena? Where do we gain a consensus on grammar style?

Same with Sphere in Las Vegas, many people say "the Sphere". I understand each case has unique characteristics, such as the type of organization. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, my edits on the subject were reverted. I guess that's fair since I should have discussed them in the first place beforehand. Though I do wonder if the edits were the better style regardless and should be restored after discussion? If it was "Scripps Center" and they themselves didn't use "the" as well as the media, but someone thought "the Scripps Center" was better, would it be? I guess the grammar of "(x) Institution of (x)" makes it sound too off not to include "the" beforehand? Oh well, i'm done on the subject. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What they seem to have been doing is loading multiple articles at once and changing them one by one. Since the change is mostly identical each time, they can just Ctrl + F to the proper section, click edit on that section so it loads less text, remove a single word and the space, and save. Plus since they pre-loaded the articles, they can quickly move onto the next article.

In any case, this situation seems to now be resolved and hopefully won't occur again. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Mass See also blanking by 98.228.137.44 (talk · contribs)

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

---

The IP has blanked the see also section of many US Judges articles. Most of those sections had just one article in them, List of United States federal judges by longevity of service. The edit summary of those edits was no longer on list. But despite the Judge not being on the list, does not justify the see also blanking. The see also exists to link the reader to a similar and related articles, which is valid as the person was once on that list, or has a tenure which is similar to the people in that article. I believe that those edits should be rolled back, as they are not constructive. Also, about half of those edits were classified with the tag of possible vandalism.

Thanks! Bunnypranav (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The first fifty edits by the IP appear to be due to the changes happening at List of United States federal judges by longevity of service. The criteria for inclusion in the list has been changed, resulting in a lot of judges with shorter services being removed. The IP removing links to a list that doesn't mention the judge isn't vandalism. I would suggest discussing it with the IP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason why I removed them. See here for how the list was reconfigured. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I did not term their actions as vandalism, that's why I did not post this at AIV.

Also, I never contested about any edits, nor the restructuring done to the list. My only concern was that if the judges had such a long term (and were also included in that list), they should qualify for a link to the list in the see also, as a see also is meant to include related and similar links to the main subject.

Based on the discussion at User talk:98.228.137.44#Mass See also blanking, and this diff, I request an admin or a user with mass rollback permission to revert those particular edits. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If that is all the case, and this is a content dispute, why have you brought it to ANI. That you disagree with their edits isn't a reason to mass revert them. If the list no longer consideres their service length worth inclusion removing the link from See Also is understandable. If you disagree with someone over a content matter you should discuss it with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Till now I have never gotten a reply from an IP on their talk page, (except one case which I do not remember that well). But yes, I did make a mistake (under that previous notion) of not discussing with the IP on their talk page beforehand, and I do apologize to that IP as well. Bunnypranav (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Reporting IP-103.164.205.37

This IP 103.164.205.37 keeps on restoring the old "snippet view" source instance [132] [133] [134] of the same reference despite clear explanation in the edit summaries ([135] [136] [137] [138] [139](, talk page (here) and in the warning ([140]). Also, keeps on changing the updated text [141] which I did after getting a proper view of the source quotation as explained above. Also their edit summaries are incomprehensible. Apart from possible IP sock puppetry (using proxies) as can be seen in the similar topic area (Jat, Virk, Bhatti) shared between the IPs andApnawasebb as can be seen here who removed the Indian part altogether and the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think its one of Truthfindervert 's socks(SPI), given their poor English skills and interest in Jat clan articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Seems like it (also use of divcol [142] [143]). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm reporting for WP:NOPA as well, which continued after I ignored the first few [144] [145], and warned [146] after this [147], but it continued [148]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also edit warring continues [149] and [150] despite this. Also note back link adding of "Muslim Rajput" here which isn't sourced, and also the tag. It is possible that this is a proxy considering similar edit and edit summary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Favonian: This user seem to be the same person as the IP above and possibly this SockFarm. Note the similar writing style here, as well as diffs [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] (including this IP with similar WP:UNCIVIL comments [158]). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ontheloop and 103.164.205.37 both blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Therealbey (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user is obsessed with "Ottoman Beylik" thing. See edits:

• [159]
• [160] (creating unneeded Ottoman Beylik article for Ottoman Empire, basically the same thing)
• [161]
• [162]

Beshogur (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Artur070700 and not following MOS

In their earlier edits, they began making edits about the Russia–Ukraine war and the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. I alerted them about WP:RUSUKR and somebody else alerted them about WP:GS/AA. Since then, they have moved onto adding links to articles. I have told them multiple times about MOS:OVERLINKING and MOS:GEOLINK but they have not responded once and are still continuing to make such edits.

Take for example this edit (since I gave them the last notice) where they added a link for the word writer. Here and here they added links to Ukrainians (even though I told them that this should not be linking to ethnicity) as well as terms like politician. I am not sure if they are making such edits in order to reach extended-confirmed status, but they are not responsive. Mellk (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Artur070700#Indefinite block. El_C 17:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Princy World, promoted by Aakritisharmakohli (talk | contribs)

I am reporting Aakritisharmakohli (talk | contribs). I am tempted to request blocking at WP:AIV, but I am not sure whether this behavior warrants blocking yet. This user has posted promotional or advertising material, mostly about The Princy World, several times and has been warned several times. See, for example, [163]. This user has begun a draft of The Princy World [164], which contains essentially nothing. This user is using the talk page to promote The Princy World. Please advise.—Anita5192 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well that was fun. I looked at the first ref you gave (from March!) and the original link now goes to a 404 page at Medium that says the account has been suspended due to violating their rules. The draft is a step by step guide that gives rather detailed instructions for someone (not sure who) to create an article for this... ebook?

Their user page does this too, along with lots of random requests. The talk page also explicitly mentions the author of the book/series, who happens to have exactly the same name as the user. Almost every contribution is a talk page comment that's been reverted, usually an attempt to promote their book.

I'm also concerned by the edits labelled "#article-change-desc" - I'm sure I've seen a sock farm do that, but can't remember which one for the life of me so take that with a grain of salt... Either way, appears WP:NotHere ? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Princy World has the feel of being self-promotion that the user had generated by AI. (Do we have a guideline on AI contributions yet?) —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I declined the G11, since I don't think this is self-promotion so much as it is a WP:CIR fail, an attempt at fiction, or something else. They have never made an edit to mainspace that wasn't reverted, and most of their edits are whatever this is. And whatever it is, it's WP:NOTHERE, so I'm just going to block. (I was about to do that when I saw the ANI notice.) -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've deleted it as G2, as it's simply copy-pasted AI output and not an attempt at an article. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's too incoherent to be AI, at least, too incoherent to be the result of any LLM that's current in 2024. That doesn't mean I have any idea what it is, though. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen pretty much an identical output from an LLM when it was asked something like "Create me a page for (whatever) on Wikipedia". Not recently, admittedly, so they may be using something older. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Asilvering I looked it up earlier and it's an Avatar & Avengers crossover fanfic-type thing, also turns out that it's free on Kindle so I can take a peek if you're really interested... Blue-Sonnet (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that would explain the "feels like an attempt at fiction" and also the dated LLM use. No need for a peek. I'm sure we've all seen quite enough of it already. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Repeated removal of AfD templates

Tidergamer789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues removing AfD templates (diff) despite a level 4 warning on their talk page for this same issue today, following another level 4 warning yesterday. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

P-blocked from the article for a month. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Typical Albanian 4rr, long term vandalism on several Balkan related pages

User:Typical Albanian 4 rr on Gracanica monastery page [[165]], [[166]], [[167]], [[168]]. The same thing on Visoki Decani article, [[169]], [[170]], [[171]], [[172]] considering the fact that the editor was engaged in edit warring several times in recent past, most notably on city of Nish page, where due to a persistent vandalism there is applied rule of only 1RR of all editors in 24 hours, which they broke several times in short time [[173]], [[174]], [[175]], that they never use talk pages to explain their edits, that in spite the warning on their talk page [[176]] they just continued with their behaviour again without any discussion on talk page, that they using edit summaries to directly attack other editors, and since this is a sensitive topic, I belive this constitutes a typical WP:disruptive behaviour with typical edit warring and off course 4RR. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The first "reverts" of each article do not actually comprise of reverts in any form.

For the Gračanica Monastery article, here (the first link the User:Theonewithreason linked [[177]], I just added the Albanian language pronunciation of the word and placed it first since A (Albanian language) comes before S (Serbian language) alphabetically.

For the Visoki Dečani article, for the first link he provided (this [178]), there I just added a image. Is this a revert in your eyes? And for the second "revert" according to this user, ([179]), I did the same thing as in the Gračanica Monastery article. (Please check the history of the article, since the user did not rightfully link the diffs)

None of these actions/links comprise reverts! I did not remove the Serbian variants or revert any edits by this user or anyone else. I request that whoever reviews this situation takes a close look at who began the edit warring and how aggressively this user is pushing their POV. This user firstly reverted my edits and then escalated the conflict with the intention of making me violate the 3-revert rule and potentially face a block, which of course I did not fall into his trap, as a matter of fact he fell on his own trap! User's report is full of malice, and it’s clear that it was eager for me to break the 3-revert rule! In reality, if anyone deserves a block, it would be the reporting user.

For the User:Theonewithreason: It’s not your concern in any form whether I followed the rules in other cases or articles! Thank you! Typical Albanian (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The first reverts do constitute rr as the others do, so you did 4 RR on both pages, second you added an Albanian language but ignored addition of Serbian language, which is now presented in Visoki Decani article, those monasteries legally do not belong to Kosovo state and are in direct ownership of Serbian orthodox church [[180]] and as such been damaged and vandalised in last 20 years, but still you are the one who started with edit warring because you are the one who started with changes on both articles, without starting any discussion on talk page or reaching consensus to do so which means WP:Onus was on you, also the fact that you continue to attack and make personal accusation does not help you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You did your report, let's wait now... Typical Albanian (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Typical Albanian is correct in so far as WP:3RR was not breached, but both editors were guilty of edit-warring. Either could have started a talk page discussion, and earned some brownie points, but neither chose to. Both of you, give up this silly nationalistic point-scoring and discuss on the article talk page what languages should be included. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that a monastary in Kosovo belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church should be named in both Albanian and Serbian, but I know little about the region, Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Theonewithreason exihibits same pattern he is attributing to others. I agree that both users should cease with nationalistic editing. Resolve this yourselves or open a discussion and seek a neutral opinion. This is getting pointless and I see this is not your first instance going this path. I'm speaking for both editors, which should warrant some king of measure. 78.1.146.147 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Theonewithreason, do not delete my comment again. 78.1.146.147 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bairaag

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

---

A bit of a weird one here. Bairaag is a Bollywood film that, according to the sources in the article, was a flop. New editor FaisalTheGreat 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't agree and is declaring it a 'superhit'. The problem is, the sources saying it was a flop are, on face it, not very good. So maybe they're right? And they're an Android app editor, so I believe they can't see the templates on their talk page asking them to stop.

This is a silly thing for me to edit war over (I know nothing about films, let alone Bollywood ones), so advice or intervention from others would be cool. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The whitewashing, if that's what it is, has spread to Dilip Kumar. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just another Kumar uber-fan, we've had a few in the past. They can simply be reverted and if they continue edit-warring, can be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it's A Thing. Didn't know that. Thanks, BK! 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The phenomenon of Paid news in India makes it difficult or impossible to take seriously what many media outlets in India say about entertainment topics in particular. This is a real challenge to Wikipedia's integrity when covering Bollywood et cetera. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

They carried on reverting so I have blocked them from the relevant articles. Black Kite (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting Administrative Assistance

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

---

Hi, I would like to receive assistance from an Administrator about an IP user, User:2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98. They keep posting on registered users’ talk pages such as mine and User:Yellerhater. They told me to write edit summaries and they told Yellerhater to stop hijacking pages, although I do not see any evidence that Yellerhater did such a thing. I hope to hear from someone soon to resolve this issue. Thank you. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d also like to add that the IP user has threatened to block User:Yellerhater, although they do not have the authority to block any editor, as they are only an IP user and not an Administrator. Thank you. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can warn users if they do something they will be blocked for, like hijacking a page and edit-warring over it. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I can just go to someone’s talk page and warn them about vandalism, edit warring and hijacking? My apologies. I didn’t know that. My apologies for not notifying the editors and I will start adding edit summaries. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in fact we warmly welcome people doing anti-vandalism work. Start off at Wikipedia:Vandalism so you understand what is and isn't vandalism. On that page there are useful links for ways to go about fighting vandalism. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So, after being told that editors are allowed to warn other editors about vandalism, your response, immediately after this message, is to blank the vandalism warnings on Yellerhater's page [181]? Yellerhater is allowed to remove those, but you know that these messages weren't obviously inappropriate, so why did you remove them from a third party's page? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I was confused but now I understand. TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hijacking a page is literally Yellerhater's first edit: Special:Diff/1252317139. (Hijacking a page means editing an already existing page to make it about some other topic, which they did.) And TeaLoverHistoryGuy has indeed been skimping on edit summaries. Looking at 2A00's contributions and talk page, they're clearly a serious editor. Also, the editors mentioned have not been notified, like the very prominent boxes at the top of this page and in the editnotice tell you to. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I’m new to this. If needed, I will do all that next time. Thanks, TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you could refrain from blanking other people's talk pages in future that would be good too. Thanks. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Being informed about this pointless thread would've been nice. Anyway, what Maddy said. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that it warrants you being brought to ANI, but it would be better if you didn't use the vandal templates for things that are not vandalism -

you could have used the uw-advert line or the general uw-disruptive3/uw-generic4 disruptive editing ones. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope. When hijacking continues (with edit warring), it becomes plain ol' vandalism (until then it was just possibly misguided editing, which the first-level template allows for). I'm sure people could debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (it's 16, by the way) in getting a slightly different template with a slightly different message but repeated hijacking is vandalism, so why bother? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Link spamming is vandalism, advertising is just WP:SPAM which is (I believe) a type of disruptive editing. See also WP:VAND#Page creation, illegitimate:

[...] Blatant advertising pages, and blatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.

Basically, you get better results when the person knows what they are doing wrong. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we at cross-purposes? Hijacking is the important thing here, not what the article was hijacked with. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:6826:7ED6:69A8:AF98 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well WP:Article hijack is an essay, not a policy or guideline - the act of replacing an article with another, is, as far as I know, just disruptive editing (*edit: oh, and WP:NOTHERE behaviour).

I mean it's pretty disruptive, that's probably why it has a "third" warning triangle, but the next step (if it's truly that bad) is uw-generic4. The only reason the quote is relevant here is that hijacking an article to add blatant advertisement is pretty similar to creating a new one to do it. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC) *edited 21:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest here; it's more likely that I'm the reinanimated corpse of Ludwig van Beethoven, here to eat other people's ears in bitter revenge for my deafness, then it is that Yellerhater could possibly be unaware that what they're doing is inappropriate and why. This was pure, unadulterated nonsense that Yellerhater hijacked a page with and then started an edit war to keep in. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find the vandalism templates? Thank you, TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If you ask me, the easiest way to manage the entire library of user talk warnings and notices is to go in your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE. It has all the common templates used for dealing with all sorts of issues. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! TeaLoverHistoryGuy (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

KH-1 Edit Warring and Mass Reverting

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

---

@KH-1 has recently edit warred by reverting 5 edits on one Article in 24hrs.
Not to mention on lots of other Articles. He/She also marked most if not all of them with Vandalism tags.
In addition has not given any reasons for his reverts. He has reverted 14 times today as of now.
With a few of them being multiple edits reverted.
I have given him/her notice about this issue as you can see here.
Thank you for reading. Sheriff U3 talk 22:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that you have badly misunderstood the three-revert rule. Reverting five consecutive edits is one revert. You have also given them a notice that you were reporting them at WP:AN3 as opposed the here, which is ANI. As you've provided no actual diffs of anything actionable, there isn't much of anything for an admin to do here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for informing me that he has not edit warred.

But he has Reverted good edits as can be seen here and here.

Do I need to continue? If you check the reverts you will see the good edits he has reverted.

Also He has a history of this, and has not given any reason of it.

Even if you think it should not be here, it does need Admin attention.

I would revert them, but I would be in trouble right? That is the reason it needs Admin Attention.
Sheriff U3 talk 23:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

They appear to me to be removing WP:LINKSPAM (they in fact have said as much is some of their edit summarries), or what they perceive to be linkspam. It would be nice if they were using better edit summarries and also warning/notifying users when reverting them, but neither of those things are hard requirements. You say he has not given any reason, but I don't see evidence that you actually asked them about it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks to me like KH-1 was reverting REFSPAM, exactly as they noted in the edit summary of this edit. suspensionsetups.com and aivafertiliser.co.uk are not reliable sources, they're businesses with blogs used for SEO purposes. We certainly shouldn't be using sources like that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's telling to me that they pointed out this edit [182] specifically as being a problematic revert. Removing an external link from the text of an article is always the right move, so I don't know on what basis they felt it proved any sort of misbehavior, and I rather think this user is in over their head asking for enforcement of rules when they haven't taken the time to actually understand what the rules are. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the OP has only been active as an editor for one week so it's not a surprise that they aren't familiar with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sheriff U3, it was premature for you to bring this disagreement to ANI. This noticeboard is for urgent or intractable disputes. This one just needed some discussion between you and the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this can be closed, or just left to slide off into the archives. I've tried being a little nicer and offered some guidance on their talk page. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Dustfreeworld and CIR

The aforementioned username:

• believes that others linking policies to them is vandalism,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252277372&oldid=1252276097 ES

• believes that it is inappropriate for experienced editors to send them warning templates,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADustfreeworld&diff=1252285615&oldid=1252285101

• preassumes incompetency I hope people can do some basic research,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252273709

• drags on issues (especially in the case of the topic ban, where the editor did have a right to have the discussion reopened),

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• doesn’t take the effort to understand policies (when they link numerous policies themself),

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1245659975 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252257961 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1252186545

• is against collaboration in numerous forms,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244278039 (waited by edit-warring until the other user created a talk page message, when they could have just done it themself) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1223141686 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1241187286 (everything in the blue block)

• likes to own articles,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=1250023023#Hey,

• respects and admires people who can correct their mistakes,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1248110819

• yet sees their own mistakes as difference in opinion,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_methods&diff=prev&oldid=1222337976 (in the case of NPOV) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244280753 (everything in blue block)

• uses ES to attack other editors,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1244387015 (editor was dispute with the other on IsraelHamas war and suicide articles)

• disregards replies with excuses that they are too long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244269909 (especially when their own messages are very long)

It’s also weird how Dustfreeworld blanked both their user page and talk page wanting some privacy for forthcoming edits as if they knew the dispute currently on the talk page would happen.

I’ll mention those involved: @Dustfreeworld @Hiobazard @Kingsif @Karnataka @Adolphus79 @ScottishFinnishRadish @Jannatulbaqi @WhatamIdoing 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:E5C3:B700:ED2A:2E22 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A comment on my talk page has been linked above. I have a very different interpretation of the comment, and I suggest disregarding this IP's claim that it's a sign of Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

I also respect and admire people who can correct their mistakes, and especially the editors who can publicly admit that they've changed their minds instead of doubling down on their original mistakes. For example, the alleged "ES" isn't an WP:ES, so maybe you'd like to go correct your error. (It's an HTML comment.) While we're on the subject of that point, I'll add that I was raised to believe that telling someone to shut up is not a polite way to communicate a wish for a conversation to end, but it's not actually a WP:Personal attack, and I suspect that quite a number of editors cheerfully use that phrase without thinking themselves to be behaving rudely, much less violating our Wikipedia:Civility policy. If it were, we'd have a bigger problem, because that phrase appears in significantly more than 10,000 discussions on wiki.

The only edits from this IP address are to post this here. I wonder which content dispute this logged-out editor is trying to gain an advantage in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to show the ES, not the HTML comment. The ES shows the reason why the shut up HTML comment was added, in reference to a user. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:60B7:4D35:8B6C:93FB (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this IP is also me the OP, I should have clarified it but I didn't know that the IP would change. I did not care about the "shut up" in the HTML or the ES, or anywhere in general (hence I didn't bring up https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_News_International&diff=prev&oldid=1252101002), but rather the content that follows in the ES only. Especially the harassment accusation through the "forgetful" link. However what I would like to bring up in that diff I just posted is the editor's unwillingness to discuss their edits. Dustfreeworld states that BOLD is a lie to children, but it isn't if one is willing to explain your edits instead of where I quote "throw uppercase" to editors who then revert. During a content dispute with another editor who reminded the user of importance of discussion through BRD, the response completely ignored the point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1239933205 showing how the editor is incompetent to judge when using BRD-is-optional arguments are appropriate.

I'm sure that almost everyone appreciates people who can correct their mistake. The editor is highly appreciative when things go according to plan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChirpy-slirpy-BURPY&diff=1247861443&oldid=1247579736 like shown. But when this doesn't happen allegations of blanking begin to appear https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1244258719 after a first revert of a revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852.

As I showed in my original post, the editor calls "uppercase" vandalism. The following edits are a selection of edits with ES that has 3+ Wikispace links. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Pui&diff=prev&oldid=1244257726 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1243854852 (an example of viewing their own mistake as difference in opinion). An editor has wanted to distance themselves from the editor that I have brought here due to the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustfreeworld&diff=prev&oldid=1247717981 aggressive and obsessive response to other editors that the editor gives. Notably through the Wikispace linking that the editor themselves have called vandalism. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:391E:173F:4FCD:20A4 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be claiming that a note posted by this editor, on their User: page, that doesn't mention you or anything about you, is a message to you. I think that's unreasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I really want to get my point across that the ES was targeted towards a specific editor, I’ll clarify. The ES was They want you to shut up. Whether it’s about war, about suicide, about PRESERVE, maybe even racism/inclusion, whatever. They want you to shut up. So you should. How forgetful I am. and I’ll focus on the bolded parts of this.

Firstly, They. The editor is clearly referencing someone/a group of people.

Secondly, war/suicide/PRESERVE. The editor had a dispute with User:Karnataka against all three issues (Israel-Hamas war, various suicide articles, and a Preseve policy). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karnataka&diff=prev&oldid=1244267146

Thridly, the racism/inclusion. I’ve also bolded the maybe as I was unable to find an occurrence of this, so I’m guessing that the editor was presumptive about the intentions of Karnataka.

Finally the attack in the form of the “forgetful” hyperlink. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• You are right WhatamIdoing,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adolphus79&diff=prev&oldid=1153898457 2A01:B747:412:344:D444:3B76:D8E5:AA37 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an unrelated comment on my talk page has anything to do with the editor in question, and have purposely stayed uninvolved in this conversation due to my recent interaction with them. I would like to clarify, though, that in my diff'd comment, I was not telling John M Wolfson to shut up, I was acknowledging his "sit in the corner away from the mop" statement. That being said, regarding the WP:OWN complaint, I would like to point out this edit, including the statement "Your comment makes me wonder when have you put the ANI article on your watchlist. I didn’t remember inviting you to watch and then revert my edits there. I didn’t invite you to come to my talk to waste my time either."... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Would an admin or experienced user please assess if this report above violates WP:A/I/PIA (by mentioning 2 diffs from discussions about the topic)?

Additionally, I would very much like to know how you, IP, came across these interactions, seeing as you have not clarified who you are and I do not see any obvious related edits in your /40 and /32 ranges (the /64 range is empty, but that's common).

So that I'm not an hypocrite: I edit from my entire /32 range, where 99% of the edits are mine, except for, I believe, less than 10. – 2804:F1...ED:5881 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that "rv" does not mean "revert vandalism". It just means "revert". "rvv", with two V's, means "revert vandalism". See Wikipedia:Glossary § R. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware? (OP again) 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Then why do you think that Special:Diff/1252277372 indicates that Dustfreeworld thinks that Special:Diff/1252276097 was vandalism? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is a reference to this edit, calling my note about WP:OWN "vandalising my talk page with WP:UPPERCASE". - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Some editors feel strongly about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, and our WP:UPPERCASE jargon (please click that link if you've never read that page) can be off-putting. We use it as a way of signalling that I'm in the in-group (and probably you're an outsider), as a way to avoid thinking and explaining clearly, and as a way of trying to "win" disputes. I wouldn't call it vandalism myself, because I have a pretty narrow understanding of that word, but if it's upsetting, even if you believe it "shouldn't" be upsetting, then it's best to find a different way to say what you mean.

I don't know if you're familiar with Postel's law, but following the general principle on wiki is helpful: Editors who want to communicate successfully should avoid communication styles that are objected to often enough that you wouldn't be surprised if someone complained (e.g., no profanity, not because we have a firm rule against it, but because you have real things to communicate, and you don't need your real point ignored while we have yet another discussion about whether profanity is always a blockable offense or only sometimes a blockable offense. [It's the latter, by the way]), and if someone indicates a less common but still workable communication preference, then respect that as much as feasible (e.g., to the extent that you remember this preference and have functional alternatives). If you happened to become aware of someone's dislike for the WP:UPPERCASE style of communication, then it'd be nice if you could avoid that. But, of course, if you don't know that, or if you happen to forget, then that needs to be okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The difference here is that Dustfreeworld’s handling is highly hypocritical. You will find WP links in almost every one of the Dustfreeworld’s talk page messages and many of ES, so how is it vandalism when it’s done only towards Dustfreeworld? As Dustfreeworld is consistently using WP links, surely they are actively indicating that the best way to communicate with them is also with WP links.

By WP links I am referring to the UPPERCASE. 2A02:6B67:D622:5E00:B99D:6BAD:5DDA:69EA (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That was my understanding also. Considering how many WP shortcuts Dustfreeworld throws around, in almost every message they post, I assumed that they were part of said 'in crowd' and responded in kind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editor with 8 warnings since January 2024 continues to make disruptive edits

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

As per the user's talk page, the IP user has 8 warnings (the latest of which I just added now) this year asking them not do add unsourced information to Wikipedia. These warnings have all seemingly been ignored.

I post this only to bring this to the Admins attention; what further action is or is not taken I leave with you. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 Blocked x 31 hrs for disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ervin111899 and copyright violations past sixth warning

• Ervin111899 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Ervin111899 has apparently been warned [183][184][185][186][187]. They have responded to several of these warnings, re-iterating Wikipedia's copyright policy and assuring that they understand it, and that they will follow it. (See [188] and [189], for example).

They were also warned once for CWW violations ([190]), on one of their their now-blocked sock account, User:Ervin1118. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ervin1118)

Today, on the article TV Patrol, they added this edit, containing material almost directly lifted from [191] as you can see here .For convenience, I have bolded the overlapping words:

"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."

"Following this election's campaign handle Bayan Mo iPatrol Mo, this endeavor encourages Filipinos to guard our votes and serve as responsible citizen journalists who are able to report any election–related cases such as vote buying. Similarly, STI's year-round campaign dubbed as Citizen STI, which is the institution's commitment to mold individuals to become catalysts of positive change, perfectly coincides with ABS-CBN's endeavor."

Again, they have stated multiple times that they understand not to copypaste material from outside sources- yet they carry on. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for copying and pasting from other websites. It is not intentional. Starting this time, I will now write on my own. Thank you. Ervin111899 (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ervin111899 Why should the community believe you? You said you've understood this before "If I am editing Wikipedia, much better I will not edit pages involving copying from anything anymore as it is a violation of copyright rules or property rights of owners of anything that I find online, in books, in magazines, in newspapers, or any other media." ([192])- and you said this in late July 2024. What's changed now? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you at least clarify how this was not intentional? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the 2 instances cited in the original post above where the user said that they understand the relevant policy and will comply with it...

The second instance is, for the most part, directly copied and pasted from the standard notice given to users in relation to copyvio. The first one is, at best, heavily paraphrased from a similar source.

To respond with further copy/pasting when asked to abide by COPYVIO is clearly absurd and indicates that the user has, at best, serious WP:CIR issues. Axad12 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I am baffled that they would claim it wasn't intentional. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If there’s any truth to this, then WP:PREVENTATIVE would definitely be met, on a block. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 06:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Copying text requires a conscious decision to highlight a block of text and then click "copy". Pasting text requires placing the cursor where the editor wants that text to go, and clicking "paste". Or the equivalents. These actions cannot possibly be unintentional, and repeated violations of copyright law are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Ervin111899. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just looking at the user's talk page and found the following rather amusing example:

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I must not add or change content like what I did at Cartoon Network, without citing a reliable source. I will review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC).

And then later in the same thread, after a similar example:

Do you just repeat people's messages back to them? Trivialist (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Trivialist that I just repeat people's messages back to them. I will now change my comment. Thank you and you're welcome. Ervin111899 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

So evidently this has been a longstanding problem. Axad12 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit saying they'll just bump over to tl.wiki makes me think that we need to warn them so they don't return to being a new headache there. Also with the 'fan HR' trash on the TV Patrol article (which is about 70% tracking the month-by-month clock-in status of the show's anchors as every article about a Filipino TV show seems to be), what they added shouldn't have even been added in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ratnahastin

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

---

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

@Ratnahastin seems to be a person who hates other castes he has been putting negative information in articles related to Ahir/Yadav. He is definitely a hater. First he said Hcsrctu stock See here [193], then this Hindukshatrana sock see here [194]. He does not look at the sources. If he feels that something wrong can be added related to Ahir/Yadav then he tries to add it. If something good has been added in the article then he removes it. Look at his actions [195], [196], [197] which make it clear that he hates this community. 2409:4085:9216:99AD:0:0:C3A:98B1 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you must have the wrong links there. They do not show any opinion about this community, let alone make it clear that he hates it. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC) You forgot to leave a message for Ratnahastin saying that he is being discussed. I have done so.

Worth noting is that Ratnahastin has 12,583 edits and has never been blocked. That does not seem like the indications of a caste warrior to me. Cullen328 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: worth noting that Ratnahastin has been increasingly been targeted here by frivolous allegations by malicious and sometimes WP:CIR users from and regarding a certain geographical area. Borgenland (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and disruptive edits by Anonymousguywhoisaneditor

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

---

Anonymousguywhoisaneditor recently joined Wikipedia with the apparent sole intend of being disruptive. See diffs here: 1 2 3 4

Blocked as VOA. This also could have been sent to WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll post it there next time. Thank you! Cortador (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Babysharkboss2 being a bit bitey

Basically, in User talk:Zippybonzo#My article is indeed important for us!, I was trying to assist someone with Draft:Asspixel not being notable (at the time it was in mainspace), and initially they were helpful, but then towards the end of the discussion they decided to make this comment, which was just completely uncalled for and unnecessary. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 16:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Zippybonzo, was the editor's reply to you on their User talk page insufficient for you? What action are you looking for here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Primarily I wanted to check that my message left to them was the right action or whether it was an overstep or not enough, and just check that the discussion there was within the norms. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This matter is in absolutely no way urgent, chronic, or intractable. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not an overstep. Opening up an ANI report (which is where we deal with editors who are demonstrating serious behavioral issues) is. Most editors would consider that a pretty major escalation, and very unnecessary in this case. To ask these questions, you would have done better to just ask on the talkpage of an available admin. Grandpallama (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

March8613 (talk · contribs) has been uploading redone versions of company logos to retailer articles such as Media Play and claiming said logos as their own uncopyrighted work (most of them don't fall under text-only logos not unique enough to be copyrighted). I strongly suspect this is someone in good faith who doesn't understand copyright, and their edits should be dealt with accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This will need to be dealt with on Commons- but glancing through their uploads, many of them are likely to be below the threshold of originality in the United States. So it's more a matter of fixing a bunch of licenses and opening a deletion request on others. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this may be a CIR issue

One the sigma (talk · contribs)

This is a new editor with just over 50 edits. They have been changing content on earthquake-related articles and were warned for introducing incorrect information on 2 October for making random changes to figures on a good article [198]. The second warning came after more random changes to a featured article [199]. I then gave a final warning after more changing text (including reference titles) [200]. Today, more ref title changes [201]. No conversation has taken place with this person; just the warnings. Dawnseeker2000 22:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

While this doesn't excuse the issues with their edits (and the account might need to be blocked from editing if they continue without responding), none of the warnings on their talk page actually explain what the problem was. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)