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. 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:The middle e

• The middle e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account is not that old yet after a few edits has gone on to start and create AfD's. (Special:Contributions/The middle e) This is not normal behaviour for a new account. This feels like someone is socking here. Can an admin have a look. Regards, Govvy (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor is adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:The <sup>m</sup>iddle <sup>e</sup>}} to their userpage a typical new editor behaviour. Either they aren't too worried as they haven't got any skeletons in the closet anyway, or they're trying to make it obvious. I hope it's the first one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is tagging users in ANI and questioning them on their talk page appropriate? I thought sockpuppetry was illegitimate use of multiple accounts, the user doesn't seem to have done anything to arouse suspicion that this is the case, except for being competent. JeffUK (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK: When mentioning someone here it clearly says to add a notice to their talk page. I didn't see any other relatable accounts to run an SPI. That's why you post a possible WP:DUCK sighting here!! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I knew who that was, but I was wrong. That doesn't happen so often.  Confirmed to User:Gaois, User:X00y, User:Fingoal, User:Ihearthurling, and User:Litelad. Would be nice if one of them could explain this. There's a lot of overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the account is going cold like it's done a runner. @NinjaRobotPirate: Maybe they got scared off?? Govvy (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes it happens. You ask what's up, and you get dead air. If nobody responds after a while, I guess we can look at it more closely. Sometimes people accept their own drafts or vote multiple times using socks, but I didn't see any of that in a cursory skim over the edits. If there isn't anything like that, I don't understand why one of the accounts wouldn't just say, "Oops, my bad, yeah, those are all my accounts." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for a bit: what if it's a school or library IP? casualdejekyll 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkusers can identify those when they resolve the IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's not my account. I've never seen the account before. And it's a lot to take in and then try to respond. I haven't voted multiple times on anything. I rarely even vote once on anything. I don't know how to explain cases of creating the wrong AfD's mentioned above. I'm not involved at AfD. --Gaois (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• These are different editing interests too, unless every sport is the same interest. I'm not even watching the World Cup. --Gaois (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't really understand this. But I'll try to explain based on the overlap link and what I see there. Some of the editors included I haven't interacted with and it looks like they're not even interested in the same subject.

From looking at the user on the far right I can see zero overlapping edits if I'm reading it correctly. That's the user who's mentioned. The one with the strange signature. The one interested in the World Cup / starting AfDs. If I take me out of it here it looks clearer. The list is shorter. It’s easier to read. The overlap has decreased and goes out to months. Since I edit widely within the same subject and this subject provides all of the pages, the interests narrow when I'm subtracted.

Similar with second from the left. Zero after zero. There isn't the same editing interest there at all. The overlap there is basically this edit. I rephrased one sentence at the top of a famous person's page because (I think) I thought the phrasing used - "before" and "was" - made it sound awkward or made it sound like it could've happened on the street. It's a person who is known all over the world and who had been on the news that week because of what happened to them. I don't normally edit there.

The fourth user from the right has a lot of ones, so one edit and then nothing else. Many of the pages are (or were) new and I would've edited them, particularly if they were stubs, to include a category or made some minor correction if that's what was needed. I've edited new pages contributed by other users, copyedited and made corrections to their work. I do this particularly if they have maintenance templates on top but not all of them do. I've also done the same with the work of other users who are not mentioned here, tried to help improve that work. This is often when the articles have just appeared, so it can be within hours, a day or two if I'm delayed, a week or two if there isn't much happening or if I'm away. I've looked through contributions of certain users, checking if they have been up to anything new based on their previous contributions (I don't know if it's allowed, but I did it and I probably shouldn't have done it). Not all of these editors are listed here but there is similar overlap of interest because their edits overlap with what I edit. I don't want to drag other users in here so I'll use new articles instead to give context to the quick responses, the ones within hours.

This is a recent example where I thought afterwards that I was too quick. When I noticed there was half an hour's difference (after I edited) I thought straight away I might have caused them to have an edit conflict and I don't want to do that if they're still making the page. I try to wait a few hours if I notice a new page early. This is another one where I was too quick with a second and third edit, with a separate editor who is not named here, but because I happened to notice it I went straight in. I hope I didn't put him off because it looks like he was still working on it the next day, as I can see now in the history. Basically what happened in those cases was they created a page the previous day. That new page showed up later in one of the places that show up new pages so I noticed it. Then I looked at the user’s contributions to see if they had a newer page which wasn't showing up yet. If I found they had another newer one I edited it as well. So I haven't always waited until the next day. Looking at it now I wish I had. Then again it looks like it would've been better to ignore the new pages entirely.

Some look like drafts. I've edited drafts left over by others too. An example where I edited a draft by another user who isn't mentioned here is this attempt at copyedit/improvement. I began editing that draft the same day I noticed it was declined and it was later accepted. It was declined because "Submission is improperly sourced" so it needed citations. I didn't expect my efforts would be enough for it to be accepted but it was. Several days after it was accepted I informed the user who had started it here because it looked like they were trying to get it accepted for a long time (going by the three submission attempts on their talk page), also because some dates were wrong and I wasn't sure if they knew it was accepted. They didn't reply but they later resumed work on the page. I think this is the most recent draft by another user I was involved with. A few of the pages in the overlap look like drafts so I must've given up on them.

This page and its history are an example of one that I would've seen first as a new page. The second edit is by someone not mentioned here. The third edit the same. Then I added a category, hours later, into the following day. Then some cleanup. No further edits. Someone not mentioned here added DEFAULTSORT the next day. Nothing happened for several days then someone else not mentioned here added short description. Nothing more for two weeks then someone not mentioned here added several categories. By the time several users were making more edits weeks had passed.

To take the articles as I see them listed, the top two and number seven are teams and when I'm not looking at new articles that's where I copyedit and include citations. Three, four five and six, eight until around twenty or twenty-two all look like cases of new articles I would've seen. Other teams are included too. Going further down where several hours and even more than half a day have passed, I see more and more new articles edited hours after they appeared. None of them are within half an hour, which I think (hope – don't want to cause edit conflicts that put the user off) is my overall record, from the other day. I mentioned it above, this to make it easier.

The second user from the right has some edits to a few of the same articles but with a narrower range of interest. The only overlap that is close in time looks like the top page, which is a team. Most of my editing, as I said above, is making small improvements to teams and that leads to other pages. It was part of the set of teams on my watchlist so any edit to that page would've attracted my attention.

Ihearthurling: I created the Ihearthurling account which contains so much of the overlap one day when I was bored. This is a stupid excuse. I can see that. I wish I hadn't done it. But I did. It was well-intentioned or at least not intended to cause harm as I'm going to explain below. There were also the following influences: (1) it was the off-season for the teams I usually edit (2) I wanted to edit away from the same teams I usually edit, away from my watchlist, away from the notifications that came every week making me want to check the usual teams (for vandalism or uncited additions) many I had carefully copyedited and was anxious that their overall quality didn't decline any further (3) The watchlist was distracting and irritating me, but I didn't want to give them up completely either because I thought they would be useful next year (3) I wanted to get away from my talk page for similar reasons. That clearly didn't work. I would've been better just emptying my watchlist. Or finding a completely different hobby. There have to be easier things than this.

So to attempt to explain. I'd noticed how poor so many of these other, often intermediate, competitions and the different teams that play in them were. Someone would come along and prod them because of a shortage of citations or because nobody else had shown interest in improving them. This annoyed me because it was a shame to see the work of other users lost just because they hadn't thought to include one citation. Here is an example of an appeal by me to nudge as nicely as possible another editor into including anything that might prevent what they had started the previous day from being deleted. I normally leave those alone. Then I look later and they're gone (if I've been away for a week or more). I thought if I could improve them even slightly they would have a chance of escaping that. I didn't think anyone would notice so I kept going. Over time I kept returning to it. A habit developed of editing. I wanted to make improvements. It wasn't about adding scores to the competition pages. There are others who do this. They do it very well. I don't know where they get their information from. But I was happy to leave them to it. Do they include citations for what they add? Well, not all of them do. So I thought I would try. The same newspapers and websites I normally refer to could be relied on, I thought. Just the basics. The detail of those pages didn't interest me. And when I was there I thought there was no harm in tidying up the existing sections (or making some sections if there were none). I shouldn't have done this. It was the wrong way to go about it.

What I described above should be clear from its history. They're mostly the same type of edits. I didn't give it a lot of thought. I didn't use it to influence AfD outcomes. There isn't any connection to AfD. I don't understand the AfD connection as mentioned here. I can't see any editing overlap with that account. I haven't much interest in AfD at all, unless I notice one involves a page related to the subject I edit and then it comes up as an alert. Even then I'm not much use and stay away. Which makes it even worse that all this is because an AfD was started and created incorrectly. An AfD on a subject I've no interest in, as consistent with my edits.

If I understand correctly this is the outcome entirely of people thinking AFD is being influenced by multiple votes? And that I'm part of this. Does the Editor Interaction Analyser not show these attempts to influence AfD? I can't see them in the overlap. I've spent hours checking. I can't see them linked anywhere here, above. Could someone explain if AfD is supposed to appear in this Editor Interaction Analyser?

If I understand correctly I'm also supposed to have voted multiple times in AFDs. This is disappointing and serious. I can't even see where it's shown that this has happened. I might have done wrong while meaning to do well above but to do wrong and deliberately influence AfDs is even worse.

I definitely haven't set out to vote multiple times at AfD. Or anywhere else. --Gaois (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It turns out the user third from left in the Editor Interaction Analyser, the one who is overlapping me constantly in hours and days and in the same subject I edit, is someone near me I trusted. They thought it'd be fun to target me with new pages/stubs to get a response from me. So I responded without realising, as I was in the habit of doing. This probably encouraged them to continue to try to get a reaction from me, by making stubs and blocks of text that I'd edit hours afterwards, or later that week, or later again. With the intention of improving them. In the middle of edits to everyone else's work. I have no idea why they've done this to me. They're either pleased or indifferent that I'm in trouble. Maybe they found out before I did too. I don't think they understand the extent of it. All my spare time this week has been spent trying to sort this out and make sense of it.

The Editor Interaction Analyser shows when users first edited the page. I edited the team pages first and was second editor if new pages appeared. If a team was linked in the new page this set off my watchlist and notifications. This happened with so many users that I lost track. There was at least one new addition to my watchlist or notifications when I edited every day or two. There were even more if was away. I have no idea how many users turn up on my watchlist because of the number of pages on it.

If the user linked their new page in the team, I noticed this because of my watchlist and notifications, just as I noticed any edit to the team. Then I made the mistake of checking the new page and trying to find a way to edit it. I enjoyed that challenge. Often there wasn't anything to edit because the user had made the new page perfectly or it had no obvious problems. Then I'd give up and go to the next page in search of more. I wish I hadn't.

A user's new page wasn't always included in the team. If it wasn't then I included it in the team if it was possible. Since I knew some of the teams well enough from copyediting these pages I would've had ideas about where certain new pages might fit. I wish I hadn't. --Gaois (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a valid WP:CLEANSTART?

If so, why do we care? jp×g 18:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read the large chunk of text above, all I can see it's as if a duck swam into a large pond during the winter and just froze to-death! :/ Govvy (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame; it would be nice if someone did read the text ~ yes, i agree, a large chunk ~ and paid attention to it. The editor in question, Gaois, has been mentioned here, above, and linked with several other accounts, including the one Govvy opened this section with, offering it as a potential DUCK. I don't know what the CU saw, obviously, i can't use that magic pixie dust, so maybe all these accounts are linked and socks of each other. But, on the other hand, on the chance that they're not, i did read the chunk of text, and found Gaois saying one of the them was also their account, and offering a reasonable reason, not particularly socky.

Maybe i'm naïve, but i'd like to take someone at their word when they offer explanations for potentially problematic behaviour. Especially when they have taken a lot of time to investigate for themselves and are saying they're attempting to understand the issue. On the other hand, Gaois, conciseness is your friend, at least at the beginning. A simple, "this one is me, those aren't" would have sufficed unless someone persisted. In the meantime, thank you for the explanation; i hope that you can continue to work productively, and as a (single) part of the community. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 23:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Mischief by User:Alaa Aly

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Unauthorized_bot_making_WP:NOTBROKEN_edits but this might be quicker.

Alaa Aly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently making one edit every ten seconds with an edit summary saying it’s currently running a bot. Such a bot was not approved (and likely will never be, as the edits violate WP:NOTBROKEN, but that’s a side concern). It should be blocked ASAP, and any unblock should be conditional on the owner agreeing to read and abide by the bot policy. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, they shut it down. A stern talking-to might still be warranted. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DuncanHill and I have reverted all of their edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I revoked ECM for this user, will leave them talk message. They are welcome to request restoration after 500 legitimate edits at WP:PERM. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• The same account also added many categories, usually inappropriately, also reverted: example. Certes (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• And just this morning this editor removed an obviously correct category as test/vandalism. This looks like a case of WP:CIR. I would block, but someone with more patience may be able to persuade the user to stop doing things like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• I changed the section title because the bot-editing thing is no longer a problem. No strong opinion on whether NOTTHERE/CIR applies - history looks bad but nothing egregious I would say. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Tone-policing

I'm starting to reach the end of my patience with Cullen328 (talk · contribs)'s tone-policing with respect to me on Wikipedia's help fora. Over the past year there's been three incidents where he's gotten on my case due to either incautious wording or taking umbrage with specific phraseology I use, and on the second incident I explicitly told him in no uncertain terms to stay off my talk page. Cue today, where I wake up to find he's posted a threat to block me to my talk page. For the history:

• Incident 1 was in June, when Cullen took umbrage to this edit, which centred around a draft that has since been oversighted for privacy reasons (if the diff didn't make that obvious). Cullen objected to my use of the phrase "crystal fucking clear" and my use of the term "doxx" without actually looking at the history of the situation, something which two other administrators criticised him over, with one explicitly calling it "tone policing" and both noting the privacy concerns were very valid and he was being pedantic.
• Incident 2 was in August, where Cullen took umbrage to a new template message I was testing for the repetitive and (IMNSHO) ignorant "company page article" threads that pop up seemingly every few hours at the Teahouse and Help Desk. Cullen hopped into a thread on my talk page started by someone else, which led to a bit of an argument between us that ended when I told them to get off and stay off my talk page. Again, Cullen was criticised here for the tone policing by another administrator. (I haven't used the template message since and actually had it G5'd after that thread to try and avoid further harassment from Cullen.)
• Incident 3 is yesterday/today. Cullen took offence to me describing myself as a "bastard helper from Hell", a phrase which I've consistently used for when I deep-dive into sources as of late, and threatened to indef me if I ever used the phrase again. I should note that of the two times it was used in the past 24h, the first was cordial in tone throughout and the second was demanding an American reviewer because the draft subject was an American. The second OP has yet to respond further, which I can't in all fairness chalk up to the phraseology; about half of AfC/HD threads don't get further input from the original poster and I don't find it entirely impossible they may return at some point later to reply.

Rather than get back into the old rigamarole of having a fruitless argument with Cullen on a page he's explicitly been told to stay off of, I'm bringing it here to see what needs to be done - to myself or to Cullen - to stop this. I'm not going to change my tone to appease his fickle standards more than I already have, and I'm not going to be effectively harangued off of the help fora. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Idk, I just read those and it looks to me like you're burning out on Teahouse and Help Desk. I get it can be a maddening environment--that's why I don't volunteer there--but if you can't respond to folks there without being angry or condescending, without profanity, etc., you should just take a break. Obviously those are areas where patience is a requirement. Again, not really faulting you for losing patience, as I would lose my patience, too, but impatient helpers aren't much help there. I don't see Cullen's comments as tone policing, but rather as enforcing our civility policy and trying to maintain a productive and collegial environment in the new user help areas. Levivich (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first incident was after I had spent an entire thread explaining to the person why their page was unacceptable. The second was quickly addressed. The third was self-deprecation. How would any of this be considered "burnout"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  The first one had profanity and all caps. The second one was incredibly patronizing/condescending. The third one I get but might be misunderstood as you calling the other person a bastard. I can see (as Jay mentions below) that you have been asked to tone it down by multiple people. That you see this as a problem of tone policing and not a problem of tone suggests to me you're burned out to the point that your perception is clouded. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Is there a reason, Jéské Couriano, that you singled out Cullen's warnings about tone at Wikipedia's help fora, when I can count numerous other people who have warned you for the same sorts of thing going back months; including DGG on 1 November 2020, Mortee on 6 April 2021 with Blaze The Wolf concurring, TechnoTalk on 5 May 2022 and later on 30 June 2022 with 71.228.112.175 concurring, etc. There are a half dozen different people who have told you already that your tone violates WP:CIVIL at the Teahouse and other help fora, and you have ignored all of them. Cullen was hardly the first, or only, person to do so, and I must say I concur with every one of them. I'm surprised you've brought this here, as the potential for a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban from all help fora seems very likely, given that you've been told for years, from multiple unrelated people, that your behavior on these fora is unacceptable. --Jayron32 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mind giving me a diff to when I (Blaze The Wolf) agreed about the tone? I have very poor memory (I have no clue why, I just do). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here. --Jayron32 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Because I've explicitly told Cullen to stay off my talk page. Also note that all of those warnings you mention pre-date the first incident. I've been trying to keep my nose clean since then. (In hindsight maybe I shouldn't have bothered.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Cullen (and others) that you need to take it down several notches. I enjoy and appreciate BOFH myself but he's not a desirable model for user interaction, even if the users deserve it. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that you haven't kept your nose clean. A bunch of people, for several years, have told you to improve your tone at the various help fora, and Cullen is just the latest of them. --Jayron32 15:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the past few months means nothing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 15:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not being incivil sometimes does not cancel out a pattern of incivility. You seem to have a problem with repeatedly being incivil in discussion forums. You don't make the incivility go away just because you had a some intervening posts where you didn't cuss someone out. --Jayron32 16:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with others above - the diffs presented above are clearly taking the wrong tone for the Teahouse, which is supposed to be a welcoming environment. Responses posted to the Teahouse need to be considerate not only of the editor to whom they are being written but also to other passers-by. If I was a new good-faith editor coming to the Teahouse to ask a question about my edits I'd feel very turned off by the messages linked above. Sam Walton (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeske can voluntarily agree not to post at the Teahouse. I do not think his comments cause nearly as much angst at AFCHD and honestly it's a style that absolutely draws attention to the issues with sourcing. I would not support sanction beyond the Teahouse. Slywriter (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cullen's most recent complaint is explicitly about AfC/HD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any sanction at all is necessary here. I think Jeske is receiving a much-needed "wake-up call". It's not entirely Jeske's fault; after all, two admins did agree with him about the "tone policing", so I can understand why Jeske was led astray. Jeske, a tip for the future: if one admin is saying one thing, and two admins are saying another thing, and the one admin had >300 support votes in their RFA while the other had <100 combined, listen to that one admin and not the other two, because that one admin probably has a better handle on what consensus is. It's an unpleasant truth, but not all admins are created equal. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to listen to an administrator who threatens to block me indefinitely, has gotten on my case for good-faith errors not connected to incivility, and refuses to listen to a request to stay off my talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to listen, but the admin can still warn you, and act on those warnings, even if you tell them to stay off your talk page. You can't prevent an admin from sanctioning you by telling them to stay off your talk page, and you've been around long enough to know this. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, are you likewise not inclined to listen to anyone else in this discussion, several who are saying the same things? If what you're seeking in this thread is to demonstrate that complaints about your tone and demeanor -- in areas where calm/welcoming/friendly are especially important -- are unwarranted, you're doing a poor job of it ... never mind your bizarre insistence that telling an admin to stay off your talk page immunizes you against being warned by that admin. Good grief, you were an admin yourself once upon a time. How is it that you don't get these things? Ravenswing 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument though, Levivich. An admin isn't more likely to be right or wrong than another admin (or in many cases a non-admin) just because they happened to get more support years ago. I have admins and non-admins whose comments I trust more than those of others, but I have no idea and don't care how much support they got at RfA, or whether they succeeded at failed at an ArbCom election, or... There have been ArbCom members who turned out to be terrible, and failed RfAs who had a perfect handle on consensus or ... Heck, I even heard of people who first got an RfA without a single oppose, but failed a second RfA. RfA support is a terrible metric to rank editors or admins by. Fram (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh, to each their own. I'm not suggesting it's a fine metric or anything--not like an admin with 201 supports is better than an admin with 200--but when you compare, say, an admin who got 300 supports 5 years ago, and an admin who got 30 supports 15 years ago, the former's opinion (about what is and isn't disruptive) is going to carry a lot more weight with me than the latter. But YMMV. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but whatever personal distaste the OP has for Cullen specifically, Cullen's warnings for civility violations were certainly not the first time he had so been warned. One merely has to look through the talk page to see a years-long history of recidivism despite multiple warnings. If I, as an admin, had seen that number of warnings for the same issue, I too may have left a stern warning with the threat to block for continued problems. Jéské Couriano's objection to being so warned by Cullen is obviated by the fact that they had been so warned multiple times in the past. Cullen's threat was an entirely appropriate one in response to the pattern of behavior shown over so many years, and warned users don't get ban an admin from doing admin work against them just to avoid scrutiny. --Jayron32 16:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to reinforce the fact that you can't ban an Admin from giving you warnings on your talk page. The warning about a block seems appropriate given the number of warnings they've had from others. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I will admit that I had forgotten since August that the OP had told me to stay off their talk page, and for that I apologize. If I see obvious misconduct by this editor in the future, I will just block the editor, and as I wrote on their talk page, they will need to convince another administrator that their misconduct will never happen again. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt you're likely to see that. That I will promise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

While User:Levivich can evaluate the opinions of others how they choose, I would hope that other editors don't use the metric of how many supports an admin received and when, in order to judge the value of those admins' opinions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As someone who acts as a host at the Teahouse and still periodically helps, I've been witness to Jéské Couriano's volatile remarks on the venue for the past few years. I hadn't felt the urge to say anything about this, as others had made remarks already, and I didn't see a point in dogpiling on, but yes, this has been an ongoing issue that straddles (and sometimes falls short of) WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, such as this comment made half a year ago, which I found appalling as an uninvolved third party. There appears to be an attempt to dial back on the drama in recent months, but I'm not surprised there are still users concerned with future actions. It's clear that the OP can respond calmly, such as in this archived talk page discussion, so I'm perplexed as to why the turnabout elsewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

They also happened to me on WP:Sandbox, one of my IP got indefinitely blocked from editing this page for testing clickbait on sandboxes like (Special:Diff/1123804520), which I don't know is it acceptable to do so. I understand it is acceptable to indefinitely block IP addresses and/or ranges from editing specific pages, especially with serious long-term disruptive editing on select number of pages from IP ranges. 36.72.46.16 (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a liberty and make the observation this is a civil discussion between long-time wikipedians about the importance of maintaining a dispassionate tone in discussion, especially around newcomers. All of us are experienced contributors. We all want the best for Wikipedia.

User:Jéské Couriano complains one particular editor is policing his tone. In response several editors agree that his language has been sub-optimal occasionally and gentle chiding, by whomever, was somewhat deserved. Even Jéské Couriano admits he’s been working to avoid such good faith errors in recent months, and good for us. We need his friendly demeanor, good judgment, and dedication to The Teahouse.

As a couple of contributors have inferred, we don’t measure trust by a static !vote. We value the trust of our fellow wikipedians in the moment. Every one of us will fail the test once in a while. We need each other occasionally in order to hold us accountable and make this entire project possible. I’m not seeing any inclination among folks here to criticize User:Cullen328’s actions. Cullen328 has apologized for posting on Jéské Couriano’s talk, but maintains his responsibility as a wikipedian.

What is left in this discussion is for the OP to admit to their part and then we can close this. BusterD (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Foul-mouthed member of VRT User:FormalDude

The matter below is beyond just a content dispute. It started with this edit on Kanye West followed by my explanation on talk [1]. This removal was supported by IP 73.239.149.166 and Throast

• [2] 1st revert by FormalDude. He cites Wikipedia:STATUSQUO for the revert but ignores its first exception, doesn't bother to add appropriate inline tags indicating the text is under discussion which is necessary, most importantly ignores Wikipedia:SQS.

• [3] FormalDude follows it 2nd revert. Me and Throast explain to him why his reverts were wrong. He is flippant about the policy requisites and says there is no consensus despite there being three people in agreement (including IP)

• [4] FormalDude adds a more bombastic, vague claim without attribution. Again, its me and Throast along with Ringerfan23 who are don't support this addition by FormalDude.

• [5] 3rd revert FormalDude reverts improvement by Throast saying "attribution not required for established RS"

• [6] 4th revert restores the addition with "One editor saying they don't quite agree is NOT a consensus. Please stop edit warring" which is false because 3 editors including me, Throast, and Ringerfan23 had indicated this shouldn't be added.

In between all this WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour he proceeds to make matters worse.

• [7] I don't have the desire to argue semantics with someone like you. Extremely disrespectful comment. The "someone like you" is clearly intended to belittle Throast. Also shows extremely poor judgement btw. Shows he doesn't care about phrasing and semantics as long as his edits aren't reverted under any circumstances.

• Curiously decides to vote on an AfD I started right after our initial back and forth. Collapses the discussion on his talk when confronted about it calling it "petulance"

• [8] replies to me with Who died and put you in charge?

• [9] Places a {{Uw-ew}} template asking me not edit-war (the page history of the article should be clear as to who is edit-warring).

Imo, FormalDude has displayed extremely belligerent behaviour by continuously reverting any improvements to Kanye West, doesn't have a grasp of relevant policies, disregards consensus, and lacks basic civility. — hako9 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• While I disagreed with FormalDude's initial WP:SQSing here, which I communicated with him both in this edit summary and on his talk page (note that he only made an actual argument for inclusion after his second revert), I think that hako9's subsequent revert probably escalated tensions. That said, a civil consensus-building discussion was taking place at talk until FormalDude insulted at best my experience with the project and at worst my intelligence by implying that I did not know "basic summary style" here, at which point the discussion turned sour. FormalDude's subsequent unilateral decision to add a sentence to the lead during discussion, his multiple reverts to protect his version as written (1, 2), and him accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing do display a disruptive editing style and lack of civility that is worthy of some sort of sanction in my opinion, if only a formal reprimand by an admin. I'm actually surprised to see that no admin has stepped in to try to mediate the situation considering how prominent the contentious information is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  In my defense, I made a grand total of 2 reverts to FormalDude's edits, both reverts for different reasons and for different content, and more importantly with consensus. For the first revert, there were 3 editors (me, Throast, and IP 73.239.149.166 in agreement) and for the second revert there were again 3 editors in agreement (me, Throast and Ringerfan23). One would notice from the article's history that all of FormalDude's reversion to mine and Throast's edits were based on the false reasoning that there was no consensus. WP:OWNERSHIP and unilateral editing aside, his comments on his talk page and the article talk page, shows he looks at all this as a battleground. — hako9 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Premature report from content dispute - work this out on the talk page. Consensus and collaboration require everyone to let down their guard and de-escalate tensions, and usually also requires everyone to give a lil something up. Consensus via compromise. If you still find you can’t resolve things, the appropriate process would be an RFC or the WP:DRN. This is the wrong venue for resolving content disputes and I don’t see enough here to call it a clear case for admin action.(Non-administrator comment) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would have gone for an RFC or DRN if this was a mere content dispute. FormalDude doesn't respect consensus and his over the top and disrespectful comments are a bit much for collaborative editing. — hako9 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Are non-admins allowed to effectively close a discussion by writing in big bold letters that a report is premature? Seems odd to me. It may be your opinion that the report is premature, but it is a behavioral report at its core, so ANI is no doubt the proper venue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion of the circumstances as detailed here. I have closed nothing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Shibollethink did nothing of the sort, and that they are a non-admin is irrelevant. They are allowed to express their opinion as much as anyone else can. Lay off. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Formaldude is edit warring here. I disagree with Shibbolethink that this is merely a content dispute. The issue is being worked out on the talk page by other users, from my reading, Formaldude has been not participating in that work except to announce the changes they are making to the text. Announcing a change is not participating in a discussion and is not establishing consensus. We should wait for their response here, but if they continue to try to force their preferred edits into the article before there is consensus on the talk page, I intend to block. They need to stop doing that. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• FormalDude's activities on Black children as alligator bait are also of note - see this edit, this edit, and this edit. (I don't really think these edits rise to a level where we need to go to AN/I over it, but since we're here already they might as well be looked at). casualdejekyll 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Blanket reversions without explanation and uncivil snark seem to be a specialty of his. I acknowledge that edit summaries are not required by policy, but they are nevertheless vital to civil discourse and efficient consensus-building. I don't see any reason why you'd ever refuse someone that simple courtesy. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Clarification of the title of this section. VRT = Volunteer Response Team which until recently was known as OTRS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• In response to Hako9 and Throast's complaints about my behavior in the dispute, I did not believe I was edit warring because a brief discussion on the talk page did not seem like a clear consensus to me, and seemed to be in-line with our policy on letting the status quo stay in the article while it is disputed. I apologize for any disruption I may have inadvertently caused. Anyone who reads through the dispute at Kanye West will see that civility has not been overwhelming by anyone there. I won't be continuing my participation there in any form. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  The reverts do seem to be a violation of WP:3RR though. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, policy states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (bold mine) There is no similar requirement for those seeking exclusion to achieve consensus. Public-facing article text is to remain silent on a matter while it is still under dispute. --Jayron32 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude's tendentious editing with multiple users, other disruptive behavior

I've been perturbed by FormalDude's behavior for some time now.

• Tendentious editing examples:

1. I vote to overturn FormalDude's RfC closure at a close challenge on August 23 at 01:50 UCT. 18 minutes later, FormalDude seemingly went to my contributions page to find this vote I had left at an RfC on Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies 2 weeks prior; I wasn't very active at the time, so this would've been immediately viewable at the top of my contribs page. FormalDude, of course, votes for the contrary of how I voted.
2. I also update Corey Feldman on August 23; FormalDude removes an entire paragraph of reliably sourced content in that article four days later. (FormalDude's first & only edit to the article).
3. I create a discussion at Talk:Depp v. Heard on August 31, which FormalDude follows me to several hours later (their only edit to that page prior was a minor edit amending the archive period of talk page discussions, which was made 2 months after my first edit to that page).
4. I begin a discussion at Talk:LGB Alliance on October 26, which FormalDude follows me to 24 hours later. Again, this is FormalDude's first & only edit to that article, offering a contrarian perspective to one I offered. At this point, I'd had enough, and challenge them on their tendentious editing behavior. FormalDude responds they had been "watching this page for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you", which was so ridiculous I had to post Dr. Evil's Riiiight meme in response.
5. As pointed out above, I'm not the only user FormalDude has exhibited this behavior towards. They are currently engaged in a content dispute at Talk:Kanye_West#Removing_"most_influential"_from_the_lede with several editors. FormalDude follows one of those editors to an AfD discussion that user initiated. Once again, they vote in opposition to that user.

• Other disruptive behavior

Aside from all this, FormalDude has been accused of WP:SUPERVOTING with regards to their closure at this Business Insider RfC, which is the RfC that began this chain of events for me back in August. FormalDude's closure was overturned, and it was later discovered they had voted in favor of Business Insider at a previous RfC. FormalDude has also repeatedly ([10] & [11]) called an IP "fuck-face", even after it was removed as a "personal attack". User also removed a potential suicide note from Talk:Suicide without even leaving the perfunctory "Wiki Cares" notice at the IP's talk page because the message was "borderline" suicidal, despite knowing that Talk:Suicide "is a page that attracts a lot of threats." [12]

There's also this, where FormalDude appears to have reported a user to AN for editing an article in line with RfC consensus. From my reading of that thread, FormalDude tagged the user with a DS notice prior to unilaterally adding a DS notice to the article talk page. When the other user edited to reinstate the RfC-approved version of the article, FormalDude then edit warred against the RfC consensus. FormalDude then brought the issue to AN hoping for a better outcome: a clear cut case of WP:SYSTEMGAMING.

I think a forced time-out is the only thing that will make this user change their persistent, foul-mouthed, months-long disruptive behavior. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• So much incorrect here, I'm not even going to engage it. For context, Homeostasis has been holding a grudge against me that is borderline harassment ever since I filed an ANI report on them over a year ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Nothing here is incorrect or misconstrued in any way. All easily provable via the diffs. It was you who called an IP a fuck face. It was you who was accused of supervoting in one of your AfD closures. It was you who demonstrably made the decision to follow multiple users through their contributions page to other RfC/AfD noms. And, for the record, the only reason I'm still aware of your existence is you tendentiously following and harassing me at multiple pages for 4 freaking months. If there's no apology and a guarantee to never engage in this behavior again, you deserve a permanent ban. This is the last thing I will ever say to you directly. Because I'm done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Homeostasis says they won't talk to me ever again, so can we make that official with a one-way IBAN then? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is typical argumentative snark from this user. Rather than engaging, they do this. I've never been more convinced that this user needs a permanent site ban. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not being argumentative, I think a one-way IBAN would help Homestasis get over their obsession with me.

  Rather than address each falsehood Homeostatis07 has leveled against me here, which would result in an equally long wall of text, I will be happy to answer any questions/concerns that editors may have about any of their misleading accusations. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know about anyone else but I'd be interested in your response to accusations of following editors to unrelated disputes. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for context, FormalDude is quick to accuse editors he's been in content disputes with of holding grudges against him. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Oppose siteban - siteban is quite a serious remedy and I do not at all see that it is merited here. It looks like the user has already apologized for edit warring and has indicated they will no longer edit on that problem page. A partial block or a topic ban would be merited before a siteban in my view, if that. Andre🚐 03:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

    They apologized for their behavior at the Kanye West talk page, but have in fact been snarky, dismissive, and have in no way addressed their behavior at a multitude of other pages over the past 6+ months. That being said, a site ban is probably excessive. A 30-day ban is probably a better solution to preventing a repeat of their disruptive behavior. And a two-way IBAN is looking pretty damn good at this stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support 30-day block Warning for personal attacks and uncivil behavior. A site ban would be overly harsh, but a month blockwarning will get their attention and should prevent future disruption. Calling someone a "fuck-face" is very inappropriate, and the type of snarky comments he's left recently at Talk:Kanye West is the definition of what can make a content dispute toxic and is disruptive to community collaboration. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Yes, I called an IP who had doxed me at an AfD and was spamming my talk page a "fuck-face" (nearly four months ago). It's hard for me to regret that. However I do regret and did apologize for the recent uncivil comment I made at Talk:Kanye West. That is not my standard behavior and I can promise it won't happen again. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll certainly regress on the fuck-face comment and with the recent eye-opener by Loki I'll change my vote to a warning for uncivil behavior. Just please don't continue with that behavior. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Boomerang: I've been involved in some of these disputes and Homeostasis07 has a tendency to cast these same sorts of WP:ASPERSIONS wildly at anyone they disagree with. The interaction checker they link absolutely doesn't show what they think it does (when I look at it I see two users that barely interact at all; here's my own interaction timeline with FormalDude, which is substantially longer), and in many of the situations they themselves link they are as rude or much ruder than FormalDude (so for instance, the time linked above they accuse FormalDude out of nowhere of stalking them, FormalDude denies it, and they link a sarcastic meme in response). Loki (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  The interaction checker link I posted above was to demonstrate that FormalDude was tendentiously following me to an article, and that their edits in response to me were in 3 of the 4 cases I linked to above their first and only edit to said article. Please post a single diff of me being "rude" to FormalDude these past 4 months. I did post a link to the Dr. Evil "Riiight" meme in response to FormalDude incredulously claiming he had been watching one of those pages "for months" and that they have "zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you". Aside from that? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  So first of all, you demand I post a single diff of a thing that you then immediately post a diff of. Also, the thing you're doing right now in this discussion is called WP:BLUDGEONING. Loki (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  For one, you cast unfounded aspersions against me in a baseless MfD nomination of an essay of mine that you were required to redact by an admin which caused you to falsely accuse them of improperly using CheckUser tools on your account. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar: posting a link to an Austin Powers meme is not "rude", and you've cast wild aspersions of my conduct. FormalDude: I did not falsely accuse "an admin" of running the CheckUser tools on me; instead, I requested confirmation that an admin who has recently been admonished by an ArbCom investigation of misusing the CheckUser tools against another user if they'd ever run the CheckUser tools on me, which is a perfectly acceptable question to ask in those circumstances. Especially since that admin has threatened me twice so far. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 05:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• No action - this is some weak sauce nonsense. I see no hounding ([13]) and only mildly rude comments (save for the one directed at the IP). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Boomerang Take a look at Homeostasis07's comments here last month - we see the same pattern of evidence-free accusations of misconduct on the part of other editors, and a weird obsession with FormalDude. Homeostasis07 should be warned, at minimum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her. Was there a provocation? Closer can decide. Not sure my opinion matters, but I also don't think boomerang for posting the innocuous dr evil meme is anything close to actionable. Homeostasis07 is a great asset to the project, atleast more than me. Their FAs and GAs are for everyone to see. They don't deserve to be treated this harshly for bringing their concerns here. — hako9 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  The only reason FormalDude's name was even mentioned in that discussion was because I was posting on mobile and couldn't post direct diffs at the time. Diffs were later linked to their talk page, the location of an incident several months prior. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  The amount of FAs or GAs one has makes no difference in the extent to which someone should be reprimanded for incivility. I don't care if homeostasis07 has 0 GAs or 1,000 of them. There's nothing actionable in FormalDude's alleged wrongdoing, but I find homeostasis07's behavior very much subpar. Just above we can see homeostasis07 insulting another editor by calling them "LokiTheLiar". I am also uninterested in you trying to quote stuff from WP essays to me. Just because you and homeostasis07 have some sort of grudge doesn't mean anything here is actionable besides warning you two to knock it off. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: LokiTheLiar is that user's username. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Beat me to it, IP. Yes, the full username of the user shown here as "Loki" is LokiTheLiar. Again, that was a mobile edit, as is this one. Click Loki's sig to see their full username. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Can't argue with that. I've struck the relevant sentence. This is a good example of why people's signatures should match their actual usernames, but that's a whole other topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to know the reason why you think I need to be warned. — hako9 (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Peleio Aquiles on Talk:Libs of TikTok

User has frequently sparked edit disputes and talk page wars on this page, going to the point of insulting other editors to a degree. I suggest PBing them from the Libs of TikTok Page to prevent further issues and disputes. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what is happening in the entry. I am not sparking any such disputes; on the contrary, I'm respond to the attempts of another user, Korny O'Near, to remove sourced content from the entry using frankly bad arguments and misrepresenting policy guidelines. Korny O'Near has already been discussed in the Administrator's boards before for his participation in Talk:Libs of TikTok, including for his usage of WP:BLUDGEON, his attempt to overwhelm other editors with replies in the Talk Page of that article, and his attempt to defend the validity of anti-LGBT conspiracy theories such as the groomer slur as directed to LGBT support groups like the Trevor Project. User:Horse Eye's Back was part of those debates; I hope they can confirm what I'm telling about the nature of the debates Korny provokes. Rather than ban me, it's rather Korny who should long have been impeded from editing on LoTT and all other LGBT-themed entries due to both his disruptive editing and baseless insinuations about LGBT people. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In terms of letter there's something to learn from Korny, they are very very good at camping out right on the line without going over it. I do not however suggest that you emulate them in spirit, I think your heart is definitely in the right place and as much as I wish a solution to that page's seemingly intractable problems were that simple Pbing you (or Korny, or both) is not going to prevent further issues and disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"I would stop insulting you if you just agreed with me" is not a great defense, really holds true, although I am not educated on the content details here and so I have no position on who's "right". Equating the phrase "typically moronic and boring" to "criticism", as the editor in question did here, also isn't great. casualdejekyll 18:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that prompted PerryD to write this thread, is, I think, over now, with Korny finally admitting, after three days of debate, that the description of LoTT as anti-LGBT is now sourced well enough to his satisfaction: [14]. Bear in mind that user Korny already knew there was at least one other reliable source for that description, but decided to provoke the debate anyway -- proof, I think, of his disruptive, WP:BLUDGEONing debate style. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Peleio Aquiles, Wikipedia has very high standards for how we treat each other, much higher than most other websites. If you keep criticizing other users, you will eventually get banned, and I don't think any of us want that to happen. I suggest you give WP:CIVIL a careful read and maybe edit less contentious pages for a while. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol this guy is also a big issue on the Elon Musk page and doesn't seem to have any interest in participating in a decent dialogue. Jatlin1 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Talking about Peleio Aquiles Jatlin1 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I made 4 edits to the Elon Musk page on 29 November and a single edit on 1 December, after which I have not returned. Is that truly disruptive? On the Talk Page, I tried to draw users' attention to reliable sources discussing Musk's reinstatement of extremist accounts on Twitter, but as there seems to little willingness from most editors to engage in the topic, I have made very few contributions in the last few days, adding just another link to the section I had opened before. Can you specify what was so offensive about my participation in the entry, then, because I'm at a loss? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• This user's contributions seem to consist almost entirely of POV edits on political topics and aggressive comments on talk pages. Even in this thread they have been quite hostile ("Korny finally admitting, after three days of debate, that the description of LoTT as anti-LGBT is now sourced well enough to his satisfaction"). Many of their comments are, basically, flames: "Keep shopping those policies, though; the previous 5 months didn't seem to lead you anywhere, but I'm sure victory is just around the corner, now". Furthermore, in general, Wikipedia editors should not leave user talk comments titled "Read better" or "you need to stop being a bad loser". @Peleio Aquiles: I don't know what policy pages you have been reading, but I would recommend you look at WP:CIVIL. It does not make exemptions based on which political opinions you have. Please do not post like this. jp×g 06:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're so sensitive to the way I communicate to other testy users who were being disruptive, when your laundry list of my perceived sins and the way summed up my contributions in the first line of your post is itself so charged with passive-aggressive sentiment. What is so bad about the update I gave above on the debate that motivated the creation of this discussion? Most of the edits I do on controversial political topics stay, despite being placed in highly trafficked entries and presumably vetted by other editors, because I make an effort to follow edit guidelines on reliable sources and NPOV. If you want other people to take your advice for improvement to heart, it's helpful not to be unfair when you go about addressing them and to follow the same rules you're demanding from others. I'm thankful for Horse Eye's Back's words who, despite going through much of the same things I did with user Korny, has managed to hold better composure than I did and pass on advice for behavioral improvement without grandstanding and throwing the kitchen's sink when so doing. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CIVIL? Wikipedia is not twitter, you cannot behave here towards others as if you are on twitter, period. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we protect some articles during Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Should we protect Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast ?

Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Kherson Oblast was protected per enforcement of WP:ARBEE. Lemonaka (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It is typical for pages not to be preemptively protected just because they are in the news. WP:RFPP for temporary semi-protection if there is persistent vandalism. Andre🚐 03:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus for pages related to the Russo-Urkrainian war to be Extended-confirmed protected, similar to WP:ARBPIA pages. These pages would likely fall under that, so can be protected. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because WP:ARBPIA (3?) was ambiguous about preemptive protections, which some admins at RfPP were doing and some were not, a few years ago several of us RfPP regulars all agreed against granting preemptive protections except in truly exceptional circumstances. Since then, the prevailing practice has been to pretty much universally decline preemptive protections (like +99 percent of em). For example, my last preemptive protection was Jill Biden, from none to indef semi as WP:AP2, once her husband assumed the presidency.

All of this is to say that, currently, these two pages are not good candidates for protection because it would be preemptive. To be clear, nobody really cares about uncontested edits made by users who fall short of required tenures—in this instance WP:XC as mandated by WP:GS/RUSUKR—but once contested, they obviously have no standing.

Any recent disputes with or disruption by these bellow-tenure users should result in the desired protection—in this instance WP:ECP—but the emphasis is on recent (days to a week rather than weeks to months). If there are any issues with these two pages in this regard, say, in December, please submit a request to WP:RFPP/I, which will likely be granted. HTH. El_C 11:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C Thanks for your reply. Now the case become clear, Cheers! Lemonaka (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Simple Problem Only I.P User:46.218.170.110

46.218.170.110 has only been removing major vital informatiom from articles, more specifically todays FA. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: If you've warned them (and it looks like you have), this should probably be reported to WP:AIV ButlerBlog (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced changes by MoussaCB and IP

• MoussaCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.26.171.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly added the same unsourced stuff to the Algerian Air Force article, despite being warned several times against it: [15], [16], [17]. The same user also edits using an IP address: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. MoussaCB and the IP are definitely the same person, as the former has already answered a message left on the latter's talk page. I think a block is warranted at this point. BilletsMauves^€500 16:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

They really seem to be working in good faith, but I'm afraid WP:CIR seems to be becoming an issue. I'm not sure I'm ready to block yet, but have you tried explaining in some more detail about what is the problem with their edits? Most of the warnings have been either very terse or have been standard templates. Sometimes, new users don't understand such things and need to have their hands held a bit more. --Jayron32 19:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Contributions to support Wikipedia.

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

---

Every year you ask me for money and every year I give you all I can afford. I am a senior widow living on Social Security yet I contribute more to you than any other causes but still I have a hard time using Wikipedia because I get a big blurb in front of everything so that I can’t read what I’m looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8482:15C0:9C42:2CB9:9892:2658 (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The fundraising ads are created by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by the volunteers who edit Wikipedia and who run this notice board. We very much appreciate your support and hope it continues, but we have no control over the banner ads.--agr (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec) We do not want you to give money if you cannot afford to. We editors have nothing to do with the donation requests, which are from the Foundation collecting the funds. If you create an account, you can disable the donation requests. Otherwise, there is no way to know that the person sitting at the computer has seen a request or donated. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To restate what people have said above, the big blurb should go away if you create an account. It should be fairly easy for you to create an account but if you run into difficulties, WP:ACC can help get you set up. --Yamla (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't give money--there are plenty of articles that describe how Wikimedia has plenty of $. There are much better causes to support out there. See: (wapo) [23] Edit: that this is still up is commendable. Respect, and a reason why this project is worth not giving up on. I Agree with the poster below who says the best way to contribute is to edit (productively and nondisruptively) as there are MANY articles in need of improvement, sometimes dearly. Those problems can't be fixed with money (money will likely make them worse). 2600:1012:B022:12CF:29E6:2AE2:8933:9FA6 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are on a limited income, there is no need for you to donate. According to Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics, the Wikimedia Foundation has assets of nearly 240 million dollars. A better way for you to help would be to improve some articles. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Y'know, <soapbox> it just feels so wrong for an elderly pensioner to feel conned into donating and having to create an account to suppress the banners. I know, I know, tons of non-profits do it. No need to point me to VPWMF, have read the RFC on banners etc. Just wish we could do better for our less tech-savvy readers </soapbox>. There is no good solution. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is this ANI report about? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading daytime commercials about how you can sponsor a starving Wikipedia editor? It should be closed. 2600:1012:B001:42A6:69F9:216A:3DB2:3299 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Registered users can open Preferences/Banners and click the Fundraising flag to turn it off. There are no downsides to registration. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that this report can be closed as more suited to the helpdesk, I will climb on a soapbox for a minute first. I have seen at first hand elderly relatives on fixed incomes responding to fundraising solicitations from worthy causes, to the point that they were draining their resources to respond to every plea for money. Intentionally or not, fundraising appeals often prey on vulnerable people, and it is familiar and discouraging to see someone who feels compelled to donate. Acroterion (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Jesus tapdancing Christ, not one of you can see you're being trolled? EEng 03:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Holy shit on a stick, why do you think I closed it?--Jayron32 01:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Language! EEng 04:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Granny3isagoodgame

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

---

Hello English wikipedia, his article in Wikipepia in WP:UP, need delete his WP:UP, thanks. СтасС (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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

False information repeatedly being added to cartoon articles

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

This user only seems to be here to insert false information about children's cartoons (e.g. [24] [25] [26]) involving the appearance of a character called "Baby Stefania" or "Stefania Russo" (which I assume is a self-insert). I've also noticed similar behavior from similarly-named accounts on other social media sites, and from what I can gather (trying not to out her here), she acts and speaks too childishly for her age. It is clear that not only is she not here to build an encyclopedia, but she is not competent enough to contribute positively. 49.144.202.0 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, this user is stirring hoaxes on Octonauts, especially here. And from what I can say, Baby Stefania is not a character in this show. Sarrail (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the crap the user created. The user hasn't edited since December 11, and although there have been significant gaps in the user's relatively short history before, I posted a final warning rather than blocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Endtoxicaid

As their userpage states, they're clearly a shared account. This is what their userpage says: Who are we? A group of current and ex-aid workers, as well as journalists, with experience in countries across the globe, with lived experience working in most NGO, UN and Red Cross entities, in HQ, Regional and duty stations, as well as having a detailed understanding of Donor ways of working. What we do? We deliver justice for people abused by the aid sector, by telling their stories with them or on their behalf, amplifying their experience and expertise. We use evidence against perpetrators of human rights abuses and hold them and those people/organisations that enable them, to account. We gather information, share data and triangulate based on knowledge to raise awareness of these traumatic and appalling experiences to put forward a more accurate version of reality compared to the aid sector online. Why we do it? The aid sector needs to change. It's an open secret among most aid workers (nevermind people subjected to their projects) that zero tolerance means nothing. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. Islamaphobia. Religious Discrimination. Ableism. Elitism. White Saviourism. Bullying. Harassment. Sexual abuse. Abuse of power. All are rampant in seemingly every aid organisation. And it's getting worse. Do No Harm means not harming their reputations: they aren't interested in the harm their work does to communities, families and individuals. The way to change this? Use their own evidence against them to make it more difficult for institutional donors to continue with their ill-advised or nepotistic funding approaches. Undermine their ability to fundraise through tackling their lies on social media, disrupting their efforts to con people out of their hard earned money through Wills or donation giving. Highlight their abuse of staff, "beneficiaries" and any one else so people can see their values in practice. Enough really is enough.

They've made several edits to Médecins Sans Frontières and several editors have recognized this and have tried to engage with them on the related talk page and remove the non-neutral edits. The best advice has been given by TimSmit. But since they haven't even voluntarily proceeded with #1, I'm starting this ANI thread since I'm now certain that UAA isn't the right venue. [27] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that this user has also made copyright violations (see the page history of the article) and personal attacks. [28] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed by Orange Mike for WP:NOTHERE. Sarrail (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack, threat by user WILLTERRY

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

---

WILLTERRY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an out of context single edit changing Enharmonic keyboard to Colonialism was justified, white power.

• Enharmonic keyboard 10:32, 16 December 2022 which was reverted and a warning given. WILLTERRY replied with a personal attack on their talk page:
• User talk: WILLTERRY 10:38, 16 December 2022 I removed and left a NPA warning. WILLTERRY made a statement that I perceived as a threat
• User talk: WILLTERRY 10:46, 16 December 2022

Adakiko (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and revisions deleted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Pseudo-blanking of AFD discussion...

All--something's up here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Rudd and it seems to be paired with speedy-nominated Jeremy Rudd. I think it's more than just a "speedy" and might call for some action toward User:134.238.191.252. Possible sock... but whatever it is, it isn't normal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You're an administrator, can't you just semiprotect the old AfD and add it to your watchlist, or block the IP vandal for a week, or whatever? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Had a few minutes to checking back--busy day at work, don't have time... Just asking for help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a good thing when an admin who doesn't have time or doesn't know what to do asks for help. I wish we saw that happen more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Sure; and I gave some (good) suggestions about “what to do”. Apparently the actual (unstated) request was not “what should I do?” but “I don’t have time right now, could someone else deal with this please?” If that had been explicit, I wouldn’t have framed a response in the same way (actually, I wouldn’t have responded at all). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Deor incivility

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

---

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

---

I approached User:Deor, an admin, on his/her talk page to ask why he/she restored this racist comment, and was met by Deor calling me "a shit". I removed it, as I'm entitled to do under our civility policy, only for Deor to restore it. Is this the type of incivility an admin should be engaging in, or is it a case of one rule for some, and another for others? 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To make a general point: I've noted recently that we seem to be moving back to the bad old days when incivility by admins was regarded as acceptable and criticism of them was met by a barrage of opposition from their friends. Admins should be treated the same as anyone else, perhaps even a higher standard. Nigej (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would 100% agree with you. Apparently, the racist comment (made by Beyond My Ken) was acceptable because, and I quote: "...it was in a small template and thus wasn't meant to be a serious comment. Great, well the next time I make a prejudicial observation on an entire race in an email to my local constabulary, I'll lower the font size and see how far I get. It's so absurd it's hilarious. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• not a coincidence. 2A02:C7C:A400:EF00:E037:92D5:32B0:D1E1 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not possibly racist. The United Kingdom contains people of just about every conceivable background. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are being a shit. After spending years being a shit to a bunch of people over infoboxes -- including, as I will always remember, using OneClickArchive to remove attempts at discussing infoboxes from article talk pages immediately after they were posted -- you WP:VANISHed thanks to the help of an admin buddy in order to avoid scrutiny. Then you came back as an IP editor to continue the very same infobox disputes even repeating your own edits that you made when you had an account. Please, stop being a shit. Can't you and your buddy SchroCat just edit quietly without being a jerk to everyone you disagree with? Please? Stay away from your old FAs, stay away from infoboxes, stay away from ANI. Just go do something else, please. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Typical response from the Wikipedia community, exactly as I noted above. Rather than considering the issue at hand (ie the incivility of an admin) the discussion turns into an attack on the author and is then swept under the carpet. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Meh, if someone is being a jerk, saying "you're being a jerk" is not uncivil. If you use the word "shit" instead of "jerk", it's still not uncivil, because profanity is not inherently uncivil. Some think it is, but the consensus is it isn't. Civility doesn't mean "no strong language." Additionally, if you look at the IP's posts here, they are the ones actually making personal attacks and being uncivil. So when someone is uncivil, and someone else says "you're being a shit," this community is not going to do anything about that use of profanity. Frankly, I find the "but he's an admin!" argument in bad taste in these situations. Admins can use profanity just like the rest of us. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd say calling someone was jerk is incivility. Why not "you're being unreasonable". We seem to making up a new rule that says incivility is ok if the other person is a jerk. Two wrongs do not make a right. Nigej (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I know this is closed, but jeez, you take a few hours off to do some Christmas-related stuff, and all hell breaks loose! Deor (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

COI Konrad Juengling creating and editing their own BLP article

Recently a COIN discussion was started about Kbabej and the page about himself, Konrad Juengling (COIN link[29]). It's clear that Kbebej has not been following COI guidelines. The BLP page is largely a self promotional article. It had previously been AfD'ed[30] but Kbabej recreated the page later [31]. The editor has previously been blocked for sock editing in what appears to be an attempt to avoid COI scrutiny[32] at a page about his uncle [33]. The discussion at COIN hasn't reached any sort of resolution. Ping editors from COI discussion @David Fuchs, Yamla, Hemiauchenia, Poundland Oximeter, and AndyTheGrump:. Springee (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, the first article was created by my sock, and promptly deleted. The second article was not "recreated" by me in mainspace. It was sent through AfC and approved by an uninvolved editor, and I also declared my COI on the talk page. On the COIN discussion, I agreed to step away from the articles, agreed to a tban (and said I would not disagree to that to not take up valuable editor time), and replied to specific questions.

To be clear, the socking did not have to do with COI editing, as you'll see if you delve into the history. It was an attempt to avoid AfDs on non-COI articles I had created.

I do believe I am a net positive to WP. I have created multiple BLPs, seven GA articles (six standalone, and one co-written), and am a great copy editor for punctuation (if I do say so myself). The socking issue was laid to rest years ago, and I haven't socked since. I have made more than a few thousand edits since then, largely cleaning up BLPs. I am ready to agree to a reasonable course of action. I do not agree with @Springee's characterization of the socking to avoid COI, and I believe I made a good faith effort on the COIN board to address concerns and come to a resolution; I am not trying to stonewall.

Any thoughts appreciated. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Springee: This all seems like old news/water under the bridge at this point. Kbabej has not edited the article Konrad Juengling since July 2022, and the prior COI issue was resolved seven years ago. Furthermore, Kbabej has, both at the discussion you link, and above, noted that a tban is in force. What more do you want done? --Jayron32 19:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that any tban was listed on their talk page since July 2022. It would probably be good to make it a clear and official tban and extend it to any other articles where they may have a COI including places they have worked. It seemed at the COIN discussion they didn't see any issue with their edits. Springee (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that proposal. Deb (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with making the tban official so it's all above board (not that it's up to me; just trying to not waste other editors' time with a rebuttal). @Springee, I have not had a tban in the past, so not sure what previous tban from July 2022 you are referencing (though I may have misinterpreted your comment unintentionally). --Kbabej (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What an amazingly puffy piece. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

(nods) Really does blow through UNDUE, doesn't it? Translation of the article = an activist does activist things. It could be truncated by three-quarters easily. Ravenswing 05:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, please go for it! And "activist" is kind of a big word anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I've done the trimming ... and with the dust settling, I question whether this is a notable subject. Ravenswing 05:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Theguywholearnhistory

Per WP:PERSONAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NOTHERE, this user claims to be "very new" on Wikipedia yet his first activity was to direct insults and personal attacks at me and seems to somehow have rather broad knowledge on other users activity from long before they joined [34] [35] [36], and has recently been found by another user to "recycle" 10 year old citations from completely different contexts [37] in a page that has been marked by long-standing vandalism. Wareno (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Well, the SPI was inconclusive, and it was closed. I don't see how this edit warrants a trip to ANI. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The SPI into this account that started its activity by directing insults at me may have been inconclusive, but you'll find that edit isn't exactly the reason that motivated me to report this account that started its activity by directing insults at me but that the report is more than justified. Wareno (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
• The PAs and the possible NOTHERE were discussed in this ANI report from 2 weeks ago. Wareno was advised by two editors (including me) to try to AGF despite the PAs and to engage on talk. The only thing that happened since was that Theguywholearnhistory proposed the addition of some text and that I replied voicing some serious concerns about the proposed text. From a conduct perspective especially the last paragraph is relevant, which I will quote here:

[...] the exact reference Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76 is used in five other articles [38], which suggests that Theguywholearnhistory copied it from these articles. However, in each of these articles the reference is used to support the sentence In 1660, the Portuguese in Mombasa surrendered to a joint Somali-Ottoman force. So only the ref is copied, but the text was not copied and is in fact rather different in content (our article gives 1542 as the date for the Battle of Benadir, in other words some 120 years before the surrender in Mombasa, Kenya). Is this a ghost reference or what? I've searched the history of these five pages, and the earliest addition of this ref and sentence dates from 2009 with the creation of one of these articles [39]. Theguywholearnhistory, can you explain this? Where did you get the ref? Did you read the source?

I would have preferred to let Theguywholearnhistory answer on the article talk page, and perhaps this report should be closed until they do so. That said, I would like to encourage other editors to look into the content issue here, since multiple articles are affected (see no. 5 in my comment at the bottom of Talk:Battle of Benadir). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma since you have advised me to AGF of a user who started its activity by directing personal attacks at me, would you mind elaborating on what the punishment should be for someone who starts its activity on Wikipedia by directing insults at another user? Wareno (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wareno has continuously refused to discuss content, with the sole exception being a reply filled with personal attacks. Their very first act was to file an SPI against Theguywholearnhistory – which was closed as inconclusive – instead of participating in a civilized and productive discussion. Following the SPI, Wareno immediately opened up an ANI thread, which ended up being archived without action and with Wareno being counselled to engage on the talk. Theguywholearnhistory waited for the ANI thread to be closed and then followed the rules by posting a suggestion on the talk, instead of editing the article directly; Wareno replied with a second ANI thread.

Wareno is evidently attempting to use community processes to circumvent consensus-building and get rid of Theguywholearnhistory, instead of engaging in a productive and respectful manner. I don't know if Theguywholearnhistory will be a net positive to the project but this is no way to treat newcomers (or anyone in fact). At this point, I believe that Wareno's conduct is clearly disruptive and that they warrant a warning per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (§4 and §5). Colonestarrice (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice"A reply filled with personal attacks", care to point out what those personal attacks were, since it's suposedly "filled" with them? Was it the fact that I expressed my concern that an account which commenced it's activity by insulting me was a sockpuppet in a page plagued by them? (And which I maintain, so he just started but somehow already knows the history of another user, get real.) If you so far had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would have realized the changes that the account which started it's activity by directing insults at me wanted to enact were completely non-sensical. Finally, I hope you will also elaborate A) What do you think of commencing ones activity on Wikipedia by directing insults at another user B) Why you have so far made no comment on the fact that this account commenced its activity by insulting someone else but instead only insisted that I should "participate in civilized discussion" (!) with it C) What the penalty should be for an account which commences their activity by insulting other people. Wareno (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wareno, this isn't going anywhere. Editors and admins here (me) are denying the basic premises of your case. Move on. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Lobo151 is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

It is already clear and a known fact that User:Lobo151 is WP:NOTHERE, as shown by his contributions at Avatar: The Way Of Water, where he reverts edits from new users to intimidate them and therefore obviously breaching the WP:NOBITING policy.

But on top of that, he also refuses to collaborate and communicate, for example, he deleted other people's comments on his talk page, to hide the truth (oh and by the way, reading the other discussions on that talk page will convince you even more that this person is NOTHERE). Sold Out... Sorry \.-.\ (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is blatant disruption and your first (and only) article edit and an edit any editor on this encyclopaedia would have reverted, and you immediately bring them to ANI, which is very odd behaviour for a brand new account. I don't think this is going to go the way you thing it's going to go. Why do you think your blatant disruption to the article should be allowed to stand? Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well since they decided to delete my comment above with the edit summary "rv Troll" I've indeffed the blatantly not new and clear troll editor. Nothing to see here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.Lobo151 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It never ceases to remind me of my (long ago) days as a teacher and coming to the realization that many people prefer negative attention to no attention. Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually they have drawn attention to the fact that it seems like Avatar: The Way Of Water is being flooded (ha) with disruptive accounts right now. Do we think it needs a semi protect? Lobo151 is doing a fabulous job, but it looks like it's the world's biggest whack-a-mole right now. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, considering just the number of unconstructive edits and reverts in the past 24 hours, I think semi would be helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @Firefly: jumped in to save the day. Canterbury Tail talk 20:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Firefly and I protected the page almost at the same time. I believe my was the most recent, so I semi'd for a week. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep - that’s all good, I don’t have any strong feelings about the length. firefly ( t · c ) 20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Another user is persistently complaining about me

Horse Eye's Back is complaining about me in various places and it is beginning to seem personal. This user has interacted with me and other users about my edits in the following locations:

• Joseph Smith talk page here and here (the last comment in this discussion)
• Topic on Horse Eye's Back talk page where another on Horse Eye's Back's talk page said I don't deserve to be "hounded"; an admin warned Horse Eye's Back
• several topics on my own talk page
• Horse Eye's Back extensive concern about my stated COI with the Association for Mormon Letters in a talk page discussion of sources on the Latter Day Saint movement project page.
• A small disagreement on inclusion of part of a sentence on the talk page for Hugh Nibley

This list may not be comprehensive. I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny enough I was actually planning to bring that "small disagreement on" Hugh Nibley to COIN but you didn't respond, instead you opened this ANI discussion. Smart, very smart. May I ask who the other users are if I am "Another user"? I've seen at least half a dozen editors raise COI concerns around your edits in the last month but I'm assuming this is not recent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

While we encourage talking to an editor about a problem directly first, before going to a noticeboard about it, there can come a point where direct talks are exhausted and further attempts are unproductive and can even start to feel like hounding. I think that point has been reached here. I'd say just go to COIN with whatever the problematic edits are (if there are still problematic edits that haven't been otherwise addressed), rather than making any further attempts at direct talks. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

For consistencies sake we also interacted in the discussion over the now deleted page Gary P. Gillum, if it had not been deleted we would likely have ended up at COIN (Rachel Helps (BYU) was the author of 70% of it and the man spent his career at the library which employs her as a wikipedian-in-residence) but given its deletion that just didn't seem productive. Kind of hard to bring up edits to a deleted page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, Rachel Helps didn't create that page. She just improved and expanded what had already existed for 10 years. ~Awilley (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said she did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting your 70% statistic, but at best that's misleading. She made 15 edits, mostly adding/improving citations and fixing links. Her most significant edit was to add a bibliography. ~Awilley (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That is my memory from looking at the page's xtools summary, its been deleted so I don't believe I can see it anymore. As an admin perhaps you still can? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It was userfied: User:DavidLeeLambert/Gary P. Gillum. 55% of the text is by Rachel Helps, but much of that is the bibliography. You can see from this revision that almost all the main text was written by others. She's not the author of the article. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's added text not authorship, completely different statistic. Interesting, the person who its draftified under appears to be the brother of the person who created it who is currently topic banned, is that kosher? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kin punishment isn't policy so, yes, that's probably kosher. Adding a bibliography doesn't make you the author of the article, so let's move on. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the term, anyone who adds even a single byte to a page is one of the authors. You appear to be saying author when you mean page creator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I think you misunderstand what Mackensen is saying. Adding a bibliography doesn't make you involved or a main author or whatever, at least not if the added bibliography is done properly. Seriously, drop this line of pursuit. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Commenting as an involved user here, not an admin. I edit in the same topic area as Rachel Helps and over the years I've found her edits to be gnomish, helpful, and generally uncontroversial. I can't recall ever seeing Rachel her push her own POV, but I frequently see her asking for input/advice or implementing a consensus or convention that was formed by others. Most of her edits seem focused on improving sources. Anyway, I've had my eye on this conflict for the past couple of weeks, and in my opinion there is clear WP:Hounding going on. The interaction between Rachel Helps and Horse Eye's Back seems to have begun here on October 26 when Rachel left a polite note on Horse Eye's talk page basically asking them to be more careful when removing sources. That seems to have gotten her on Horse Eye's bad side, because Horse Eye's immediately (8 minutes later) started a new section titled "COI" on Rachel's talk page and followed that up with 4 increasingly belligerent threads. I left a polite note expressing my concern on Horse Eye's talk page on December 2, and admin Nihonjoe followed up on followed up a few days later with a formal warning. You can see Horse Eye's charming response to that here. In addition to incessantly badgering Rachel Helps relentlessly on her user talk page, Horse Eye's Back has been repeatedly accusing her of COI on other talk pages to the point where it's getting disruptive. Here are some diffs:

Nearly identical "COI" sections on Rachel Help's user talk page

[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] The threaded responses to those threads are worth reading. (permalink to page) From my perspective Horse's Eye refuses to deescalate and continues to make accusations (POV pushing, editing specific articles for pay) but fails to produce evidence or any objectionable diffs when other users step in asking them to back up the accusations.

Repeated accusations on other talk pages

[45] [46] [47] [48]

Following to new pages to revert edits for frivolous reasons

[49] [50]

It's my opinion that at minimum, Horse's Eye's Back needs a clear warning to drop the stick and stop casting aspersions without evidence. If that doesn't solve the problem, a one-way interaction ban would be next if it were up to me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

How is that revert frivolous? You're going to have to spell it out, to me it appears to be cut and dried WP:DUE. Also note that Nihonjoe is an involved admin, he's been involved when it comes to defending Rachael Helps (BYU) against COI concerns for years[51][52][53][54]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Horse, would it be safe to say that what we have here is two Mormon editors who are getting pissy over the fact that you made some edits that make Mormons or Mormonism look bad? 2601:199:447F:8450:7C4C:FFE6:8687:6A27 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't think I made any edits that made Mormons or Mormonism look bad, it has not escaped me that the "other side" appears to for the most part share the same faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IP, I'm not a Mormon; just thought I should let you know, in case you were ready to pounce. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The interactions between Rachel and Horse Eye's Back aren't going well. If there is an actual COI problem, we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where uninvolved users can weigh in on that question. Accusatory threads on Rachel's talk page aren't getting it done. Horse Eye's Back's responses above concerning Gary P. Gillum suggest that they've lost perspective. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK; I'm with User:Mackensen and User:Awilley here. Horse Eye's Back, you need to back off. This is your clear warning: drop the stick. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Aspersions and possible canvassing

Something very odd happened on Articles for deletion/Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921. Three different users; Rəcəb Yaxşı, RadomirZinovyev, and Manchou, made very similar "Keep" comments at around the same time (Rəcəb Yaxşı and RadomirZinovyev were only two minutes apart).[55][56][57] Among the similarities include phrases defending the article ("Article is written with all details and links", "The article is well sourced and well written", "Article was written very well, all the references objective and keep their function"), making WP:ASPERSIONS personal attacks against me for creating the AFD ("Maybe someone wants to remove this article because of their nationality", "I'm struggling to see this proposal to delete the article as anything other than an attempt to whitewash history", "If there is article which contains realities, however it is againts you, it does not mean that you could delete it"), and using awkward English that sounds like it came out of a translator. Does this look like canvassing? RadomirZinovyev and Manchou had both also been editing inactively, which makes the timing of these comments even more strange. --Dallavid (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably no more strange than IPs coming in to back up your side of things, anyway. In any event, after looking things over, the Keep vote I just made echoes my take that there are many valid sources, and that your disparaging of a number of those sources seems to have a good deal more to do with that you just don't like the conclusions they draw than that the sources themselves are fatally flawed. Ravenswing 05:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Quondum

Quondum (talk · contribs) is revert warring to remove a template ({{Bit and byte prefixes}} from it's sole article, Binary prefix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). We recently held an RFC on the makeup of these templates which only closed a few weeks ago. Quondum subst'd the template prior to the RFC closure, which went unnoticed for a short time. I reverted it once I saw the change. Now finally today, they re-add their work again and it did not generate a notification, but this time I saw the change on my Watchlist. An edit war ensued, and I've stopped reverting.

As I've repeatedly stated in my edit summaries today, WP:BRD controls here. Quondum needs to gain consensus for this change. And if they wish to orphan a template as they're doing, the proper avenue is WP:TFD and then ultimately the article talk page to discuss changes to the layout. At a minimum I'd like more eyes on this and a return to the status quo so discussion can take place. But given the proximity of the closure of the RFC, I honestly think their behavior is highly disruptive and would be open to a topic ban from computing units to be broadly construed. We literally just got a result two weeks ago. Consensus can change, but editors should not be required to engage in non-stop debate to satisfy one editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Quondum's edit was a good one and there was IMO consensus for it at Binary prefix. Locke Cole is a persistently disruptive editor who made no attempt to justify the reverts of Quondum's edits. Whether the template is or is not used by other articles is not an issue for ANI. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you're here. Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs) (who previously edited as Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs)) has been on a long-term mission to force IEC units into our articles. To say they have been tendentious is an understatement. Over many years, after WT:MOSNUM determined (at WP:COMPUNITS) that IEC units would not be used in articles, they began systemically changing units in articles to their preferred units (gibibytes, tebibytes, etc). Their problem is that the balance of sources do not support their views. In Quondum they appear to have found a kindred spirit however, and it's not surprising whatsoever to see Dondervogel 2 here to defend them. who made no attempt to justify the reverts of Quondum's edits And as we can see, they have no trouble lying as well. In two of my reverts today, I directly linked WP:BRD to implore Quondum to discuss the changes they wanted. They refused (as evidenced by their repeated reverts). I would also be open to a topic ban for Dondervogel 2 as it relates to computing units. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No case has been made. —Quondum 02:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for not denying anything I claimed, it will make the process go smoother. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I can't see any evidence that you attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Binary prefix yourself. Am I missing something, or are you suggesting that people be topic-banned for not doing something that you have also failed to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

From WP:BRD: Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you., clearly I objected to the change, which is why I linked to WP:BRD in my edit summaries while reverting. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for the change and they need to explain why the change is necessary (especially in light of the recent RFC that was in progress when they made their initial change, and was closed just two weeks ago when they made the change again without any further attempt at discussion). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

None of your edit summaries gave any indication as to why you reverted. What stopped you from attempting to start the discussion yourself, by explaining what the issue was? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained elsewhere, this editor was ping'd repeatedly to a discussion about this very template and they declined to participate. The onus is on the editor wishing to make the edit to gain consensus. I had nothing to discuss as I was perfectly fine with the status quo. Stop trying to shift the burden onto me when it very clearly isn't. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have 'nothing to discuss' after using WP:BRD in an edit summary -twice - you have no role to play in a collaborative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Buddy, if you had any idea how much time I've spent debating these two about IEC units, you'd apologize. Trust me when I say this, if I thought starting a talk page discussion would have worked this time I would have started one. WP:NOTSUICIDE. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to assume, if the debate has been going on for years, that there isn't a consensus on the issue. Which makes coming to ANI asking for people to be topic-banned for editing against consensus, while failing to engage in any discussion over the matter, seem rather presumptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a consensus at WP:COMPUNITS, but some editors like to ignore that and push their agenda anyways. This is just the latest example of that. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing in that guideline looks to me to represent 'consensus' that a table showing 'Binary prefixes for multiples of bits (bit) or bytes (B)' should not be included in an article on Binary prefix. Why the heck shouldn't we include information directly relevant to the article topic in such a form? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you're either deliberately not understanding me, or I'm just shitty at getting you to understand, but here is my final attempt: COMPUNITS is the current consensus, it describes when and where we use units like gibibyte/mebibyte/etc. that are, otherwise, discouraged from use. Quondum and Dondervogel 2 really really really want these units in use everywhere. Despite there being a long-standing template that has been in that article for I think over a decade, and a discussion on it's layout/naming recently concluding, Quondum elected to basically subst the template, remove the column they think doesn't belong (even though the units they removed are used the the lead of the article). It was reverted a short time later (a few weeks ago). Then they reverted again today, but in such a way as to not trigger the revert notification. This time I caught it on the same day, and an edit war ensued. Despite being ping'd to other similar discussions, they either ignore them, or the drop off, and they made no effort to gain consensus for their change.

I've already said below I'm fine with being rolled up in this TBAN. I'm that serious about thinking the project would be better with Dondervogel 2 and Quondum removed from this topic that I'm willing to take the L on this and walk away from the topic if it means it doesn't turn into a protracted edit war (which is where it's been the past few years). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about units being used 'everywhere'. It is a discussion about edit-warring, with no attempt at proper discussion by any of the parties involved, over an article where the distinction between two differing types of units is central to the topic. If you had restored the original table (showing both types of units) and then attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, you would be in a good position to call for a topic ban, if the two contributors then refused to discuss, and reverted you. What stopped you doing that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) they've been ping'd to prior discussions on this very topic and ignored them, and 2) I believed the burden was on them to gain consensus for their change and that if they were serious they'd make the effort to discuss it and explain why their change was so important. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So why, if you wanted them to 'make the effort to discuss it' did you not give them the opportunity to do so? Your last revert of the article (with the edit summary 'WP:BRD') was at 23:57. Quondum replied 'So, discuss. My rationale was at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binary_prefix&diff=1126731358&oldid=1126728654' at 00:02. You started this thread at 00:15. Without discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Notified Dondervogel 2 of the below TBAN discussion (they've already participated above, but just to be certain they don't miss it I felt a notification was warranted). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

One thing that clearly needs to be noted here is the lack of tangible evidence that either Quondum and Dondervogel 2 have done anything sanctionable that Locke Cole hasn't also done. We seem to be being asked to topic ban people for taking part in an edit war that Locke Cole was also engaged in, and for nothing else beyond unverified claims about past undesirable behaviour - a part of which apparently involves not participating in yet another round of a long-running dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to review the last time we were here back in September, or June/July 2021 where I bring more diffs of their behavior. And maybe you missed it below, but I support an admin's idea to TBAN all three of us. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, after a quick review I can confirm that there were a couple of inconclusive discussions on WP:ANI. If you don't want this to be a third, you will have to convince people that action needs to be taken. Which will need clear evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to topic-ban Quondum and Dondervogel 2

Per my statement above (and Quondum's failure to answer any of the allegations made), I propose indefinitely topic-banning Quondum (talk · contribs) and Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs) from all topics relating to units of measure for computing, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, as there seems to be no obvious difference in behaviour between any of the parties involved (none of which seem to have use the talk page), and because 'failure to answer... allegations' isn't legitimate grounds for a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @AndyTheGrump: It's not at all concerning that they are trying to side-step the RFC which had a half dozen participants (and Quondum has participated on that same page, and was ping'd not once, but twice, by Dondervogel 2 to participate there) and ran from September through the end of last month? Clearly editing against consensus and not re-engaging in discussion when reverted aren't behaviors we should tolerate. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, what is 'concerning' is the way you seem to be suggesting that an inconclusive RfC on 'column headers' for a template provides sufficient justification for calling for topic bans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, this seems like a normal content dispute. Removing a template from an article is fine even if it orphans the template. WP:TFD#REASONS doesn't give removal from an article as a reason to propose a template for deletion, rather the other way around, it suggests that one might nominate for deletion templates that aren't being used and have no likelihood of being used. Jahaza (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jahaza: I think you're missing that we just had an RFC to settle the layout of the templates, one that Quondum was ping'd to repeatedly (and they ignored), and they chose to side-step those discussions and unilaterally remove the template from it's only mainspace use when that wasn't even an option under discussion at the RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, I didn't miss it. If you'd had an RFC on whether to include a template in the article, that would have been more important though. Also, the RFC closed as no consensus as to "what replacement header(s) should be (if any)."(talk) 04:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  There was significant discussion prior to that RFC as well that was open for really any type of proposal. I'm trying to grapple with how any editor could see other editors discussing layout and content so deliberately and at length and think "yes, they probably just want me to subst and change it to whatever I prefer instead". —Locke Cole • t • c 04:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Them's the breaks with BRD. Jahaza (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The "discussion" part of BRD does not mean "I wrote an edit summary." To quote from BRD, "Discuss on a talk page: Don't assume that a re-revert edit summary can constitute "discussion": There is no way for others to respond without risking an edit war." Beyond which, news flash: BRD is explicitly optional, and remains an essay, no matter how widely quoted. Failure to be the first ones to open a talk page discussion is scarcely valid grounds for a tban. Ravenswing 05:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. As I've basically said many times, please don't come to ANI to complain about someone else not discussing if closer examination reveals you did the same thing. With very rare exceptions, anyone who comes to ANI about something which is at its core a content dispute and can't point to a talk page thread preferably a page rather than a user one, where they tried to discuss, automatically fails the basic test of ANI in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging professor of computer science David Eppstein. EEng 06:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but only if it also includes topic-banning Locke Cole, another long-term participant in this dispute. IEC units are a waste of time, but these disputes are even more of one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mm, a tban's harsh. Giving the OP a modest trout slap is more like it. Ravenswing 07:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to point out there's a Template:Infobox unit, so conceivably we could turn this into an infobox battle as well. EEng 08:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @EEng: Please don't give anyone any ideas... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would Support this as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  In that case you should just take the page off your watchlist and walk away from it, thereby saving everyone the trouble of litigating a dramafest. JBL (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  Or, this can get resolved here and now so the disruption doesn't continue. I'm sad to see that you're fine with disruptive behavior being allowed to continue though. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  You, personally, have it in your power to end the disruption by walking away from the dispute. This method is easy and foolproof. JBL (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not the one editing against consensus... but yes, if I wanted to throw up my hands and walk away, this would stop it. But it rewards bad behavior, so I say again, you're fine with this? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, considering that no links or evidence to anything less than 2–3 months old have been presented and my username is at the top of this ANI thread, do you stand by your topic ban support point, or perhaps you were a little hasty? It should be noted that the edits that triggered this ANI, i.e.:

  • Q (rm decimal prefixes from table: these do not belong in this context; adding full values)
  • L ()
  • Q (Decimal prefixes have no place in this article)
  • L (WP:BRD)
  • Q ()
  • L (WP:BRD)
  • Q ()
  • L ()
  • Q (We can continue your unmotivated revert until you it the 3RR limit if you wish. My change was motivated.)
  • L (WP:BRD)
  • Q (So, discuss. My rationale was at [58])

  were been dropped as a reason given that they were simply to remove an inappropriate decimal prefix column from a table in a binary prefix article (which, incidentally, no-one has voiced any explicit objection to), and that my reverts were only to revert the five unexplained reverts by Locke Cole. Also, and Locke Cole would realize this if he started thinking straight, I do not object to the use of decimal-as-binary prefixes being used in WP and largely avoid the topic. —Quondum 13:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support IEC units are universally disruptive. Here and everywhere, they are not used. Pushing them nonstop is exhausting. Andothegrump, please don't cast aspersions about me trolling Rodeoaches (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  It'd be more likely someone would cast aspersions about this being your first Wikipedia edit. Just sayin'. Ravenswing 07:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  (struck !vote of checkuser banned editor —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC))

• Oppose banning blocking etc. Seems the disruption is stopped for now and all parties are on notice. I propose warnings and then Trouts all around. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe it would be easiest to start smaller, an indefinite page block from this specific article for some set of the three users. Then the article disruption here stops and can be used as further evidence if it goes on elsewhere. Yes, I'm aware this dispute is much longer than that in time, but if editors are edit warring here (and going by the story, that's what is occurring), that is one solution that does not toss babies with the bathwater of whatever other positive/negative contributions may occur elsewhere on the topic. (I haven't fully assessed the specific dispute on account of travel, just suggesting another solution that might be palatable.) --IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose everyone seems to have stopped now and appropriate warnings issued. Talk it out. Any further disruption can be dealt with via escalating blocks. A topic ban is unnecessary/too extreme at this point. As for IEC units, yeah...I can see a use case for them (I have a comp sci degree), but the fact is, we've decided not to use them on WP for general usage as the public is not familiar with them. Buffs (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2

@AndyTheGrump, Jahaza, Ravenswing, Nil Einne, JayBeeEll, David Eppstein, EEng, Izno, and Buffs:

Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs), being fully aware of this conversation and the closure of the RFC at Template talk:Quantities of bits has just reverted an edit made to bring the table at Binary prefix into compliance with that result as determined by a neutral closer. This is continuing evidence of disruption from these editors and needs to stop. What is the point of holding a months-long RFC if a pair of editors who are very much against including any of the everyday terms we use in articles can just upend the table and throw away the work whenever they feel like it? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm looking at your link to the RfC in question, and lo and behold, the close result is "No Consensus to change header - There was consensus for better clarity over the issues of standards, and industry usage, but not as to what replacement header(s) should be (if any)," so I'm at a loss to identify a consensus result to the RfC which anyone is defying. Would you care to point us to one?

With that being said, you have already failed (by a fairly wide margin) to secure support for a tban. Several editors believe that you are at least as liable for sanction as anyone else. The definition of "disruption" is not "Edits I don't myself like." Do you see a wave of editors/admins agreeing with you here? It's about time for you to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing 02:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm beginning to consider the merits of a topic-ban on Locke Cole confined solely to the use of the word 'consensus', given the way this word is being repeatedly used in a manner not concurrent with any reasonable interpretation of it I'm aware of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Template:Bit and byte prefixes is the current template, at the RFC there was NO CONSENSUS to change from that header to any other header per the neutral closer. What has happened here is these two editors have, despite not gaining consensus to make the change, gone ahead and made the change. That is disruptive. @AndyTheGrump: When there is a lack of consensus to change something, then going ahead and changing it anyways is literally going against the consensus. Computer memory was one of the options in the RFC that DID NOT GAIN CONSENSUS. The consensus version is JEDEC. Do you understand me now? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A 'no consensus' closure of an RfC is a statement that consensus could not be found. If it can't be found, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it isn't possible to go against it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So in your opinion if there's "no consensus" for a change, then it's perfectly fine to make the change? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for not making a change either - and as far as I can see, all the participants in the RfC supported changing the wording in one way or another (you yourself seem to have supported changing it to 'Computing'[59]). What they couldn't agree on was what to change it to. Which is why there was no consensus over anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's set aside the "So when did you stop beating your wife?" style of questioning. Is it "perfectly fine?" Beats the hell out of me; I am not an engineer, and I have no dog in the fight. But what it is is a CONTENT DISPUTE (if you insist on bolding and capitalizing statements which we are perfectly capable of reading without either). As such, it is neither an appropriate matter for ANI, nor does it violate any policy, nor is there a consensus to violate if there isn't any consensus to begin with, nor is it grounds for sanctioning those who dare disagree with you on the change, nor are we likely to change our minds and agree with you if only you shout shrilly enough at us. You have been on Wikipedia far too long to be incapable of grasping the precept that sometimes it's not that people don't understand what you're saying, it's that they don't agree with what you're saying. Drop the damn stick. Ravenswing 04:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Long term IP vandal

68.48.156.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has shown a long term pattern of vandalism despite warnings including BLP violations like claiming a person is satanic and pov pushing . After political vandalism was reverted, they returned days later to edit it back in and the same made vandal edits ot Richard Kuklinski months apart 2001:8003:34A3:800:2060:5192:F1AD:E0A4 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a stable IP address used by the same person for nearly a year for nothing but vandalism, BLP violations and disruption. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP address for two years. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Request

I have a request, although I am not sure where is the appropriate place for it, so i am making it here. I would like the redirect to my current username, to be fully deleted. Thank you in advance. Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ιπποκράτης2020 I have requested that for you. Declined by GB Fan. You may have a try on WP:RfD Lemonaka (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

alright, thank you very much Ιπποκράτης2020 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange edit patterns of Boogi wu

Boogi wu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited in a strange pattern. There are three kinds of edits in their history.

1. Self-reverted test edits. A lot in history. E.g., on Jiguopai Old Church , Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) and President of the Republic of China
2. Test edits reverted by others. E.g. On Anna Jagiellon .
3. Obvious vandalism or disruptive edits. E.g. Special:Diff/1125161850, on List of ambassadors of Tuvalu to Taiwan and Special:Diff/1123510600

I suspected this user need to be carefully instructed or blocked. I have warned them on Dec 15, but they returned on Dec 16 with an edit on List of Norwegian royal consorts‎, also a strange change of photos without any explanation. Lemonaka (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I logged the block as "vandalism only", but it could also have been "not here to build the encyclopedia". Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User apparently has not discovered talk pages or edit summaries. They're aren't a mobile user, maybe they'll catch on. Valereee (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I found they are a extendedconfirmed user on Chinese Wikipedia and was on wikipedia:AIV of their home wiki for vandalism only... FWIW,w:zh:Wikipedia:当前的破坏#Boogi_wu Lemonaka (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. So they do know talk pages, and particularly, their own, exist. Valereee (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

GreenCows alleges that GalantFan is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Since their block ended, GalantFan has returned to the same disruptive editing as before and are continuing to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Following this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Editing other people's user page and personal attacks, they were blocked for one week, including having their talk page access later revoked for the duration of the block. Their first edit after the end of the block was to leave an uncivil reply, accusing another editor of wallowing in ignorance, or suffering from attention deficit disorder, which is incredibly inappropriate. In their third edit back, they restored much of what they had previously added or changed on the Second Battle of Fallujah during the prior dispute. These changes were reverted by three separate editors and they have been told many times to seek consensus on the talk page for their proposed changes. I have told them previously that I would discuss their proposed changes on talk but after their ban they ignored this and immediately started to restore the disputed content. They even changed the wording to state as fact in wikivoice that during the Fallujah battle "insurgents and civilians had been killed or injured by chemical burns" contrary to what the cited sources say. Not long before this edit, they made a similar change here on White phosphorus munitions. In the next edit, I changed the wording to correspond to the sources since the claim is disputed and added George Monbiot's opinion but GalantFan made the same wording change on the Second Battle of Fallujah article. They have recently modified my edits here, adding some WP:OR. Administrator RickinBaltimore has even told GalantFan on their talk page when they revoked their talk page access to "not go back to the editing that led to this block to begin with" but they have immediately done so. In the last thread HandThatFeeds brought up WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE in relation to GalantFan, stating that "I don't think he's capable of understanding our policies & abiding by them, and he's just not here to edit collaboratively. I'd suggest upping his block to indef & removing talk page access, because we're just going to be right back here in a week with a full community-ban proposal when he starts editing again." I have to agree with this as they have immediately returned to the same disruptive behavior they were only recently blocked for. GreenCows (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"contrary to what the cited sources say." You keep citing sources which are opinion articles on a movie review by two men who didn't look at the bodies, just looked at the movie.

Quote "So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died"

"as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery." that means that he is NOT AT ALL QUALIFIED to determine someone's cause of death (unless, of course, they happen to be a heart surgeon). He is sarcastically telling you that he has absolutely no qualifications at all. But you keep using his opinion as a source.

Some guy who didn't see the bodies and says "We don't yet know how these people died" is not a reliable source.

Why revert the Washington Post report of WP (white phosphorus) being used to burn and "melt" bodies? The documentary was not the first or only source of info about WP but you keep deleting all other sources. And you keep repeating military talking points that they didn't kill civilians. GalantFan (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous IP replied to my detailed comment on Alamo talk page with "TLDR Nobody is going to go to the trouble of reading that. I certainly didn't. 86.186.4.139 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)" GalantFan (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty reasonable response, frankly. It was an obviously bad idea to post a snarky response a month later. JBL (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

multiplying 70% times 300,000 is NOT doing "original research". The 70% is from the source. the 300,000 is from the source. Where do you get the idea that just doing the math makes "original research"???

You keep deleting that men were not allowed to leave Fallujah before the battle for apparently no reason at all.

You keep deleting other reliable sources about WP being used as a weapon. GalantFan (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you on the article because you have been repeatedly told to seek consensus for your proposed changes on the talk page. Like I said before some your proposed changes are good. You're still missing the point of why me and other editors have reverted you on that article. And you're still continuing the exact same disruptive behavior as before. I never accused you of original research for multiplying 70% by 300,000 nor have I repeated "military talking points that they didn't kill civilians." These are false accusations. I removed one of the mentions of men not being allowed to leave in the Civilian presence section as part of a larger revert as you were supposed to discuss your proposed changes on talk. It's still mentioned under Controversies. I don't oppose these additions but you still need to add sources for the content you want in this section even if it's already sourced elsewhere in the article. Your reply to that IP of them suffering from attention deficit disorder is still very inappropriate even if their comment wasn't very constructive. Once again, I apologise for part of my edit on white phosphorus munitions. I restored the relevant part you added. The rest of that edit still contained OR and you have added OR to that page earlier here. I agree that Monbiot isn't the most reliable source, however neither is the documentary. And you have used Monbiot as source on other articles. GreenCows (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been invited to use the talk page to explain which part of my edit you think shouldn't be included, rather than reverting.

I added multiple sources which you deleted.

You seem focused on dicrediting one documentary which was made by people who went there with a camera and interviewed first-responders, rather than the controversy being focused on using WP as a weapon, or the fact that there was a LOT of collateral death and damage which I have also tried to write about.

I quoted facts from the bottom half of Monbiot's article while you quoted opinion from the lede by people who were not witnesses at all.

Other editors have repeatedly been invited to participate in the edits and have not made any contribution at all.

I have not done any "original research at all". Monbiot wrote in one of his articles that the military had admitted firing WP into the sky to make smoke. I found a BBC source that confirmed it was launched into the sky from artillery as well as helicopters.

You are acting as a gate keeper on the article when you are not informed of what actually happened. "I have told them previously that I would discuss their proposed changes on talk". I wrote my proposed changes on talk. You discussed absolutely nothing at all. You also have not made any attempt at all to discuss the changes that you have been making to the article.

You keep alleging that my behavior is disruptive when you are revert warring with me. GalantFan (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• For the confused. WP = White phosphorus, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), not Wikipedia or Washington Post, which were the first two possibilities I thought of. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• I don't know what else is going on here, but when someone says I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery [60], they're telling you they are not (repeat: NOT) qualified to determine someone's cause of death. That GreenCows doesn't understand that suggests a WP:CIR problem. EEng 21:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  EEng, I completely misread that part of the quote and I sincerely apologise to GalantFan for that accusation.GreenCows (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• "not used against civilians" does NOT mean they didn't kill civilians when they used it.GalantFan (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@GalantFan: Please put your signature and timestamp immediately at the end of your comment, and not on a separate line, like this: Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@GalantFan:, I'm going to add to BMK's advice, and tell you that what you are doing on article talk pages is completely unclear to me. I think you are posting proposed article text there, but I'm not sure. You need to make very clear what is going on, and what it is that you are posting, OK? Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Right-wing edits on ElonJet article by User:TheManInTheBlackHat

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

---

I'm trying to add sources that say it is good because, well, sources describe it as a good thing to keep track of the right-wing figure Elon Musk, who has done some very bad and overall bad things lately that are bad. I want it to describe on how the account is keeping track of the right because it is overall good based on the reliable sources. Therefore User:TheManInTheBlackHat's edits are right-wing and he should be sanctioned. Scholarlectual Individual (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've left multiple messages on @Scholarlectual Individual's talk page (which they've sadly ignored) stating that they should review Wikipedia's policies on bias. Removing MOS:PUFFERY like "good" certainly isn't "right wing" behavior, right? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Scholarlectual Individual, you should discuss your desired changes to the article on the article's talk page and get consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

History of problematic editing by Kinfo Pedia (talk · contribs)

Several administrators and experienced editors have engaged the editor, but until now they've mostly observed contributions to isolated articles. The problematic history is much more extensive, and includes a major overhaul of Glenn Miller--see this reversion I performed yesterday, the tip of the iceberg [61]--an elaborate update and more elaborate discussion of John Hoogenakker, and edits since reverted at Secretariat (horse) and Orvil A. Anderson. Talk pages reveal the difficulties [62]; [63], which are time sinks just to wade through and indicate prolonged involvement by other editors. A sample of sections that suggest some of the issues: [64]; [65]. Kinfo Pedia was questioned re: WP:COI at Hoogenakker, and though they seem to be corresponding with the subject, my initial read is that the more relevant COI may involve the author of a 2017 biography of Miller. That said, COI is almost beside the point; the question is whether the benefits are worth the disruption. See my reversions of off-topic and poorly sourced/original research content [66]; [67]; [68]; [69].

Among administrators, Justlettersandnumbers and Jayron32 have recently reverted some bizarre edits at American black bear and Chincoteague Pony. Experienced editors who have put in more than their share of time cleaning up are AngusWOOF and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Prior to opening this thread, a conversation was begun at my previous IP talk page [70]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, where do I even start, mainly with having to clean up the John Hoogenakker article after any wave of editing they have done:

• There is strong WP:OWN ownership and insistence that John Hoogenakker's biography be formatted to be a more accurate resume than what the resume his own website has. I have tried to cut down the filmography and stage roles to what was available via external sources. I have told the editor that they should work on creating their own fan website if they really want all those details.
• There was insistence in detailing the count of the number of plays, episodes, views of commercials using ispot.tv, which is not a reliable source. Television actors star in hundreds, even thousands of episodes, so this isn't anything special. Hoogenakker isn't a YouTuber whose viewer counts and subscribers are milestones.
• Tendentious editing to include exact episodes and role names where it cannot be sourced at the moment besides IMDb or Fandom.
• Tendentious editing to detail Walter the Cat's involvement, calling Hoogenakker a "co-star" to the cat on the series, and going into extensive detail about the cat and the trucks.
• Tendentious editing to remove Wikipedia links in the early life and education paragraphs.
• Tendentious editing to rename the mention of Zoom to videoconference, even though the magazine article already detailed that he auditioned via Zoom for one of his roles.
• Tendentious editing to remove any mention of birthdays, wife and number of kids, even though there are sourced news articles that explicitly state his age, and a primary source interview where he specifies his month and day of his birthday.

Onel5969 and I have tried to work with their edits, but if we let it go for much longer, it gravitates towards turning into a fansite piece. The actor does have a large body of work and does meet general notability, so I apologize in advance if my writeup of John Hoogenakker's biography is rather dry (e.g. lots of "In (year) he did (role) in (production)") AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, Kinfo Pedia has extensively overhauled the Glenn Miller article, mostly not in a productive way. They add a lot of nonencyclopedic detail, such as a book review of a book about the subject and a bulleted list of nine examples of how the subject's name has been spelled. In this edit, they add the same reference in 74(!) places, often to statements that are already referenced, and they've made similar edits more than once (eg. here). An edit summary says I added superscripts for footnotes for every sentence I know to be true from the public exhibits, news articles, the original archived article Arlington National Cemetery and the Glenn Miller Birthplace Society that I researched and confirmed with the experts at GMA, GMBS and the Airmen of Note, the last part of which in particular suggests that there is some original research and/or WP:COI going on.

As can be seen on the article's talk page, at least 8 other editors have questioned some aspect of their changes. Kinfo Pedia's only response has been to bizarrely keep repeating the same sentence, Glenn Miller, Norman Baessell and John Morgan died when their planes wings got iced over, on December 15, 1944, the day before the Battle of the Bulge started Dec 16, 1944, which is sometimes not even relevant to the other editor's question.

The editor's talk page shows that they are more than willing to communicate, quite prolifically so, but their communication style is so prolix that it's often hard to understand their point. I think there's an element of WP:CIR as well. CodeTalker (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They don't seem to really understand referencing: as noted above this is not great, to put it mildly. There seems to be a tendency towards hagiography, as witness the Hoogenakker comments above, and their removal of the section which voiced, with sources, some mild criticism of Glenn Miller. They are a busy editor who works hard and it seems a pity that they don't communicate better and learn from what people are trying to tell them. If they could listen and work cooperatively with the rest of us that would be great but it they won't listen then I fear for their future here. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

An SPA edit-warring on Christianity and abortion

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

---

User:TheMattro's only edits on that account ([71]) are 6 edits to Christianity and abortion, including edit-warring in an attempt to remove a long-standing section from the article [72] [73] [74]. Could that page be EC-protected; if not, could the SPA be blocked? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've warned them about the edit warring, which is not acceptable. I took a quick glance at the material in that table, however, and it looks like there's a lot of synth and unreliable sources [75][76] going on there, so I'm hesitant to treat this as vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the POV sources cited in the section are used only to support statements about what Christians who are anti-abortion and Christians who favor abortion rights say about Biblical passages. That is, the sources support attribution. The purpose of the table is to summarize the claims made by both sides concerning interpretation of Biblical passages that may be relevant to abortion. NightHeron (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If they're not reliable then they shouldn't be used to demonstrate what either side says. It's merely saying what that particular unreliable source thinks. Taking the individual beliefs espoused by unreliable sources and framing them against each other is exactly what OR and SYNTH warn against. We should be summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the claims on both sides, not searching out claims in unreliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

But sources can have a bias and still be reliable for what their side is saying. The section that the SPAs want to delete is not attempting to establish what the Bible really says about abortion. It's just summarizing the conflicting interpretations given by the two sides, citing sources that are reliable as expressions of what their side says on the subject. Nothing is being synthesized; the Biblical passages that appear in the sources are listed, along with the arguments and counter-arguments that are found in the sources. NightHeron (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

IPs constantly adding unsourced information to Swashbuckle (TV series)

These two IP ranges keep on vandalising the Swashbuckle (TV series) page. Prior to cleanup, they had free reign, but after pending changes protection and a rewrite of the page they haven't been able to vandalize any more. I propose partial blocking these IPs from that page indefinitely for long term abuse. I'm not sure how to notify an entire range of IPs. RPI2026F1 (talk)

Ranges:

• 2A02:C7C:940F:1700:0:0:0:0/64
• 2A02:C7C:940F:1700:0:0:0:0/64

I p-blocked the /64 range from Swashbuckle (TV series) for 3 months EvergreenFir (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:ChrisChanSonichu

This is the Wikipedia account of Christian Weston Chandler. A lot of trollsome comments and revisions by Chris himself need to be supressed because WP:HNE. Everything needs to be removed because it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.102.66 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Mario Hidalgo 2020

Mario Hidalgo 2020 seems to be a sockpuppet of TheEncyclopediaReader because their editorial stance is extremely similar. Sockmaster is Lil Pablo 2007. 133.32.177.108 (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It may be more suitable to report this to WP:SPI instead. In any case, you have failed to notify Mario Hidalgo 2020 (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red box both on top of this page and when editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Coop454555

Coop454555 seems to be a sockpuppet of an older account. Coop2017 and Coop2006 seem to be related to this account, although I can’t really tell if this is true or false. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems pretty unambiguous, blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Content and edit summaries, please?

• JBN-TV 12:24, 18 December 2022
• Faithful and discreet slave 12:28, 18 December 2022

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've done the revdel. I might try to attract a steward's attention to the history of that page, those accounts need globally locking. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GS, beat me to it. Just a friendly reminder, if you ever need something revdel'd, you might want to reach out to an admin privately first. Bringing it here draws a ton of eyes to it, that's all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

While we're here, anybody fancy protecting the related article Esteban Handal Perez which is also getting some, um, suboptimal edits from IPs? — Trey Maturin™ 13:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)