Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Cullen328 - Tone-policing

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

---

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)

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)

Yeah, I'm afraid I have to join the robust consensus here that the issue does not appear to be with Cullen, but rather the OP's approach--specifically issues with WP:BITE, and to some extent WP:IDHT. "Tone policing" is, in a best-case scenario, a highly vague, weasel-wordy way of implying supposed harassment, particularly where we are talking about an admin, whose community remit very clearly covers moderating the character of behavioural conduct and maintaining a civil atmosphere in discussion spaces, keeping them as emotionally de-charged as possible, in the particular circumstances. Further, as others have noted, some of the fora and circumstances in question here are specifically meant to approached with a especially lite touch, an even-keeled and cool-headed temperament, and an abundance of patience, for fairly obvious reasons; there are express and clear community-authorized standards for operating at the Teahouse in particular.

Jéské, with respect, I can see that in each of these situations you were trying to do the right thing with regard to important policies or valid pragmatic concerns, but the implication in your responses to Cullen's perfectly reasonable efforts to get you to take things down a notch is that you cannot possibly be expected to address such matters without reaching to hyperbolic and/or inflammatory language, and that's plainly just a false choice--and one our behavioural guidelines do not (and frankly cannot) indulge. If you are going top operate within these kinds of circumstances, you are going to need to re-consider your approach, as I hope the fairly uniform response here has impressed upon you, as you don't seem like a particularly unreasonable person. In these situations you are well advised to adhere to an abundance of WP:AGF, and even when you've hit the point where you feel you have enough evidence to justify dispensing with that principle, you should meet obstinance and even disruption with cool, meticulously polite unflappability, knowing you have community consensus at your back. In short, kill them with kindness where you can, not evidence of a vexed disposition or even outright explosions of frustration, both of which only weaken your position. That, or find other places to contribute which are less likely to have you rubbing elebows with newer editors who may push your buttons. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

By the same token though, I don't like much that Cullen told you to "stop being a jackass", and there was definitely some other shortness in that exchange: Cullen328, as someone who generally regards you as a particularly high caliber admin (and community member generally), I would nevertheless be remiss if I didn't remind you here that what's good for the goose is good for the gander when it comes to this question of using language calculated to close rather than widen gaps in perspective. If you're going to urge Jéské to reach towards a more reserved approach even when frustrated by another user's outlook and conduct, I think you have an obligation to demonstrate by example. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I truly appreciate your feedback and will do my best going forward to moderate my language even when dealing with highly experienced editors. I will remove "jackass" and similar terms from my lexicon, even when I am very frustrated. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, Cullen, I'll pick up the slack on that. EEng 04:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In real life, EEng, I am quite fond of donkeys, mules, ponys, mustangs, quarter horses and thoroughbreds. Splendid animals that we have been cooperating with for about 6000 years. My mother rode a horse to school each day for quite a few years, long before most Wikipedia editors were born. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

In a thread initially devoted to complaining about-tone policing, we've finally moved on to tone-policing the alleged tone police? I think we've reached a conclusion. I'm closing this. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

  I think @Levivich:, @Throast:, @Hako9: and I are all interested in @FormalDude:'s response to the examples of tendentious editing presented above. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 21 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)

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) [14] 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)

  English, but thanks for asking.--Jayron32 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Pseudo-blanking of AFD discussion...

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

Paul McDonald didn't ask "what to do" though, that was an inference on your part. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Christ ANI is the worst. Yes, indeed, when someone makes a post on ANI without explicitly stating what the point is or what they want, every single person who reads it has to make an inference about what it means. I made a quite reasonable inference; then Phil Bridger apparently made an inference about what I wrote (that I thought it was not "a good thing" for Paul McDonald to have posted here), and I clarified my intent (unnecessarily, probably, since the whole thing was already over and done with). Are there any other trivialities of human interaction that I can explain to you while I'm here? Please just delete your comment and this one along with it. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please people--yes, I could have been more direct and specific in asking for help - I just found something that needed attention and had trust in our teammates that someone would look into it who had the time to do so because I was busy with work. And they did. Days ago. It looks to me like it's handled. Close?'--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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[15]). 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[16] but Kbabej recreated the page later [17]. The editor has previously been blocked for sock editing in what appears to be an attempt to avoid COI scrutiny[18] at a page about his uncle [19]. 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)

It's not, it's just yet another self-aggrandizing puff piece by someone who thinks too highly of himself... - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:28, 19 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 [20] [21] [22], and has recently been found by another user to "recycle" 10 year old citations from completely different contexts [23] 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 [24], 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 [25]. 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)

I concur with Colonestarrice on their assessment of Wareno. I had a similar interaction with the user at [26] back in May 2022 as they did at the page Colonestarrice linked. Same accusations of nationalism, sockpuppetry, and refusal to engage in discussion of content. One response they made to me providing sources for my changes, which was a reversion to a long standing version as well, was calling my provision of sources a text wall. Qiushufang (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Drmies: Where did you get the idea that that's all that was done? These were wide ranging and comprehensive edits [27]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The substantive changes in that edit were focused on removing/fixing/rewording copy-paste copyright violations from https://rsc.byu.edu/author/gillum-gary-p. Is that a problem? ~Awilley (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Would that be the same BYU which employees them? I also think you'l find a BLP violation in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 18 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

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] 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

[33] [34] [35] [36]

Following to new pages to revert edits for frivolous reasons

[37] [38]

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[39][40][41][42]. 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)

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)

  You notice how this thread is not full of people accepting your framing about what consensus is, whether other editors are editing against it, or whether either of the editors you're attacking are engaged in worse behavior than you? Because I notice that. Moreover it seems to be a common feature of all the ANI discussions on this topic. JBL (talk) 19:27, 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 [43])

  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)

  Thanks for proving you didn't read what I wrote initially above. I linked to multiple diff's in my opening which are, functionally, identical to what you just listed. 🤷‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 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)

  That decision remains a problem for some editors. The text of MOS:COMPUNITS upholds it but the transcluded table there contradicts it when editors who don't accept the decision change the template. NebY (talk) 20:56, 18 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)

Seconded. JBL (talk) 19:32, 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'[44]). 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 have your foes violated any policy, nor is there a consensus to violate if there wasn't any consensus to begin with, nor are there 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 and stridently 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. The only consensus in play here is the one in this ANI thread that your charges are without merit. Drop the damn stick already. Ravenswing 04:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"just reverted an edit [that you, Locke Cole, made, and that does not appear to have any consensus in its favor, either]" oh okay then. JBL (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTANARCHY is that way. There were multiple proposals, there was ultimately no consensus. This does not mean "go ahead and act as if you have consensus anyways". I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion, especially something that was previously discussed at length with no consensus for a change reached. But sure, I guess I'm the bad guy here expecting us to be able to have some stability after a months-long RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Truly, it is a mystery why uninvolved observers can't understand that your edits with no consensus and failure to discuss are good whereas their edits without consensus and failure to discuss on the talkpage is tban worthy. -- JBL (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Might've been the months-long RFC that preceded it that I participated in at length and Quondum did not, even after being ping'd twice, then taking unilateral action while that RFC was in progress. But sure, we can ignore all of that. Certainly a large group of editors here appear to be. And if that's that the consensus, that consensus doesn't matter and protracted disputes are fine with no good-faith attempt to participate in discussion, I'm here for it. Frankly I get tired of discussing things, it'll be so refreshing to just edit as I see fit and ignore everyone else. Y'all have been great, thanks for this cathartic experience! /s —Locke Cole • t • c 19:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There is pretty clear consensus here that no one finds your protestations convincing. You should take my advice, and apply it double to this discussion. (This is my last comment here.) JBL (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Locke Cole cracks me up. How can he say with any seriousness "I am shocked at how many people here are just fine with edit warring over something without any attempt at discussion", when this ANI thread started due to his (or our) edit warring with no attempt from him at discussion other than "WP:BRD" (see the five links to reverts labelled "L" above which (I inserted a bit ago. Who will ever be able to take anything he says seriously? —Quondum 20:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad that my participating in a months-long RFC (which you ignored, and tried to undermine by removing the very template under discussion from it's only article-space use) is something that brings you amusement. That was my small attempt at "discussion", and it preceded your edit warring. It's disingenuous to act like I haven't tried to discuss any of the issues/concerns with that template. And it's disruptive to act outside of that framework on your own because you choose not to engage in discussion. It looks like you've lucked out Quondum, and drawn a crowd that apparently is willing to overlook this completely for reasons I can't comprehend and just let you plow ahead against consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, where is this mythical consensus, and where does it say anything about subst'ing templates? —Quondum 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

At the RFC: "no consensus" is not carte blanche to take a wrecking ball to the work done so far. The subst'ing of the template is simply disruptive as it (not your subst'd revision) is the most stable version of that table that's undergone widespread scrutiny by editors. That you chose to undermine that process and the work involved with it is the problem here. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You said: "against consensus". So now you are suggesting that it was "no consensus". Evidently, you cannot point to any discussion of replacing template transclusions. You never seem to point us to where consensus that you claim is, and you never seem to point us to the non-consensus you claim is. You simply made five reverts without any relevant discussion whatsoever, and now you are condemning doing just that. I take my question answered, thank you. (Incidentally, if there was discussion in your mind, then why are you complaining that there was not discussion?) You keep claiming "consensus", and "no consensus", and then claiming no-one should make changes from your preferred version in either case. I suppose because one of these these always applies, I suppose no-one is allowed to edit anything in WP by your book (until you personally okay it?). I asked you for a link to justify that the template transclusion replacement was discussed. You have not provided it. —Quondum 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the table had no consensus. The same changes you chose to not involve yourself with, where you could have discussed the changes you wanted to make. You know, the one large discussion you were ping'd to not once but twice? And you'd previously participated in these discussions, even starting what is currently the top of what lead to this last RFC here and here. Let's try this another way: where is the consensus for your changes? After all, if you're not editing against consensus, then clearly you have discussed this and gotten some buy-in from editors, yes? WP:SILENCE is also relevant here, as the template you're edit warring to remove has been present in that article since 2010 (in a sandbox copy because it was protected due to a dispute, shocking I know; it was folded into the article-proper the same month). "My" consensus is the status quo, the over a decade of silence around including that template that you've unilaterally decided (in the face of repeated reversions) to force through the removal of. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not being discussed on the relevant article talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Presumably because some sort of consensus might actually be reached that way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the no-consensus RfC regarding the disputed 'Quantities of bits' template was held without even bothering to inform anyone about it on the talk pages of the few articles it has been transcluded to: Bit, Kilobit, Megabit and Binary prefix. I get the distinct impression that the purpose of this RfC wasn't so much to determine article content as to continue a long-running dispute amongst contributors about the relative merits of various names-for-numbers systems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

An article talk page is hardly the correct venue to discuss editor conduct issues. What a silly question. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It is, however, the correct venue to discuss content disputes. Granted, I can appreciate, judging from this thread, that you may just be unwilling to engage in consensus building there, given your demonstrated unwillingness to drop the stick even in the face of near-unanimous opposition. Ravenswing 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's adorable. I guess it's also entirely possible the group here is wrong, but that's hardly a possibility I guess. We'll ignore the months of discussion on this issue I've participated in, the RFC on this very template that I participate in at length. Quondum didn't participate in the latter part of those discussions despite being explicitly ping'd there. I suppose if we ignore the facts, I'm certainly totally out of line in someones fantasy-land version of events. In the real world, the one we're all in together, I've engaged on these issues. The onus is on Quondum to gain consensus for their changes, so far there's 3rd party agreement that there's no consensus for any of the changes we've discussed, and clearly no consensus for Quondum's changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Seeing as Locke Cole is just going to keep arguing as long as we keep responding, and that consensus is heavily against taking any action (except, perhaps, by way of a trout slap at the OP), can we get a close? Ravenswing 13:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why not a TBAN for all three, as suggested above? Dondervogel appears to be practically an SPA, and the other two aren't exactly innocent either. A simple close is just going to lead to another ANI thread, sometime in the next few months, with disruptive editing from both sides in the meantime. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to topic ban anyone who has a damn opinion on the matter being disputed, on the basis that turning an argument over such a trivial matter into the sort of long-running edit-warfare saga one might expect to see on articles concerning Balkans history is incompatible with creating an encyclopaedia. Or doing anything else useful on the internet. This is an article about how we use numbers, and label them. It isn't complicated. Those who wish to make it so are acting against the best interests of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Request

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

---

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)

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 [45]--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 [46]; [47], 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: [48]; [49]. 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 [50]; [51]; [52]; [53].

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 [54]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Was I supposed to reply to the top paragraph so everyone could see it, or can the lower paragraphs be read too? I am not sure what the abbreviations mean since I am still very new to Wikipedia. I am not sure how you know if a source is good to use. I think someone who wrote their own resume would have it correct. If it is wrong, then it is probably their talent agent staff who typed it wrong. For Miller, the experts involved included well-known, accurate historians and researchers. People who wanted to be in the news claimed they dropped bombs on a small plane when in fact, planes were grounded that day. It was an exception to policy that Morgan landed and took off without even stopping the plane. I found this out in many sources that used their well-researched sources themselves. I got permission and quotes from the experts. I had to prove how he spelled his name and cite the sources, when someone thought it was not verifiable. I don't think they will be putting a 100-year-old yearbook online. It 's a rare book now. Thanks for trying to help. I didn't know so many people were looking at it, they should assume I am right, that would be considerate. Thanks for your help. If someone wants to put info. in there that makes something accurate with sources, then that is good, but if not, it really hurts my feelings and I am sad on behalf of the subject of the article even though they don't know me. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I got permission from the author to quote the main book. People should give me the benefit of their doubt. I don't go in there writing something wrong on purpose. Be patient. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It would be nice to know who started the Hoogenakker page. I had thought of doing that but have not yet learned how to start a page, or use the sandbox. When I make an edit, and then put in the box why I made the edit, is anyone reading that and understanding why the change should be made? People should not assume I am wrong. Thanks again. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kinfo Pedia, I think you need to slow down. Here's one huge paragraph that wanders all over the place, with two additional ones. I already don't understand what you mean with top paragraph etc. I think you should look at WP:THREAD--maybe that's related to your question. One knows a source is good to use by learning about sources; there's no way I can give you that in one paragraph since it takes us weeks in Freshman Comp, but you can start by looking at WP:REPUTABLE. What I tell my students is that if they cannot explain what a particular source is and how they get and verify their information, they can't use it.

To go back and explain why some edits were reverted--well, this was your first edit to the Glenn Miller article and I don't understand much of what you're doing and why, but what I do see is that some text and some sources were removed. I don't know about "well-known, accurate historians and researchers", since all you're adding in terms of citations is this, "Shenkle, Kathy, "Glenn Miller: America's Musical Hero", U.S. Army, Arlington, 1993", which lacks publication information, is improperly formatted (and incorrectly cited throughout), and doesn't seem to be something from a well-known historian or whatever. And now you're talking about someone called "Morgan", completely out of context, and I have to go an look at your edits from September to make any sense of it, and I can't make any sense of it.

Forest, trees--we are here to discuss things that are problematic about your editing, and you are not focusing on the main topic--I mean, what the hell does a 100-year old yearbook matter in this conversation? That is a matter for the article talk page. But you are really not so "new" to Wikipedia: this was months ago, lots of time to learn about reliable sources, talk page conversation, how to do references. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 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)

One of the questions this raises is whether Glenn Miller is best served by reverting back to a pre-Kinfo version. That means undoing hundreds of edits, but it's a prominent enough bio to consider the damage done. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this the right place to answer the paragraphs above? I just found this for the first time. I am not able to find all the comments and talk pages, when I click on the bell, I cannot figure out where anyone wrote a note. It says "welcome". I am working VERY HARD to get everything correct in the topics I like. This is my informational legacy since I don't have any children. Whenever there is something wrong, I go and look up the facts and get sources from the other experts. When someone spelled Glenn Miller's birth name wrong, I had to correct it and make folks understand that he changed the spelling of his name during high school. I even got copies of the yearbooks at his high school, and learned that he was a co-editor of his own yearbook, and used Glenn and Glen at different times in each one. Since someone wrote that it was not "verified", I went out of my way to find out, even finding articles about his birth certificate. Many people got it wrong because they were in a hurry, so I had to correct it, and prove how he changed the spelling of his name from Glen to Glenn. I confirmed everything I found with several sources to see which source is the best to use. We should not quote sources that are wrong, even if many people have quoted it wrong. I once found sentence that 8 articles quoted the same source, and the source quote was wrong, so it spread the wrong information. Teachers and others are telling kids NOT to use Wikipedia for research because contributors don't always do the complete research. Is it "vandalism" when people delete the information I put on there that is correct? Sometimes they do it as I am writing, and it makes me stay up late trying to correct it. When someone is in doubt, then I look up the sources again to see who quoted what. Let's get it right, and give Wikipedia a better reputation. Thanks. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I found several source for the character name of Hoogenakker's first television role. I don't understand why others keep deleting his character name, Dr. Collins. People shouldn't have anything against the name of the role he played.

Oh, I think it is harassment when others are complaining about my work. If they have the good information, then go ahead and put it where it fits in the paragraph and footnote it. Another good idea is to separate the sentence into a paragraph on its own so people can see it to easily research it or edit it. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

several sources, not source. typo. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hoogenakker birthday thing --- I thought we were supposed to keep personal data out of the article because he is a LIVING person, and the things I read about how to write a page included that we don't put something just because someone accidentally revealed the information in another site. I heard a few interviews where he talked around the date, so I thought, well, he does not want to put the actual date in and would prefer to keep that out of the pubic eye. His not living in Hollywood is a sign that he does not want to be out in the open like regular movie actors. so- I was empathizing or whatever you call it when you are looking out for people. Thanks. I thought maybe he does not want to have a Wikipedia page because he made it this far, 2022 without having one. Since it's on here now, let's get it right. I guess that is what my fellow writers were saying about ispot.tv which I assumed was correct because of the detail of the numbers. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how I got to this section, so don't get mad if I can't get here to see your reply. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggested here that this should be brought to this board – there seems to be enough of a problem that community input is needed. I'm in no doubt that Kinfo Pedia wants to improve the encyclopaedia, but unfortunately he/she seems to charging in where angels fear to tread and creating substantial amounts of work for other editors. I note with some sadness that Drmies wrote here that "... unfortunately, NOTHERE is looming" (sad because what DrM says is pretty much infallibly right and I don't want to see us deter a good-faith new editor). Can we find some other way to let this user learn how to edit here without overwhelming others with unreasonable amounts of extra work? Might mentorship, or a daily limit on number and/or volume of edits, be made to work? Any suggestion welcome, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(e.c.) In the last few minutes, I've reverted two more edits [55], [56]. I'd suggest that Kinfo not continue editing while this discussion is in progress. They seem knowledgeable and delightful, but as the edit history and above comments make clear, Wikipedia is not the right fit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A tutorial with a human would help, and someone to e-chat and email with as I am deciding what to write.

Instead of just deleting my input, tell me what sources you have makes it have to be deleted or edited.

Everyone is being so nice to help me. Also, my vision is not good, so this is a lot of work. Kinfo Pedia (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying you're wanting Wikipedia to be YOUR Informational legacy is more symptoms that you want to WP:OWN the article. Same with requiring other editors to go through you to verify information. Saying you have contacted the subjects in question to verify information is also original research WP:OR and asking for their permission to have published information withheld also implies some conflict-of-interest.

Regarding on-screen credits, I've given you an example of how to validate an on-screen television credit at the talk page along with timestamp. But instead, you cited IMDb and Fandom Wikias, which are user-generated, or their derivatives. You've even stated the subject's own resume as sometimes incorrect. It is possible some entries on there may be wrong, but that's why Wikipedia relies first on non-resume / non-self-published material.

Regarding birthday, there is nothing that says he is objecting to having his birthday published. He has a prominent news article from Charlotte Observer that lists his age, and even his parents' names, and an online interview where he stated the month and day. And it was not prefaced or followed with a "please keep this private" message, so he does not object. If the subject does object, he needs to contact Wikipedia (or file an OTRS) or tweet on his social media about wanting to keep his birthdate private.

If certain published sources have incorrect information, you should provide evidence where information can be contradictory. Maybe another published article has it right?

Again, it might be better to create your own fansites for John and Walter the Cat where you have complete control over the information published, and you can include other snippets such as your personal correspondence with him. Fandom Wikia might be okay with that, but finding a free host that will keep your information around forever would be better. You can also archive your website pages on wayback. Then you don't have to deal with issues about other folks editing, verifying, or cleaning up your writing.

If you need some more live-action correspondence, perhaps some editors can recommend some of the live-action options such as IRC or discord? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:03, 19 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 ([57]) are 6 edits to Christianity and abortion, including edit-warring in an attempt to remove a long-standing section from the article [58] [59] [60]. 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 [61][62] 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)

Oops, seems that I copy-pasted the same range twice. I meant to send the second range "2A00:23C7:CB83:B901:0:0:0:0/64" as well. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Mario Hidalgo 2020

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

---

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)

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

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

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

---

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)

Done by ToBeFree. Thanks! — Trey Maturin™ 16:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• I would like to remind editors about avoiding requesting revision deletion on such an active noticeboard like AN or AN/I. Please follow the instructions at WP:REVDELREQUEST and Wikipedia:Requests for oversight (for suppression requests). -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Eyagi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Acroterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

I started this at AE, possibly influenced by spending time figuring out how the new, improved AE/DS regime might work. Others pointed out that at AE it was likely to diverge into a tangent on whether the AE sanctions apply in this case, as things tend to do at AE, and recommended a move to ANI, so that's why it retains some AE formatting.

Eyagi appears to be a single-purpose account, dedicated to refuting or diluting the comfort women article. They appear to be trying to argue that they were licensed prostitutes, and were not exploited. Recently they've devoted themself to lengthy tendentious walls of text on Talk:Comfort women devoted to original research and selective analysis, with divergence into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121, which demanded an apology from the Japanese government. I see no useful edits on any other topic, and their behavior has been that of a textbook tendentious SPA. They've graduated to a content fork at Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. I have been involved in closing down the walls of text on the talkpage, and consider myself sufficiently involved to recuse from admin action. I've only hit the high spots with diffs, there are dozens of argumentative edits in the IDHT vein with several editors.

I'm OK with ANI, you're probably right that a discussion in this venue will end up wandering off-point into a definitional wrangle and never get around to the actual problem. I do think it's covered by GENSEX, but at its broadest stretch, using the simplest and most concise summary in the consolidated sanction statement. I'm about to sign off, I'll look in tomorrow morning and move it if it hasn't already been moved. Acroterion (talk)

1. 2022-06-05 First edit ever, pretty much summing up the entirety of their edits since then
2. 2022-06-12 part of the OR and discussion that followed the first edit
3. 2022-10-29 Lengthy OR analysis inserted into United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121
4. 2022-11-26 Draft of an article on licensed prostitution in Korea under the Japanese Empire, apparent content fork from the comfort women article
5. 2022-11-30 Extensive OR, links to primary sources
6. 2022-12-06 Return to argumentation and demands for attention
7. 2022-12-11 Expansion on OR on talkpage
8. 2022-12-18 Reinstatement of extensive OR, links to primary sources, and demands that they be "refuted"

• [63] Diff of DS notice

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [64]
• [65]

Discussion

• Though I'm not entirely convinced that this issue falls within the remit of Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, it clearly needs addressing, if not here, then by a simple topic ban, per normal admin action. Acroterion has already laid down the evidence, and little more needs to be said. Even reading the last link alone [66] makes it abundantly clear that Eyagi is either unable to understand Wikipedia policy on original rresearch, or is unwilling to comply with it. Indeed, the section entitled 'Basic acknowledge' alone is enough to demonstrate the point. We are told that Empire of Japan was a country ruled by law. At that time, Koreans were citizens of the Empire of Japan. Under the law, Japanese, Koreans, citizens, soldiers and police were equal. We are told that Koreans were part of the Japanese military and police force. Rape, assault, threats, kidnapping and abduction, fraud and extortion of civilians, by soldiers and policemen were violations of the penal code. We are told that In Imperial Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, her willingness to work, her parental consent document and a copy of their contract with her employer, and age for Koreans to be at least 17 years old were required. All asserted as if they were indisputable fact. And as if they refuted the many, many sources we have cited in our article on so-called 'comfort women', and on what actually occurred. And to back up such claims, we are directed to a website belonging to something calling itself the 'Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact'. They are, I suppose, as entitled to assert their hold on the 'facts' as anyone else, but being asked by a contributor to 'refute' such extraordinary claims (Which require us to believe that the entire Japanese military operated entirely according to law during the entire period in question, amongst other things, something which would surely make them unique amongst any military body, anywhere), is tendentious to say the least. We don't do that. We don't 'refute' sources. We cite them. When they are credible. In accord with relevant academic consensus.

Eyagi is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic. Some form of sanction preventing more round-in-circles timewasting is required. AndyTheGrump (talk)

• Rather than get weighed down by the inevitable "is the really covered by GENSEX" debate, can I suggest an early move to ANI? I'd support a TBAN based on the evidence provided, no DS necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just reiterating my support for a sanction, since this has now been moved. Quick admin action in the face of obvious partisan POV-pushing can save a lot of valuable editor time. I hope Eyagi finds and flexes their brevity muscles and puts them to use in another topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Close with no action, continue to discuss, no TBAN In the evidence presented above, I see one instance of what appears to be a good faith edit to an article (which I assume was reverted). The rest are discussions on the talk page (where they should be). Primary sources are not an issue per se unless you are interpreting them in the article. There is certainly some good-faith disagreement on the subject of "comfort women" in public and a balanced view encompassing both sides should be presented in the article (and they are). It is without dispute that the Imperial Japanese forces engaged in abhorrent, reprehensible, and criminal behavior throughout the war to include sexual oppression. The article as it stands clearly makes it clear that some women were prostitutes, some were forced but were paid, and others were forced into sexual slavery; this is not in dispute. Likewise, just because they "followed the law" doesn't mean they followed the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit or that the laws involved were not sufficient to protect these women; many people have "followed the law" or were "just following orders" and committed unspeakable acts of barbarity. In general, Japan and others have admitted their complicity in such actions (to varying degrees) and they have given limited compensation. It is important to recognize the nuances of such behavior and the varying degrees of complicitness of those involved both from Japan and those who were potentially sexually abused and I see room to potentially incorporate some of the presented information in this article.

But I see no evidence that this falls under Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions as it doesn't pertain to gender or sexuality, but criminal activity. While that criminal behavior involves sex, literally every person is involved by that standard (you were conceived and birthed somehow). It is only marginally/tangentially related and should not be applied here and certainly not without better evidence that a violation occurred. Nor do I see any justification for a TBAN. What I see here is good faith disagreement with a relatively new editor and I do not see the evidence presented here to support the assertion that he "is clearly incapable of contributing usefully on this topic". Buffs (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether this falls under gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions or not is no longer relevant, as the discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. As for the remainder of your comments, I'd have to suggest that your understanding of Wikipedia policy on original research doesn't concur with that of the broader community. Either that, or you have simply not looked at the walls of text, based on Eyagi's own interpretation of primary sources, that have been presented on multiple talk pages. This isn't about 'nuances', it concerns an attempt to contradict the multiple credible sources we cite in the article, using selective citation of primary sources, and of the citation of secondary sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS. An attempt to essentially deny the very 'unspeakable acts of barbarity' you yourself write of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not article edits, it's repeated bludgeoning of talkpages to demand a large-scale denialist revision to the article, using original research from an SPA that is entirely devoted to that cause, in an article that has seen perennial disruption from many similar agenda-driven editors.This is a favorite hobbyhorse of nationalist partisans. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is ongoing

See Eyagi's latest comment [67] at Draft talk:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire. The draft is sourced solely to primary sources dating from between 1916 and 1944. No secondary sources are cited. Per WP:OR, this is clearly and unequivocally unacceptable: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Depending on how discussion here goes, it might also be appropriate to briefly and neutrally raise the broad topic at WP:FRINGEN, since my at-a-glance interpretation of the position Eyagi is taking here is that it is WP:FRINGE. More discussion there might be needed to fully hammer it out but even beyond the issues relating to Eyagi specifically, it might be worth having more eyes experienced at identifying and dealing with fringe positions on that and related articles. --Aquillion (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The POV being pushed by Eyagi is fringe, but the more immediate problem is the way it is being promoted. Eyagi has made it abundantly clear that either they don't understand WP:OR, or that they don't consider themselves bound by it, which is problematic in any contributor regardless of what they are trying to accomplish. And the absence of any comment from Eyagi here (they are clearly aware of this thread, see [68]) suggest to me that this is a simple refusal to accept Wikipedia policies when it doesn't suit them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Greek Rebel (talk · contribs) on Cyprus

This user was banned for edit warring on Turkish language, and now trying to push a similar narrative. Now he calls me far right. The info he's trying to put is redunant, and wp:or (putting various primary sources together). Beshogur (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Was the user blocked or banned? I see a previous block, but I'm not immediately seeing anything about a ban. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, I used them as synonyms. I mean block. Beshogur (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's pretty obvious now that Greek Rebel is incapable of editing the project in a collegial and collaborative fashion and despite the fact that they continual argue that every other editor is POV pushing and nationalist, it is they who are the one pushing a POV and nationalism on articles. I think it's time for them to be shown the door. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Could you be more specific about your opinion that I am the one "pushing a POV and nationalism on articles"? Greek Rebel (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Greek Rebel for a month. They have made very few edits since their last edit warring block, but today resumed very obvious edit warring at WP:Cyprus - when such a high proportion of an account's contributions are edit warring, action needs to be taken. Beshogur, you are far more experienced and prolific, but it looks to me like your reverts there would also be covered by WP:EW - please get more eyes on a situation like that, rather than repeatedly reverting yourself, unless you are very confident that WP:3RR applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Alright. Beshogur (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oops - for posterity, I meant WP:3RRNO. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for GrandContimentalRailways

GrandContimentalRailways (talk · contribs) has a long history of bad behaviour on railway related articles. He/she has created multiple articles that have been deleted, and continues to create drafts while steadfastly refusing to listen to advice from multiple other editors about the the concept of notability and the need to add references. When he/she does respond to talk pages messages it's generally childish in the extreme as can be seen in this exchange.

Other railway contributors shouldn't have to babysit this editor whose net contribution to Wikipedia is close to zero. A topic ban on rail articles, or at the very least some time on the naughty step would let us get one with what we like doing - improving things. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

(Arrived here via a notification to my talk page, thanks for this 10mmsocket!) I am not familiar with this editor. It appears though that the vast majority of messages to them have been automated and so am not entirely surprised they were ignored (especially if there is a langauge barrier). Here's hoping my message, the messages today from other editors, and this case being filed will encourage them to do better. I wrote a fairly frank message to them that articles need sources to get past NPP. I think we should hold off for now to allow GrandContimentalRailways to improve their sourcing. Garuda3 (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This user might jsut be a troll since they replaced ANI With "AMONG US" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

...and "IRAQ IS BEST IRAQ IS BEST IRAQ IS BEST". The user says they're Polish, so I can't tell on the surface if the user's inability to accept feedback is due to language barrier or just not taking anything seriously. Maybe there's some potential value to Wikipedia in the local knowledge they have of railroad stations, but unless they're able to collaborate I don't think they're going to be a net positive. ~Awilley (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That was a one-time instance, and they were warned for it. However, they blanked someone's userpage after that user contacted them regarding a page move they did without prior discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

USer has now been blocked for DE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indeffed which frankly they could have been for this and other disruption. Language barrier doesn't excuse blatant trolling and AGF isn't a suicide pact. If someone is convinced they're willing to edit productively, feel free to adjust this block. Star Mississippi 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is called for given the apparent trolling. Though Why did you think that was a good idea, and why didn't you discuss it first? isn't exactly a friendly way to approach someone. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  The original move was a very unfriendly action, so it's little surprise that the response wasn't exactly friendly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Civility is required... Friendliness is only deeply appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, this editor. Was wondering when their creation of articles with zero sources would come back to bite them. Good block. Wasn't even aware of the trolling, but that removes any ambiguity about the necessity of the block. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Another user keeps undoing my edits without any explanations

I really didn't wanted to come to this, I left a message on their talk section, but since they deleted it, I had no choice but to report.

User:WikiMaster2K15 keeps undoing my edits. For example, I edited the World of Stardom Championship, where I made equal space before any = sign to make it more comfortable for the editor to read, but they removed those spaces even when I explained why I'm asking not to remove. I also seen another user complained sbout it to them on their talk page at November.

Also, I use the sortname template on any championship reign section so it would able to organize it alphabetically, you can see the same on List of WWE Champions, but they removed it as well.

I do not asking for that user to be banned or removed, but I tried to voiced my frustration about this which they ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeosiWrestling (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Insult received from 41.143.228.130

41.143.228.130 insulted me on by saying: "Fuck your mama avabrandon2000" after I prevented persistant vandalism to occur on Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco page. I'd like that user's IP adress to be banned/permanently blocked. Insult was on history section of the page. Page link: Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Editor who insulted me: 41.143.228.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is currently a discussion at User talk:41.143.228.130 regarding the insult I received from that editor on revision history page. The thread is Hell's bells you'll get banned for this. The discussion is about the topic The insult I received from 41.143.228.130 on Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco's page. Thank you. AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that a WP:BOOMERANG is also in order: [69] [70]. General Ization ^Talk 00:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

HO okkk. I shouldn't have replied this way here, he could have been banned by now ... AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be switching daily, so blocking them won't help. I think a long spell of semi-protection might be the solution, unfortunately. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the registered editor should be sanctioned, however, since they met bad incivility with over-the-top incivility, and even cited their response here. A time out seems to be called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked AvaBrandon2000 for two weeks for their profane and highly personalized attack against another editor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Issues with civility regarding Volunteer Marek

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

This user has openly accused a veteran editor of being canvassed to an AfD page [71], and has stated that everyone voting for delete because of a lack of notability, outside of potentially one editor, "isn't doing so in good faith" [72]. When I reached out to them about this on their talk page, they deleted my first attempt with no comment [73] and then deleted my second attempt [74] with the comment "I’m not interested in having this conversation with you so please don’t post here about it again." I'm not quite sure what should be done about it, I've never posted something like this, but I don't think it's acceptable behavior for obvious reasons and they probably need a cool off period. Wertwert55 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

73 edits to your name and here you are at ANI accusing a veteran editor of canvassing and incivility. Sure. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:C59A:3763:53F9:C8B9 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone of canvassing. Wertwert55 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The spurious filing by this hardly used (Wertwert55) account merits WP:BOOMERANG - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Spurious? WP:BOOMERANG? Have I been uncivil somewhere? I don't like seeing editors accused of canvassing a page with no evidence. Wertwert55 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is a veteran editor but is also a veteran of incivility accusations, so please no ad hominem - the number of edits of the filer is as irrelevant as the good/not so good standing Volunteer Marek. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

.. and now you Gitz6666 showing up - what a "surprise" 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

... and @GizzyCatBella showing up, what a surprise Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

... asking for a boomerang without any attempt to give an argument on the merits🙂 my copied and pasted smile works well enough!

@Gitz6666 you forgot about a smile face - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

the thing is, I really don't know how to put them Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, can you remind me how many times I have no asked you to stop WP:STALKing me? You didn't even vote on that AfD! Yet you just can't help yourself and pop up here. I know I've asked you at least half a dozen times. This is getting extremely disruptive and frankly, creepy af. Volunteer Marek 02:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny how you never accuse GCB of stalking you, or any of the other editors who follow you around to agree with you; only the ones that disagree are stalking I guess. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this suppose to be a serious comment? Yes, someone who follows me around with the purpose of trying to make my editing experience on Wikipedia as miserable as they can is different than a person who follows me around (or just participates in same discussions) in order to collaborate constructively. Is there anything other piece of obvious common sense you need to have explained to you? Volunteer Marek 05:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's is a ridiculous argument, and you are deliberately surrounding yourself by only those that think exactly like you. 168.91.237.74 (talk) 168.91.237.74 (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Come on now, this is a noticeboard. Some people frequent AN/I, and some people frequently get reported to AN/I (not just you, and not judging you) its inevitable that those two kinds of people are gonna bump into each other here. Lets not get nasty. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Once or twice can be “bumping into each other”. When it happens all the time regularly it’s a pattern which suggest specific purpose (WP:HARASSment) especially if the user in question has been asked multiple times to cut it out. Volunteer Marek 05:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Don’t modify or add to your comments after the comment has been already addressed, okay? Start below the answer. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I was considering saying something on Volunteer Marek's talk page for his blatant bad faith assumption not just at new accounts or IP addresses, but at anyone who voted a certain way on an AfD! But of course it was just going to be swiftly reverted, as it happens, and so I didn't. I'm happy Wertwert55 took the initiative to bring up this issue. It—the whole attitude of ascribing political motivations or "being canvassed" to editors who have been here for a long time—is disturbing to see. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @TryKid That AfD is all over twitter, what are you thinking? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  It definitely is, and I have no doubt that people who read about it on Twitter are in the AfD, but does that mean it's okay to openly accuse a veteran editor of canvassing on the page? Wertwert55 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  at this point anyone who's trying to argue that this isn't notable with a straight face isn't doing so in good faith is a pretty serious assumption and accusation on Volunteer Marek's part, not justified by any amount of publicity the article might have gotten. That after individually accusing individual editors of being canvassed, some of them with years old accounts—is the simple notice at the top not sufficient? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/1128172190. this? 01:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  That, certainly, and also accusing an editor who's been here for years of canvassing with no evidence and no provocation. [75] Wertwert55 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You want to explain why this "veteran editor" (who really hasn't been active since ... 2011) appeared to be unaware that the article name has been changed quite awhile ago while on twitter it's still being referred to and referenced and discussed and made fun of under the old name? The one they used? It's as if they didn't even bother looking at the article itself. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That user is referring specifically to the line in the article where it's dubbed a massacre, which last I checked is still there. Bad reasoning? Sure, arguably. Evidence of canvassing? Not sure about that. The account was last active in early December and then May of this year: hardly a "sleeper account" that's been inactive for 11 years. There's a major issue with canvasing in the recent Musk AfDs, yes, that much is obvious, but it's still on us to WP:AGF and not accuse people of canvassing as you did. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

a "sleeper account"- wow @Wertwert55.. you spent a total of about 6 hours over the past few years editing Wikipedia, you learn fast all this local jargon. A sleeper account you meant a sock puppet right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

...No. I'm referring specifically to the idea that someone has been sitting on the account for 11 years doing nothing and then becoming active again just to vote on this issue. He edited an entirely separate topic from this just a couple weeks ago and then another one a few months ago. Wertwert55 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You became active after 7 month to vote on this issue - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because I visit the site often, saw the main article, and saw the deletion notice on top of it. Am I supposed to prove somehow that I wasn't sent here specifically by Twitter to vote on the page? What would that accomplish? Wertwert55 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The AfD is on twitter - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and this is like the second time in two, maybe three days, that twitter canvassing, and the showing up of multitudes of SPAs, brand new accounts and reactivated sleeper accounts, has completely skewed and probably determined an outcome of one of our AfDs [76]. And it's not like I'm the only one who's noticed this (I mean, it's blindingly obvious unless you're TRYING not to see it) - User:SilverSeren has also pointed it out.

I don't know what we can really do about it. If I had my way (if I was to Wikipedia what Elon is to twitter) I'd semi protect every AfD and check user all accounts !voting. I realize that's not gonna fly, but semi protectin' is a good start. Volunteer Marek 02:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I may disagree with your position but respect the passion you edit with but maybe just lay off a little as WP:BLUDGEON is a thing, though you already know that. I think your position is clear and brow-beating editors rarely has any effect on changing their !Vote. This thread should also be closed as no sanction is going to come of it. Slywriter (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am curious that there was an IP address (2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:C59A:3763:53F9:C8B9) that had come here to defend Volunteer Marek (73 edits to your name and here you are at ANI accusing a veteran editor of canvassing and incivility. Sure.), but that was the IP's only edit? [77] The IP was also skeptical that a relatively new user knew about ANI and canvassing and incivility, like Volunteer Marek was skeptical of those IP addresses on the AFD discussion that knew a lot about Wikipedia. It seems rather unlikely that the two accounts would not be connected somehow, and so, would that be a violation in terms of WP:SOCK in the section "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts"? Helloheart (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ANI attracts trolls. Best ignored, more often than not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I still can't shake off the feeling that something's going on there (there are similarities), but I suppose so. Just thought that that might be worth bringing up. Helloheart (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser away. Hell, checkuser EVERYONE commenting on that AfD. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Truly WP:DFTT is probably the most important unread essay on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - A vet editor reported over nothing by an account with just a handful of edits who flawlessly understands his ways around here. What else is new? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Very few new things ever happen at ANI. Or anywhere else on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nihil sub ANI novum." -ATG Probably, 2022 GabberFlasted (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The AFD has clearly been posted all over Twitter and is attracting massive amounts of outside canvassing. It isn't an WP:AGF violation to say that in the abstract or to point out, in the context of that fact, that specific accounts have few edits outside the topic area, were created recently, or suddenly revived from a long hiatus just to participate in an RFC - this is normal and the RFC's closer will consider all of this while weighing the resulting consensus. The observation he makes in that particular comment (that someone's !vote is strange in that it is clearly talking about a version of the article that has been widely-described when directing people to it from Twitter but which hasn't been live for a while) doesn't seem so out-of-bounds as to be an WP:AGF violation - it's a reasonable observation to make in the context of a highly-canvassed RFC. It's not an aspersion or a violation of AGF to suggest that someone may have been canvassed when you back your position up with relevant arguments; simply being a longstanding editor doesn't immunize someone from following our policies. --Aquillion (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that editors (outside of one) can't possibly be arguing for a specific viewpoint in good faith isn't a violation of WP:AGF? Posting an abstract observation that there are people canvassing a page isn't the issue here and I didn't link to comments like that for that exact reason. Wertwert55 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. Apparently a deletion discussion being mentioned by a billionaire is enough to strike down any notion of civility, both here and in the relevant thread. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I just read the AfD, the Twitter drama, and this ANI. To be frank, it's a cluster. I feel like this isn't going to be productive, at least not in the short term. I don't frequent AFD so I don't know if we have the ability to nuke that page from orbit and start fresh. Perhaps giving the discussion a week before voting would be the safest possibility. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at everything from WP:CANVAS to probably some WP:MEATPUPPET, nothing of substantive value will come from the current discussion. Regardless I don't go there often, not my wheelhouse, not my problem, just wanted to make an observation and concur with AJ29.

  Honestly, I wish we could that kind of turnout for the rest of AFD!!! Etrius ( Us) 04:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie 1RR violation, edit warring over dispute tag

• User DN adds dispute tag: "considering this is an ongoing discussion AND there is a current RfC - we need more eyes on this, and it is preferable to a blanket POV tag"
• Mr Ernie removes tag 14:34, 18 December 2022
• Zaathura restores tag
• Mr Ernie reverts tag for second time claiming 1RR exemption. 16:12, 18 December 2022
• Zaathura warns on talk that 1RR has been breached.
• Mr Ernie claims 1RR does not apply to his removals
• On talk, at least one user has encouraged Ernie to continue violating 1RR on this matter and offered to help edit war to keep the tag off the page during the RFC.

Obviously, a dispute does exist, RFC and discussion are very active on talk. Advice and assistance welcome. Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Could admins please start page blocking editors who continue to edit against RFC consensus? This has wasted an enormous amount of time. How many noticeboard threads have been started? I begged for help at one of the recent ones. I’m really sorry that a few editors don’t like this consensus, but I think we are far past the point of reason here. Just a quick question as a sanity check - when there is RFC consensus for content, that has been challenged and upheld at a review, can editors still just ignore that ad nauseam until everyone else gives up and the ones who didn’t like the RFC result get their way? Even if they really, really don’t like it? This is what’s been happening, for months now. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, what vindictive and unnecessary filing. The tag was inappropriate because it was just another way of saying "alleged" in contravention of the RfC previously closed (and another is open on same topic now) and as I stated on the Talk Page, Ernie was free to self-revert as I would have undone tag for that exact reason.The problem is neither chronic or intractable unless disagreeing with Feoffer is against the rules of Wikipedia but then again his own edit warring and others have been ignored as minor but hey let's play gotcha now. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Xtools report to show their edits have been primarily to force their view.

And just realized I am a party despite no notification and stand by my comment. It was an inappropriate edit that had already been reverted numerous times. Stating I'd revert as well is not edit warring. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, I seem to recall @Feoffer: having breached the 3RR/24hr edit limit (when the page was under that limitation), back on (in spirit) on Dec 4 & on Dec 6, 2022. Also, I seem to recall that Feoffer refused to undo both breaches. If requested, I'll provide the diffs of Feoffer's edit-warring then, to add a 'dispute tag'. Feoffer may have also edit-warred under the current 1RR rule, on December 15, 2022. If required, I'll provide those diffs, too. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a frivolous filing by an editor who is trying to defy consensus. A boomerang would seem to be the appropriate result. The tediousness has become utterly ridiculous, and clearly the attempts to disregard consensus will persist until proper sanctions are imposed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer excluded from the timeline their own revert restoring the dispute tag. They have previously used reversions to keep this tag in place (1, 2) and were warned that this was edit warring contrary to the result of an RfC. I wouldn't mind seeing page blocks, 0RR, or topic bans used to remove disruptive editors from the topic area, though the ridiculous DS alert system makes it difficult to determine who is even able to be sanctioned. ST47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer's also been busy pinging editors to the talkpage of Hunter Biden laptop controversy, asking them if they would support an edit of his. Though the editors have already participated at the talkpage, the pinging of them does have a canvass feel to it, if not actually a breach of canvass. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The dispute on the page far predates my involvement and I'm eager to follow the rules. To my knowledge, there is no 1RR exemption of the sort Ernie claimed. To my knowledge, admins have instructed us to discuss amongst ourselves to try to forge win-win compromise language that could garner a strong consensus. If I'm mistaken, I welcome learning. As I said elsewhere, it seems I stand "accused" by you of the charge "trying to find a compromise" to this longstanding dispute. Feoffer (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Could we please get a partial block for the blatant canvassing by Feoffer on the talk page? Whatever potential agreement Feoffer and his chosen editors find doesn’t overrule RFC consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To show someone is WP:CANVASSING, you must also show that the intended effect is to introduce more editors who share the violator's viewpoint.
Can you demonstrate that is the case? Do these editors mostly support Feoffer's viewpoint? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've only contacted people already on talk. So far as I know, canvassing is only bringing new people into the discussion, not asking current talk page participants if they could support a new potential compromise. Again, eagered to be educated if i'm wrong about that. Feoffer (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I reached out to people from all sides of the debate -- I don't know if all sides will support it or not, but I have asked. Feoffer (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer only pinged editors who opposed the consensus from the RFC or have complained about it on the talk page. If Feoffer is serious about this compromise they need to start a new RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1128110143,Special:Diff/1128428781, Special:Diff/1128430103, Special:Diff/1128427855, Special:Diff/1128427855

I am not aware of a single ping above being to an editor who has a contrarian viewpoint. And the responses of some are concerning as they admittedly have not read the winding discussion that is in the RfC and three or four other threads on the talk page. Slywriter (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

they need to start a new RFC.

That's entirely possible! At minimum, a closer would have to correctly interpret 'OPTION 1' as opposition to the compromise proposal. I can't just ping a subset of people on talk, get their agreement, and just ignore the views of people like you who are on the record opposing any compromise wording of this sort. I honestly don't know what the best step forward would be -- I was going to ask Awilley and Jayron for advice on how to proceed if the proposal gets enough support to be worthy of pursuing. Feoffer (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The intro should be restored to its status (i.e. OPTION 1), right before the 'current' RFC was opened. By making changes to the page intro, while the RFC is ongoing? one creates confusion & frustration. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with current first sentence, so I don't necessarily disagree. We really need _some_ advertisement on the page for the RFC, so readers will know it exists and can help us find good solutions. I know you and ernie don't like "disputed", and I don't much care what languages is used, but we need some sign on the page that says "hey, readers, come help us with this RFC". Don'tchya think that would help speed this process up? Feoffer (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Legobot has taken care of advertising the RFC & I also left neutrally worded messages about the RFC, at three (WP:POLITICS, WP:USG & WP:LAW) related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I did check over & from what I can gather, Feoffer (so far) has pinged 12 editors (some didn't participate in the 'survey' section of the current RFC) who already mostly oppose the pre-Dec 4, 2022 intro. Feoffer only pinged 1 of 11 editors (who all appeared in the 'survey' section of the current RFC) who support the pre-Dec 4, 2022 intro. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, unless it turns out I'm doing something wrong, I'm by no means done discussing a potential compromise, I think there are undoubtedly others in the "option 1" group who could support some sort of compromise language, if only we can just find the right language. Finally, I want to recognize that there ARE people, like yourself, who have stated a strong opposition to compromise, and those views DO count. As I told Slywriter when he asked why I didn't ping him, no one was trying to exclude you from the discussion. There is no point in asking whether someone can support a potential Win-Win compromise when they have already stated their opposition. You are on the record, we know where you stand -- to ping you and demand you reiterate it would just waste your time and mine. Feoffer (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You should've posted your compromise proposal, into the ongoing RFC as OPTION 5. Not make a bold edit & then ping some editors for support. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a spin job. I'd imagine those who oppose your so-called 'win-win compromise' don't see it as a 'win-win'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

He's still trying to recruit more editors to support it. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Horde of IPs adding unsourced facts to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6)

It seems like the final episode of Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6) aired today. Many IPs have started adding incorrect information to the page and generally vandalizing it, while others revert their edits. However, I do not know who the winner is, and so I cannot verify for myself if they're putting in accurate information or not. How would I deal with a situation like this? RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

IP user making a WP:POINT against WP:CATV

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

I confronted this IP user after finding dozens of additions to Category:Theocrats without explicit mentions in the article prose backed by reliable sources. The user denied the need to furnish sources despite WP:CATV and has persisted in the argument after a final warning. Now they indicate that they dislike the category and the campaign to populate it was actually a campaign to discredit its existence. Elizium23 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Every word of the above diatribe is a lie, see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Category:Theocrats. The abusive and inept actions by Elizium23 show they don't know what they are doing. They claim I made "dozens" (lie) of "additions to Category:Theocrats", which is impossible. One cannot add anything to a category. One adds the category to articles. Which then begs the question, is it appropriate. In this case, yes, every bio and religious group (ecumenical -- Muslim, Catholic, Hasidic) to which I added the category in question well deserves it as a perusal of any of the articles would confirm. Unfortunately, some editors are too lazy. I believe that whomever created this category has discredited themselves with this vile subjective partisan entity. Nothing to do with my adding the category to well-deserving recipients although it is interesting to note that once I applied the category more universally rancor (however absurd the reason) resulted. In sum, this should have been swiftly and uncontroversially CFDed by now as overexpansive, subjective, partisan, and potentially likely to include most religion-related articles. 107.127.46.50 (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Included among the blanket reverts by @Elizium23 were the Catholic Monarchs. Yep, good old Ferdinand and Isabella, who launched the Inquisition, expelled or forcibly converted the Moors and Jews, and genocidally colonized much of the New World. I guess adding the category Theocrats to that article requires special sourcing. Meanwhile, the category does include the terrifying likes of Homer Aubrey Tomlinson. and Ian Paisley. 107.127.46.50 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRECOCIOUS IP editor is now in WP:NPA territory; nice work bro. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits and edit warring by User:Mr.User200 in regards to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding repeated disruptive edits and edit warring. Thank you.

This will be a bit of a long one, as it affects many pages on this site. Recently, there have been a lot of disruptive edits, as well as edit warring, on numerous pages relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. An editor who goes by User:Mr.User200 has been removing many pro-Ukrainian sources, mostly translated Oleksii Arestovych (an advisor to the President and an official Ukrainian source) broadcasts, but some others as well, and replacing them with “unknown”, or in some cases, with nothing at all. He’s said that he finds them to be “unreliable” because WarTranslated started translating them in May 2022 (for a war that began in February 2022, and the broadcasts started even later), when they’re not Russian (a clear bias) or “primary” sources (but only when they offer a counter to official Russian claims). He also claimed that pro-Ukrainian claims fall under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which should also for many pro-Russian sources. I’ve never seen him remove a pro-Russian source before, when they also have the same biases and flaws as the Ukrainian ones. Now, I am NOT suggesting that he or anyone else should remove the Russian ones, as that would also be biased, and they’re one of the few “official” sources on casualty/troop figures. He’s not even offered any alternative sources. If he was replacing them with other sources, I’d have no complaints, but he’s not. Some of the pages have also been protected, some I requested to protect against disruptive edits, although he’s removed the sources regardless. This also means I haven’t been able to put them back. The affected pages that now have protections are the Battle of Avdiivka (2022), the Battle of Bakhmut and both the Southern Ukraine campaign, and the Eastern Ukraine campaign. The pages that’ve not been protected but have had their sources removed anyway are the the Northeastern Ukraine campaign, the Sinking of the Moskva, the Wagner Group, the Battle of Donbas, the Battle of Kharkiv, and the 2022 bombing of Odesa. Also, with every sourced casualty claim I added, I made sure to include “Ukrainian Claim” with each of them, as to distinguish them from any other claims or estimates. I would go in and fix them myself, but he’s admitted to following my editing history. I have all the links that he’s removed, which are also available in the Page History. Every claim that I’ve made against him is backed up by his own edit history, the edit history of the pages, and my own talk page, where he offered no rebuttal to me. WarTranslated also has daily updates from both pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sources, and is the one of the few that translates them into English. As such, it remains a useful source to those of us who don’t understand either of those languages. Here are the links: https://wartranslated.com/day-245-october-26th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast https://wartranslated.com/day-273-november-23rd-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-145-july-18-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-257-november-7-2022-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-259-november-9th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://wartranslated.com/day-280-november-30th-summary-of-arestovych-and-feygin-daily-broadcast/ https://theins.ru/news/250367 | title=Минобороны показало моряков крейсера «Москва» — около 100 человек. В Украине заявляли о гибели экипажа, который оценивали в 500-700 человек }} https://hindustannewshub.com/world-news/putins-private-army-destroyed-in-ukraines-air-strike-hundreds-of-wagner-group-fighters-killed-in-luhansk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You didn't notify the user because you used the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template incorrectly. I've notified the user for you. --Stylez995 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not see how Arestovych's opinions are reliable sources for anything except for being his opinions. (I did not look at any details of the dispute though). Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

While he does indeed believe the figures that he gives, he is a Ukrainian intelligence officer, and currently works as a National Security and Defence Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak. I would at least consider him to be a Ukrainian government source. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 December 2022.

Right, and his role is propaganda, mainly for the Russian-speaking audience.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

So is TASS, Podolyak, Girkin, and virtually every other pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian source. Even the countries’ respective defense departments are largely releasing propaganda. By that logic, they should all be removed, but they’re not, and nor should they be, because they’re currently the only figures we have for this war, aside from the occasional independent source. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 December 2022.

Sure, none of them are reliable sources, and their usage is discuorages (and sometimes prohibited) except for in special situations. If someones starts mass-cite statements to Girkin I will be the first one to make sure the user gets topic banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

While removing mass-cites to Girkin, is more than justified, I don’t actually think that it’s necessary to remove all pro-Russian/Ukrainian sources. It leaves us with a record of what both sides are claiming about each other’s and their own losses. It also may not necessarily be false, just because the estimate is very high/low. Take for example the page on the Iran-Iraq War, or various World War II pages. It helps to compare and contrast what has been claimed with what is confirmed, at the very least. Also, the user in question has also removed sources relating to Russian casualties made by independent observers simply because they are not Russian, which is ridiculous, if you ask me. Tomissonneil (talk • contribs) 4:00, 21 December 2022

disruptive edits and edit warring by User:WazirMadan in articles Kotli and Kashmiris

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

---

The user stated above has continually removed Pakistan from the article Kotli which is a town clearly within Pakistan based on their point of view and they are adding India as a place of origin for basically all foods particularly Paya (food) it seems this account is very similar to the blocked accounts here [[78]] the main account banned account Prince of Roblox also had similar tactis of adding pro Indian edits to food articles and claiming Kashmir as Indian [[79]] so maybe it's the sock puppet of Prince of Roblox?. However in regards to edit warring they have already broken the 3rr rule now and continue to disrupt with nonsensicsl edits. Please assist.Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As admins can see the vandalism continues the reported User WazirMadan (who I am now convinced is most likely a sock puppet) attempted to delete this report against them. Can admins please block so the disruptive editing can stop? Please look at their edit history it's very similar to Prince of Roblox sock [[80]] Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

[81] Again the user is reinstated pov which the sources clearly state is a disputed territory they claim it as Indian and revert they have reverted more than 4 times now. Kmartdeeee (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

IP user vandalizing persistently

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

---

Hello, there is an IP user (58.151.1.126) who is vandalizing articles persistently and has been warned five times. They are causing much of the workload of the RC patrollers. Is it possible to block them? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Have blocked thanks. Glen (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Glen Thank you! Redtree21 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU: user Melliza Slippers Oh

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

---

Resolved

 - Blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Melliza Slippers Oh is constantly adding links to copyright violations (on youtube, vimeo, dailymotion) to articles about old TV shows. It seems as if they have a Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue, a mobile editor not responding to any messages, and not using talk or user talk pages at all. Can someone draw their attention with a short block (or whatever means works in such a case)? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fram blocked. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I misread that as "Fram is blocked" and thought "Oh no, not again..." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

How long until there's an ArbCom case about WP:MELLIZASLIPPERSOHGATE? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

ASCII art vandalism at AfD that is suspected copyvio

The IP user 209.68.99.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a Braille-based variation of ASCII art at 22 AfD pages (example). This would normally be a pure WP:AIV concern, and indeed the issue is already at AIV, but I came here because the ASCII art seems to be a derivative work of an unknown Internet meme, so RD1 is likely required as a presumptive measure. Affected AfD pages:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnePlus 11
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper Chimney
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress (software)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Ball (writer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King (rapper)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Guild of Film Critics Award for Best Animated Film
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kal Tumi Aleya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle condition
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organoargon chemistry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehnaz Quadery
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Music Festival
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lichen checklists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maninderjeet Singh Bitta
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welspun One
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Start (song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Udit Narayan
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Sadhana Sargam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Telugu songs recorded by P. Susheela
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Asha Bhosle
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kal Tumi Aleya
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dui Bhai
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleta Musaj

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are unable to discern the image on your device, it is a cartoon of a bald human head with a wrinkly, indescernible face and a speech bubble above them. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For the unawares the ASCII art is of a derivation of Wojak. I do not believe it is a copyright issue. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wojak. Nothing to worry about. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have declined the AIV report since the user has not edited since the last warning. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is, specifically, a soyjak, probably the version where he is crying and gritting his teeth. I am not entirely sure what the copyright status of these works is, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that a single artist could ever claim original authorship due to their collaborative origins. jp×g 04:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:V and unsourced non-English terms

• Zhomron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhomron
• Talk:Tower of Babel#WP:V applies to native/original names/phrases, non-Latin scripts
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 176#WP:V and foreign-language terms, non-Latin orthography in enwiki articles

Zhomron continues to edit war and edit while logged out in service of ignoring verifiability and WP:BURDEN. Happy Hanukkah. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @S Marshall:. You have raised this issue numerous times and have been shut down each and every instance. The issue of your continued insistence on opening baseless sockpuppet investigations against me every single time a user disagrees with you is a topic for another time. This will be my only comment on the matter. 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC) Zhomron (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Zhomron That isn't true, User:S Marshall hasn't opened any sockpuppet investigations against you at all, there hasn't been any sockpuppet investigations against you in his contributions, I think you have the wrong editor. Chip3004 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• No I haven't!—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think Zhomron pinged S Marshall, because they had been involved in the two mentioned conversations. I don't believe the rest of the comment is aimed at them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm pinging S Marshall because they have dealt extensively with Elizium's nonsense on the topic of non-English term sourcing. How was the comment even read as me saying they are the one who is opening sockpuppet investigations???? So, again, @S Marshall:. Zhomron (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think it may have something to do with you addressing them by name and then saying "you". Just a thought. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's how I read it. Perhaps Zhomrom is not aware that the vanilla ping template adds a colon after the name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  You would be correct. My bad. Zhomron (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh OK. I do not feel that I have dealt "extensively" with Elizium23. I have told Elizium23 that their view on non-English sources is at variance with what WP:V says. I do not think Elizium23 has listened to me.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well both users should clearly be blocked for the edit-warring at Negev. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Now it's here, and the edit-warring hasn't continued today, so such a block would not be preventive.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• The substantive issue here is whether transliterations of proper nouns need a citation. In other words, if I say იოსებ სტალინი and Иосиф Сталин both mean Iosef Stalin, do I have to provide an inline citation to a reliable source to prove it? Elizium23 thinks so, but his view is not widely shared, and those of us who actively carry out translations would like to resist this novel interpretation of our rules.

Elizium23 seeks to deploy WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN) in defence of his position. He raises a challenge to the transliteration and demands a citation. In other words, he would like to apply WP:BURDEN at the level of individual words. It's normally used on ideas, concepts, claims and contentions, though.

I'm uninvolved in these specific disputes, so I haven't edit-warred or accused anyone of socking, and I haven't edited any of the articles at issue, but I've talked to Elizium23 on policy pages and I'm a translator, so transliterations matter to me. I have sought to deploy another paragraph of WP:V (specifically WP:NOENG) in defence of my position. Citations to non-English sources are allowed, and my position is that that would include citations to languages that use alternative scripts. I think this means that the transliteration of a proper noun is inherently self-sourcing.

Two things are needed now. First, please could the kind of people who know about/are interested in conduct disputes decide whether edit-warring has taken place, whether Elizium23's conduct amounts to a crusade against transliterations, and whether Zhomrom's response to it has been disproportionate? And second, please could the kind of people who are interested in how to apply policy in practice provide some kind of guidance about the transliteration issue? I do not presently see the need for an RfC about this because as far as I can tell, Elizium23's position is unique to him. I feel the matter can be dealt with on user talk pages.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO, if there is a dispute about a specific transliteration, that's a topic for the article's talk page, not a citation-war.

If there is a specific controversy over how to transliterate a word between languages, that might be worth investigating & documenting with cites in the appropriate article. But run of the mill transliterations of a word in general would not fit that criteria. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You say my position is idiosyncratic, but I was not without support in prior discussions.

• @Blueboar said the material must be backed by the existence, if not citation, of a WP:RS.
• @TryKid said that any disputed material should require a citation.
• @Theknightwho described disputes in Mongolian that would necessitate verifiability.
• @Only in death said that a citation or expert opinion is absolutely required in cases such as Ancient Greek.
• @CMD said "all foreign names should be sourced" and refused to concur with invoking WP:BLUE.

Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I am amused by your characterization as my "crusade against transliterations" as if I'm out to eliminate all foreign language names from the English Wikipedia.

What I want is for editors to put their money where their mouth is.

I'm not challenging long-standing terms or terms that are undisturbed or unambiguous to my inexpert opinion. The terms I'm challenging are the ones in dispute, the ones that get changed back-and-forth by IP users, the ones that get added en masse by a so-called expert who's too arrogant to cite a source because the buck stops with them.

Surely foreign names and words are verifiable, if only we have the right sources. Overall, I'd like to see more of Wikipedia be truly verifiable, and to that end, why isn't it a good thing to have sources backing up terms that have been disputed or challenged? Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been to the page and read here, and I confess, I am still mystified by the exact contours of this dispute. Elizium23, what would your preferred edit actually look like? The Hebrew, with a citation? The English with a citation? Both? Happy Holidays to all, regardless! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You... want a citation that the Negev is called "the Negev" in English? Zhomron (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Any genuine dispute about a transliteration should be decided on the article talk page by the reliable sources, but what we are seeing here are disputes made up by a Wikipedia editor that don't exist in the outside world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more substantive issues:

1. Cursive Hebrew: complete with letterform graphics uploaded by Zhomself.
2. Solitreo: Hebrew letters in square and Rashi
3. Zhom's uploads to Commons: letterform graphics
4. Al-Yahudu Tablets: OR? Part deux (I mean part Beth)
5. Moabite Alphabet: table of letterforms
6. File:Sanchuniathon fam tree.png

• I have gleaned these from Zhomron's edit history, and I hope this paints a clearer picture of the issue at hand. Zhomron's been adding lots of scholarly sourced stuff to articles, and clearly writes well and knows a lot of specialized topics. He knows them so well in fact, that he's literally written the book on several forms of Hebrew scripts. You can see above that he's contributed entire tables to the language articles and even uploaded graphics of letterforms not found in Unicode. Those tables and letterforms are all lacking in citations. You know what I think? I think he knows this so well that he doesn't need to reference a source while creating such tables, and it irritates him that anyone would slow him down by demanding sources be located.
• So you see, if you have any question about the way a word is written in Samaritan, you can look it up on Wikipedia, because it came out of Zhomron's head.

Elizium23 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I also see that @Rhemmiel lost a dispute over a transliteration. Sad. Elizium23 (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If anyone else but me was wondering what Wikipedia's guidelines say about transliteration, the relevant page appears to be Wikipedia:Romanization and the guidelines for individual languages linked from there. As far as I am aware transliteration (unlike translation) is largely a mechanical process, much like a routine arithmetic calculation. I would think that, for the same reasons as the arithmetic, a specific transliteration that follows the standard rules for its language would not need published sources explaining how each step of the transliteration follows those rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Would it be possible to get a clarification on your statements: "do I have to provide an inline citation to a reliable source to prove it?...Citations to non-English sources are allowed, and my position is that that would include citations to languages that use alternative scripts". The first part implies you don't wish to need citations, but the second part states your position is that a certain kind of citation could be used for this. CMD (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, sure. Let me show my working.  :)

1) I am allowed to cite sources in foreign languages.

2) This includes sources in languages that don't use our script. So for example I am allowed to cite sources in Russian.

3) The Cyrillic (Russian script) for Iosef Stalin is Иосиф Сталин. Strictly speaking, this could also be transliterated as Iosif Stalin or Joseph Stalin.

4) If I speak Russian well enough to translate from Russian to English on Wikipedia, then I know the Cyrillic alphabet.

5) By policy at WP:NOENG, and by established custom and practice on Wikipedia, I am permitted to self-certify which languages I know. Others who also speak those languages are welcome to check my translations for accuracy.

6) The Russian language source will not say that Иосиф Сталин means Iosef Stalin. Why would it?

I hope that you can see from this that transliterations of proper nouns between different scripts are (a) trivial for people who know the alphabets, and (b) incredibly hard to prove to doubting Thomases who don't know those alphabets. Because they are trivial, I hope the community will agree that for an editor with dual fluency, a transliteration is self-sourcing.

I also hope that the community agrees that WP:BURDEN applies to claims, thoughts and ideas. It should not apply at the level of individual words! We don't want people saying "OK, you've given me a citation to say that Berlin is the capital of Deutschland, but how do I know that Deutschland means Germany?" That would be unworkable for our translators.—S Marshall T/C 10:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: Thanks, I see what you mean. To clarify my remarks quoted above, an editor using the term Иосиф Сталин because it appears in a source is very different from an editor using Иосиф Сталин without a source that uses Иосиф Сталин. It appears you are talking about the first instance, whereas my remarks applied to the second. CMD (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall, thank you for assuring us that Wikipedia editors are reliable sources, and that there is never any controversy over Wikipedia:Diacritical marks. Elizium23 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The use of a word is a claim in and of itself. Surely you would demand citations for use of the word "terrorist", or "died" in a BLP. A non-English, non-Latin word consists of multiple claims: "this is how X is translated, this is how it is written, these are the shapes of the letters, these are the accent marks used, this is the direction of the writing." A phrase also makes claims about word order and idiomatic expression.

Your examples of citing non-English sources are another false premise. Editors may request quotations of any source, whether English or not, and translations of quotes into English are also necessary! Said quotes can be recorded within a citation so these can be attested in the wikitext, unlike the say-so of a random Wikipedia editor who is adamantly opposed to attesting anything with a damn citation. Elizium23 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein the issue is not mere transliteration, in many cases, but actual translation or even original, untranslated native terms. The issue is not always single words or names, but can extend to phrases, sentences, paragraphs and passages, because I have seen long swaths of non-English written into articles.

Transliteration, you claim, is as easy as 2+2=4. You refer to a non-PAG page on transliteration into the Latin character set, when that's not even the issue. If you wanna transliterate "social media" and "internet trolls" into Phoenician cuneiform, and claim that that's WP:BLUE, knock yourself out.

But we're not merely worried about transliterations from English words, so you've solved a strawman. Elizium23 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

By way of example, here's what Zhomron has been doing.

• I write in Rosetta Stone that an excerpt of the Demotic script is "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."
• I speak Demotic and I can attest that this is what the Rosetta Stone says.
• I don't need no citation, any idiot can pick up the stone and read it.
• Now I'll remove your maintenance tags and refuse to use the talk page rather than insulting and dismissive edit summaries.
• I ran out of reverts so I'll log out and use an IP to continue the edit-war.

Elizium23 (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• I do not know whether the disputed proper nouns are transliterated accurately. They're in languages I don't speak.

Our translators are depressingly accustomed to the situation where someone who doesn't understand a language tries to make a truckload of work for someone who does. WP:V says I have to prove my claims, but I can do so in any language. What I write has to be verifiable by someone who speaks the language of the source. It does not have to be verifiable by you.—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Very much with S Marshall here. Absent some showing that the transliteration in question is contentious for some reason, this just helps no one, especially in the case of something as well known as the Tower of Babel. I could transliterate בָּבֶל as "Babel" or "Bavel" or "BBL" or "BBhL" or "BVL," and I could defend any one of those. Anything but the first, however, would simply be confusing to a reader of a generalized encyclopedia. For my money, no cite needed absent extraordinary circumstances. Cheers and Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strawman vanquished! Again!

Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, first time for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Chiming into to say that S Marshall is 100% right. In these cases, if you don't read the language being discussed, you couldn't actually verify the information even if there was a perfect citation attached. You wouldn't understand the citation in the same way that you don't understand why the claim is self-evident. Many things are self-evident to those who read the language, even if you can't understand why, and most things that are self-evident to people who read the language will, ipso facto, not be explicitly addressed in academic publications.

Not to be unkind, but I think Elizium23 is looking for the illusion of understanding, to feel that a superficial capacity to "verify" the claim has removed the barrier his lack of knowledge had previously presented. But no amount of citation will actually enable him to understand the claims or underlying data. The best editors focus their editing on areas in which they are knowledgeable enough to contribute fully. Elizium23 isn't always wrong, and some editors are definitely too lax about citation -- but it's extremely difficult for someone like him to distinguish where citations are genuinely necessary, so his time is probably best spent on other tasks. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Unblock Velthuru

Okay, transliterators, here's another case!

• Pyrgi Tablets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cippus Perusinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Velthuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please unblock Velthuru because they can personally vouch for all additions they made to those two articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good reason to unblock someone who appears to have been pretty obviously disruptive, but I suppose reasonable minds can differ on the subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's a good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Velthuru has been hugely disruptive, constantly spewing random data in random places and often promoting positions that are nowhere in the scholarly literature. Please don't unblock him. ThanksJohundhar (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a constructive way to process losing an argument, mate. Zhomron (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

These are good examples of where there is genuine dispute about a translation/transliteration, rather that something made up by a Wikipedia editor, as is the case with Negev. Couldn't this whole section be closed now by any admin with a block of Elizium23, who has been shown to be editing against consensus in many articles and wasting our time? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think it would be surprising if a sysop blocked Elizium23 at this point. He's engaging in discussion and not currently reverting. His wish is to challenge content he sees as unsourced, which I think is commendable. There isn't an explicit paragraph in policy that counters his position, so although my position appears to be attracting more support so far, it's reasonable for him to persist for the time being. This conversation could maybe result in a useful essay or guideline about transliterations.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by SPECIFICO, and continuation of generally unpleasant editing (2)

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

Could an admin PLEASE review this thread? I posted this thread 5 days ago, and it was archived before any admin so much as commented. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally, if a discussion is auto-archived, it means that editors stopped contributing to it, and that no admin saw enough value in it to act. Also, sanctions are designed to stop ongoing disruption - has SPECIFICO done anything since the thread was archived which requires admin action to stop their behavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, if any admins who read my thread saw there wasn't enough value to act, I wish they would've at least commented to say so. I would've liked to at least HEARD from an admin saying that kind of behavior isn't sanctionable, and ergo functionally permissible.

Regarding their recent editing activity, they have slowed down, and I haven't seen anything explicitly GAME-y from them where we're still both contributing - but truthfully, that's exactly what I would expect. Who, after being informed that their behavior was going to be scrutinized at AN/I, wouldn't start trying to be a bit nicer? In my previous thread, I linked 4 separate AE cases where admins had previously admonished this user for their behavior. At what point are admonishments and warnings to cool off considered ineffectual, when a user has a history of heating things back up again? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe its just time to move along? Just because you think someone did something bad and worthy of sanction doesn't make it so. Focus more on content and less than trying to remove an opponent from the chessboard.ValarianB (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if you disagree that this complaint is worth pursuing, I feel I've raised fair questions, and gotten no answers.

If the answer to "what can we do about editors behaving poorly" is honestly "Not much - admins have to choose to enforce the rules" then that is 100% fine with me. That's the conclusion I'm starting to come to anyway, with how little attention this has all received. As long as I get some closure from this ANI experience, I won't feel so bad. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin remark but I am certainly an experienced user and one who has been on several sides of adminning in the past. As I suggested in the thread before it was archived, I believe WP:AE is the right place to sanction editors for violating DS, or maybe WP:DRN is a better place to go. Instead of considering that suggestion, you unarchived the thread to the wrong place by mistake. OK, fine, new editors make mistakes. Now you are posting about it again, which I suppose you were told to do. OK. Fine. I have no special authority here, but my advice is that an editor whose account was created in August should probably not be so stridently pushing this kind of a report in December, and the silence on your first report was deafening. Many reports are posted here and if nobody saw fit to reply, you should not just repost with no new information. Quite simply, your allegation of GAMING lacked sufficient evidence for action, or evidence of disruption was inconclusive. Andre🚐 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite simply, your allegation of GAMING lacked sufficient evidence for action, or evidence of disruption was inconclusive. I included 29 diffs worth of evidence, so I don't believe that was insufficient. And as I said above, if any admin that read my post had thought the evidence was inconclusive, why did nobody leave a comment saying so? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the idea that SPECIFICO is violating the spirit of the policy or is in bad faith pushing twisted wikilawyering arguments, stonewalling, or not following a consensus or not getting the point. Your evidence is rather thin for this. The reality is that it's a contentious dispute with lots of people on both sides engaging on the substance. In my opinion you haven't shown destabilizing or disruptive editing beyond what would probably merit a warning if that. Andre🚐 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

if any admin that read my post had thought the evidence was inconclusive, why did nobody leave a comment saying so?

Because it's not necessary to spell out that they're not going to take action. Frankly, if an admin bothers to say "this isn't going to result in action," it means you've annoyed the admins enough they feel it necessary to ask you to drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be right - it is not strictly necessary for admins to say anything around here. But it is not intuitive to assume that "no response" == "complaint is not actionable". Especially when there are plenty of threads that admins comment in literally telling people their complaints aren't actionable.

I apologize for not knowing all the norms around here, as I'm a fairly new editor. But it is darn irritating to feel like you're being ignored. Before even coming to ANI, I asked an admin's opinion of the best way to get a resolution for something like this - they directed me here. So, I took the time to curate a post, search out diffs, and format it all in a legible way. And not one admin responded.

If that's the way things work around here, then fine - I'll learn that lesson, and I won't make the same mistakes. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As Andrevan mentioned. DRN or AE, would likely be the more proper places. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

DRN is for "small content disputes" only; can't see it being the fit for a behavioral issue. And AE, as I understand it, is only for explicit violations of page restrictions/DS, and I have no evidence of such explicit infractions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• @PhotogenicScientist: You must notify SPECIFICO of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Understood - and done. I thought the original notice from 5 days ago may be sufficient, and didn't want to unnecessarily clutter their talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just keeping this section alive in hopes that someone will actually care enough to do something, or not, instead of letting it just disappear. Arkon (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia is structured to be able to deal with the described situation, and doubly so for this particular venue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please protect and rev/delete at Talk:Cal Kern

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

---

The vandalism/WP:BLP issues have migrated from the article to the talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

More BLP issues from Einahr

Less than 5 days off @Jayron32:'s 1 week block for WP:BLP issues, Einahr (talk · contribs) is adding more unsourced, potentially damaging info about living people: [82], [83]. Toddst1 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there sir/ma'am Toddst1 (talk · contribs) this is the link for List of the first openly LGBT holders of political offices about my edit last day [84][85] thank you. — Einahr (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those links support either what you allege about Sotto, nor Hererera's year of birth. Citations go in the article, not on WP:ANI. You've had plenty of warnings, nudges and even a week-long block about that. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet continues vandalism after being blocked twice

This is a continuation of two previous ANI reports from August and November of this year regarding sockpuppets of User:AlishaLaurie1 who seem obsessed with posting false information on pages about The Idol (TV series) and actresses who are on it including Suzanna Son, Poppy (singer) and others.

User:Bbb23 claimed in the August November ANI report that the "named user" was blocked for one month. I'm assuming the named user is User:47.16.173.9 because AlishaLaurie1 is still blocked indefinitely. It's been about a month and User:47.16.173.9 is the one who is back making disruptive edits like this that are virtually identical to the ones that got their accounts blocked before. I respectfully suggest blocking the IP indefinitely, but I will leave it to the administrator's discretion. Thank you for your time. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't do indef blocks on IPs. It looks pretty stable though; blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically you do indef block IPs. However it's very rare. In fact, the category CAT:INDEFIPs only has 7 IPs in it (excluding the proxy subcategory which I don't think is right since proxies aren't usually indef blocked?) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, OK, yes, you are correct - we sometimes do it, but only in exceptional circumstances. From WP:Blocking_policy#IP_address_blocks: "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely." So yeah - it happens occasionally, but this isn't the kind of exceptional situation that calls for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I probably should've stated that this is definitely not a situation in which the IP would need to be indef blocked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to correct the above report: I didn't do anything as a result of the August ANI report, and in the November ANI thread I said: "I've blocked the named user indefinitely and the IP for one month."--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say the November ANI and I still would have gotten it wrong if I got that right. Thanks for the clarification, @Bbb23:. Kire1975 (talk)

(laughing) That's great, thanks for putting a smile on my otherwise grumpy face this cold, snowy morning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Javad Ibrahimov

Javad Ibrahimov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE user whose talk page is filled with warnings for a good reason. Every single edit of this user has been reverted, and with good reason. They're all pov edits, adding anachronistic/irrelevant Azerbaijani-Latin transliterations, altering sourced information (such as changing "Iran" to "Azerbaijan", or simply just randomly slamming the word "Azerbaijan" into everything), and so on (eg [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]). HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked, there's nothing useful here. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: What about his leftovers[92][93] on Sallarid dynasty and Safavid Iran? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I reverted them, thanks! Looks like he is editing under a different name now [94]. I'll make an SPI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing at Yorkshire Sculpture Park

Gemma at Yorkshire Sculpture Park (talk · contribs) is very clearly an employee of Yorkshire Sculpture Park. The original user name was simply "Yorkshire Sculpture Park" and was recently renamed. This user has repeatedly pushed a non-compliant spammy clear-COI edit onto the article and has ignored any warnings - just revert, revert, revert. Now after a final warning from me, a new user Diana Beaumont (talk · contribs) has popped up and reinstated the very same edit. I'm not going to revert it as I don't want to go 3RR, but it's very clear that a) there is COI/paid-editing and b) very likely some sock puppetry as google will show you that "Diana Beaumont" is a name closely associated with the subject of the article. This sort of thing is really bad for Wikipedia and needs to be stopped. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Once sorted it will also need a {{revdel-copyvio}} as there is content that has been blatantly copy/pasted from other places such as here. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

copyvio-revdel now posted in article. Thanks @Girth Summit for your speedy help on this. Keep the faith! 10mmsocket (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I keep meaning to visit the Yorkshire Sculpture Park - it's supposed to be a great place to visit, our art teacher takes groups of kids every year but I've never been able to wangle my way onto one of them. I'm sure that our article about it could be much expanded and improved, but that isn't the way to go about it. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do it, the place is amazing. I travel frequently between Somerset and the North East. When I drive I make a point of stopping in - especially as it's so close to the motorway. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Rev-deletion  Erledigt. And a +1 for visiting YSP, it's a great place. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's a great place just makes such spamming even sadder. Why spam when the Wikipedia article makes it clear that it's a great place in the opinion of neutral sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If I was just slightly more spiteful and slightly more interested in the topic.... Imagine a spite GA, nay, a spite FA! For now that's only in my wikipediholic dreams... ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 00:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits by User:2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B on Hellraiser (2022 film)

IP user User:2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B (and the many IP addresses they use, including as of recently User:24.64.87.189) has been given a final warning for non-stop disruptive edits on Hellraiser for the past couple months. They've been manipulating the reliable source I provided and they've never responded on their talk page; to be specific, the IP user removes the source I provided and replaced it with the words "another chapter" instead of using the word "reboot" in the opening paragraph; they're also a mobile user too, and they've specifically been manually reverting my own edits, no matter what I do. Please give the IP user an indefinite block, as I cannot deal with them any further after at least two months since their first edit on the article. Edwordo13 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Incivility from User: Dim. Nor. 86

User: Dim. Nor. 86 has ostensibly been retired from Wikipedia for the last two months, but it seems like they just woke up from their two-night bender celebrating Argentina’s World Cup win to post this on my talk page. I suggest this user be indefinitely blocked from editing anything other than their own talk page to prevent any further outbursts, especially given that they announced their retirement from Wikipedia back in early October. – PeeJay 13:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

NOTHING TO DO WITH A FANBOY.... Whoever loves football, loves Messi. Apparently you are not a football lover....That's for sure... I know you are in deep pain but it is ok, time will pass and you will feel better some years later. MESSI IS NOW EVERYONE'S G.O.A.T. Goodbye to you and goodbye to wikipedia.... YOU ALL HIDE MESSI'S RECORDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS ON PURPOSE ! GOODBYE .................... Dim. Nor. 86 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 31h for this. Messi is just one-time world champion, and there are plenty of two-time champions, and Pele won it three times. Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur - WP:NOTHERE and WP:NLT violations

See the contributions of the user in question. User page makes it clear they have an agenda. They have also posted legal threats on Talk:India. --SunilNevlaFan✨ 15:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur has posted a legal threat in an edit request at Talk:India [95]. I denied that request and was going to warn them, when I saw they were already warned against making legal threats. Their edit request was denied by one user and removed by another, but Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpur reverted both of them [96][97]. I think they should be blocked for repeatedly restoring legal threats. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's quite enough. Blocked indef. I also merged the two sections here together for the same user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore Bharanya Paswan Lakhimpura has appeared as a sock. I need a block please. SunilNevlaFan✨ 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Well that was painfully obvious. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

CU tells me that these are socks of an LTA, who has been quite active recently. If any other accounts start doing similar stuff, feel free to ping me, or to report at SPI. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Interesting. Do you know which LTA it is? Thanks. SunilNevlaFan✨ 19:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Lawn Tennis Association? I jest, I believe he means a Wikipedia:Long-term abuse account. Etrius ( Us) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Group of IPs from the same AS adding gibbish

There has been at least 4 IP addresses from "SakhaTelecom", a Russian ISP in the last 20-30 minutes. ([98], [99], [100], [101]). Would it be possible to put a 24 hour block on the ASN? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

cc @Sheep8144402 TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seconded. The user(s) behind these IPs have been rapidly vandalizing pages linked to on the Main Page, and a rangeblock is desperately needed to prevent further disruption. --SamX 20:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the vandalism seems to have stopped for the time being. --SamX 21:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

County Route 1 (talk · contribs) and implausible redirects

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

---

County Route 1 (talk · contribs) has been creating a bunch of unplausible redirects over the last few days, and while it is not vandalism, it is kinda disruptive. What to do? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Could you please remove TPA from User talk:63.152.0.2

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

---

They're spamming their user talk with emojis. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

There's a fairly high bar for removing TPA from IP addresses, in case the address has multiple users. Looks like they've only spammed the page once and been reverted (by you) for their troubles. Suggest re-reporting if it keeps happening, otherwise ignore them and let's see what happens when the block expires. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I probably was a little hasty. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

174.95.137.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Editor has received multiple warnings about failing to add sources but is continuing to do so. Also found one case where additions only vaguely verified against the source (Special:Diff/1128541512). ON a wider note, editor has also been engaged in disruptive editing by adding - very prominently - the relationship of the Republic of China to articles that are only somewhat related to the ROC (particularly with de facto independent non-Chinese states arising from the end of the Qing Empire); other ROC annoyances include adding that the ROC took over Taiwan from Japan after the Second World War at seemingly every opportunity.

Editor has likely been doing this for much of the year under previous IPs (76.68.77.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 142.112.236.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and has been - on the whole - unresponsive on their talk page. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring accounts most likely sock puppet account of Prince Of Roblox AllahEngineering (talk · contribs) and AbdulForever (talk · contribs)

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

---

Please take a look at this new account [102] which is editing the exact same article they were reverted on and also this one [103] which is basically adding back what WazirMadan (talk · contribs) was can admins block and protect these pages as this account seems very capable of evading blocks and edit warring continously. Kmartdeeee (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

[104] Also noticed the same Edit on Kotli page as WazirMadan account highly likely to be a sock puppet. Please also note the religous use of usernames to be offensive. Kmartdeeee (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Alwardamin

This user (User:Alwardamin) has a serious conflict of interest - still, they are not willing to stop their edits (continue to add fake/spam references) and discuss it first. Here, they called the university article our page as if they own it and in the end mention "University of science and technology Sanaa Yemen" which is their campus name, so clearly they are an employee of the university campus. For background, this university's original campus was in Sanaa, but it was taken over by Houthis (by force), changed curriculum, installed their puppet administration, and is no longer considered a legitimate campus as government of Yemen doesn't recognize it. The main campus is now in Aden as shown by reliable sources. More discussion here. Furthermore, this user has a history of sockpuppetry, so block to make them realize that they are wrong here is needed:

• Alwardamin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ameen ward (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aminward (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Thanks. 87.200.16.71 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Pktlaurence

Pktlaurence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been engaged in frequent edit-warring behavior this week that has involved both page moves without acknowledgement of ongoing discussions and the insertion of both inaccurate and MOS-breaking article edits. They have been blocked for their improper page moving–something this editor still frequently does despite not seeking discussion (roughly 20 article moves this year alone). They have also been blocked three times for edit-warring, most recently for a month on 15 November. Since the expiration of this most recent block, the editor has resumed their edit-warring behavior. They were reported for edit-warring for their page moves by JayBeeEll, resulting in an uncivil response and no acknowledgement of their incorrect behavior. The editor also exhibits behavior that raises WP:CIR concerns beyond persisting in actions that have gotten them blocked in the past. A good example of this is their ignorance of talk page discussion followed by repeated insertion of incorrect and BLP-breaking material on 2022 German coup d'état plot ([105], [106], [107]). Even when the problems with their edits are explained, Pktlaurence just doesn't get it. While they seem to be acting in good faith, this editor has not stopped edit-warring and page moving over objections. Requesting something to at least stop further page moves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The previous dispute has already been settled as you can check out. Now you've did your explanation and I'm fine with it, and you've already reverted it to the stable version which I didn't oppose, I didn't see any point for you to raise any further trouble, and what I wanted to do is to improve the article by engaging in discussions. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been warned on your talk page alone seven times for edit-warring, yet continue to push that limit even within a week of your most recent block expiring. You were blocked for page moving, yet move pages without discussion. You don't learn from other editors trying to stop your disruptiveness, then curse them out when they follow-through on reporting your behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Wimpus engaging in disruptive editing

Wimpus has made a series of edits changing any mention of "pregnant person" to "pregnant woman" or the plural form of these phrases. That had been told to stop by NatGertler, which has been rebuffed. Many of these edits are still live and have not been reverted. One of my latest reverts of such changes, as seen in Abortion in California, has also been reverted. I believe these actions need to be reviewed. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See also this discussion. In multiple instances, woman/women was initially written, but changed to person(s) by various editors. Wimpus (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)