*'''Support/Nom''': It's impossible to know whether or not the lack of response here, since the community made it's perspective on these violations of the TBAN known, is a case of ANI flu or not. On the other hand, I don't think it matters. All we have from this user so far is a lot of IDHT on the violations, and then complete radio silence as soon as it became clear that the unanimous community response was that the violations were quite obvious and flagrant--after which the community gave Second Skin an entirely easy and convenient out, that merely requires them to make a minimalistic statement of acknowledgment and acceptance of what their TBAN requires of them, going forward. {{pb}} Until we have that kind of basic commitment that Second Skin understands and will abide by their existing sanctions this time around, I don't think we can be confident that this user will not be further disruptive in the area in question. Of course, ideally, Second Skin will respond before this resolution passes and obviate the need for it to be applied. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support/Nom''': It's impossible to know whether or not the lack of response here, since the community made it's perspective on these violations of the TBAN known, is a case of ANI flu or not. On the other hand, I don't think it matters. All we have from this user so far is a lot of IDHT on the violations, and then complete radio silence as soon as it became clear that the unanimous community response was that the violations were quite obvious and flagrant--after which the community gave Second Skin an entirely easy and convenient out, that merely requires them to make a minimalistic statement of acknowledgment and acceptance of what their TBAN requires of them, going forward. {{pb}} Until we have that kind of basic commitment that Second Skin understands and will abide by their existing sanctions this time around, I don't think we can be confident that this user will not be further disruptive in the area in question. Of course, ideally, Second Skin will respond before this resolution passes and obviate the need for it to be applied. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' You guys are more patient than I am. This user seems to me to be at the far end of not liking rules and not liking to be told what to do. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
== Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64|2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64]] ==
== Article hijackings (with pages that actually should exist) by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64|2607:FEA8:2462:6900:0:0:0:0/64]] ==
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; pingingisnot enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
TLDR: These past months Jonharojjashi has been making disruptive off-Wiki coordinations to disrupt Wikipedia together with other users, many being socks/indeffed due to their disruption.
Since I had a screenshot of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone into their Discord group for Wikipedia coordination (which they outright denied [1], not the best choice when I have a literal picture, makes you look even more suspicious) I took it to ArbCom per WP:OUTING. They recommended me to come back here to ANI. I believe all these actions were done through the Discord.
These past months there have been a surge of "new" users making the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, making use of the same (poor/misused) sources, all in India-related (generally war/battle) articles, many of them being the exact same topic, including poorly written *insert Indian victory here* articles. Because of this, I initially made two SPIs against Jonharojjashi's and co. [2][3], but they were mostly fruitless.
Jonharojjashi and the indeffed user Mr Anonymous 699
Both accounts created roughly three months between each other. Their EIU [4] shows some quite suspicious stuff, including them edit warring together at Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and kinda repeating each other [5]. Another user who was edit warring with them in that article was Indo12122, a brand new user who is now indeffed (I'll get to that next sub-section).
Mr Anonymous 699 and Jonharojjashi also edit warred together at Kambojas in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner [6]
After I reverted one of Indo12122's socks, Mr Anonymous 699 randomly reverted me at Chola invasion of Kedah[12]
Jonharojjashi made a WP:POVFORK variant of Kingdom of Khotan[13], trying to push a legendary story obviously not supported by WP:RS to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan. Just coincidentally not long ago one of the socks of Indo12122 also attempted to Indianize the topic in the article itself [14]. More proof that this can't all be a coincidence.
When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh (created by Shakib ul hassan), Indo12122's sock Magadhan3933 suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 (Indo12122) also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi [15][16]
Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here [17][18]. They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh[19][20] under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
Brand new and now indeffed user HistoricPilled, is a sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA [21] to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together [22][23].
Jonharojjashi and the sock Melechha and indeffed user Aryan330
Melechha created a wikitable in Ahom–Mughal conflicts[24], which was some days after promptly edited by Jonharojjashi [25]
Jonharojjashi more or less restored [38] the unsourced edit [39] by Rowlatt11's sock Daayush.
Closing remark
In made response to my previous ANI [40], Jonharojjashi made a ridiculous SPI [41] of me and many other users who had called them out for their disruption. Instead of addressing the points, they simply dismissed the whole report as "WP:HOUNDING" and "biting newcomers", so I'm not going to reply to their incoming comments here unless an admin wants me to.
There is no way that these all coincidences, how many indeffed users/socks have Jonharojjashi interacted with in such a short time? Especially when I have a literally picture of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit members and denying it. These indeffed users/socks are no doubt members of the Discord. Jonharojjashi and the Discord they lead should not be allowed to edit here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So this is the third time HistoryofIran has distressed me with his unfruitful SPIs and ANIs, these several attempts made by them to indef me, shows how much they are craved. If they can't prove me doing On-wiki canvassing then they are trying to get me blocked for doing alleged off wiki canvassing. Nevertheless I'll again refute all the points made by historyofIran for me doing any kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
"I believe all these actions were done through the Discord. Yes, you believe, I don't know what you have got to prove me doing Off-wiki canvassing but feel free to show all of those unsubstantiated evidence to ArbCom. And they will just shut your case just like your other cases were closed as those were nothing but unrelated call and two different users.
Anyone can claim that they have got some literal pictures and screenshots of tagging/meatpuppetry even the nom can furnish such pictures because as we know you and ImperialAficionado have been trying to indef me and don't know how many newcomers have been indeffed because of your teamwork (not defending the guilty but have seen them tagging on multiple occasions). Note that HistoryofIran has got some personal issues with me in the past so it's obvious that he'd form a prejudice towards me even though he has been proven wrong and caught of lying just to demean me. According to them, every article made by me is poorly written/sourced but he has been proven wrong multiple times and as I said even caught of lying.
Now coming to the HistoryofIran's attempt to link me with these indeffed accounts and previously these accounts were proven to be unrelated with me.
HistoryofIran himself yelled that the difference between the creation of my account and Mr. Anonymous 699's account is more than 3 months, considering such a huge gap doesn't even call for a suspicion that this account is somewhat related to me moreover a check user will confirm this. Anyone can spy and can see others' activity so it's no surprise that they have been following me and indulged in any edit warring. And what is pov addition of Johnrajjoshi? It's clearly a sourced addition which is still present in the article body of
2 Indo12122 and Mr. Anonymous 699 could be a pair of sock but to say that just because a sock account is related to another suspect doesn't mean that they could be related to me. In fact I was the victim of unattributed usage of my contents in Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkha the creator of this page Shakib ul hassan copied my content without giving any attributions. This proves that these suspected users were spying on my works and even published their own article after copying mine without my consent and instead of grouping me with them, historyofiran should group these suspected users with themselves.
The wikitables created by Melechha were on the hot articles which means those articles are watched by hundred thousands per month so it'd be obvious that my and other wiki editor's attention would get there but to say that we are connected to each other through sockpuppetry is a baseless allegation and perhaps historyofIran has forgot about their tagging with ImperialAficionado and DeepstoneV and how they were tagging with each other on various occasions [42]. If I had done such coordinated taggings with these alleged suspected users then I'm sure historyofIran would have found more ways to get me indeffed. I had made a SPI on ImperialAficionado by showing how these users are tagging/allying with each other and have made a sect and group against newcomers.
more or less? Just stop suspecting me with some random sock users. There is a bold difference in these edits, in mine [43] I have edited it on the basis of Rabatak inscription whereas Rowlatt11 had cited a secondary source [44] I don't see any relation in it and besides Kanishka's religion is a hot topic of discussion so it'd be obvious that many user will do edits in it but that doesn't mean you'll now relate all of them with me, amusing enough that HistoryofIran is trying to relate me with any far distant user.
I'm not getting involved in the discussion of sock/meat issues or behavioral problems, but I've encountered issues with two of their articles I attempted to verify with sources. One article I submitted for AFD and it was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extermination of Nagadhatta. )Today, I examined another article created by Jonharojjashi, Gauda–Gupta War, and found significant issues within it. While I addressed some of these concerns during the AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War), the problems extend beyond a few isolated ones. While I've found several issues just within two of their articles, I'm concerned that other pages created by them may follow a similar pattern. I recommend a review of their articles.--Imperial[AFCND]17:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not sure why Jonharojjashi restricted the timeframe of the Gupta–Hunnic Wars to 534, especially when there are sources (now cited by me) indicating that the conflicts extended until the fall of the Guptas in 550, largely due to White Hunnic invasions (with the result parameter likely favoring the Huns). It appears there may have been an effort to portray a "Gupta victory" by limiting the duration of the war, allowing the Guptas to appear successful in their final campaign up to 534. I have made a small major copyedit in the infobox section, by extending the duration to all the way upto the end of the war, and limiting the big list of the territorial changes to the final outcome of the territory. Issues have been addressed by tagging. Imperial[AFCND]18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A random user appeared at Gupa-Hunnic Wars, and reverted my edits; and replaced it with Gupta victory again [45], similar to Jonharojjashi, the user justified the reason by highlighting the upper hand of Guptas during an intermediate stage of the War [46]. Editor used poor sources; and ofcourse limited time period of the War, so it wasn't a heavy task to find a reason to revert. BUT! since then the user left, Jonharojjashi appeared the scene and reverted to his version (indeed time period limited to a definite time in such a way that could be counted as a victory for Guptas), and surprisingly made a request for protection of the page, accusing me and the above user being edit warred [47]. Made a comment on the talk section requesting us ro stop a non existing edit warring and didn't even give proper reasons for reverting to the version;nor said anything about the result parameter.[48]. --Imperial[AFCND]18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another brand new user appearing out of nowhere and doing the exact same as Jonharojjashi? Must be another random coincidence, and not anything to do with the Discord /s. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gauda–Gupta War is still ongoing and anyone can see that you are either procrastinating or making excuses to provide proper reasoning that how the article holds weak sources, OR and synthesis.
I see no point in bringing this issue here when I have alr cleared all their doubts at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars.
Instead of sticking to the topic, historyofIran and ImperialAficionado seem to be enjoying more in off-topic discussions. As we see ImperialAficionado first pinging historyofIran just to tell them see how funny he posted this on my talk page and disregarding sources provided by me. What is ridiculous is that one of the sources cited by ImperialAficionado (Dictionary of Wars) is now considered as unreliable by historyofIran but as per RSN it is reliable, I wonder why HistoryofIran then didn't oppose ImperialAficionado for adding this unreliable source (according to them). (Could be WP:TAGTEAM?) For the timeline of the War, I have provided them with Bakker's timeline of the Gupta-Hunnic struggle but they keep neglecting it and instead of focusing on the topic of the discussion they derailed it with useless laughable talks at the end. Note that the other sources cited by ImperialAficionado do not give a single reference for any involved belligerents victory and merely talk around the fall of the Gupta Empire. Again see Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars#Constant_disruption.
Strange how ImperialAficionado didn't bother to put the whole context here, alright I'll do this for him.
I have explained the reason for reverting your edits at Talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars and placed warning templates on their talk page which was being removed by ImperialAficionado. They removed it not only from their own talk page [49] but they also tried to do the same from user Mnbnjghiryurr's talk page, which was later reverted by [50]Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the whole context. And its still not a good idea to suggest that me and Imperial are tagteaming with all the evidence I have of you here - because if we’re tagteaming, we’re going to have to find a new word for you and your Discord group. You’re trying to shift the focus, and it’s not going to work. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about Johnarojjashi but I noticed that he has similar edits like DeepstoneV (as they both edit around Ancient indian history). Since I don't know about him so I can only reply to the accusations on me.
Firstly, I'd apologize if the book I cited is not written by a historian but I found that cited in Afghan-Maratha War, so I thought it would be a WP:RS.
Secondly, my draft is well sourced, you can raise the issue at the talk page. I'll surely fix it.
Thirdly, you were extending the topic with different discussion but still I preferred answering your doubts instead of raising concerns of diverting topic, you even played the game of "response and skip" in the discussion and you only arrived there in the interval of 2-3 days (why?), I had quoted RS to clear your doubts, the other users (Flemish Neitz.. and Based Kasmiri) also supported my view so don't just accuse me of doing synthing.
Fourthly, Because of User DeepstoneV the Gupta Empire page was protected (requested by me) and they have removed several sourced contents from diff articles (reverted by me[60][61][62][63]) but instead of warning them you chose to support deepstoneV for no reason, even if they did disruptive edits.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my “doubts” ended up being real, as you did indeed misuse WP:RS to overinflate Gupta territory, which Flemmish also ended up calling you out for [64]. But long live dishonesty I guess. The rest of your comment dont even deserve an answer, seems like you and Jonharojjashi are using the same poor lines to respond to me. HistoryofIran (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, @Malik Al Hind If you don't know much about me then why do you want to link me with DeepstoneV? Just stop this nonsense. And why are you apologizing to Historyofiran for using this book? As per RSN it is a reliable book [65], we are not binded by their dictatorship but only Wikipedia policies and guidelines, (as expected historyofIran keeps biting newcomers). Interestingly they didn't oppose the addition of the same source by ImperialAficionado [66]. Tag teaming goes hard. Note that when I raised the same issue for defending poor edits of deepstoneV, they removed my comment from their talk page [67] because they don't want hear anything against their tag team members. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whataboutism resumes once again. This report is not about me, Imperial nor Deepstone, but your discord group. And please dont put words in my mouth, I removed you from my talk page because I dont want a meatpuppet leader in my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could in fact not make it less obvious. Malik-Al-Hind [68][69] and Jonharojjashi [70] misusing the EXACT same uncertain quote by R.K. Mookerji to get more pride points by having their favourite Gupta Empire "conquer/win" against x thing. Can't wait for the excuse/whataboutism on this one - can we please just indeff this whole group? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both make poorly sourced WP:SYNTH war articles with no source for the date of when it started, heck the start date doesnt even appear in the body/lead of the article [74][75]. Notice that there are only a few days between the creation of the articles 2 March 20249 March 2024, this is not a coincidence that they both create an article related to a Saka "campaign/war". --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this. Sudsahab has already asked me to help them improve their article [76] and as I said their, I was busy back then within working on my own drafts and replying to these ANIs. Beyond that I know nothing what happened to them or their sock, keep me outta this.
I hope historyofIran knows that anyone can see others contributions and edit history, so isn't it obvious that Sudsahab could be influenced by the source used by me? In fact the book Bharat's Military Conquests In Foreign Lands. is quite popular among South Asians. So I don't claim copyright of it, anyone can read it if they want. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate you might as well give me an invite so I can craft a better excuse for you. The two articles were created BEFORE your conversation with Sudsahab, and I dont see him asking you to create that article either for that matter. And ah yes, the non-WP:RS by a obscure, non-historian is no doubt popular amongst South Asians, and who are more than 2 billion a that. Do you have a source for that? HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BoldGnome: That was not a warning, it wasn't by an admin either, and the reported user ended up getting topic banned for one year, so clearly it was worth having the DNAU. Have you read this report? Can you please tell me what the report is missing here instead of just simply removing the DNAU, which is not helping this project? It's extremely concerning that we clearly have a Discord group that is slowly gaining monopoly over a section of Wikipedia articles, and no one is batting an eye. It's a shame, perhaps if I made this report more dramatic, it would get more attention, because that's what seems to be popular at ANI these past years - drama. Clearly, my report has validity per this [80][81]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has somebody reported the server to Discord employees? Discord servers are meant to communicate, not to be used as a launchpad for disruption. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I unfortunately don't think Discord will care/understand, and worst case scenario they could always make a new group through new accounts. I don't have the name of the Discord either, I just have a screenshot from Discord of Jonharojjashi trying to recruit someone and talking about their "team" working on two (POV ridden) articles which are currently on Wikipedia. Jonharojjashi constantly denying that they have a Discord group should alone be a big red flag enough to raise suspicion. I'll gladly send the screenshot to any interested admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Section 19 of Discord Community Guidelines, they may not be allowed to create accounts that would evade platform-level sanctions, if the server or the user is banned. Discord is very closely regulating the use of servers. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, a big problem is that the key evidence of meatpuppetry coordinated over Discord is something that we can't actually see. You say you sent the evidence to Arbcom and they advised you to come here. It would be helpful if an Arb who has seen the evidence could post here and tell us whether it is compelling. Until then, as an admin and SPI regular I'm not really comfortable taking action based on information that I don't have. The WordsmithTalk to me22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this constant DNAU-adding is essentially WP:FORUMSHOPPING ("raising essentially the same issue ... on one [noticeboard] repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"). HistoryofIran made a "closing remark" a month ago; they seem to think they have the authority to decide what is worth having at ANI, but as far as I can see, they don't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that I have any form of authority. It's disappointing to see a veteran user act like this. I hope you're glad that you got to take that dig at me. Who cares about the Discord meatpuppets right? Let them run amok. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how forum shopping works. The issue is not being raised "repetitively". And quite frankly, HistoryofIran has a very good track record when it comes to ANI reports. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they have a good track record. I was the one who first notified them about how to use DNAU. I did not think that they would use it to keep their own agitations at ANI indefinitely. Yes, the issue is not being raised "repetitively" in fact, but in spirit it has the same effect, as the same thread, without resolution, is constantly being prohibited from archiving. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not introduce me to DNAU, that was another user. Calling my reports (the vast majority which leads to the reported user being blocked/banned) for my "own agitations" is frankly at WP:ASPERSIONS territory, do better. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about DNAUs by User:HistoryofIran: The near-systematic addition of a very long DNAUs ("Do Not Archive Until...") by User:HistoryofIran to his ANI filings is a probable instance of WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. This ANI page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) is set-up with a 72-hours auto-archive function ("Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III"), designed to expedite process: matters that do not attract traction are meant to be archived, after 72 hours without new input. On the contrary, User:HistoryofIran uses repeated and rolling DNAUs [83] to abuse the system and give undue exposure to his filings. The net effect of such DNAUs is that they distort the usual ANI process, and give unfair prominence to filings that do not otherwise trigger User or Administrative attention, and encourage drive-by input. He recently obtained a hefty Topic ban against me (1 year... [84]) after forcing his filing for 42 days [85], despite protestations by User:AirshipJungleman29 for this abuse of the system ("It is not your responsibility to clerk this page on behalf of the administrators by altering this intended feature of how ANI functions"[86]). Overall his 42-days filing received little input from regular Users or Administrators, even though the filing was top-of-the-page for several weeks: a few veteran users who looked at the evidence explained that the filing was to a large extent without merit, but the lengthy DNAU ensured that a few random users also voted and tipped the balance [87]. An Administrator with nearly no contributions (about 50 contributions a year) then closed with a hefty Topic ban, claiming a consensus [88]. By playing with DNAUs, User:HistoryofIran is obviously abusing the system in attempts to obtain an unfair advantage against users he disagrees with. If I played by his rules, I would recommend a long-term block of User:HistoryofIran for repeated abuse of an administrative system (not even taking into account his constant pro-Iranian POV), and make sure my filing stays 2 months at ANI through repeated DNAUs, with constant repeating of my accusations... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)(talk)11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bad-faith revenge report. I never intended on abusing anything, and I wonder why you didn't comment about it at the time (including the arguments I presented to AirshipJungleman29's comment [89][90]), and first now. And in the ANI thread you were told to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS (such as the attack you made attack KhndzorUtogh for merely calling you out for WP:OR"Like it or not, and I'm sorry of I hurt some Armenian sensitivities..."), yet you are doing the very same now. And I did not merely "disagree" with you, there were legitimate concerns about you (hence why every voting user at least agreed on you getting restricted from adding images, so the claim that "a few veteran users who looked at the evidence explained that the filing was to a large extent without merit" is very dishonest), the fact that you still don't see that is concerning. For those interested, here is the report [91]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty obvious that something untoward is going on here. I'm not really certain what the propriety is of joining the Reddit in question and observing the behavior in detail and how it may correlate with on-WP action. Probably not necessary, and hard to do without outing-related issues. It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional. That they're frequently collaborating with sock- and meat-puppets to do it is probably only of incidental interest, especially since the puppets are routinely blocked anyway without AN/I needing to be involved. I'm not sure if this just calls for a topic-ban (perhaps a time-limited but non-trivial one), or if further action is needed, like listing various of the crap sources at WP:RSNP so there is less future question about editors trying to rely on them in our material. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subreddits and Discord servers in question must be reported to respective admins of those sites. Provide evidence as soon as possible. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oration - Thank you, User:SMcCandlish, for asking for community responses, presumably including completely uninvolved community responses, to this excessively long thread about this long-running conflict. This drama has been playing out for a month, and waiting for a prince. A Greek tragedy often ends with a deus ex machina. A Shakespearean tragedy often ends with what should be called a princeps ex machina, in which a high-ranking person shows up unexpectedly and gives a closing speech. (Look at Hamlet (play)orMacbeth (play).) Since Wikipedia is not an aristocracy, we can continue to argue for a long time until someone assumes the role of the prince. Or we can all be silent for a few days so that this great monster with tentacles goes away.
The community has never done very well with cases involving off-wiki coordination. ArbCom has sometimes been able to deal more effectively with such cases. Here are the ways that we, the community, can end this case:
1. Someone can make a proposal for a sanction that gains support, and a closer can play the role of the prince and pronouncing the sanction.
2. There can be some failed proposals, and then someone can play the role of the prince in declaring that there is No Consensus. This will have the added value that, when this dispute flares up again, it can reasonably be said to ArbCom that the community was unable to resolve the dispute.
3. Someone can write a Request for Arbitration, focusing on off-wiki coordination, which has sometimes in the past been dealt with by ArbCom.
4. We can all be quiet for a few days, and the sea monster will disappear, as if the community will be silent long enough.
WP:TENDENTIOUS user that keeps attempting to remove/decrease the Mongol aspect of the Hazara (they even somewhat openly admitted it here if you ask me [92]), likely a sock [93], though the SPI might not come with conclusive results again.
AtTalk:Hazaras, Bravehm blatantly lied that User:KoizumiBS removed sourced information [94], when they literally did the opposite, restoring sourced info (mainly about the Mongol aspect of the Hazara) removed by indeffed User:Jadidjw, whom I still believe to this day was a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad, who has a long history of attempting to remove the Mongol aspects mentioned at Hazaras. Notice that Jadidjw didnt even protest against their indef block despite editing since 2021. They no doubt jumped to another account.
After clearly trying to ramp up 500 edits as fast as possible to get access to Hazaras, they immediately started removing sourced information and edit warring [95][96]
Bravehm also blatantly lied here to justify their removal of sourced info about the Mongol aspect [97]
Removed sourced info about the Mongol aspect again [98] ("According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.")
I've left a CT notice on the user's talk page, noting that we still haven't heard back from them here yet. I also glanced through contribution history; they did hit 500 pretty quick, however most of the edits appear to have come in good faith insofar as they weren't adding or subtracting one or two syllables consistently to get to 500, however that doesn't per se rule out revoking the EC rights or alternatively page blocking them from the Hazaras article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restored some of those changes that KoizumiBS brought. Hazares also have Turkic and Iranic aspects, why KoizumiBS attempt to minimize the non-Mongol and Turkic aspect of Hazaras.[106]Bravehm (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a valid point buried in this. If a modern translator/editor of period manuscript material is injecting their own interpretation about what the original material probably really meant, then that translator/editor is a primary source for that editorial judgement/claim/change (it's their own personal opinion), and while they may be within RS definitions as a subject-matter expert, their view needs to be attributed to them as a modern scholar, not masqueraded as a statement of the original historical manuscript writer. This sort of thing comes up pretty frequently with regard to modern scholarly intepretation of ancient writings, and more often than not other scholars can also be cited in support of and sometimes against such a modern analytical intepretation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"HistoryofIran" wrongly and falsely considers my account to belong to "Iampharzad" while I only have this account and Iampharzad's account is not related to me in any way. Bravehm (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Encyclopaedia of Islam, Hazaragi is a Persian dialect, which is infused with many Turkic and a few Mongolic words or loanwords.
According to Encyclopædia Britannica, the Hazara speak an eastern variety of Persian called Hazaragi with many Mongolian and Turkic words.
According to Encyclopaedia Iranica, the Hazaras speak a Persian dialect with many Turkic and some Mongolic words.
According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.
This (According other sources, the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words.) removal was due to the duplication of info about Hazaragi, and its sources were not reliable as Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Bravehm (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion with KoizumiBS on the Talk page of article caused him to correct the erroneous info he had added in the article about the Mongol aspect of the Hazaras. See [107]Bravehm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you have taken a hard position against me and consider my every edit as something bad. As a user, I have the right to edit as you edit. Bravehm (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the reason: "No reliable census has been conducted in Afghanistan so far".
And there were no mentions of Aimaqs and Hazaras, which constitute the majority of Ghor residents but the majority of its inhabitants were almost Tajiks plaese see: [111]Bravehm (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So "www.biorxiv.org" and "journals.plos.org" are also not WP:RS for this content "the Hazara population speaks Persian with some Mongolian words." Bravehm (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (Iampharzad) account does not and does not belong to me.
User: HistoryofIran has taken a tough stance against me and wants to deny me the right to edit on Wikipedia. He reverses my edits and wants us to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article, but when I am ready to discuss because of the consensus, he does not give me an answer on the page. Bravehm (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're still being disruptive as we speak, such as here where they manually reverted KoizumiBS and once again blatantly lied, accusing KoizumiBS of once again removing info but in reality due it themselves to decrease the Mongol aspect [113]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a restoration of sourced info deleted by KoizumiBS.
Their SPI has been up for a month, and this report almost a month. Can an admin please look into this case? Countless diffs here of them being disruptive. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not helping. Could you please at least give your opinion on what is missing here? There are countless diffs of this user violating our rules. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A report concisely describing disruptive behaviour evidenced by diffs. Ideally the most objectionable behaviour should be presented first. Your first two links are to something fairly unobjectionable and to an open SPI. This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report. BoldGnome (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This and the continued updates make this look like it's not worth people's time, or at least the amount of time it would take to go through the whole report.
This is a ridiculous argument. So if the case is too long, just screw it and let the user continue their disruption? It seems you didn't even go through the diffs yourself, and yet you still removed the DNAU, because harassing an admin was apparently not enough [115]. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look man, you asked for advice and I gave it. That's the reason everyone ignores your reports. If you listen to my advice you are more likely to achieve your desired outcomes. Your last comment is unnecessary (and untrue, if you look at the "harrassment" in question). BoldGnome (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what you thought about the diffs... but you didn't even bother to look into them, since it's "too long". Yet you still removed the DNAU.. thanks for aiding the disruptive user. A constructive Wikipedian would at least read the report and give their opinion. I hope you realize that Wikipedia would be a nightmare if every lengthy report got ignored. And the length of this report is mainly due to the reported user spamming their nonsense. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is a complex report, and it involves a topic area that most administrators and veteran editors know little about. In addition to the language barrier, most of us lack the necessary cultural context on Central and South Asia topics. That makes it hard to evaluate sources and figure out who is right. Another issue with editors from these parts of the world is that there's a ton of POV pushing and sockpuppetry on all sides. In my SPI work, I see articles in WP:ARBIPA topic areas where multiple sock/UPE farms are fighting and reporting each other as sockpuppets. The way ISPs in this region hand out IP addresses makes it very difficult for Checkuser to produce useful results. SPI is also incredibly backed up, so unfortunately these cases can linger for a while without more volunteers.
If you want your reports to be more actionable, I can make a few suggestions. Focusing on user conduct issues like incivility, ownership, personal attacks and edit warring are more likely to get results, because the evidence for them is usually pretty clear. A lot of this report looks like content disputes, and we can't really determine who is POV pushing. It might also be better to use WP:AE; the format there is better for demonstrating problems concisely without participants arguing amongst themselves. One other suggestion is to open discussions about the more common sources at places like WP:RSN. As an example, I don't read The Times of IndiaorTelesur and can't evaluate their reliability the same way I can with something I do read. But they've been discussed at RSN, so now we have WP:TOI and WP:TELESUR to tell editors and admins how to handle them. The WordsmithTalk to me22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks The Wordsmith, will keep that mind. It also doesn't help that Bravehm is blatantly lying, this is perhaps the clearest example I can show; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm [116], restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove more sourced info (-1189 bytes) [117], having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. This is manipulative. I then revert them again [118], only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to go the talk page [119]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they just violated WP:3RR, so I guess this thread won't needed anymore. Bravehm will be back after their block though, as have all the previous (indeffed) users trying to do the same in that article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boldgnome's and The Wordsmith's advice is pretty good, actually. And it can sometimes be better to close a drawn-out report that is proving too "TL;DR" to attract input and action, and open a new one later that concisely presents the evidence, from most egregious down to supporting-but-not-itself-actionable. It's also not helpful to just keep repeating "is being disruptive" over and over again. If the actions in question were not allegedly disruptive, then they wouldn't be at AN/I in the first place. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A refusal to permit evidence to be discussed in a Wikipedia talk:Did you know thread requesting such evidence.
See here. [120][121] where User:4meter4 has twice hatted directly relevant on-topic comments I made in direct response to a good-faith request for evidence regarding DYK BLP-related issues. It seems apparent from reading the thread that several individuals wish to exert control over the discussion, and to prevent some issues being raised. If this is indeed their intention, the broader community might like to take into consideration whether it might be more appropriate to conduct such discussions elsewhere, where such questionable control could less easily be exerted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, a person who has been murdered is not living. Once someone is dead, they are no longer a WP:BLP. We are specifically looking at living people because the focus of the RFC is on BLP compliance. A murder victim by definition is not living, so this isn't a usable or relevant example to this particular RFC.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read what WP:BLP actually says. WP:BLP policy now, and WP:BLP policy back when the DYK you don't want discussed was posted on the main page. Policy then, and policy now, is equally clear that the recently deceased - and perhaps more importantly their living friends, relatives etc - deserve dignity. Not lurid tabloid headlines about someone who had been murdered and had their body disposed of in a canal only three weeks previously. My evidence was absolutely within the scope of WP:BLP, and absolutely relevant to any serious attempt to deal with what appear to be long-term systemic issues with DYK. If indeed this is to be treated as a serious attempt to do so. I believe that was the intention of the person starting the discussion, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the same assumption about some of the other participants there. They apparently aren't even prepared to wait for responses from other potential participants before trying to set arbitrary rules of their own over the scope of discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out there's some nebulous leeway at WP:BLP that can apply to persons who are recently deceased, should that be the point of contention: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Italics mine, bold in original.
WP:BDP also covers the recently deceased in a bit more detail. That said, it seems like the subject died in 2012, to which I would expect any reasonable person to consider as not a recent death. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DYK that ran in March 2012, which was approximately 12 years ago. You were asked repeatedly to provide current examples, which you refuse to do. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained why I consider it relevant. I see no reason to repeat myself. As for being 'asked to provide' examples, the exact opposite is going on - as when people accuse me of 'sabotage' for even participating in a post below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
No explanation needed, your Majesty. Everything you say has the writ of royal prerogative and nobody should ever question you again. If you should have to repeat yourself again in any manner, I shall report the offending party henceforth. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close this ANI report as needless, frivolous, and without merit. 4meter4 is trying to help, not hinder discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you're being disruptive. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as almost sabotage. 4meter4 is trying to fix something you have been complaining about for over a decade. Maybe you should consider taking WT:DYK off your watch. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Sabotage'? For pointing out serious problems with BLP-related DYKs, in a thread asking for evidence about problems with BLP-related DYKs? The only 'sabotage' (or at least disruption) seems to be coming from those who jumped in as soon as I posted, trying to exclude my evidence. A sincere question was asked. I gave a sincere response. And now, rather than letting anyone else participate with their own comments on their own evidence, they are confronted with an ever-growing and obviously off-putting tangential mess. If my evidence is agreed, when all is done, to be of little concern, then why would it matter so much anyway? Why is everyone so concerned to exert control over the thread? And how is such control even remotely appropriate in the context of such discussions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you've indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. The discussion is about how to fix what's happening now. I've created(?) a sortable table. If you're intent upon entering into evidence everything from the past 12+ years, fine. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not indicated you're going to enter into evidence anything and everything from a decade+ ago. I clearly and unambiguously stated that I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. Please don't make things up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except most of the discussion participants repeatedly told you that old evidence wasn't relevant. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. I just proposed the "No BLP rule" on the DYK talk page you are working your way up to proposing. Why not just get down to brass tacks? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I have no firm proposals. Or none that would stand much chance of gaining community approval. And why exactly, if you consider a 'no BLP rule' to be appropriate, are you objecting to me showing why it is needed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not what I wrote up above or on the DYK talk page. I said that the reason I added it for discussion is because it is the natural endpoint of your argument. You also have some unknown measure of support for it. My guess is that the reason you are waiting to do this is because you feel that you can work people up to it with some kind of persuasion campaign. On the other hand, I prefer to face reality head on, and think we should discuss it immediately. I have not expressed any support or opposition for the idea, other than a separate informal proposal on the DYK talk page that would allow reviewers to discard/reject so-called controversial nominations provided some kind of conditions are met. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
horse horse i love my station
I would very much appreciate it if you would stop trying to read my mind. You evidently aren't very good at it, but it is irritating all the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please alert the Palace Guards when I will be allowed to discuss the proposal. I will be eagerly awaiting your reply in the stables where I will be tending your Majesty's horses, as befits my station. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This hatting is wrongly-justified - WP:BLP would absolutely apply to someone murdered only weeks prior. No comment on hatting due to being an 'old example', but to be 100% clear, BLP applies to recently-deceased people and would 100% apply to the Gemma McCluskie article/hook back in 2012. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and it did according to 2012 policy too. Which is why it took so little effort to get it pulled from the main page, once I'd raised it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I voted against sanctions on the last thread to appear on this board based on the assumption that a 24 hour block would be way too short to do anything preventative, and would thus be purely punitive. I am now forced to confront the fact that voting differently would have prevented this thread from appearing at ANI. I don't see how anyone could have expected a twelve year old example to stand uncontested in a discussion about what is happening on wikipedia now. The correct response to someone challenging you on this would have been to come up with an example within the last year or so, not to take it here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that events that occurred twelve years ago are of no relevance would be more convincing if anyone were to show that things have actually changed in any substantive way since then. I don't believe they have. The underlying causes have never been properly addressed as far as I can tell, which is why the discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You posted examples of bad things that happened 12 years ago, and you think now it's up to someone else to demonstrate that those things are no longer happening? Seriously, this approach makes sense to you? Levivich (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I posted evidence regarding events 12 years ago. People then claimed they were no longer relevant. I asked what has changed to prevent such things occurring again - in a thread started because there clearly are similar problems, even now. Nobody has answered my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares what happened 12 years ago at DYK. You cannot demonstrate that there is an ongoing problem by showing that there was a problem 12 years ago--you need to show ongoing, which means problems between 12 years ago and now--or really, like everyone is asking you, just show recent problems. I'm sure you understand this, which leaves me wondering why you would argue otherwise, to the point of taking it to ANI. It feels like you're trying to get yourself sanctioned, and trying very hard at that, and I don't understand why. Like you could not be less collaborative in this venture unless you started dropping slurs. 4meter agrees with you (on the BLP issues) if you haven't noticed, and you took them to ANI because... they collapsed your 12-year-old evidence? WTF are you thinking? If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now. I'm at an honest loss about why you would try to disrupt the very process you tried so hard to start. It's just pure self-sabotage behavior at this point. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to where everyone was asking me to submit more recent evidence? I don't see that: what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything. Including things I had no intention of submitting in the first place. And no, I'm not drunk. Been on the wagon since, um, 2012 or so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let me quote some examples from the WT:DYK page:
"If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks." - That's me, and perhaps it wasn't clear but this was an implicit request for more recent evidence.
"Again over a decade ago. Let's focus on current issues?", "Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues.", "Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now." - that's val asking 3 times
"Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well." - that's Viriditas
Oh and here's a bonus:
"All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted." - that's 4meter, the editor you've brought to ANI, and it directly undercuts your statement above that "what I do see however is an attempt to stop me submitting anything"
Let it sink in: the editor you brought to ANI (1) agrees with you about a BLP problem at DYK, (2) has volunteered their time to start an analysis of said problem, and (3) explicitly said all evidence should be accepted regardless of how old, so they even defend your 12-year-old evidence. And you call this "an attempt to stop me submitting anything"? Because somebody hatted a part of that. I hope you can recognize how illogical this is. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not going to debate logic with someone who thinks that it is appropriate to make evidence-free allegations of drunkenness in an ANI thread. If that were actually appropriate, I could probably point to actual evidence that might suggest the same - regarding people complaining that I'd supplied evidence, people complaining that I intended to submit more, and then complaining that I hadn't submitted any more. If I wasn't firmly on the wagon, after all that I might very well see the merits of a stiff drink. If my head is going to spin, I might as well enjoy it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, you know damn well that "If you've been drinking or something, walk away from the keyboard now" is not an allegation of drunkenness. And even if it were, so what? If somebody is inexplicably acting irrationally, impairment is a legitimate question. But I'm done spending any more of my time trying to save you from yourself. You want to be indef'd or TBANed DYK, have at it. Believe me, though, nobody is going to view you as a victim here. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof for your own claims is on no-one else but you. Also, this is ANI, very explicitly not the place for you to litigate content disputes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump I'd like to know why this was taken straight to ANI? It seems unnecessarily combative. We could have talked about this civilly on my talk page, as this was simply a misunderstanding over the relevance of the evidence. I was unaware of the recently deceased portion of the BLP policy. Anyways, I have added the example to the table in a neutral manner, so the issue brought up here is no longer relevant. Please avoid editorializing evidence and simply present links and a short description of the problem in the tables that have been created. I know others may disagree, but for the sake of objectivity I think we should accept older evidence. As I stated at the DYK talk page, editors are smart enough to know how to weigh older versus newer incidents in their comments. My guess is some will question the relevance of the older evidence at the RFC, and others will not. I don't think it will derail the RFC to be more inclusive in the evidence gathering process. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary, when I reverted your initial hatting: Read WP:BLP. Read WP:BLP from 2012. Both make it absolutely clear that this DYK was within the scope of policy. And note that when you hatted it, I had already pointed out in my initial post in the thread you hatted that WP:BLP policy, then and now, was clearly in scope. If you failed to read WP:BLP after all that, it is down to you, and I really don't see why I should have been expected to discuss anything on the talk page of someone who then hatted the material again with no edit summary at all. That looks like a refusal to engage, not a request to talk it over. As for your comments about the relevance of older evidence, I have already tried to make the same point. The decision as to what is or isn't relevant needs to be made collectively, after an appropriate time has elapsed, when people can assess submissions as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't aware that you had removed it. I mistakenly thought I hadn't saved the page as I have been having internet connectivity issues, and was in the middle of trying to set some guideline for productive posts. But this is besides the point, ANI shouldn't be the first step in conflict resolution. Please assume good faith and try and work with others through personal messages first rather than going directly to ANI. You are much more likely to win allies that way. I will set up a discussion thread for evidence issues to keep it separate from the list section. One reason why I hatted that conversation is I felt it could persuade others to not post evidence. We really need to keep the evidence gathering section simple and discussion free in order to not dissuade people from participating. If the evidence gathering area gets heated it could stop people from wanting to participate and choosing to put evidence forward which would harm the progression and ultimate outcome of the RFC.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that this needs to be on ANI. OTOH, in an RFC of that sort it seems unhelpful for a involved editors to try to clerk in such ways, and especially to keep trying to clerk when there is dispute and where they clerking seems to be at least partially based on a serious misunderstanding of BLP. Also I'll be blunt that anyone who's understanding of BLP is so poor that they think it does not apply to the recently deceased probably shouldn't be so extensively involved in discussing the interaction of BLP-DYK anyway. Leave that for editors who actually understand BLP. Note also while there may be reasonable dispute over whether it's helpful to have such an old example it seems if the better solution if there is dispute over the hatting would be for editors who feel it's irrelevant to just say it's too old to be considered if needed and not participate in further discussion, rather than try and enforce a hatting. Ultimately the discussion would not be too distracting if editors do not participate. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne I may not be a BLP policy expert, but I don't think there is anyone else willing to take this on. I don't think it would be happening otherwise. I don't generally coordinate group discussions, and I would hope making some mistakes along the way would be met with some grace per WP:AGF. I have participated in many BLP related disputes at DYK in the last year; none of them involving recently deceased individuals, which is why my working memory on BLP issues had a gap. This is also not an RFC yet, so please don't refer to me as an RFC clerk. It's a talk page discussion gathering input before an official RFC proposal is made. The whole point of it is to draw on communal input in framing an RFC discussion. Other editors at DYK who want to assist and take on a leadership role are welcome and encouraged to pitch in, and I am trying to respond and adapt to others input as I go with an open heart and sense of service. I hope I will not be the only one involved in coordinating the discussion. We now have a table set up in the posting evidence section, and I will have a separate place for discussion if there are issues with anything posted in the table. What I wanted to avoid was lengthy disputes inside what was supposed to be a list. That is disruptive visually to a working list, and makes it hard to locate listed items. It's my fault for not having anticipated a need for a place to discuss disputed evidence ahead of time that was in a separate location from the list itself.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is what it looks like when an editor has carte blanche to flip tables over and generally go nuts. I agree with Kusma who told ATG (paraphrase) help review or check prep sets - don't scare away the participants. I could hardly read the WT:DYK page as a result of foot stomping. It is not helpful or collegial. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC) my comments are not not needed.[reply]
4meter4 responded to the legitmate WP:BLP concerns in that thread by starting a discussion to list problematic DYK nominations and discuss common problems.[123]
AndyTheGrump responded by linking to discussions from over a decade ago where he called DYK contributors "halfwit"s and "morons".[124]
4 different editors explained why this was derailing the discussion. ATG responded by casting aspersions about how "some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny".[125]
4meter4 hatted that part of the larger discussion.
This is probably why we have Wikipedia:Civility as a policy. It's not realistic to expect editors to engage on preferred terms while insulting them, mocking them, and seemingly demanding that they post links to a WPO thread doxxing them.[126] I don't see an issue with 4meter4's conduct, Rjjiii (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 'doxxing' please note that it wasn't there when I asked that evidence being presented against me was backed by the links that are a basic requirement of ANI threads. How is anyone supposed to respond to claims not backed up by evidence? At no point did I dox anyone, and for the record, I stopped posting at WPO over a month ago due to what I consider to be entirely inappropriate behaviour in that regard. Given that WP:CIVIL shouldn't apply to comments regarding non-Wikipedia-contributors over at WPO, I feel free in stating that I consider the 'doxxing' in that thread to be a further example of the sort of fuckwittery that led me to stop participating there. It seems readily apparent to me that certain individuals there are using the site to massage their own egos rather than as a forum for legitimate criticism, and they do so without the slightest regard for consequences. External scrutiny of Wikipedia is an absolute necessity, and no external site is ever obliged to follow Wikipedia rules, but if a forum wants to be taken seriously, it needs to show some evidence of wishing to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it almost seems like ATG wants sanctions; I can't help but think of why they thought it was a good idea to do this again.wound theology◈06:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is for behavior that is urgent or that is intractable. Whatever one thinks of 4meter4's earlier hatting of a couple subthreads in a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did You Know that wasn't something as formal as an RfC or such, I don't see the matter as having been so urgent as to require ANI intervention, since this discussion presumably will last for quite a while yet (multiple days at a minimum; perhaps weeks) and there was plenty of time to let moods cool and to work out what evidence should or shouldn't be included. It also doesn't seem to be or have been all that intractable, with how 4meter4 has by now apparently taken feedback on board by apologizing for misremembering how the recently deceased factor into BLP, creating a section for discussion of disputed evidence, and overtly stating older evidence can be added to the table now created in that talk thread. This ANI thread doesn't seem to indicate much at issue in 4meter4's behavior. Instead it makes apparent that by doing nothing about AndyTheGrump's behavior, administrators and the community have failed to prevent that behavior from continuing. AndyTheGrump's treatment of other users is an intractable behavioral issue. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy seems to have an overall issue with DYK and is throwing everything he can at the wall to see what sticks in an effort to get his way. It's absolutely disruptive and if he won't agree to step away & cool down, the community needs to enforce sanctions to stop the disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been three threads about ATG‘s behavior one of them boomeranged the other one had no action and this is the third one And they were all pretty recent I think the community needs to do something whether it be a warning a block a ban or whatever just something
We all know there were better ways for ATG to make a point or start a larger conversation. I am not sure that issues would have received the attention they have if ATG only whispered their concerns but I very much disagree with the way they started the conversation. I believe that ATG was right on BLP related hooks.
I feel like I can respond to the substance of ATG's argument now that the attack part of their message is over. I would be against sanctions for ATG at this point. I hope that ATG decides to do some background work at DYK as Kusma has suggested. There have been multiple conversations in the days after that first ATG post at ANI and some are not needed, like this one. Working in the DYK section of the project is difficult and stressful work at times - especially now. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the way of sanctions to consider so far. Just a general feeling that the discussions started by ATG have been disruptive. I cannot disagree with that. I think DYK has been disrupted enough. The project's volunteers are self-reflecting and involved in multiple discussions about how to move forward. I am not sure what we can do here besides close this discussion as it has run out of steam. If you have a proposal about ATG I am sure editors would consider it. Otherwise we are just loitering here. Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal of indefinite block for AndyTheGrump
I am going to close this after over a week of discussion. I do not see any current consensus here for either a DYK topic ban or an indef block. GiantSnowman10:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support as proposer. As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve. This block is a preventative measure to prevent future disruptive and uncivil behavior from harming the project, as the probability is high that AndyTheGrump will behave this way again. Rather than kick the can down the road, the community should enforce sanctions in order to preserve a collegial editing environment and protect editors from harm. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a t-ban from DYK. I wouldn't like to see an indef from everything. I even kind of hate to see it from DYK, as I think constructive criticism from people who aren't regulars there can be very helpful. But Andy's contributions are a net negative at that project. I would not object to a t-ban from DYK, broadly construed. If we can get Andy to recognize that his ongoing contributions aren't productive there, maybe they could be constructive. But simply allowing him to continue to disrupt there because in general we consider him a valuable contributor is not the answer. From his own diffs from twelve years ago calling people morons and halfwits to this week's posts here calling people idiots, it's been going on for over a decade without anyone taking action. Enough is enough. He needs to figure out how to contribute productively or walk away. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you wrote, but I'd say that he has walked away from DYK, at least for the last 48hrs. Right now -- today, yesterday -- there has been no disruption of DYK by Andy. If it happened again, yeah, TBAN, but it hasn't and perhaps the discussion so far has already been enough to prevent it from happening again. Perhaps if/when he comes back to DYK he'll be chill about it. If not, then TBAN, but for now, I gotta go with oppose TBAN, and because an indef proposal at ANI is equivalent to a siteban, oppose indef. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you're use the word "seeing" to describe something you saw three days ago. What I'm seeing is that WT:DYK has continued over the last few days, Andy has continued editing over the last few days, but Andy has not participated at DYK over the last few days. I agree with sanctioning people if they don't walk away; I don't agree with sanctioning people as they're walking away. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're thinking not being disruptive for 48 hours is evidence he's finally after more than a decade straightened up and is ready to fly right? Well, obviously I'm very close to this discussion, but your opinion is one I trust. Valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, but I think his non-participation for 48 hours (while the discussion has actively continued at WT:DYK; I'd feel differently if the discussion just dried up over those 48 hours, but they didn't) is evidence that he has chosen to walk away.
I see it this way:
There was no participation in, and thus no disruption of, DYK in January, February, March, or April of this year (as far as I know, from looking at his contribs, didn't go further than Jan)
He disrupted DYK on May 12, 13, 14, and 15th -- four straight days of disruption. During that time he almost got sanctioned and bunch of people told him to cut the crap.
Then, he continued editing (again: I'd feel differently if he wasn't actively editing) on May 16 and May 17 with (so far) no participation in or disruption of DYK.
So 2 days of non-participation, following 4 days of disruptive participation, following months of non-participation. I'd be willing to give him the chance to walk away from it. Maybe he'll never come back to DYK. Maybe he'll come back but not be disruptive. Maybe he'll come back and be disruptive (or be disruptive elsewhere). If either of those last two things happened, I'd be in favor of severe sanctions (TBAN, indef). But for now, if walking away works, maybe give it a shot? I'll note also that he removed the "idiots" rant from his userpage following people complaining about it during these recent threads, which I also take as some sign of progress. I can understand if others don't think any more WP:ROPE should be given here. Call me a softy? Levivich (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a t-ban from DYK per above, this was started only three days after the previous DYK-related drama and a t-ban would clearly be preventing more in the future. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a topic ban, mild support for an indef. I do think that there are serious issues here but I would like to see whether or not a topic ban can remedy them before declaring them truly intractable. As a side note I think that AndyTheGrump's name has given them a massive amount of leeway to be grumpy in a way that would have gotten other editors blocked... Which is not necessarily their fault I must add, they likely did not intend that consequence of their name. I know when I first encountered incivility from them I was amused more than anything else, it was funny that the behavior matched the name... As a result I didn't handle it like I would have from another editor which probably gave the idea that it was OK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is a bizarre logic to it... Its a camouflage of some kind, on the opposite end we are very quick to scorn and block accounts with names like "CommonSenseJoe," "Edits-in-Good-Faith" and "Neutral Point of View Upholder." If you point out that AndyTheGrump is being unreasonably grumpy you look like a pedantic asshole no matter how right you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like Hydrangeans goes right to the nuclear option - as they did in the ANI about me (below). It is helpful to remember that we are all volunteers here. We should find the least restrictive way to stop a a disruption. I think as Levivich points out we are not stopping a (current) disruption with a Tban and a siteban is an overreach/nuclear option. I already made it clear in a previous thread/proposal that I was unhappy with the disruptions... but if they stopped we should get back to business. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are indeed on balance largely volunteers, and that includes the victims of incivility. An ongoing pattern of incivility is itself restrictive as such behavior affects many editors, chilling participation by creating an unsafe environment where editors are obliged to fear and tiptoe around harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indef. This is shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message. In this case, the latter is that the project is not fit for purpose. Of all our main page projects, it is the one most consistently questioned at WP:ERRORS. It is the one that leads to most ANI threads regarding its members. WP:FAC and WP:ITN manage to avoid the repeated dramah. The question is, why can't DYK? What is there about the project that attracts such ill-publicity? I assume it's because it does not, unlike the other projects, have the necessary rules, and the concomitant checks and balances, to ensure the strict adherence to core policies and guidelines that the rest of the community expects. You see what happens; the walled garden that is DYK approves something, and the moment it comes under scrutiny from editors who neither know nor care about the minutiae of DYK, inherent failures are exposed.
That question is easy to answer: DYK posts 9-18 8-16 new things per day; TFA posts 1 per day; ITN posts 1 per week. Just from this discrepancy in base volume, we can expect 10x or more WP:ERRORS reports from DYK than from TFA and ITN combined. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a numbers game. It's a matter of approach. Editors are not permitted to abrogate responsibility for the quality of their edits purely on account of their quantity. Do not talk to me again. ——Serial Number 5412918:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something that has been pointed out in multiple discussions, including an RfA. We can differ over whether DYK should exist, but the project produces 8-16 entries a day. AFIK it's the only place on the entire project with multiple deadlines every day. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does that from time to time. DYK used to get huge criticism from not "balancing" ITN/OTD. Not sure whether this was an attempt at that. Sometimes it's that someone objects to a hook being pulled and not getting a "fair" time run. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129, halfwit, moron, idiot, his own diffs. Some of which are from over a decade ago. Whether he's correct to be concerned seems like we're saying "It's okay to personally attack other editors as long as you have a point." We can criticize without becoming personal. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exposing this was indeed a good thing, but Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, and Andy should learn to point grievances (especially important ones) without attacking and antagonizing other contributors. I also oppose indef for that matter, but a topic ban for DYK would definitely be a good thing (until Andy learns to work more constructively in a collaborative environment), because hostility is not counterbalanced by having an important message. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby, that is true, yet I was referred to as a blatant homophobe, and transphobe but nobody suggested that is a PA. No sanctions. I am sure the editors who hurled the insults at me were filled with the same righteous indignation that ATG felt on this policy issue. Plenty of editors involved in the Tate discussion were prepared to ignore BLP in favor of a DYK hook that would portray him in a bad light. I am not saying the final hook reflected that, but the discussion was full of editors who felt like they had the moral high ground without consideration for WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Lightburst (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cruel irony that the editors who aggressively pursue a narrow vision of civility enforcement are typically unwilling to reflect on their own behavior. In this community, double standards are the norm. Name-calling is easy to spot, but a lot of editors don't look deeper at the effects of the more subtle forms of incivility that savvy veteran editors can dish out without consequence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't involved in the other discussions Lightburst referred to, so, unless I misread this and their own behavior wasn't referring to me, I am genuinely curious what you mean by that. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the thread below, if that's what you're referring to, Liliana did not call you a homophobe, a transphobe, or "blatant" anything, but said of a comment you made that I can't read this as something that's not transphobic. Commenting on someone's character is a personal attack, but commenting on a specific action is not, and there is an important difference between both. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby The title of the thread was something I took as a PA and it was only changed after I complained - you can click there to see the smear. Ironically the editor who made this very proposal (Hydrangeans) also attacked me saying, "...Lightburst makes Wikipedia less safe for trans editors". So yeah I see both of these things as a personal attack and uncivil. The irony is that Hydrangeans wants to indef ATG for incivility. Some PAs are more severe than others... I can take Andy's off hand idiots comment better than I can take a smear against my character or an accusation that I somehow threaten trans editors. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indef I'm honestly quite sympathetic to an editor who has identified a core problem with how Wikipedia operates and who has got a lot of flack for passionately bringing it up. I'm neutral on the DYK tban. Might be good for Andy's blood pressure in the long run but an indefinite block is definitely too far. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223, indefinite does not mean infinite. An editor who is indef'ed can literally be unblocked five minutes later if they convince someone they sincerely mean to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware of what indefinite means. However I don't believe an indefinite block is an appropriate measure for name calling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I get that, and I'm not happy that I seem to be the only person here who is willing to get into the fact so many opinions are completely out of policy. It's not a comfortably position for me to be in.
What I'm trying to make sure is seen is that you and multiple others are misunderstanding major points here. Blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not worse than time-limited. Personal attacks are not okay just because you have a point. Valereee (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-indef block, weak support t-ban - Although Andy has identified a problem with DYK, calling the contributors "idiots" and the like not only violates one of Wikipedia's core pillars, but is actually detrimental to the progress he was trying to make by distracting people from the issue. As I stated in the previous 24 hour block proposal, Andy is still a respected editor in many areas of Wikipedia, but the incivility problem has been ongoing for many years with no signs of improvement. I don't know that an indef block is necessary, but a longer block (at least a week or two, maybe a month) to let him blow off some steam might be beneficial. If the incivility continues after the block expires, then I would support an indef. - ZLEAT\C18:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would like Andy to be able to participate in the upcoming RFC. I suggest a formal sanction that he has failed to follow WP:CIVIL with a warning that future incivility at DYK (or elsewhere) will result in an immediate block. This should alleviate concerns over future behavior problems, and provides a quick pathway forward to solve any continuing issues quickly should they arise. It simultaneously allows Andy to continue participating at an RFC where I think his perspective may have value.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee I'm not well versed in disciplinary proceedings on wikipedia. I was suggesting a warning with teeth where an admin can swiftly block without needing to discuss it first because of the prior warning. If that's done through a "logged warning" (I don't know what that is) then yes.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin can actually block without needing to discuss it first. The issue is that if it seems to be unjustified, people will object, and in the case of well-respected long-term contributers such as Andy, many users want to give more leeway, so there may be objections. A logged warning can help provide rationale to allow an admin to take an unpopular step. It sucks that that is what's necessary to deal with behavior issues from otherwise positive contributors who have some area in which they are simply apparently unable to contribute constructively, but there it is. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When closing the previous thread calling for a 24-hour block I noted that "There is a general consensus, even among thos who opposed the block, that Andy's tone in opening the above section was uncalled for and that he be more careful with his words in the future." That was three days ago, it's still right up the page. Andy hasn't been an issue at DYK for two of those three days, but now we're going for an indef? I'm not excusing his behavior, phrasing things the way he did is not conducive to collaborative editing and is ultimately self-defeating (see my own essay on how I learned this lesson), but I don't see how an indef is caleld for at this time. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not, this is nothing more than an opportunist proposal. There wasn't any consensus on a 24 hour ban, so an indefinite block is far fetched at this point. This comes across as a reactionary measure to issues ATG raised in the main topic here. Despite his recent actions, as well as unnecessary edit warring at Andrew Tate (as some sort of reaction to the controversial BLP hook issue), he just needs to take a break and get some more sleep in his life. He's already been officially warned it seems, and there's nothing between that warning and now that deserves further punishment. Resurfacing failed proposals usually doesn't get very far. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, blocks are never punishment, and an indef is not somehow "worse" than a 24-hr one. Indefs can literally be lifted five minutes later if an admin is convinced the person is willing to stop doing what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef, oppose t-ban, support short disciplinary block at most. Andy's behaviour falls very far from my threshold of an indefinite ban. He also doesn't cause significant damage to the DYK section, although admittedly he brings a fair degree of disruption there. I could support a temporary t-ban if other folks on the DYK team confirm that no other disciplinary action is feasible. — kashmīrīTALK19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, blocks are not punishment. Indefs are not somehow "worse" than time-limited blocks. Blocks are to prevent further disruption, which in this case is the ongoing for now over a decade habit of calling people idiots, halfwits, morons. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of respect for you Valeree, but I think your comment here points up the disconnect between how admins experience Wikipedia as compared to the rest of us. I suspect that most non-admins would strongly disagree with your statement that indefs aren't any worse than time-limited blocks. Sure, an indef block can be lifted in a short amount of time, but the blocked user has no way of knowing whether or not it will be lifted. And more often than not, the block will be reviewed by someone who has never been blocked themselves. Valeree, I note that you have never been blocked, so frankly you (and most other admins) don't know how it feels to be blocked, indef or otherwise. And again, I mean all of this with sincere respect because you are one of the good admins. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark, thank you for your kind words. Many admins are reluctant to lift a time-limited ban. Many assume it should be repected. An indef, unless it's by the community and is specified as "can be appealed in six (or whatever) months" is generally seen by basically all admins as "use your judgement; if you think this editor gets it, lift it." In fact many of us specify that when placing the indef. I very typically note "This can be lifted by any admin once they believe the editor is listening (or discussing, or has convinced you they understand and are willing/able to comply with policy)". I do understand that this isn't well-understood by non-admins, and that "indef" feels like "forever". I wish it were better understood by editors. Indef is actually kinder. Valereee (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban from DYK. With apologies to Levivich, if the best argument for not tbanning Andy from DYK is that he hasn't commented there in the the last two days, that seems like a good argument for a topic ban. For me, the question is whether Andy can still contribute without attacking other editors. It seems settled that he can't engage at DYK. Mackensen(talk)19:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Way over the top based on evidence provided. Abstain regarding DYK tban. I didn't find Andy's arguments about Andrew Tate persuasive in the most recent go-around, and don't find other people's arguments persuasive this time (if you don't think evidence from ten years ago is relevant, you have the ability to just ignore it or note as much and move on -- it looks like it only sprawled into something counterproductive because of the back-and-forth after the old evidence was presented). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly commonly understood that when you bring something here, your own behavior is also going to be looked at. I hate the concept of boomerang, FWIW. But don't try to say this is a re-do of the last ANI thread. Andy brought this here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But..... he did not suggest these sanctions which are a redo of the last ANI. Whether it's this thread or just this boomerang part is just splitting hairs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He brought the last one(? can't keep up) here too. When someone brings things here, they're going to end up with their own actions looked at. That's just unfortunately part of the process.
Seriously all Andy needs to do is acknowledge their behavior was problematic, apologize, and promise never to do it again. That would completely be good enough for me and probably 99% of people here. Just say it, Andy: "I was wrong to call people halfwits, morons, and idiots. I apologize, and I won't do it again." Just say it. It's not really a huge ask. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand what a BOOMERANG is, but technicalities don't change my point. I also understand that you would like to see something done, as does everyone that has stated their opposition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't want to see anything done. That's actually the last thing I want in this kind of situation with a productive, useful editor who is exhibiting disruptive behavior. What I want is for Andy to recognize the counterproductiveness of his strategy and change it. Only if he refuses do I think something needs to be done. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have said so in your reply to his comment (I have read the thread), it doesn't relate to my point. Personally ATG could absolutely do with dialing down the grumpiness from 11, but I don't see anything here that wasn't in the last very recent thread (or the thread about that thread being closed) and continuing to press the same point isn't productive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note the comment above was only He. Brought. This. Here. when I posted this reply.) To be polite this back and forth obviously no longer has any worth. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change you comment after it has been replied to.(This has been explained as an edit conflict, so I've struck my request.) It wasn't disruptive to bring this here as ATG's post about the DYK that was pulled was valid and shouldn't have been hatted, yes it was old but it still fits the criteria. What has come of bringing it here is a rehash of the recently closed ANI thread, who brought it here in no way changes that fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too severe. Maybe a temporary block or temporary restriction as a wake-up call. Something needs to change. And there are other reasons for block besides just preventative and punitive. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (temporary?) T-ban I think I was pretty clear in my comment above, I opposed the last 24h block on the grounds that it wouldn't prevent anything, only to be confronted by another ANI case less than 24 hours later. Even some of the opposes here acnowledge that his behaviour is currently disruptive at DYK. I think some kind of timeout from that topic area is in order here. I hope a Tban appealable at the earliest in a couple months will achieve that. An indef is obviously excessive here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response from AndyTheGrump. If the community considers it necessary to topic-ban me from DYK for submitting evidence of clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLP policy in regard to DYK content in a thread that asked for evidence on the same subject, and then objecting when attempts were made to remove such evidence, then so be it. While I have in the past considered it my moral duty to draw attention to incidents such as the one where unconvicted individuals (easily identified from the article linked in the proposed DYK) were asserted as fact, in Wikipedia voice, to have 'cooked in a curry' an individual who has never actually been confirmed to be dead, never mind been murdered and disposed of in such a manner, I am certainly under no obligation to raise such issues here. I just hope that there will now be enough uninvolved contributors paying attention to proposed and actual DYK content to prevent such things happening again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I hope there will be, too. And I hope they can do it without calling anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. You know, it would probably go a really long way here if you'd just say something like "I was wrong to call anyone a halfwit, moron, or idiot. I sincerely apologize, and I commit to never doing that again."Valereee (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I really feel like I would like to stop responding here, but this makes me think I need to. Why should we not deal with namecalling? Valereee (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm responding where I see someone misinterpreting policy, and when they respond to me, I'm again responding. It sucks. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. Sadly, while I agree with you that Andy has been disruptive and that an (appealable) topic ban should be a good thing, it's too easy to get stuck in these back-and-forths about policy, that ultimately lead to more heat than light. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I suggested you get over it, you think you need to keep responding to most of the opposes here? The reason why we might not deal with someone who's called others an idiot, in certain circumstances, is being there is no consensus to do so (see previous discussion). It might be because despite the poor choice of words, the decision to approve that DYK, with that hook, with clear overwhelming objections, was clearly idiotic (the decision was very stupid). Even if the person who suggested the hook (you) or the person who approved it isn't an idiot. I think many people saw the personal attack of "idiot" and translated it to "idiotic", even if for those who are called an idiot it doesn't "hurt" any less. Sometimes it's also better to call out idiotic behaviour, even if done so in an awful manner. That's just my take of the situation at least, I hope you can accept that criticism. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's junk logic. It's the kind of argument that makes me want to support sanctions, just to rebut this way of thinking. I won't do that, though, but I will speak up to say: no, nope, no. We can say something is a BLPvio without calling editors idiots, morons, halfwits, etc. There is no way in which the heading of that ANI thread was justified, excusable, understandable, or otherwise okay. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty convinced ATG wasn't capable at the time of bringing it up in a civil manner (potential insult alert), not that this justifies his insults. I understood his anger, even if I don't find it particularly excusable. Maybe he will be able to again raise issues in a civil manner, in the future, like he has in the past. If not, then he'll end up getting banned. Overall I don't see petty name calling as being any worse than the vandals and disruptive editors that get warned before getting blocked, in fact I find it much less offensive personally. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both I'm not impressed with Andy's decision to open this thread, but as Levivich noted the disruption at DYK is not ongoing. While Andy should do a better of job of assuming good faith on the part of DYK regulars, I believe we are too hasty to talk of bans these days. The indef block proposal is well out-of-order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He opened this two days ago. His response above shows zero indication he recognizes his personal attacks are an issue at all in dealing with his concerns about DYK. How is this not ongoing? Valereee (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LEPRICAVARK clearly referenced that the disruption at DYK isn't ongoing, nothing else. Clearly this discussion is still ongoing, because users such as yourself expect an apology, which you're almost certainly not going to get. Maybe give the badger a rest? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep answering here, but because you asked...why should we not expect an apology, @CommunityNotesContributor? I mean, we got called names. Why is an apology something we shouldn't expect? It's a pretty minor request. Valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have supported this the day ATG posted that thread, but now it's stale and there has been no further offense that I'm aware of. I do support doing it right away the next time it happens, if it does happen again. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This isn't timely, and besides, the "shooting the messenger" angle on this has dominated the thread from the start. When Wikipediocracy can sustain a 19 page thread consisting mostly of untrue DYK hooks, it's obvious that the process is failing, and I say this as someone who, back in the day, submitted several dozen DYKs, so it's not as though I haven't been there. The hook in question was baldly pulled out of context, and should never have been promoted; whether or not one wants to call this "idiocy", seizing on AtG's choice of derogation plainly turned onto a way of ducking the issue that this hook and many others should have been caught and kept off the front page. I am not bloody-minded enough lacking in the kind of emotional emotional energy and the time to deal with DYK's problems, but they are obvious, and it is apparently fortunate that those who complain eventually lose their tempers over the frustration of dealing with the various enablers, lest something be done about it. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the top of this page it says, "include diffs demonstrating the problem." Instead, the proposer opened this thread by saying, "As multiple editors have observed in this and a prior thread, AndyTheGrump's violations of Wikipedia policies on civility and his ongoing disruptive behavior are part of a long-term and intractable pattern which is unlikely to improve."
The lack of information in the proposal means that only editors familiar with whatever lead to this will know what the issues are. This discourages uninvolved editors from commenting which can adversely affect the outcome.
Comment: Close reading of this thread reveals a link Levivich provided: Special:Diff/1223676400. See also the exchange beteen Andy and ScottishFinnishRadish on Andy's talk page here. The warning has been placed and logged, and Andy has acknowledged it. As such I think this entire thread is moot and I oppose further sanctions (including sanctions dependent on whether an apology is given). ---Sluzzelintalk01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The warning (on 13 May) was for the previous incident, while this thread is about more recent behavior (more specifically, the thread that Andy opened on 15 May). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef - I do not see any argument that AndyTheGrump is a net negative for the building of an encyclopedia. He has both positive and negative impact on DYK, by objecting to BLP violations, and by objecting to BLP violations uncivilly. He has both positive and negative impact on normal editing, by building the encylopedia, and by being uncivil. I don't see an argument that the negative outweighs the positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon the thing about the "net negative" analysis is that assumes that the editor in question is more important than the editors on the receiving end of the negative behavior. Put into words it seems less noble: "AndyTheGrump is more important than Valeree, so they'll just have to deal with his behavior, sorry." Inevitably, this is also a situation where the editor could modify their behavior to remove the negative aspect, but won't, which leaves this: "We think what AndyTheGrump does is more important than treating Valeree with respect, sorry." Note that the "sorry" isn't actually an apology, but more of a shrug of the shoulders, as though there's nothing to be done. Mackensen(talk)12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mackensen - No. I didn't say or mean that, but that does imply that I wasn't clear in what I was weighing against what. It appears that you are saying that the harm that Andy does by being uncivil to other editors outweighs the benefit to the encyclopedia, and we can disagree civilly (since neither you nor I are editors who have a civility problem.) I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors, but of saying that ATG has a beneficial effect on the content of DYK and of normal editing. I would also add that I am less worried about treating an established editor like Valereee with the respect that she deserves, and has from the rest of the community, than about treating a new but useful editor with the respect that is due to any human. If you are saying that he does more harm by being disrespectful than the benefit of his editing, then we at least know what we disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant it to be a matter of weighing editors against other editors I think this is the nub of our disagreement. An editor's negative contributions don't take place in a vacuum, and they aren't borne by the encyclopedia writ large, but by individual editors. Sometimes those are experienced editors, sometimes not. Whether you mean to or not, I think if you adopt the net-positive/net-negative framework you're choosing one editor over another. Mackensen(talk)17:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, again: I really don't care that Andy called me an idiot. I'm sure I'm often an idiot in multiple ways. What I want is for him to stop calling people idiots, period. That literally is all I care about. If he'd just say, "I will henceforth stop namecalling", I'd be happy to move along. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the inflammatory heading in which ATG started this discussion, before he changed the inflammatory heading, I have stricken my Oppose, because I can see the argument that he is a net negative. I have not !voted on an indef block or a topic-ban at this time. I probably won't vote in this section, because the combination of !votes on indef and !votes on DYK ban will confuse almost any closer as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is aimed at banning or blocking ATG because he is being perceived as being disruptive on the discussion about DYK - the disruption appears to be complaining here about his points being removed from that discussion because they referred to events that were too old. I strongly hope that is isn't what was intended by anyone, but it looks like that this is an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. This is not a good look for Wikipedia and does encourage others to take part in the discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this not an attempt to shut down opposition to the status quo. The way we know this is that the person who was reported here by Andy agrees with Andy about problems with the status quo, as do many of the people supporting sanctions. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer T-ban from DYK but block if necessary. The unapologetic and ongoing personal attacks, battleground behavior, and disruption, are the problem. We shouldn't censor the important underlying discussion of DYK vs BLP but AndyTheGrump is doing a great job of effectively doing that himself by making it all about his grumpyness instead. Getting him away from the issue is the first step in shedding light instead of heat on the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An indef is a silly overreaction, and a TBAN doesn't seem reasonable either -- where is the long-term and/or ongoing disruption there? Andy is kind of an asshole about perceived incompetence in general, but the community has repeatedly concluded, including in an earlier 24-hr block proposal, that his behavior doesn't rise to the level of offense or volume to necessitate a block. So if his comments aren't "bad enough" for an acute block, and there isn't a sustained pattern of harassing DYK in particular, I don't see how a TBAN benefits the project. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block also fine with DYK topic ban Like my oppose in the last 24 hour block proposal, there's no evidence that the editor is going to change how they treat their fellow editors here. --Lenticel(talk)01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef. I thought long and hard about this. Andy has attacked me many, many times in the deep past, and frankly, they have never really bothered me, because I knew they were coming from someone who had good intentions, intentions which make nice, decorative paving stones on the golden road to Hell. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. There's certainly nothing like cause for an indef here. I could see a T-ban happening if AtG continues this level of DYK-related invective and we end up back here again with the same approach still in evidence. But some of AtG's concerns are valid, and this is not TonePolicePedia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Contrarian Thought: Send to ArbCom
I think that we are looking at two overlapping issues involving conduct that the community is unable to resolve. The first is the conduct of User:AndyTheGrump, and the second is conduct and interactions at Did You Know. I am aware that some editors probably think that we are about to resolve these issues, that this thread is about to be the last thread, and that if repeating oneself four times hasn't been persuasive, repeating oneself six times definitely will either persuade or exhaust others.
I am aware that I am often in a minority in thinking that such recurrent issues should be referred by the community to ArbCom, and in thinking that ArbCom should accept such recurrent issues on referral by the community. I am also aware that in modern times, as opposed to the twenty-oughts, ArbCom normally does not accept cases about individual users, which is one reason why there is the concept of unblockables, who are misnamed, because they are actually editors who are often blocked and often unblocked, and are not banned. Well, AndyTheGrump has actually avoided being blocked for a decade, and so maybe really is unblockable. In any case, the community has not resolved the issue of this editor. It also appears that the issues about Andy at DYK may be the tip of the iceberg of issues at DYK.
I will throw in an observation that the arguments offered in the above thread about whether the biographies of living persons policy trumps or is trumped by the civility policy are erroneous. One is a content policy, and the other one is a conduct policy, and both should be and can be non-negotiable. But if a conflict between these policies is perceived, it may be a symptom of something that is wrong. I would suggest that what is wrong is using biographies of inherently controversial living persons to be used in Did You Know, but that is only my opinion. If a case is opened by ArbCom, ArbCom should state as principles that the biographies of living persons policy is non-negotiable, and that civilityisthe fourth pillar of Wikipedia, because those principles apparently need to be restated.
It is my opinion that the issues of interactions at Did You Know and the conduct of AndyTheGrump are not being resolved by the community and should be addressed by ArbCom. I don't expect consensus on my opinion.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably isn't in my best interests to comment on whether my issues with civility (Yes, I know I have them, I have acknowledged the fact) merit an ArbCom case. As for whether ArbCom is the appropriate venue for tackling some of the ongoing issues with DYK content, with the flaws in process that creates said content, and perhaps with the behaviour of some contributors there, I suspect most people will suggest that those involved should be given a chance to tackle the problems themselves first. Preferably taking input from the broader community, which has sometimes appeared reluctant in the past to get involved, but clearly ought to. If, however, ArbCom is to become involved, I would strongly argue that it needs to look into it in its entirety, starting from no premise beyond that there have been recurring issues with content of all kinds, and that the appropriate way to proceed is to ask for evidence first, in an open-ended manner, and only then to attempt a resolution. Attempts to frame problems narrowly in advance tend, even if done with good intent, to mask deeper underlying causes, making a permanent resolution impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" being the biggest problem and interpreted in multiple different ways from users at DYK. One interpretation is that if the negativity is due, then hooks can be negative, and therefore can "override" BLP policy. The other is that negative BLP hooks shouldn't be used, regardless of being due, or otherwise controversial figures shouldn't be featured at DYK at all (with a neutral/positive hook). Clarity needed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this jumping the gun? I would think the RFC that is currently being constructed would directly address many of the problems being raised here, and would provide for a much wider range of community participation and comment to solve these issues. It would be in the community's best interest to allow for wide community comment and participation rather then to limit the investigation to a small ArbCom panel. I would say we give the RFC a chance to do its work before determining whether going down the ArbCom path is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no appetite for a restriction on ATG based on multiple discussions. Taking this to the next forum after the community votes seems like a forum shop. And about DYK: if you want the editors to get the message and work on tightening up reviews, BLP issues and other DYK related criteria... that is happening right now. RM, I do not think arbcom is the place for this. Nobody is saying what you have said lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all. See our DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides.
There are issues with - as I said in the Tate discussion... "the politics of whomever happens to be editing". One administrator in the discussion rejected the premise of that statement and so did other editors. It felt like politics because as I said in the discussion, Tate is a sort of anti-woke figure. Many editors were announcing their dislike of Tate. An admin said we had to protect children. See for example, Theleekycauldron (TLC) - most would agree they are a DYK expert, but they decided to push very hard for a negative hook as did many other's who called for Tate to be "taken down". At the time I pushed back as did a few other editors, but we were outnumbered, Honestly it was many editors including TLC and most of them are MIA from this discussion and others. I sarcastically asked TLC if they were playing a Jedi Mind Trick when they said a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive.
It felt very bizarre to be in that discussion and have seasoned editors demanding negative hooks about a blp against our very clear DYK guidelines. The hook that was run, while negative, was Tate's own words and it was written by an Arb member. An admin added it to the nomination so we went with it. Kudos to EpicGenius who wrote a good neutral hook that was not added to the nomination. If you have not read the discussion yet, please do!. It is a must read if you want to see how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your DYKCRIT and BLPHOOK guides. So negative hooks can be run, based on DYKBLP then right? Why was there even an issue in the first place, can you address that question? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom would likely only rule on editor conduct. I'd be very surprised if they did anything about the DYK process itself. That kind of change probably has to come from the community, and the RFC that is in the process of forming seems like an ideal place to do it. The only reason to request an ArbCom case now instead of after the RFC would be if we think that there are conduct issues at DYK so severely entrenched that even the RFC would not be able to stop them. I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Pinguinn🐧03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pinguinn - I agree that ArbCom is unlikely to rule on the DYK process. I have not studied the DYK process, but it is my non-expert opinion that the process is broken partly because of underlying conduct issues. For that reason I am pessimistic that a viable DYK reform RFC will be launched in the next few weeks. I know that other editors are more optimistic than I am, so that efforts at a community solution will continue. If an RFC is assembled and launched, I will be glad to see it run. If the RFC development process bogs down, I will see that as further evidence that ArbCom investigation is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ARBCOM will want to rule on the questions at hand regarding DYK. How NPOV, BLP, and really short-form entries on the Main Page (the same issues apply to ITN) interact is a community matter. If there are issues in the actions of editors besides ATG, they have not really been fully discussed by the community. CMD (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is the wrong venue; it's for the community to decide what (if anything) to do about DYK. For example, a fundamental question might be how compatible with a serious encyclopedia it is to have click-baity trivia on the front page. Arbcom doesn't decide stuff like that. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ArbCom has widened the extent of its advisory authority in certain respects over recent time--and to be perfectly honest, not always in ways that I think are entirely right and proper within this community's framework of consensus authority--but something like the issue of the tonal character of DYK and how the space intersects with core content policies is still very much a broader community issue in both scope and subject matter.
That said, ArbCom may very well take an interest in users who cannot contribute to DYK (or any space) without calling users idiots and morons and otherwise just acting in a pernicious and disruptive fashion. Those kinds of matters are very much within their remit. And unfortunately, that's probably where things are headed, now that the idea has been floated here. It doesn't take a community resolution to petition ArbCom to look into such a matter and at this juncture, sooner or later someone is going to become frustrated with the community's failure to act on brightline violations of WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TEND and just follow that route.
Honestly it's really unfortunate: all of these people who thought they were cutting Andy some slack even as he has popped up repeatedly here over the course of weeks, have unwittingly contributed to a much more negative likely outcome for him. He's going to get burnt ten times worse at ArbCom that the comparably very tame measures that have been previously proposed to try to drive home the point about his more altogether unacceptable conduct towards his fellow editors.
But not only did far too many editors fail to tell Andy that his PAs were unaccpetable, but, even more problematically some even endorsed his belief that he is entitled to make such comments if he's convinced he is pushing the right idea or can provide a reason for why he is just too valuable to the project. This was the last thing this editor needed to hear in the circumstances, and by trying to supplant established community consensus as codified in our core behavioural policies with this subjective standard, Andy has now been left exposed in situation where ArbCom comes into the picture, as a body which has both a broad community mandate to enforce our actual policies, and a very meticulous and formal approach to those standards. Basically some of Andy's would-be allies and those uninvolved community members who endorsed kicking the can down the road have possibly traded a short-term block for a TBAN or indef, in the longterm. The whole situation is all very foolish and self-defeating, all around. SnowRise let's rap08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby is currently involved in the broader, generally good effort to address the hard POV shift that occurred recently at Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and is being separately discussed at RSN. The Canadian article needs fixing and the edits earlier this month that suggested the gravesites were somehow fake are extremely bad. However, Elinruby's conduct has demonstrated the same BATTLEGROUND abuse of procedure and accusations/aspersions that have resulted in them receiving previous reports ([127]), warnings ([128]), and a block ([129]).
Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: [130]
Accusing me of inserting fake news and then removing reliably sourced material, followed by refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: [131]
Adding numerous spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present (the tag if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons): [132]
Saying they don't need to engage in discussion and suggesting that I'm racist for quoting a CBC News investigation that determined a link between outrage with the gravesites and a rise in arsons: [133]
When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours and presented a list of Q and As, apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: [134]
Look: a different editor did heavily maul the article to suggest the gravesites were fake and that's bad. But Elinruby's longstanding pattern of unsubstantiated personal attacks has been particularly hurtful for me when, for the last two months, most of my time at my real-life job has been helping Native high school students establish action plans for their nations to take in addressing generational trauma caused by the boarding school system. This behavior has to be stopped. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apparently gloating about having triggered other editors: On reading the diff, something seems taken out of context. The text is Q[uestion]. But this Wikipedia article says it didn't A[nswer]. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO [line break] Q. Why are you editing that article? A. IF/ELSE branch triggered, return to GO. I'm not 100% sure what it is saying, but I don't see a plain read where it constitutes gloating about triggering editors. "IF/ELSE" seems to refer to some abstract situation (possibly saying ElinRuby themselves is being 'triggered', as in prompted/motivated, to edit an article?). If there is some reason to 'translate' "IF/ELSE branch" as meaning people, I'd be interested in knowing.
Computing pseudocode. If else is a common conditional; they're just sending the reader back to the top of FAQ with the "return to GO". Pretty sure trigger here is the general trigger, not trauma trigger. The two questions for which the answers are of that form are pretty basic "don't ask" questions on Wikipedia, so I don't see any problem specifically with those. I don't see a problem with the FAQ at all, unless the doubling down on the "whitewashing" claim is baseless, which I have not checked yet. — Usedtobecool☎️04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake to get caught up in the granular details of the items I collapsed. Because this happened in the midst of and seemingly in response to a related dispute (and a discussion a few sections up), it comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also in tone and tenor. And since it happened less than a day after a warning from another admin, I stand by the action. El_C05:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "trigger" aspect that was brought up which I worried could derail discussion over a misunderstanding is what triggered my comment. Your block notice says a lot more and describes a long-term pattern (in fact, kudos to you for completely skirting that detail in all your comments), so indeed the granular details of that one thing are otherwise largely irrelevant. Except for the diffless doubling down on "whitewashing" accusation, the FAQ probably didn't need to be collapsed, would be as far as I would go based on what I know so far, if I were to challenge your actions, which I didn't, and don't, because the whitewashing accusation is grave, and diffless. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️05:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the whole thing after reading Elinruby's copied-over comments below, and it never occurred to me that that misinterpretation was from the "IF...ELSE triggered" comments, but I understood that to be pseudocode. I thought the misinterpretation came from how closely Elinruby's section headers resembled the "you mad bro" meme, which is related to triggering and, if that was the intent, was incredibly unwise to have written while too hot. I'm not sure about the rest at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links and quotes below deal with some very disturbing history about documented murders of small children. Viewer discretion is advised.
I read that last post of SFR's as friendly advice from an admin I had just informally asked for an explanation of 1RR, not a formal warning. I am assuming that he thought "genocide" was an exaggeration. It is not. There was a formal finding to that effect by the Canadian House of Commons and Pope Francis has also said precisely that. [135][136] Certainly legalities prevented the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from saying so, but that doesn't mean they weren't scathing.[137][138]Orspecific. Or that they didn't show the receipts. I hope SFR is enjoying his ducklings and I am not requesting he comment unless he wants to; he has enough going on.
I think that Pbritti misunderstood a number of things but that these aspersions may well have been made in good faith. The block log for example:
current diff 145: a complaint that I gave an editor with ~100 edits a CT notice, which they interpreted as uncivil. Closed with no action by Star Mississippi (thank you, no comment needed unless you want to)
current diff 146: Discussed with El C in the block section on my talk page if anyone cares. TL;DR: ancient
current diff 147: Shortly before this LTA indeffed themself they page-blocked me for discussing changes to an article on its talk page. Not pinging them because they indeffed themself
Then the complaint itself:
Accusations of another editor whitewashing mass murder: I actually should have said that they denied it. The article whitewashed it; they denied it based on a skim of that article. The context is here: [139] To my horror I discovered that the article did indeed say that. But let's get through these points.
Accusing me of inserting fake news: The first time I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI.
removing reliably sourced material: One broken ref for two paragraphs about three-year old unproven allegations
refusing to engage in discussion when more recent reliable sources were presented: three-year-old source about a three-year-old tweet. The publisher itself is considered reliable, yes.
spurious tags despite citations and relevance been immediately present: Uh...no. see next bullet point.
the tag "if these are all arsons, say that. Stuff burns all the time in British Columbia is especially bizarre because the next paragraph explicitly discusses that these were largely arsons": Pbritti seems unfamiliar with the British Columbia wildfire season.[140][141][142] The same week, Lytton spontaneously combusted in temperatures of 49.6 °C (121.3 °F). But the key phrase is "the next paragraph". The section starts out of nowhere: By July 4, 2021 nearly two dozen churches...had been burned. He quoted the middle of what I said also, btw, please click the diff for context. The section implies that indigenous people committed arson, but no RS say so. The relevance tags have been removed now because they are "addressed by sanction". Go team Wikipedia!
Saying they don't need to engage in discussion: Misinterpretation of I don't think there is much to discuss. Accuracy is a requirement.
suggesting that I'm racist: Pbritti is once again again personalizing a remark about content: If you are talking about the unsourced allegations that indigenous peoples are committing crimes, I find the assertions racist and unfit for Wikivoice
CBC News investigation that determined a link: One person found guilty so far: Mentally ill and mad at her boyfriend. Ethnicity unspecified. Something about correlation and causation and original research. That content still merits a HUGE {{so?}} tag.
When asked to refrain from this behavior, they declared their talk page out of order for the next 24 to 48 hours: I won't stop thinking that accuracy is important. I tried to reply to Pbritti's good-faith admonishments, but he just kept going...
apparently gloating about having triggered other editors:Capably translated by Usedtobecool; thank you
a list of Q and As: It mentions no names and I am surprised that people are complaining that the shoe fits.
This is long so I will close by thanking Hydrangeans for pointing out the RSN thread, which also has two diffs of some definitely uh misinterpreted sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Pinged note, no comment at this point which should not be interpreted to mean anything but a lack of awareness of and familiarity with the situation as I've been offline since Friday and this appears to be an indepth issue. I will read up on this and see whether I can assist. My involvement is as @Elinruby notes it above but I've had no further involvement with the topic as far as I'm aware and standard engagement with Elinruby. StarMississippi01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby made 145 mostly small edits to the article between 13:14, 17 May and 10:00, 18 May (all times UTC), or a bit less than a day. Flurries of activity on controversial topics like this are often related to real-world events, like the release of new information related to the investigations, but I'm not aware of anything having happened to attract this attention recently. Elinruby wasn't the first mover in this recent activity, though: another editor removed quite a lot of info about a week before this and added some contrary info based on suspect sources, there's active discussion on the talk page and at RSN about it. I don't know if Elinruby was just trying to correct that and found more problems (the article does need updating) but it would have been better if Elinruby would have slowed down when editors started challenging their edits, like the others have, and it was especially poor form to ignore being pinged on the article talk and telling editors on their user talk to go away, and so I can't help but endorse the block as an involved admin. Might I suggest commuting their block to a pblock from the article, so they can participate in the ongoing discussions? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per El_C, I leave it to any uninvolved admin to adjust this block as they see fit (including lifting it outright) in response to an unblock request. I need not be consulted or even notified. What we're lacking is a reasonable unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can likely explain how Elinruby's edits came about as they did. They and I were involved in a content discussion with Springee that, admittedly, had gotten off topic on the Jordan Peterson page (I concurred such in the thread). In the course of this off-topic discussion Springee raised the contents of this page as contradicting a point Elinruby made in the discussion. Both Elinruby and myself reviewed the page and were alarmed by what we found. However, on account of it being the first warm long-weekend of the year in PEI and me having a rather full schedule I was mostly editing mobile, which leads to me not doing much in the way of labour-intensive editing due to the limitations of the platform. Also my preferred strategy is generally to approach contentious topics via article talk and appropriate noticeboards as soon as I can - which would lead to slower corrections.
As a result Elinruby ended up taking on much of the work of fixing the POV problems on the page. In general, and notwithstanding the behavioural matters raised here, I think most of their edits to the page were a net-improvement as it had experienced some profound WP:NPOV failings when we saw it. I raised one of these at WP:RS/N and you can see how that turned out here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, Elinruby's content contributions were sound and consistent. However, they appear to have intentionally avoided constructive discussion and consideration of concerns per this on their talk page: as much as possible as quickly as possible because I could hear the drumbeat coming to take me to ANI. Their content work was fine. Their behavior towards fellow editors and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their policy-violating aspersions is the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting TPA revocation and block extension
Elinruby has repeatedly lied about their interaction with me and continued to personally insult me on their talk page:
When asked to provide a reasonable unblock request, they replied with I could apologize for overestimating Pbritti:s reading skills
They falsely claim The first I ever heard of Pbritti was when he came to my talk page and threatened to take me to ANI, despite me having pinged them multiple times previously in a discussion they had started and them having left an edit summary that acknowledged me prior to said talk page warning
They claimed a hostile notice they added to their talk page mentions no names–despite pinging me with @Pbritti: please see section below immediately after adding it.
The block has not dissuaded them from continuing this behavior in the future, as evidenced by their unblock requests and this reply
I am not keen on the project allowing further ROPE for someone who has been warned so many times for their personalizing hostile behavior between ANI and the Arbcom enforcement log. Pinging El C as original blocking admin. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient to revoke TPA. I would prefer not to extend the current block, having to wait for it to expire sends the right signal for now IMO. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I'm not even convinced that the original block was good. Particularly the triggered accusation seems difficult for me to read in good faith: it's very difficult for me to imagine any good faith editor reading that as a reference to trauma triggers. And upon reading them closely none of the others seem to be anything but curt. I agree Elinruby has not responded great to the block, but like, it seems very kafkaesque to me to block someone because of their behavior in response to a block that shouldn't have happened. Loki (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be an unusual obsession with analyzing that single word instead of reflecting on the totality of Elinruby's behavior. They weren't blocked over one word. They were blocked for repeated BATTLEGROUND behavior. Additionally, if an editor engages in misconduct following a block, that's still misconduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, if you are watching this thread so closely that you are responding to new comments within five minutes, may I suggest it's not (just) Elinruby that's guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Loki (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a button you can click when you open a discussion that allows you to 'subscribe' to the discussion. This allows a notification to appear when someone replies even if they don't ping you. It spares one from having to add cluttered noticeboards to a watchlist and enables rapid response. Please review what constitutes BATTLEGROUND behavior, as prompt response is not one such action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe to discussions regularly. In fact, I subscribed to this discussion right after I first commented, like I normally do when I comment in a discussion. I assure you it does not explain that quick of a response, and it definitely doesn't explain either your bad faith readings of Elinruby's posts nor coming back to the well with more alleged evidence of wrongdoing that nobody else has taken you up on. Loki (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the Wikipedia article on the movie I was watching and saw the notification of your reply. As bad faith readings go, a reply being prompt is not one such sign—which is why I welcomed your reply only 13 minutes after mine. Please review WP:AGF. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined their most recent unblock request, and left a warning that any further battleground behavior will result in TPA removal. Let's see if that has an effect. I do agree that, especially since you cannot defend yourself on their talk page, they cannot continue to make personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't been active too much of late, but browsing ANI this caught my eye as one of my most recent experiences here was a very similar situation with Elinruby – they bludgeoned a thread at ANI in which I had participated almost to death, they misunderstood or misrepresented my position in the discussion, then casted aspersions that were completely detached from reality, and when asked to back down they refused. After I posted evidence to their TP (evidence that they said they were going to get and would confirm their stance, but which actually proved they were wrong) they deleted it and doubled down on their position. I do not believe they need to be given a longer block, and they seem to be active and productive in some areas, but they really need to take a good look at their behaviour. Ostalgia (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certain users (User:Wolverine XI, User:LittleJerry, others) are behaving like a CLIQUE at the Elephant article. Making false edit summary/talk page claims of unsourced changes, barereflinks, and, certainly subjectively, unhelpfulness. Refusing to even look at or address the issues/errors raised by outsiders (myself) -- from minor grammar issues to incomprehensible arcane jargon that need clarifying to incorrect adverbs. Then, they tell me to get lost. (See [143],[144], [145]). Notifications to follow this posting. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zenon.Lach: Your edits to the article have introduced a number of grammar and spelling errors that had to be fixed, as well as replacing sourced content with unsourced statements. While I think you have the right to be irritated that another editor told you to try your hand at articles not listed as featured (I'd say that's the mildest sort of biting), I really have to echo their sentiments. The editors replying to you have been fairly patient in explaining the issues with your edits and proposals and your use of bolded text comes across as aggressive. You may have better luck working on articles that are more clearly in need of improvement. If you need suggestions, feel free to ask. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. I removed an incorrect adverb ("possibly"), fixed basic grammar ("rhinoceroses" not rhinoceros) and removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. There was no painstaking fixing of errors just wholesale reverts and a refusal to even address points which I raised. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to carry on with this conversation if this many people concur that your revisions were unhelpful. Your refusal to accept your mistakes, as well as your need to win this argument, are counterproductive. Wikipedia isn't a combat zone. Though you have my patience, this is starting to irritate me. Why you go to such extreme measures to demonstrate that you are "right" and everyone else is wrong is beyond me. WolverineXI(talk to me)21:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) incomprehensible arcane jargon that needed clarifying, removed arcane text which makes no sense to non-zoologists. No, you removed the clear and interesting explanation why elephants have so many parasites, an explanation that this non-zoologist wouldn't have thought of but is pleased to have learnt. And you just deleted it. NebY (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And on such things as basic grammar we go by what reference works say (which are nearly all in agreement that the plural of "rhinoceros" can be either "rhinoceros" or "rhinoceroses") rather than what one Wikipedia contributor says. You are not always right, and a failure to realise that will lead to your Wikipedia career being very short. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. I acknowledge not knowing that rhinoceros is a zero plural noun. But that's the point. Why did it take going to this point to get an answer? Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
Far more important, however, are the following:
"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads." -- my bachelor's degree notwithstanding, this clunkily arcane claim (likely copied and pasted from the reference source) makes no sense as written. I doubt I am the only one who would feel that way after reading it. I do not see why requesting a rewording is beyond the pale.
"the population in Sri Lanka appears to have risen" -- this is false. It is rebutted in the very reflink to which it is attributed ([146]) as well as [147].
"Although efforts to map the current range-wide distribution of the species are afoot, evaluations of elephant presence in some range countries suggest a declining trend: elephant distribution is estimated to have reduced by ca. 20% in Sri Lanka between 1960 and now (Fernando et al. 2019);..." Zenon.Lach (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The Sri Lankan elephant population has fallen almost 65% since the turn of the 19th century.
"The government estimates the population of Sri Lankan elephants, a subspecies of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), at about 7,000. But wildlife conservationists suggest the real number may be far lower, given the rapid loss of the animal’s habitat and the rising death toll from conflict with humans." ([148]). Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals. This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- then what was the original wording? Whoever reworded it rendered it unintelligible. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still makes no sense. It needs rewording or just copy as one quote without cutting anything because something is being lost in translation. Zenon.Lach (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for bringing this up, but you should have done this yourself by simply reading the source, understanding what it says, and coming up with a better way to present what it says in the article. You were right that the sentence was not so good, but there was no need for this much contention, and no need for this ANI thread. —Alalch E.01:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Check the article edit history and other links/diffs above. They kept wholesale reverting my edits, accusing me of unsourced edits, barereflinks and unhelpful editing all while refusing to even discuss the individual points I had gone to the trouble of separating and explaining my position on, one by one. Zenon.Lach (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the talk page and see discussion from the editors you're saying refused to discuss which predates this thread. So it's quite difficult to accept the claim about people "refusing to even discuss". Also as I said below, you stated that the predator thing was confusing but did not propose any alternative wording or even explain why it was confusing. If other editors felt it was understandable and clearly they did, ultimately it's quite difficult to actually deal with your concerns if you're not willing to articulate further. Definitely removing it wholesale was not acceptable. So if anyone "refusing to even discuss" it seems to be you since you tried to remove text wholesale then just said it was confusing but did not explain further and then came to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone not involved in this dispute, the sentence appears perfectly understandable to me. Elephants are too big for predators, so even the (weaker) elephants with parasites don't get killed by predators, so we end up with elephants that have lots of parasites. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had the same thoughts. Maybe it's because I have a biological sciences background or something I don't know, but it seemed understandable. I mean personally I wouldn't use the word immune, but it was still understandable. If the OP felt it was confusing, it was fine to try and re-word if, but not to remove it outright. And once there was dispute, the solution was to discuss on the talk page rather than just push ahead. From what I see at Talk:Elephant#My edits, the OP said they found it confusing but I do not see any proposed replacement or suggested rewording. If they'd done that, maybe they would have been able to come up with a better wording which dealt with their concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP rightfully felt it was hard to understand and we should be extremely receptive to such complaints, especially in a featured article. Yes, it was understandable, but it wasn't easily understandable, as it was extremly terse while dealing with multiple concepts at the same time, such as predator pressure and parasite load, and hinting at natural selection, positing a relationship between these concepts that isn't obvious without an adequate, sufficiently explicit, explanation. (Presented as an unqualified statement of fact, the claim was also not carried over from the source faithfully, as it needed either attribution or a construction such as the currently used "may be due to"; in the source, the claim is a hypothesis/conjecture.) The OP was correct to seek for this sentence to be changed, but they should have been able to do it themselves, based on the source, and the source is, in fact, very understandable (also showing how the sentence wasn't very good, because why should an academically written monography on a biological topic be easier to follow than an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia). It was changed subsequently and is better now.
Hopefully, Zenon.Lach you can finally agree now that, yes, you identified a problem, but you didn't address it completely constructively. In the future, you are very welcome to identify problems, but then you must also do a reasonably good job at addressing them. If you can't agree to this, and intend to keep making such edits, that remove legitimate information from an article, where the correct solution is simply to rewrite a sentence based on the provided source, it could be the case that you can't function that well as an editor. —Alalch E.11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E.: I don't object to your re-wording but mostly I don't find any wording particularly clearer or easier to understand. I mean I do agree with you that the original wording was too definitive but that could have been fixed without needing a wholesale rewording and that doesn't seem to have been the OP's concerns. The only other thing I dislike in the original wording was the word "immune". While it's fairly obvious it doesn't refer to any form of biological immunity, personally I'm a stickler to avoiding words which have a distinct in the subfield of concern when possible. But I understand many may not agree so it's not a big deal to me. If you or the OP feel the original wording was a problem, it was up to you to come up with a better wording, or at least better articulate why you felt the wording was a problem. You've done both things, and I congratulate you from that and hope it's a lesson to the OP. However I don't think you can fault others for not seeing the problem when the OP failed to explain their concerns, and at least I (so I expect others too) still don't share your view even after you explained and re-worded. Since putting aside fixing the definitive issue, the generally wording is no worse, and you feel it's clearer, it's clearly better to use your wording. Likewise if the OP has come up with a wording that they felt was better and I felt was no worse, I would have supported the OPs wording. But again, I don't think you can fault others for not seeing fault when in their eyes their is none. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, if something works for some people, but doesn't work for others through the collaborative process we can improve it so it works for more people. But this requires people who see a problem to either fix it or at least better articulate the problem when others don't see it. I mean it's possible some might see it the same way, as you did, and some problems are so obvious that anyone should see them. But we have to be very wary of blaming others just because they do not see things the same way, when they're very likely perfectly willing to accept changes if others are able to explain why they feel they're needed even if they don't share that view. If an editor fails to do anything other than just say it's a problem and other editors don't see it the same way, it doesn't mean they're not taking the concerns seriously. It may just mean they do not share the concerns and cannot do anything when the editor just randomly says it's a problem, tries to remove it wholesale, the comes to ANI because people aren't wiling to discuss. Other times of course, other editors may not see a problem when the editor says it's a problem but then when they articulate why it's a problem or come up with a different wording, they may agree actually you're right, there was a problem. Again I don't think you can say editors weren't taking the concerns seriously. I mean perhaps if they'd spend 10-20 minutes thinking about it and reading, they would have noticed the problem. But this seems excessive when the editor who saw it was a problem could just have said more than it's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is that no one's mentioned that the predators are a red herring (if you will excuse the odd metaphor): Just write Because of their longevity, elephants tend to have high numbers of parasites, particularly nematodes, compared to many other mammals.EEng08:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the source says. It says (or speculates) that the high number of parasites is due to lack of predation, not simply longevity. "Elephants had among the highest parasite loads of any of the mammalian species we investigated. This could be attributed to the low predation pressure on elephants (in other herbivores, such as axis deer, which show much lower parasite loads, the high rate of predation would presumably have weeded out individuals with crippling parasite loads)." (page 121). CodeTalker (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to agree that the article's text was slightly wonky, because it omitted out the detail that parasites made smaller mammals more susceptible to predation (the "crippling" detail -- at least I think that's what that's meant to imply), which is the essential link to elephants' comparative longevity. EEng21:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing even faintly "unintelligible" about the material regarding parasite load and predation. I have no degree in zoology, but I have no trouble of any kind understanding all of it. If someone thinks the wording can be improved anyway, then go improve it. But do not delete properly sourced material just because you personally don't like exactly how it was worded. Our "job" is improving content not suppressing it. If any editor has comprehension problems either because this is not their first language or because they lack any background in subjects to which such a sentence pertains, then they should go work on other content that is more within their language-skills sphere, not engage in protracted fights with other editors who actually know the subject well. There sometimes can be an issue of the inverse of the Dunning–Kruger effect, with persons highly steeped in a subject assuming that their understanding of complex material relating to the topic will automatically be understood by people who lack their educational/professional background, but this does not appear to be such a case, since the material is not complicated at all. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the digression above is interesting in an academic way, I'm very disturbed that OP earlier stated (emphasis mine):
Why didn't anyone in the clique respond to any of these points instead of being dismissive and chauvinistic?
Urgent clarification on advertorial/PR puffery sources on suspected undisclosed paid editing
I am at a loss whether this is the right venue for this, but if not please pardon and help take this to the right venue. My question is that is it right to remove unreliable sources before nominating articles for deletion or remove them after being nominated? I recently nominated three articles Gbenga Adigun, Tony Edeh, and Jom Charity Award for deletion due to their clear lack of notability. The articles are clearly standing on advertorial/PR sponsored articles masquerading as reliable sources. Now some editors are commenting keep with the sole reason that those articles have enough sources to pass notability guideline. If I remove those unreliable sources I may be guilty of edit warring which I do not want be involved in. Please review sources in those articles as uninvolved editors LocomotiveEngine (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once a deletion discussion has been started, there should be no need to remove sources from the article while it is ongoing. Indeed, it is usually a good idea to keep them in full view so that commenters can easily access and evaluate them. Any keep or delete conclusions made in the discussion should be reached on the basis of the quality of these sources, and presence of plenty but bad sources should thus not unduly enable a Keep outcome, if things go as intended. Time enough to cull the list (or the entire article) based on the eventual outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LocomotiveEngine: A bit of further advice: When nominating such claptrap for deletion, address each of the sources in the order in which they appear in the article and outline why they are either insufficient to support notability (typically for lacking independence from the subject, or for being passing mentions not in-depth coverage), or not good enough to be used as sources at all. This will help AfD participants evaluate the material as it stands and evaluate the article as a whole as to whether it it does (or might) pass notability, e.g. because some of the sources cited don't have such failures, or because other and better sources in the interim have been found (or, conversely, none are findable and the article should not be retained). It fairly often turns out that a total-crap article is on a subject that is actually (perhaps marginally) notable and the page simply needs to be rewritten and re-cited, not deleted. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been numerous instances of User:Hopefull Innformer seemingly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacksonTalk: Yasuke. Specifically, User:Hopefull Innformer has made multiple disparging comments about others who disagree with them on the talk page, with multiple instances of them accusing other Wikipedians of being "From twitter", inferring other editors aren't sincere, and inferring that other editors are obsessed and/or pushing an agenda.
I approached them here User_talk:Hopefull_Innformer#Talk:_Yasuke to post a reminder not to engage in Personal Attacks, User:Hopefull Innformer accused me instead of violating WP:GF, and stating that "If a moderator thinks "Okay you clearly come from twitter" believes that is in any way a "personal attack" by any means I'll edit that part out and apologize", which I can only assume means to bring it here, as Wikipedia does not have moderators.
X0n10ox (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you were the last person to reply on their talk page, saying The point of bringing the point to your Talk Page is to attempt a resolution without having to bring the Admins in on it, I believe it would've been wiser to wait for a reply of theirs before directly bringing the topic here. (Yes, the talk page got in my watchlist automatically as I was technically the one to create it...) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered waiting to see if they replied, but my understanding of their initial response was to get higher powers involved and so I made my reply and then came over here to pop off the request for an admin. I apologize if it's deemed too hasty of me to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's not that big of a deal, it's more of a question of etiquette but you're right that it would probably have had to be discussed here sooner or later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to close this out in some way? They said they had wanted the opinion of "moderators", but they've since continued to contribute on Talk: Yasuke while not even responding to any of this, or responding on their own talk page. Plus they've stopped accusing people on Talk: Yasuke of deception, so I don't even see that there's a point to this any longer. X0n10ox (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think "you clearly come from twitter" is a big stretch of the definition of a personal attack. It's rude, and it's assuming bad faith, but I don't think it's sanctionable. There has been a lot of sub-par editing at that article over a recently-announced video game, related to controversy on Twitter. I've been warning and blocking editors on both sides calling each other "racist" and worse; I think admin action over this comment is taking civility patrol just a little too far, and I'm usually one of the ones leading the charge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, my initial complaint is not just saying "you clearly come from twitter" is the problem. It's a pattern of behavior, and the intention which they have listed behind their accusations. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.". Using "People from twitter" as a dog-whistle for claiming people are "SJWs" or "Leftists" isn't exactly uncommon, moreso, the issue isn't so much the user in question just going "you clearly come from twitter" so much as it is the aspersions which they have attached to it in their repeated usage of the term.
"is people from twitter, it already has happened to some articles in Wikipedia on the Anime sections, and also with the Cleopatra page when that Netflix show came out, is just people who don't care for integrity or accuracy"
"I understand is upsetting to you when people are not just accepting whatever inaccurate narrative you want to push"
"I don't think Theozilla is being sincere here let's focus"
The user has made it apparent in their own comments that they view "people from twitter" as people "who don't care for integrity or accuracy". The user in quesiton has made repeated inferences that editors that disagree with him are pushing a narrative/lying/are being insincere. Secondly, I didn't want admin action or anything of the sort over this. They're the one who requested clarification from a "moderator" when I had told them that their constant dismissal of other editors by claiming they are "from twitter" is a violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. X0n10ox (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy this as actionable at all. First off, the notion that "[came here] from Twitter" is a dogwhistle for "leftist" is absurd when Twitter/X has been completely overrun by right-wingers in the wake of Musk's takeover in October 2022, his explicit promotion of ring-wing notions, and his undoing of virtually all content moderation against false news, conspiracy theories, violent rhetoric, bigotry, anti-democratic actvism, and other noise (a change which overwhelmingly disprotionately boosts the ability of right- not left-wing voices to promote their viewpoints via that platform). Second, there is no policy against raising concerns that incoming participants in a hot topic may have arrived there via social-media attention/promotion; we would not have WP:MEAT if we were not permitted to do so, though one generally expects there to be some evidence, short of WP:OUTING, that something like this is actually happening. In this case, we already know for a fact that there was a bunch of related controversy on X/Twitter. Next, being a Twitter/X user (supposed or known) is not a political or other even-vaguely-possibly-relevant "affiliation", under any sensible interpretation of that word. I also use Facebook, and YouTube, and OpenOffice, and Notepad++, and PDF24, and Duolingo, and FamilySearch.org, and drive a Mazda, and use a zillion other services and products, but that does not make me "affiliated" with them, much less consititute a socio-political affiliation of any kind within the meaning of our policy. Even if a political affiliation were at issue, it is only problematic to bring one up in an ad hominem manner; we do in fact have actual and demonstrable problems with right- and left-wing activists trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotional platform at a large number of articles, and it is not forbidden to try to address this. But there's no evidence here of this even being an issue in this case in the first place. Moving on, questioning another editor's accuracy is something we do routinely; it's downright necessary to the work we're doing here. Questioning "integrity" is much more a grey area, since that term has multiple indistinct meanings, from academic integrity (i.e. properly interpreting, representing, and citing the source material) to personal integrity more along the lines of meaning 'honorableness', and it's easy for someone to walk away with the most negative possible interetation of what was meant (but that's still largely on the interpreter not the writer; cf. the distinction between inference and implication, a frequent confusion but an actual confusion nontheless).『I understand it is upsetting to you when ...』is inappropriate faux-mindreading, but not a transgression someone would be sanctioned strongly for, unless there were proof of it being a habitually uncivil approach of trying to put thoughts in people's heads and words in their mouths. Wondering whether someone's prior comment was "sincere" or something else (sarcasm, a joke, a PoV-pushing attempt, etc.) is also not some kind of actionable fault. Poorly phrased, perhaps. Furthermore, X0n10ox is drawing improper connections between disconnected statements, and engaging in a consenquent correlation vs. causation error; to wit, Hopefull_Innformer was critical of those who allegedly "don't care for integrity or accuracy" at a variety of articles on topics that attract new-editor attention from offsite, and likened this to similar attention at this specific article, which H_I believes has been driven by Twitter/X in this particular case. That does not equate to a claim that all Twitter/X users lack integrity or accuracy. (As a side matter, "don't care for" has multiple colloquial meanings, and here might mean "don't like/want", "don't seem to care enough about", or "are not interested in caretaking", and the second and third of these are reasonable concerns while only the first is bogus "mindreading".) In closing: "being critical and snarky" (what's happened here), "assuming bad faith" (it's not actually clear that happened here at all), and "engaging in a personal attack" (which didn't happen here) are not synonymous. "Someone offended me or made me unhappy" does not equal "I was personally attacked". As I said in another thread on this page, WP is not TonePolicingPedia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
180.75.233.40
Please notice this user kept removing Chinese language in articles, adding Arabic ones. I'm not sure whether this behaviour complied with the rules. -Lemonaka10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have a try for edit summary. Removing something not obvious without edit-summary are likely to be suspected as vandalism. -Lemonaka11:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you should have tried discussing with this person first rather than giving them an inane template and one minute later running to ANI. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP statement at the start is wrong, Malaysia's official language is Malay written in the Rumi (Latin) script, not Jawi. At any rate, the presence of absence of official sanction is not the sole determinant of alternative languages on our articles. The mass addition and removal of various languages to Malaysia-related articles is not a new conduct issue, but remains a disruptive one. CMD (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is based on the constitution of Malaysia which recognizes both Rumi and Jawi as co-scripts used to write the Malay language. Chinese and Tamil are not regional languages of Malaysia and should not be treated as such, putting Chinese names on every towns and cities in Malaysia is not just removing the rich cultural legacy of those towns but also disrespecting the national and indigenous languages of Malaysia. Chinese and Tamil transliterations should only be limited to Chinese and Indian related cultural practices or places of worship. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia under the National Language Acts 1963/67 which states that “the script of the national language shall be the Rumi script: provided that this shall not prohibit the use of the Malay script, more commonly known as the Jawi Script, of the national language”.
That quote explicitly states that the script is Rumi, not Jawi. Chinese and Tamil are also, for the record, mentioned in legislation. Please stop changing the languages on Malaysia-related articles without consensus. CMD (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@180.75.233.40@Chipmunkdavis I've learned about previous discussion, so previous consensus is not removing Chinese unless necessity and legitimacy is proved. No further discussion and this IP got blocked once for such disruptive behaviours. Waiting for sysops' action. -Lemonaka14:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese and Tamil are not official in Malaysia, give me proof of statement from any official law from both federal and state government which states otherwise.
Brunei also have many Chinese but there are not Chinese transliteration for every Brunei towns. Jawi is the only script mentioned besides Jawi in the constitution. Do not block me just because I said the truth, if you block then you're racist. Malay have used Jawi (Arabic script) for centuries and still in use today. 180.75.233.40 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior-related block aside, the anon seems to have a valid underlying point. Malay in Latin-based Rumi script is the official language, and Malay in Arabic-derived Jawi-script has at least official recognition as an aspect "of the national language", while we don't seem to have reliable sources for Chinese and Tamil having any such status. Someone mentioned "legislation" without citing any, and if such legislation doesn't confer at least a Jawi-level quasi-officialness on them, then they shouldn't be used in WP articles about this country (per MOS:FOREIGN, MOS:LEADLANG, etc.), except where specially contextually pertinent for some reason, e.g. a subject pertaining particularly to the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them.
My first intereaction with BilledMammal was back in November, back then, I reverted a single one of their edits. And the user responded by digging through my editing history, in order to find wherever I may have violated 1RR rules and subsequently opened an arbitration notice against me.
Fast forward to present day, I've reverted another one of BilledMammals edits. And how do they react? By once again, digging through my editing history, searching for possible 1RR violations. Threatening to have me blocked unless I restore their edits.
For context, the full November AE report. In addition, prior to that report I had asked them to self-revert; they responded by reverting my requests, which prompted ScottishFinnishRadish to say an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here
"an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up … is sufficient here"
"That doesn’t appear to have happened, with them recently reverting"
You are so manipulative, I don't even know where to begin. I was talking to you on the article talk page about the issue, which you did not respond to. However, you did find time to leave me a strong worded warning on my talk page, simply for just reverting you once. This was followed by digging through my edits from past weeks in bad faith, presenting incorrect 1RR violations. Ecrusized (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This editor is using whatever means necessary to enter a battleground with editors who enter into the slightest dispute with them."Pot, meet kettle. That is pretty much how I would describe construing a note as a block threat and escalating it immediately to ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, this feels a bit like forum shopping; this concern has been repeatedly rejected at AE, most recently a week ago (permanent link): I must admit my confusion about this link from BilledMammal (and therefore also about the forumshopping charge leveled against Ecrusized's behavior). The link isn't to a concern about BilledMammal brought to Arbitration Enforcement; it links to an Arbitration Enforcement request that BilledMammal submitted about a different user, Dylanvt.
I have indefinitely topic banned Ecrusized from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. Opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations is bad enough, but combined with the 1RR violations, lack of understanding of 1RR, and personal commentary towards other editors, we're firmly in topic ban territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're topic banning editors for bringing concerns to ANI, now? Regardless of your other issues with Ecrusized, the timeline he brings up in his report is absolutely valid. Only deciding to make an issue of week old 1RR violations right after having a conflict with someone might be innocuous on its own, but as Hydrangeans points out, this is clearly part of a pattern. The AE that BM currently has open against a different editor is regarding a single two week old edit. Refusing to even acknowledge this before indef topic banning an editor for coming to ANI is ludicrous. Parabolist (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was (1) opening an ANI report against another editor because they brought up your 1RR violation, (2) while at the same time having an open report at AE against another editor claiming 1RR violations, combined with (3) 1RR violations, (4) lack of understanding of 1RR, and (5) personal commentary towards other editors. Levivich (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That notice left by BM didn't indicate that they had any evidence of edit warring which was recent. In fact the diffs they provided were a week old by the time they left that notice. Would you leave a edit warning notice about events that were a week past? I wouldn't. TarnishedPathtalk14:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would much prefer that editors let one another know when there has been a violation of 1RR that can be remedied instead of escalating to WP:AE, which is what I hoped would happen when I proposed the gentlemen's agreement here. Asking for self-reverts is standard practice. There was no threat of a block, just a request for self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you and others in this discussion are operating under an incomplete understanding of the facts, so let me lay it out:
Key background: on 13 May, Ecrusized filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Galamore, reporting 1RR violations by another editor, with diffs going back to 19 April (which requires "trawling" through others' contribs)
Among those May 14 edits is this edit, which they self-reverted with edit summary "This probably puts me in 1RR" (true), only to reinstate that same edit a few hours later at 16:43. Their first revert was on 15:49 13 May, which is why they waited until 16:53 14 May to reinstate it. Unfortunately, despite the rather obvious gaming involved in waiting 25hrs to make a revert, because of other intervening reverts, that 16:53 14 May edit was still a 1RR violation.
On 20 May, BM posted a message on Ecrusized's talk page asking them to self-revert the removal of the disputed tag. No block threat, no incivility, just a please self-revert request.
ThenBMposted a second message bringing up the 1RR violations on 14 May. It was a request to self-revert. There was no block threat, no threat to escalate.
Now: (1) violating 1RR (on 14 May, at least); (2) not understanding 1RR (as seen from their attempts to game it by waiting until 15 May to re-make a revert); while at the same time complaining about someone else's 1RR violation at AE; and being uncivil towards other editors ("wiki warrior", plus other stuff like "virtually inexperienced editors ... with a heavy Israeli bias" ... I'd add: removing others' inline tagging during discussion, while reinstating their own inline tagging that's been removed; and accusing others of "digging through my editing history" when they're doing the same thing to someone else at AE... this is all classic battleground, disruptive editing. This is one of the most obviously-deserved TBANs I've seen this year.
I don't really see how anyone can look at this history and think that BM's behavior is problematic, that BM did something wrong by bringing up the 14 May 1RRs, or that this TBAN was issued because Ecrusized brought concerns to ANI. But I can see how someone who didn't look at any of the history might think that, though. Writing this bill of particulars out has been a waste of my time, but it was necessary to correct the misinformation posted here by multiple editors who clearly didn't do the reading before participating in the class discussion. So in the future, let's take more time to research the history of disputes before we opine at noticeboards about appropriate remedies. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
virtually inexperienced editors and heavy Israeli bias is strong wording that I don't like, but the recent experience of this very board goes to show that expressing WP:CIR and WP:NPOV concerns in much stronger language has passed muster for many editors, hence my surprise. You're right that one doesn't look at this history (that is to say, a different user's behavioral history) and think that BM's behavior is problematic; rather, one draws such a conclusion by looking at BilledMammal's history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I do a lot of my monitoring and editing on my phone, so I don't really have a way to keep a diff dossier of disruptive editing patterns, edits, and interactions. I'm glad that laying out the reasoning in the notice was sufficient to figure out the wider context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Levivich. I was already in complete agreement that Ecrusized's TBAN was appropriate. What I was calling into question specifically was leaving an edit warring notice for edits a week after they occurred. From your timeline it looks to me that Ecrusized crossed 1RR on the 20th and it would have been more appropriate for any notice to focus on that. TarnishedPathtalk00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I just like to point out what you said here. Not arguing against my topic ban but...
On May 14 they made a bunch of edits to that article, crossing 1RR.
Also, I agree that opening an AE notice against another editors past edits while complaining about another user opening edits against me is hypocritical. Additionally, I would like to point out that I'm not writing these to object to my topic ban. I fully agree with @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s decision, however, I would like to point these out because there seems to be some misunderstanding between other editors participating in this notice.
I initially opened an incident notice against user Galamore, before the AE notice. This incident notice was regarding perceived gaming the system by Galamore to get ECP access. There, it was suggested (or I accidentally perceived) from ScottishFinnishRadish that this topic belonged to AE. Which prompted me to open the AE notice.
I'm not exactly sure how AE notices work, and I first participated in them when BilledMammal opened one against me in November, which is linked above in this discussion. Having being inexperienced with the process, I copied the material of the November notice against myself for user Galamore.
Since I've responded all the point notes by Levivich, I would also like to say that despite being fully aware that words like "virtually inexperienced editors" and "with a heavy Israeli bias" are against Wikipedia guidelines, I said those words to other editors. Which is inexcusable. Ecrusized (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-reverting a 1RR violation doesn't mean 1RR wasn't crossed, at least in my view.
That may be your opinion. That is clearly not the policy of Wikipedia. And the contrary is specifically instructed in the guideline page covering 1RR. WP:3RRNO:
I guess I'd be more concerned about this if it was on a different article where BilledMammal had never edited. Both of the editors had a history of edits on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, "a week old" is not very old at all. Some of us do have lives, and problematic patterns sometimes take a while to become evident; sometimes the decision to let something slide has to be rethought because the behavior worsens. If this had been about an incident from many months ago, I could see the concern (though evidence, when it fits a pattern, is often relevant for years, even if a newer incident is expected as the cause of the report). But "it happened more than 6 days ago so it has magically become unactionable" is not a WP principle. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user, named GamerHashaam has been conducting a series of disruptive edits on the Third Balochistan conflict. He, with no sources or talk page interaction, changed the results of the conflict to “Baluchi victory”. [1] When I reverted it and told him to take it to the talk page, he threw what seemed to be a tantrum, calling me a “bootlicker” and a “faujeet” (a merge of Fauj, which means army, and “pajeet”, which is a racist term for Indians.). [2].
I have constantly attempted to make him use the talk page for a civilised conversation as seen from my edit summaries, and issued him warnings on his talk page, but it doesn’t seem to make him act any more civil. Even accusing me of being an asset of the Pakistani military, accusing me of spreading “bullshit” and accusing me of being a captain in the Pakistani army. [3]
I tried to keep an open mind, but he simply wants to engage in insults and bad rhetoric. I eventually found out that the result I was reverting to (Pakistani victory) had no basis, so I had reverted it to the “ceasefire” result it always had before, I even apologised to him and said I hoped that this would be a fair compromise. But to no avail, he constantly puts it as a “Baluchi victory” despite no sources, and even has the audacity to tell me to use the talk page, when he has been editing the result without the consultation of the talk page, and only eventually using it to insult me.
What’s even more suspicious, is that an IP created the same exact edit to the result parameter he did, only 9 minutes before. I’m not sure if this was merely an accident, but I’d just thought to mention it anyway.[4]
This isn’t the only page, he edited the casualties on the 2024 Azad Kashmir demonstrations and simply stated “per local sources”, with no citations and links. And even when it was reverted, he simply re-inserted it back. [5]
In summary, I have attempted to rectify the issue, even apologising to him for my mistake.[6]
I urge the administrators to take action against GamerHashaam, he has been disruptively editing and extremely insulting and uncivil. His disruptive editing is still on the Third Balochistan conflict page, as I do not want to continue an edit war. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to you of any ill behavior but I thought that you were promoting the narrative by the state as a military handle of ISPR but I recognize that claim is bogus without evidence so I apologize for that. I changed it to a Baluch Victory with some more edits such as changing baluchis to baluchs as baluchis is used by only punjabi people in pakistan as they tend to use a "i" with "s" to pronounce plural of ethnic groups or peoples.
I changed it to a baluch victory as I clearly defined that the demands of the Baluch had been accepted by the government as even in the article original state it mentions that yahya sued for negotiations and reverted the one unit scheme aswell gave a general amnesty not to mention releasing all captured insurgents. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He (VirtualVagabond) continued to make the claim that the rebels wanted Independence or sucession from Pakistan and provided no sources or citations for such claims and as per the demands, we have of the rebels , nearly all were fullfilled. thus I saw it to edit it into a baluch victory from a ceasefire or pakistani victory. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my notice, you see that I mentioned that, and you see me mentioning apologising to you, and rectifying my mistake. The links are there to take you to them if you need proof. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean alright but It still constitues a Baluch Victory considering that the Baluchistan province was restored while one unit scheme was abolished and there demand of provincial autonomy was accepted. All Rebel Leaders contested and won election in 1970. Other thing to mention is that they were not arrested or proseucted for any crimes. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the amnesty was due to pressure by fighters on the federal government, or a strategic move by the government to curtail the insurgency isn’t relevant. What’s relevant is that your source for “Balochi victory” (which you didn’t even cite in the article) isn’t reliable. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The military dictator General Yahya Khan sued for a cease-fire with the Pararis. In spite of their recognition of a cease-fire, the Pararis were persuaded a revitalization of hostilities with Islamabad was only a matter of time. The Pararis upheld their guerrilla forces unharmed and enlarged their reach, powers and numbers after the 1969 cease-fire. In certain areas, they were capable to run a virtual parallel government. General Yahya Khan broke up of One Unit on July 1, 1970 and Baluchistan for the first time became a full-fledged province. But no attempt was done to take the internal administration of the province in line with those of other provinces. The general elections were held under the Legal Frame Work Order in December 1970 for the first time in the history of Pakistan and the result of the 1970 elections unleashed a whole set of new and contradictory forces into the political agenda.
here's the text
We need to verify it in a journal
ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate). GamerHashaam (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was a ceasefire, which I had inserted. On the other hand, nothing says about a full-fledged Balochi victory.
It doesn’t matter about your claims about ResearchGate doing “fact checking” or whatever. Wikipedia policy deems it as unreliable, through and through. It even states that it does not do fact checking on WP:RESEARCHGATE, and states it as a “self-published source.” VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes a self published source although we can find a factual journal on a other site for it.
Second I didn't say it was a full-fledged baloch victory rather a simple baloch victory due to there demands being accepted for which we can find other sources in the article other then me as listed below:
This insurgency ended in 1969, with the Baloch separatists agreeing to a ceasefire granting general amnesty to the separatists as well as freeing the separatists. In 1970 Pakistani President Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy, which led to the recognition of Balochistan as the fourth province of West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan), including all the Balochistani princely states, the High Commissioners Province, and Gwadar, an 800 km2 coastal area purchased from Oman by the Pakistani government.
By Simple Victory I meant not a Phyric Victory with too many loses or a Decisive Crushing Victory rather a Moderate Victory. It takes time to find factual information on a source thus I request some time aprox 24 hours to investigate and find one. GamerHashaam (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright take it to the talk page , add some sources and context please I request for it to be a ceasefire or pakistani victory. I have to go now but I will Inshallah Review it in 12 hours and provide a reply. Allah Hafiz GamerHashaam (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to ask, does anybody know when an admin will come to make a decision? It seems that the reports before and after this one have mostly been solved or at least have been looked over. But not for this, I understand it might take some time but I’ve heard that ANIs get archived if there’s no activity for three days. Hence my curiosity. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That usually means there has not been sufficient evidence presented that admins are willing to take action. Or that someone who would be willing to take action just hasn't been online to see it yet. If the thread gets archived, oh well. If the problem repeats and requires immediate action to resolve, a new thread can be opened with a reference back to this one in the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a requirement to use the GS/ALERT template to make a user formally aware of such general sanctions? My understanding is mostly from Arbcom sanctions where the appropriate templates are generally required. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, I'm going to be honest, if the worst they've done is put the line, During the Russo-Ukrainian War a local volunteer Viktor Yarmoshevych died, a memorial plaque was opened in his honor. into a page then I'm not particularly inclined to do much of anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, the template looks to be a relatively recent addition. It was sufficient to simply notify without any sort of template, but I am not sure if this has changed. Perhaps an admin who is familiar with this area can say for sure. I do not think there is any exception for non-extended confirmed editors to edit such pages since it is broadly construed. Regarding disruptive edits, they made this edit which is disruptive. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they have still not acknowledged anything or even responded while continuing to make edits is not a good sign that they will stop making edits in the topic area. If we do not want to enforce GS, then why have it in the first place? Mellk (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need advice for courtesy on problematic user
An editor who has recently been unblocked for ARBPIA after a month and who has been flagged for WP:CIR has resumed making the same WP:CIR violations and inserting poorly-written content into certain articles, the most terrible of which is this [151]onTimeline of Isfahan. I have just bluntly warned the user, but given that they have had a record on ANI, can a third case be filed directly against them? Withholding full name of offender until I get clarification on this. Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well just rename the section, since this section doesn't serve a purpose otherwise, and everyone can tell by the diff who the user is that you have in mind anyway, so this pseudo-secrecy is pointless. However, the diff provided above shows this user, Baratiiman, correcting and otherwise improving their own earlier claim that 60 Baha'i women were "persecuted" (somewhere unspecified), with a revision that agrees with the cited source that it was 10 women, and in Iran. (While it would have been nice if Baratiiman had gotten the information correct in the first edit instead of the second, no one is perfect. Baratiiman should also have replaced the PoV-laden "persecuted" with the "prosecuted" used by the original source, or rather as translated from the orignal source which is not in English; "prosecuted" and "persecuted" are radically different things despite the spelling similarity. And Baratiiman had no reason to write "Iranian Islamic state government" when "Iranian government" or even just "Iran" will do. But ANI is not a venue for punishing people for insufficiently beautiful prose.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Borgenland, on multiple pages I see you inserting broken link code in the form [[https://en.wikipedia.org/...]] That's the format for internal wikilinks like [[Mongolia]]. The format for full-URL links is [https://en.wikipedia.org/...] with single square-bracketing. So, I'm not sure you're in a position to make "competence"-related criticisms. If anything is to be actionable here, you need to demonstrate an actual pattern of policy failures on the part of Baratiiman, not vague claims of "incompetence". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: this is also a bit concerning, being aggressive and menacing: If I catch you making such WP:CIR edits again I'm afraid I will have to file an ANI against you for a third time. It's not Borgenland's or anyone else's job to try to "catch" people doing things they don't like and make threats to gin up WP:DRAMAboard trouble as a punitive measure to try to get what they want. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate pointing out that I do get confused sometimes in coding. But it does not absolve them from the fact that the user I am referring to has had a edit history of incoherent editing, misinterpreting and exaggerating statements and has not once made any response or commitment to address this behavior, even when they were still being addressed in a civil manner. This was also raised by other editors in a previous archived report involving them last month. And now that you are asking for proof, I might as well build up again the case using the archive and their most recent cases within the day. Borgenland (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since their unblocking these have been some of their most problematic edits:
This was the recent ANI that was filed against them in April, during which issues I had raised were also seconded by other editors. Although in the end they were blocked for edit warring. [155]. Borgenland (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be none, but the way in which such info was written left doubts over the veracity of such events. Furthermore for example, is it really due to an event for 2023 to include something that would happen in six years, as you stated in desertification? Borgenland (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To catch up a bit: Yes, there historically have been some issues with this editor, Borgenland's original diff here did not in any way add to that problematic history, but shows the editor in question improving their own edit, with a total result that looks reasonable (if not perfect). So, this AN/I thread doesn't seem to have a point; there's not a new "incident" of an actionable nature here. To go over the new diffs in the order presented above: 1) Nothing "incomprehensible" about any of it. A few entries are in telegraphic writing ("headlinese") or not-quite-right English and should be improved. A few entries also seem to make use of non-Latin script, and should be improved with Latin-alphabet transliterations of the names in question. And some entries might be too trivial/indiscriminate to warrant inclusion (and in the "desertification" instance, there's a question of relevance and perhaps WP:NOT#CRYSTAL). These are all matters of just improving the material, the third sort of concern perhaps after some article or user talk-page discussion. Whether all the sources cited are reliable enough could be a question (that I can't answer; I'm unfamilar with them and don't know the language). 2) I don't know what "a confusing holiday count" is supposed to mean. What is a "holiday count"? The material added (with sources) is in not-quite-right English again, but is easy enough to parse after looking at the sources, and should read something like the following (for better linguistic sense, to better match the sources, and for more clarity to non-Iranians): "In 2024, Iran amended Article 87 of the Civil Service Management Law to reduce the workweek of government employees to 40 hours per week (after previously reducing it from 44 to 42.5 hours). This was done by extending, for that set of workers, the Iranian weekend to include Saturday as well as the traditional Thursday and Friday." We like our non-native-English-speaker contributors to try a little harder to get the English grammar correct, but we're unlikely to block them from editing for a few simple syntax errors or for not being maximally helpful to readers who are not steeped in their culture. 3) So just fix it. The source is clear and short: "The three [living] former presidents of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Rouhani". Looking at our article, I see someone has already patched up that sentence, so there is no issue to resolve. In short, it seems to me that Borgenland would like there to a principle by which WP banned editors who mean well and add some good material but who also sometimes create typographic-cleanup and clarity-improvement work for other editors to do after them. I'm unaware of any such block rationale, and we would not do well to create one. It's far more practical, on multiple levels, to coach and coax an inexperienced editor into becoming a better encyclopedic writer than to try to banish them for not already being one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was the one who patched up number 3 but because I found an English-language source that can verify whatever claims they made. The fact is, they had been coached and coaxed several times to improve their writing to the extent that you had seen, to little avail. How far should their behavior be tolerated without compromising the encyclopedic quality of articles in this project and how long should it be for them to learn how to be responsible in providing factual and comprehensible information?. Borgenland (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since creating this account on November 30, 2023, 54% of their edits have been to Wikispace[156]. These edits have consisted of mass-nominating articles to AfD at a rate that would make TenPoundHammer jealous. They appear specifically to want to delete articles about sports broadcasting. Of their edits to mainspace, most of those are either AfD notices or merges.
On their usertalk, the user has been repeatedly told, either directly or implicitly, to gain more editing experience by established users such as @Legoktm:,[157]@Vossanova:,[158]@John B123:,[159] and @Liz:.[160] Additionally they appear, based on the comment by John B123 linked above, to not understand that Wikipedia is based on consensus and collaboration.
This issue is compounded by several factors which all combine to make this actionable, in my opinion.
Secondly, on that same IndyCar on NBC AfD, they refactored their rationale after I called them on the NASCAR error, without striking that part of their comment, and ignored my request to do so.
Thirdly, they appear to have found a WP:TAGTEAM partner in Conyo14(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). editor interaction history shows several recent instances where Conyo replies within hours, if not minutes of SF starting a new AfD, and indeed AfD Stats shows these being delete !votes overwhelmingly so[161][162].and then we have this this talk page comment. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them: User:SpacedFarmer/AFD list.".
Lastly, SF was warned for incivility by Liz on their talk page on May 13 and has been brought to ANI late last month[163] for similar incivility. Since the warning by Liz was more recent than the diffs I have, I won't post them unless asked so as not to risk double jeopardy.
In one rare instance where Conyo !voted keep in an SF AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes who came out of retirement, SF shows a lack of knowledge or desire to fix articles rather than go for the deletion option, "But I think that list needs fixing....Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD.".[164] For an editor spending the vast majority of their time at AfD, this is a huge problem that needs addressing. That the majority of their AfDs result in deletion should not distract from these core issues that lead me to conclude that SpacedFarmer is not fit to edit in deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern about all of these nominations is the overall incivility and bludgeoning attitude of Spaced; I've voted on one nom only specifically because of Spaced's overall harassment and that all of their noms do not have unique rationales or just misabuse drops of WP: links. I'd like to hear what they say, but they really need to improve their overall attitude in editing, because as-is, they are refusing to compromise, much less apologize for the personal attacks they have been giving out towards those who disagree with them. Nate•(chatter)17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may absolve myself of some of the accusations, I tend to lurk around AfD like everyday. One of the AfD's I decided to nominate this year was in my primary scope of editing: List of NHL Western Conference finals broadcasters. So, my interest in deleting articles that this user nominates is similar to mine. However, the premise that I notice his articles for deletion are a WP:TAGTEAM is inherently false. I'll admit I did indeed copy-paste some of my rationale within his hour of nominating. That being said, I performed a WP:BEFORE search on all of these articles. I would not just !vote into the void knowing my rationale is not backed without due diligence. Hence, I wanted to tell him to slow down as users like him tend to get placed into ANI and told formally to slow down or else. Also, in case it wasn't noticed, I do have the ability to change my !vote if proper sourcing is given.
Before this gets any more lost in the shuffle, I'll say that I'm satisfied by this explanation that there's nothing nefarious going on as far as this aspect is concerned and have struck that part of my post. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this editor may need some patience (I think it is good practice to not make mass deletions your sole contribution to Wikipedia), I dislike the onesidedness of these accusations. Mass nominations at a rate no one can keep up with are of course a problem, but so is dumping piles and piles of listcruft into article space.
Honestly, if people want these articles to be not deleted, they should consider looking for encyclopaedic coverage to meet WP:NLIST. I agree with the vast majority of this user's nominations. There's a huge backlog of terrible articles that ought to be banished, especially those relating to sports. Lugnuts created over 93000 articles in their lifetime before someone put a stop to it. There's no limit to the rate at which people can vomit terrible articles into mainspace, and so reporting someone to ANI for nominating quickly (unless accuracy is exceptionally poor) is also not against the rules. On the question of copypaste rationales, while this can indicate bad behaviour, it can also indicate that a very persistent fan has blasted (and even, shocked gasp, copy pasted) dozens of very similar articles into existence.BrigadierG (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their success rate can be partially attributed to their style of mass nominations BLUDGEONING the process. It's much easier to copy/paste the same lazy rationale into articles about motorsports, college sports and the Olympics than it is to search and post the differing references for all. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)20:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but like I also voted on many of their nominations and the articles in question were just terrible and had nothing except one or two press releases for to verify one or two entries. Can you be more specific about the kinds of articles you think were wrongly deleted? BrigadierG (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are not automatic disqualifiers for a source and Spaced has been told this and refused the advice on what a reliable source is. They're expecting to paint a wide brush like Dan said to get these articles deleted by obfuscating their rationales or bludgeoning with so many WPs an average voter wouldn't question them, when most who do read the sources do. Nate•(chatter)21:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source being reliable is not the same thing as indicating notability. Press releases do not contribute to an indication of notability because by and large they are primary sources that are published without editorial oversight, although they may be suitable to verify basic facts that are unlikely to be contested. WP:ANTECEDENT - being verifiable and notable are both necessary conditions for an article to exist, but on their own are not sufficient. A notable subject that can't be verified doesn't get an article, and neither does a verifiable one that isn't notable. The standard for notability requires being noted by a secondary source - hence the existence of WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH.BrigadierG (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this guy could use a little work, he seems to be correct much more often than not. Wikipedia is filled to the brim with useless lists. I'd say all he needs to do is take a little more time to make sure he is AFDing stuff with a correct reason and to remember to not get into pissing matches in AfD. This, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the level of sanctions being needed. Jtrainor (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take back the nice things I said about this guy. I gave him a little friendly advice and for some reason he decided to revert my post (fine, it's his talk page), and then caution me for a personal attack (what?) on my own talk page and then revert it. This guy needs an attitude adjustment. Jtrainor (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do. He is totally wrong when he accuse me of showing "a lack of source checking when looked at side-by-side" as they have been checked through before making the nominations.
Anything Conyo14 involve in my nomination is unexpected and incidental.
I don't see what is wrong with copy/paste rationale as they all have everything in common, low quality garbage that plaque Wikipedia which needs to be put out of its misery, I checked through them before via WP:BEFORE and nothing, so I just put on my black hoodie, get out my big sickle and execute the decision. Nothing wrong with that, it keeps those YouTube parasites at bay but then they won't touch those lists with a 10ft bargepole.
I have done my attempt of "a little work" but after discussion, they got pissed down the wall. Also, there is nothing to write about anymore.
As he had pointed out, one or so was done in error as I have just being back from work, unaware I was tired. I only had just woken up when I got that message and logged off soon, so I couldn't get back to him. I nominated these are I cannot see them passing notability guidelines.
This guy now can relax as I am going to slow this AfD down for the summer given most of the easy nominations have been done and many others is less likely for this time being, as time is needed to look the sources through. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone a "fanboy", saying they are "[spiting]" you and that they have a "hateboner" is not the way I'd reply to an ANI report about myself if I had just been warned twice in the last month over incivility. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your standard of discourse here is a bit troubling. There are reasonable standards of behaviour expected of all editors everywhere on Wikipedia, as you have already been made aware. Phrases like "hatebonering" and "pissed down the wall" don't seem appropriate to me, neither does describing another editor as a "fanboy" and I'm not sure whether "YouTube parasites" is meant to refer to something on that site or YouTubers/viewers editing on Wikipedia. It is not difficult to be civil in online discourse, and failing to do so here could result in your editing privileges being withdrawn.
On the subject of your AfDs, I have no strong opinion either way. They do seem broadly correct, if a little too frequent. But your interactions with other editors leave a lot to be desired. AdamBlackt • c23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> This fanboy of some driver needs to accuse me of copy/paste rationale that he does as he usually does, make another keep vote to spite. This accusation is bordering on pure hatebonering for no reason whatsoever given his history of whatever I do
So rather than improving the quality of list articles which always appreciate new sources, you decide to denigrate editors as "fanboy...YouTube parasites", cast yourself as the Wikipedian version of the Grim Reaper who has no designs on improving anything and only removing through bludgeoning, make a blanket statement that these list articles are 'low quality garbage' and dismiss everything you've done as 'work' and 'easy nominations'?
I can't assume any further good faith with you, Spaced, and I am highly doubtful that you performed most BEFORE as intended. You are to assume good faith of all editors, not just select ones. I know working with others can be frustrating, but you need to talk out things rather than dismissing them out of hand because they were part of the YTTP or whatever Roblox/Discord friend group you think is an affront to your deletion spree. Your attacks on others are uncalled for, and your civility needs some serious work. I do see a point to some of the deletions (which long needed to be prose rather than long lists), but the way you're going about it is not in the normal manner of the AfD process. Nate•(chatter)00:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allowed to state my views properly and from experience and have understood how AfD works at its best for years, along with these mass noms. They are poorly done and Spaced's continued insistence on being rude and brusque will not lead to a long editing career if they continue as-is, nor taking my comment as an immediate PA. Nate•(chatter)01:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing everything you've nominated, which include some articles such as List of MLS Cup broadcasters that are well-written, extensively researched ~300 reference articles – as low quality garbage, and that you're the grim reaper who needs to execute such articles, while describing any who don't support such actions as "parasites" – because there's nothing to write about??? Wow... BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think for Spaced, it is important to realize that while some nominations have been clearly flawed, the use of how sources are analyzed can get exhausting (and frustrating when editors confuse reliable and notable) when doing mass nominations as he's been doing. So, I think at this time, perhaps they should stop commenting or nominating for now. Let the current AfD's run their course. Conyo14 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SpacedFarmer, while I have agreed with most of your nominations (if not the entire rationale), a few have made me question how much of a WP:BEFORE you have been doing on them. It only took me a couple of minutes to find numerous sources showing that List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports was notable, and several others I found to have sufficient sources present fairly quickly. I am wondering what exactly does your BEFORE entail?
Part of the issue for some editors here is the lack of bundling (as seen with the recent nominations of the Monday Night Football results articles and a handful of other nominations), leading to more spread out and lesser attended discussions for articles that are similar to each other. Perhaps bundling 3-4 similar articles (but no more) in each discussion would help with determining a broader consensus on some of these articles, along with slowing down of the overall number of nominations. Copy and pasting rationales which don't make any sense (such as the NASCAR mention in unrelated articles) doesn't help the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It entails a check through each one of the source first then a search via Google. Having done the first, I don't see it surprising that they would be nominated. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not surprised to see this here though I had hoped it would never come to this. I agree that the behavior of User:SpacedFarmer at AFD has not been good. The copy and paste rationale on his requests shows that a BEFORE is not being done, but the replies are far worse as evidenced by the users own comments above. I think a very short ban could be useful here, but I would hope that this thread alone would be enough to change some of the behavior. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a rate limit of 1–2 AfD noms every day? Although I expect that's much more difficult to enforce than a technical partial block from creating pages with prefix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*. Agree that the response by the reported user above in this thread is distinctly unimpressive. Folly Mox (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about not doing AfD nominations at all. Anyone who accuses people of being "fanboys" and "parasites" (which are personal attacks and you still haven't struck them/apologized for them btw) clearly doesn't have the temperament to work at AfD. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 16:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 91% success rate at AFD says a LOT. Looking at the list, most of those articles/lists look like (compound criteria) list articles that are so overspecialized that nobody is going to be looking for such a list. But their wording that they used in this thread (and apparently elsewhere) particularly when referring to other editors and their motives is pretty terrible. Looks like a newish editor who got very active in "hot areas" pretty quickly. Maybe has yet to learn that what's considered normal discourse on most on-line forums is far over-the-top at Wikipedia. Suggest realizing and learning the latter more quickly and maybe slowing down on AFD work until they learn that. North8000 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 91% success rate at AfD says nothing (or even NOTHING). It easy to achieve a far better rate than that without performing any WP:BEFORE. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious how to do so, but there seem to be some people who don't realise it, so, in the spirit of WP:BEANS, I won't reveal anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be 3 separate issues with SpacedFarmer's editing. As a relatively new user their understanding of WP policies and guidelines is limited. Whilst this is to be expected with newer users, the problem here is they take no notice when things are explained to them. For example they were warned that copying within WP requires attribution[165], yet still continued to copy and paste between articles without attribution. Secondly, their attitude towards other editors who disagree, as witnessed in this thread, is unacceptable. Lastly, given the sheer number of articles sent to AfD of which, as mentioned above, some are clearly notable, it would seem a diligent WP:BEFORE is not being carried out and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability.
I'm sure SpacedFarmer could be a useful editor if they take note of what's been said in this thread and modify their behaviour appropriately. Perhaps a warning would be appropriate at this time with the understanding that should this behaviour continue more severe action is likely. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...and a certain type of article is being nominated regardless of quality or notability." I think this is the key takeaway from your post, John. Based on their behaviour in here, I am unfortunately suspicious now that SpacedFarmer's primary motivation for editing is to delete this certain type of article, other opinions be damned. This apparent refusal to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project with editors having many different opinions will only see them taken here more if they do decide to do other things.
Itisme3248 has been making personal attacks at the meat talk-page. The user was blocked for personal attacks WP:PA and repeatedly inserting WP:OR] in August 2023 [166], [167], so since their last block they have not taken on any advice they were given.
Examples of personal attacks [168] "Vegan editors like Psychologist Guy, who promote a vegan perspective, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same" and this edit accusing another editor of adding lies [169] which the user was warned about [170].
If you read over my posts on the talk-page I have not accused anyone of being biased nor I am bullying new editors. I said this user was not acting in good-faith because it's obvious they were not. They have repeatedly argued on the talk-page that the systematic reviews cited on the meat Wikipedia article do not account for BMI or smoking. I cited several of these reviews (they all account for these) and this user doesn't reply to that, then they went on a rant about something else. All I see from this user on the talk-page is a long list of spam, personal attacks and WP:OR.
There is a repeated pattern of disruption here involving original research and personal attacks. They disrupted the Ancient Greek cuisine article. They disrupted the Race (human categorization) article and now this type of behaviour has spilled out onto the meat article and talk-page.
I do not see how this user is improving the project. If you read their talk-page they have already been given plenty of warnings about adding original research and making personal attacks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've accused multiple people of bias simply for citing better and more relevant studies. Not only do you first personally attack them that they are biased, but you also accuse them of rule-breaking when they point out your bias and dishonesty after you personally attacked them first. To hide this, you even deleted my comment that exposed the truth about your behavior. You were the first to accuse me and others of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the attack text from the Talk:Meat comment but otherwise left the comment in place. That whole subsections almost needs closed because more time is spent talking about the editors than the material. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example from the meat talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisme3248 (talk • contribs) 20:41 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
"Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged.
Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet" [2]. You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)"[reply]
Itisme3248, you realize everything on Wikipedia is logged right? Anyone can go to the meat talk-page and see I have not accused any users of bias [171]. The word "bias" does not occur in any of my posts. You are the only user I replied to on the talk-page, so the claims that I have accused "multiple people" of bias are incorrect. You are making false claims, any admin can verify this by looking at the edit history of the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy, accusing someone of bad faith editing is essentially the same as accusing them of bias. When you claim that I am editing in bad faith, you are implying that my contributions are intentionally misleading or dishonest, which is a direct accusation of bias. While you may not have used the word 'bias' explicitly, the intent and meaning behind your accusation are clear. Any admin reviewing the talk page can see that your remarks about my supposed bad faith editing are indeed an accusation of bias. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is bad faith editing. I linked to several reviews found on the meat Wikipedia article that adjusted for BMI but you keep claiming they did not adjust for BMI. You obviously havn't read these studies but this is off-topic here. You are disrupting this discussion by copying entire comments from myself. Just link to a diff. You are disrupting this discussion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You even have accused people of being conspiracy theorists, further demonstrating your tendency to discredit others by questioning their motives. ::::::::::Itisme3248 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
"Medical organizations are not reliable sources? Ok sure, next you will be telling us the earth is flat. This talk-page is not a forum to promote your conspiracy theories. If you have any reliable sources to improve the article suggest them, otherwise cut this nonsense out. You do not need to keep creating new accounts either. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]"[reply]
That comment was left a month ago on a completely different article. The drive-by IP was claiming that the entire medical community is wrong and that all medical organizations are unreliable. That is a conspiracy theory. No, it's not a personal attack to call someone's nonsense a conspiracy theory. We have established here that you are disruptive, you have not provided any evidence I have personally attacked you, so now you are going through my editing history a month ago to try and dig up anything unrelated to this that you think looks bad for me. Can an admin just block Itisme3248 before their disruption goes any further? I am tired of this now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you ignoring and misinterpreting what I said? I stated that the systematic reviews cited in the meat Wikipedia article repeatedly fail to account for BMI or smoking on the talk page. However, I also mentioned many other important confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, race, country, exercise, macronutrients, and more. Additionally, I emphasized that the total mortality rate is the most important factor, which is being ignored on this Wikipedia page. Itisme3248 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making false claims without any evidence [172]. If you check my comments on the meat talk-page I have not attacked "multiple editors". It should be noted that Itisme3248 is disrupting this discussion by copying comments I left a month ago on another talk-page completely unrelated to this discussion. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably WP:INVOLVED in the 'discussion' (for want of a better word) at Talk:Meat, but in my opinion Itisme3248 is creating a lot of noise, and behaving in an uncollegiate manner, and their wall-of-text-bludgeoning is making productive discussion very difficult. Looking a bit more closely at their editing history makes me more concerned - they seem to make a habit of wading into potentially contentious areas and demanding that their additions, which are often based on their own interpretation of primary sources, be allowed to stand. See, for example, this discussion at Pederasty in ancient Greece. Or this one at Race (human categorization). I don't doubt that they are sincerely trying to improve articles, but by 'improve' I mean 'make them reflect what they know to be The Truth', and they do not seem willing to adapt to our way of doing things. I personally believe that we're in time-sink territory here. GirthSummit (blether)09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting a block. It’s a difficulty area. But perhaps someone above my paygrade could suggest the editor take it down a few octaves. And perhaps avoid such articles for a while. Particularly since those of us who are danglers cringe at the word eunuch. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my use of the word eunuch was misconstrued. I meant it purely to describe the cowardly notion that a 19 year old girl who was a peace activist and rape victim who only held a ceremonial non-combatant position in the IDF to complete some university credits is even being considered an IDF soldier and a legitimate captured enemy soldier of war.
Yes, I am appalled the discussion is even being had. It angers and triggers me.
I accept your suggestion that I take it down a few octaves in good faith. Thank you. I will avoid such articles in the future.
I am otherwise a productive and contributing extended confirmed editor to wikipedia with over 7000 constructive edits with a particular focus on the tennis wikiproject.
I accept your feedback and will avoid politically charged commentary here.
Thank you for agreeing to step back, Kvwiki1234. Just to be very clear, though: any more comments like those, and you will be blocked without further warnings. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Kvwiki1234 should be banned or blocked, but I'd encourage you to reflect some of your reasoning for why your uncivil behavior was justified, as well as reconsider the insults you use in the future.
Your language is pretty problematic for people of all genders, not just the danglers. It has some pretty sexist and ableist undertones implying that only able-bodied men with sex organs can be brave. I'd also encourage you to reflect on your argument that you have 7000 edits. Does that mean because I have 500000+ edits, I can say even more ableist, sexist things out of frustration because I've made a lot of edits? (Personally, I don't think it does). Mason (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was in no way meant as a gender based slur. I meant it as something approximating extreme cowardice. However I accept your point and see how my language was problematic. I was overcome by anger when I made those edits. Therefore I was temporarily not of sound mind. I apologize, it won't happen again.
Regarding 7000 edits, I only pointed that to show that I am not some random vandalism troll and I value contributing positively to wikipedia. I take pride in being an experienced extended confirmed editor and my past contributions have been constructive and well received and open for all to examine. It does not excuse what I said in anger, it was simply to show that I am not a random vandalism troll.
My language in anger may have been problematic, I accept, and I fully understand and respect wikipedia's policies around gender based bigotry and our commitment to inclusivity. Yet there is an open discussion on wikipedia whether a 19 year old non-combatant girl rape victim was a legitimate enemy soldier captured in war? Not getting into a political debate regarding this, but it is food for thought for wikipedia going forward.
Thank you all for your constructive criticism. I mean that sincerely and in good faith.
Thank you for your warning. I will avoid topics that anger and trigger me in my personal life here on wikipedia in the future. As I mentioned before, my main areas of interest in wikipedia are tennis, other sports and sometimes Asian history, not politically sensitive current events.
Just for my own understanding, what does 'block' mean in this context? I will be blocked fom editing that particular page, or blocked from contributing to wikipedia entirely? I hope it never gets to that point, I am simply asking for my own knowledge. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kvwiki1234, I understand that you let your emotions get the best of you and also appreciate that you have promised to never say anything like that again. Good. You ask for clarification about a block. My view as an administrator is that if you say anything that obnoxious and disgusting again, you will almost certainly be blocked indefinitely from the entire project. All intelligent people know the sad fact that horrific things are happening all the time on Planet Earth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to neutrally document notable topics, not to blow off steam or vent our emotions. There are plenty of other places to do that, both online and offline. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In two previous ANIs Second Skin was first advised to tone it down then topic banned from music genre writ large. Specifically "Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres. @Doug Weller: talk 18:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)". This user appears to be violating this topic ban wholesale. [178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][reply]
Due to long history of problems, disrespect for admins and other users and Wikipedia processes, I am asking for an indefinite block at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to the first few things that are linked were to remove him supposedly being a fan of a type of music, how does this fit any "topic ban" of any kind? If I am not mistaken that was a past problem of genres being sourced directly on music articles. What I edited above were not music articles. If something (indirectly) runs into the broad category of a music genre I am in violation somehow? I only removed stuff about music that supposedly motivated a school shooter, which is completely different.
Also my "silly edit war" about a small town in New Mexico was 2 reverts and I stopped doing it and took it to the talk page??? What?
Never told Drmies to fuck off.... That thread was started by an IP address and I was already brought into scolding about that anyway
Everything else you linked was 8 years ago or. Seriously. 8 or 9 years ago. Do you have any better ammo? Are you seriously this mad because of a small dispute on a article about a town that i stopped involving myself in immediately after? So you bring up ancient stuff (and in some cases inproperly address me for some of these things of stuff I didnt actually do). Ever since I took a break and came back I have been very careful with the way I engage and try to improve pages. If I accidentally run into the theme of music indirectly concerning an article then I'm not sure how that's invadable. Music is very commonly connected to a lot of things. I have never edit warred with anyone about music genres for a very long time Second Skin (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well? It's not even edit warring of any kind it's just typical IP-address removal stuff, what if I used twinkle and one of the reverts I made accidentally edited a page for a music genre? Aside from all this you very clearly have a really bad vendetta against me considering you took the time to actually haul together stuff I said from about a deacde ago, which was already addressed with me forever ago with admins quite a couple times. I dont even remember much of that stuff because it was so long ago. And on top of that you're also lying about me telling a specific person to "fuck off" when you can very clearly see that the thread was made by an IP address (...so nice try). And youre also lying saying Im still engaged in some debate over calling a town a city when I already disengaged from that, and I even commented on the talk page about that matter since then, thus proving I wasnt edit warring and already directly took it to direct correspondences. You're also really severely twisting narratives here and exaggerating matters or even lying about stuff I didn't actually say. Or bringing up stuff from a deacde ago that was already addressed with me here before.... with other people... a decade ago.... I have been very careful with my edits and have been improving articles such as this one and others since my return. I left the page that you're mad about alone. This is ridiculous. I have my regrets for saying "fuck off" when I was a freshman high school student, I know it wasn't the best thing to say if that makes you feel any better. Second Skin (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to understand that Second Skin is indefinitely topic bannned from all pages and discussions relating to music genres requires you not to make any edits to articles about music genres, it is probably a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Not to mention the other edits related to music genres I showed above. As to "fuck off", how are we to know whom you were addressing with "fuck off" as the last person to comment in what you removed appears to have been Drmies - maybe part of why you were told to stop having discussions in edit summaries, which you did not stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? - Short answer is No. Here is the diff where it explicity states: If you're in any doubt as to whether an edit you plan would violate this ban, please ask me or another admin before making it. What made you think that Witch house (genre) and Horrorcore were not music genres? Why didn't you ask an admin as advised?Isaidnoway(talk)07:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"So I cant revert peoples unsourced stuff off the page? That other people were reverting as well?" No, you cannot. If you have a logged, community-endorsed TBAN that was not given a set expiration and has not been appealed, you are proscribed from making any edits to articles which fall within the scope of that ban, as is clearly the case here. Honestly, I'm finding myself in alignment with DIY's analysis of your responses: if you're telling us that that after at least 11 years on this project, you do not understand such basic truisms about community sanctions that have been applied to you, you are either feigning ignorance or there very likely is a basic competency/literacy with baseline community guidelines concern here.
Nor is that the only issue with your conduct that DIY has diffed here. First off, you are not allowed to tell anyone to "fuck off" here, admin or IP. Nor does your argument that DIY is fixating on old behaviours from a much younger and less put-together person track, because some of the instances are from within the last six months. I'll be blunt with you: I'm not sure you can avoid a block at this point--your violation of the ban has been so blatant, and your inability to address the issue so complete. The community understandably takes a dim view of having tried to apply a tailored approach to keeping a user on the project and away from their problem areas, only to have those restrictions utterly disregarded. But if you want to minimize the duration or scope of any further sanctions, you will at a minimum need to stop trying to obviate (and arguably obfuscating) concerns regarding your ban evasion. Your effort to cast the concerns raised by the OP of this thread as invalid, exaggerated, or representative of some sort of obsession by DIY do not hold up to scrutiny of even just the diffs already linked above. SnowRise let's rap07:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, while the "fuck off" etc stuff is definitely not historic, I don't think it should count for that much since unless I missed something, the editor finally seems to have cut down on that or at least the diffs on that issue look like they predate the ANI which resulted in the topic ban. I mean it's not a good look that it took them so long to to learn. In particular with their apparent inability to understand their topic ban, an argument could be made 'well if it took them that long to work out not to do that, how long is it going to take them to work out how to obey their topic ban'. The fact that they seemed to be downplaying their very recent civility problems obviously doesn't help either. Still I'd be reluctant to support sanction due to behaviour that the editor may have finally stopped. Note that editor's engagement with others could still be below the standard we'd expect even without them telling others to "fuck off". This isn't something I've looked at. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a useful observation, Nil Einne, and I agree with both the main thrust of your point and the caveats. That said, the core issue of the TBAN violations themselves remains, and I do have lingering concerns about the discussion style/respect for WP:CIV, even if we decide to AGF that the worst PAs will not repeat. SnowRise let's rap07:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second Skin, it is pretty simple: First, you were topic banned from music genres. Then, you made several edits pertaining to music genres. Ergo, you overtly violated your topic ban. Trying to wriggle your way out is not going to work. Recommendation: Admit your violation and promise to never repeat it. Keep your promise. Frankly, about 95% of the editing about "music genres" is unproductive bullshit of zero value to readers. Why not edit the encyclopedia productively instead? Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I've been pinged to this discussion, I do concour that the above doesn't give me confidence that Second Skin truly understands his topic ban and that it alone is sufficient to prevent disruption. Although I'd wait for any further specific sanction discussions before weighing in on those. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. @Second Skin Cullen has given you an off ramp. I suggest you take it. Acknowledge your mistakes, and please give us unequivocal assurances that you will respect the topic ban and be civil in your interactions with other editors going forward. I will simply add that this is likely to be the last stop on this particular train before it goes to a block. You obviously have the capacity and desire to be a productive member of the community. Let's not drag this out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with others above. This is a clear cut violation of the topic ban and is not tolerable. That's a lot of voices saying it's a topic ban violation. I'm going to place a final warning on Second Skin's talk page, and hopefully make it unequivocal. Indeed, this is the last stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Second Skin is to be indefinitely blocked until such time as they make an unblock request which satisfies the reviewing admin as to the fact that Second Skin acknowledges and understands the previous breaches of their topic ban and commits to avoiding the topic area they are meant to be proscribed from. SnowRise let's rap21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Nom: It's impossible to know whether or not the lack of response here, since the community made it's perspective on these violations of the TBAN known, is a case of ANI flu or not. On the other hand, I don't think it matters. All we have from this user so far is a lot of IDHT on the violations, and then complete radio silence as soon as it became clear that the unanimous community response was that the violations were quite obvious and flagrant--after which the community gave Second Skin an entirely easy and convenient out, that merely requires them to make a minimalistic statement of acknowledgment and acceptance of what their TBAN requires of them, going forward.
Until we have that kind of basic commitment that Second Skin understands and will abide by their existing sanctions this time around, I don't think we can be confident that this user will not be further disruptive in the area in question. Of course, ideally, Second Skin will respond before this resolution passes and obviate the need for it to be applied. SnowRise let's rap21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support You guys are more patient than I am. This user seems to me to be at the far end of not liking rules and not liking to be told what to do. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has been 'creating' a fair amount of human name pages by inserting a new page inside of existing pages by similar names. The pages are all good, to be clear – the only issue is that they are going in the completely wrong place. They have been asked to use drafts many times, but given that their address is so variable I really have absolutely no idea that they've even seen those messages. I don't want to see them gone, their work is useful, but it is currently creating extra work for others. Perhaps a block with a pointer to a detailed explanation of what they should be doing instead, and an unblock after they simply confirm they understand, would be able to get their attention. They've been temporarily blocked before for this exact thing but the block message was less than useful so they just kept doing what they've been doing after it expired. Tollens (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they keep bouncing around to different IPs, it seems they're also unlikely to notice that one has been blocked. I wonder if they are at least within a blockable range that wouldn't clobber a bunch of other, unrelated, users. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I would support your idea as perhaps the only way to get their attention clearly and long enough to get the point across, and see if they absorb it and do better after actually responding to the block with an indication that they understand and will edit in a more practical manner. We should be clear that we're not angry with them or don't value the content they're adding, just that it needs to be done properly. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The /64 earned a block a couple weeks ago. I've made it a week this time and left a specific note on their talk page. Izno (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you can likely be unblocked at any time assuming you've seen all this and understand - just add {{unblock|reason=Put a brief statement that you understand what you should do here ~~~~}} on your talk page, which is at this link. If you don't understand, you can ask on that page as well (include the text {{ping|Tollens}} in your message to alert me of it). Tollens (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Personal Attack by User:Kashmiri
User:Kashmiri has alleged without any proof that my account is a sock-puppet and is concerned about my lack of efforts (where I am uninvolved) in an ongoing edit war over at Talk:Tamil genocide.
For full disclosure, I did have another account a few years back, but I stopped using that account years ago since it had identifying information on it. I have also emailed checkusers at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org to bring my old unused account to their notice. This is all completely allowed as per WP:Clean Start.
At the bottom of the discussion at [200], User:kashmiri has been implying that I am engaging in sock-puppetry and has complained that I am displaying no collaborative efforts (even though I am completely uninvolved in the discussion). I was patrolling the pages (as part of my watchlist) and decided to warn both the editors involved in edit-warring ([201], [202]) and requested temporary protection for the concerned page at [203].
I was a Wikipedia editor for a long time before retiring and starting a new account. As such, I was very much involved in recent changes patrol and decided to continue doing so when I started this new account.
I am deeply baffled by the allegations being levied against me here (without any iota of proof) and believe this is completely against Wikipedia policies. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldenarrow9, you registered this account 8 days ago and immediately went on to issue warnings to various editors[204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211] and many more – including warnings to long-standing editors like Ravensfire, Espenthordsen or myself; proposing an article for deletion[212], and closing a discussion[213] (even though your account is not in good standing as it's not even extended confirmed). All in just 300 edits. It doesn't look like a very clean start to me, and my advice to you is to slow down and stop challenging everyone here. — kashmīrīTALK21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri: I was a wikipedia editor for a long time before changing my account to hide my identity. All the warnings issued by me are completely valid and almost all reports filed by me so far have been actioned on (including the most recent page protection request on the page you are edit-warring on). I have also shared details of my previous account with the checkusers. However, I don't like your personal attacks against me when I simply warned you about a Wikipedia policy you were violating. You straight up jumped to implying I am a sock-puppet (especially with your veiled comments like "Let's see...").
You also chose to report my current account as a sock-puppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110 after I shared with you about my previous account and opened this complaint against you (where I even mentioned that I have shared details about my past account with checkusers). (You have not even notified me about that report, and I just found it from your edit history).
@Goldenarrow9 There's no obligation to notify accounts about SPI, and I don't routinely do it. As I wrote: your start here is quite concerning, it's as far from collaborative editing as possible. You just go around and drop warnings on various users' pages (it's secondary here whether they are justified or not). At Talk:Tamil genocide, you made zero effort to engage in the discussion, present arguments in support or against the proposal. You just played a cop – much like in other articles. Now, being so unhelpful, and with such a suspicious editing pattern (see my SPI, which I reaffirm), do you really expect hugs and love here?
WP:CLEANSTART says: It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. I'm not at all sure that's the case here. — kashmīrīTALK21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your claim that Tamil genocide was "on your watchlist", I wonder how it got there when you never edited in this area – and at the same time when several new accounts became active on that article. — kashmīrīTALK21:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I highlight my concern with your veiled personal attacks again: "do you really expect hugs and love here?". Is this seriously the kind of tone that "experienced editors" use these days? I have replied to the SPI report as well. My previous account was in good standing and this new account was only started to disassociate my real-life identity. I didn't realize patrolling recent changes and countering vandalism is now frowned upon at Wikipedia.
Also, I don't really have to explain myself, but it got on my watchlist because I participated in a Requested Move discussion just a few sections above at Talk:Tamil genocide#Requested move 12 May 2024. I was only warning you as I noticed you were on your 3rd revert and that the topic was considered a contentious topic. Didn't realize issuing a simple warning to you would waste so much of my time here or I would have never done so. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used WP:Twinkle to rollback changes, issue warnings and request page protections. For RC, the Special:RecentChanges page has been enough for me. I still don't get why you decided to target me like this personally. Anyone could have warned you about your edit-war. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to clear up the issue of issuing warnings to long standing editors. For Ravensfire, if you look just below the warning, you'll see a friendly discussion of the issue at hand where both of us agreed it was just to avoid any future issues.
In the case of Espenthordsen, it was due to a file they uploaded which missed a copyright tag altogether.
Both warnings are advisory in nature and my warning to you was similar in nature (hoping to stop you from violating policies and getting yourself blocked).
You simply decided that qualifies me as a sockpuppet? All my edits so far have been in good standing and I've not acted hostile to you in anyway. Yet, you have only been hostile to me so far and didn't bother to assume good faith, going so far as mocking me and challenging everything I've said.
Look, people come here to build an encyclopaedia; develop content, sometimes argue about it in order to work out a consensus version. Yes sometimes formal warnings are necessary. However, you did not try to build anything: you just waded into a lengthy discussion with an the Template:uw-3rr usertalk (!) warning followed by two[214][215] warnings to discussion participants. This was not only unnecessary but outright rude. At the same time, given that yours is not the first newly created account that went straight to discussing Tamil genocide in the last few days, a CU request (not: decision!) was a perfectly valid move. My concerns were also shared by another editor[216].
With your every 15th or so edit to-date being a formal notice or warning, your demand of assuming good faith seems somewhat misplaced.
I'll repeat myself: you're welcome to build an encyclopaedia (providing your CU check comes out clean). But if you as a new, non-admin account only intend to police others, close discussions and, generally, go to contentious places, don't be surprised about a backlash. — kashmīrīTALK00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I'll repeat what I just posted on the talk page:
just to be clear. I've not made any comments for or against any content. Neither have I made any edits to the actual page. My request for protection was filed with kashmiri's changes intact at that point and some other editor reverted the changes before the page protection request was granted. I'm not taking any sides here except highlighting the obvious edit war and personal attacks going on here. I haven't even gone through the changes to have an opinion of it. My participation in the move request is also unrelated (saw it at a wiki project dashboard).
You seem to think I'm rooting against your page change but honestly I've no opinion of it (and will now stay far away from it since it's clear there is something way bigger than normal Wikipedia going out here).
I've also decided that I'll just quit Wikipedia and you can all be happy and maybe even throw a party over it? Sick of all of this nonsense. I don't have time for this. And I don't appreciate anyone who has time to scrutinize every single one of my edits. Maybe if you spent that time actually building Wikipedia (like you just said). Goldenarrow9 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also the attacks have started against the user who reported them for edit warring. Hope everyone who comes in contact with kashmiri is not driven out of Wikipedia simply because Kashmiri is an "experienced editor". Further, your username itself is a contentious topic, hope admins are aware of that. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, my username was simply chosen by a random username generator. But this behaviour scares me greatly. It seems like kashmiri is now actively trying to find out my real identity. I am now genuinely worried about this, and hope admins take notice. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've closed a complaint concerning Kashmiri at AN3 (not from Goldenarrow9) to keep the discussion in one place. There is no prejudice to any outcome from this discussion here. Acroterion(talk)21:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been involved in the actual edit war (or the discussion thereof). My only participation was in a move discussion where I wrote 1 single line opposing the move. Here, my only participation was issuing warnings to both the editors and requesting a temp page protection (which was granted) in view of the edit war. My issue here is strictly related to the personal attacks being made against me which have somehow continued unchecked even on this noticeboard.
Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here. In any case, I have mostly been spending my time here patrolling recent changes and didn't really participate much in any heated discussions. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my clean start was only to protect my identity (and my previous account has been in-operational for a few years now) so I don't believe those suggestions fully apply here.
That is incorrect. The entire point of CLEANSTART is to break away from the previous editing areas, which is important if protecting your identity matters. Otherwise, people are easily going to put 2+2 together and you're right back where you started. I strongly suggest you drop the stick and move away from those areas. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider that. I have mostly spent time doing RCP (and yes, this was something I was previously involved in as well). I don't target specific pages or projects but occasionally participate in some random discussions. Until this issue started, there was no indication on my account that I even had a previous account. Now, I will have to re-consider if I even should spend time on Wikipedia at all. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My only relation to that edit-war is issuing a warning and requesting page protection as an uninvolved editor. Replies to my warning started this altogether separate issue here. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to have this scattered at two noticeboards, you can present it here, or you can reference the AN3 report that can be inspected there and discussed here..Acroterion(talk)22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also move the sockpuppet report opened against me here? It concerns the exact same points being discussed here and was opened after this report was filed. Or can that not be moved since it requires checkusers? Goldenarrow9 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am much more concerned with the behavior of Dowrylauds (talk·contribs) at that article, who is the editor who is most clearly edit-warring here. They have made 3 "large" reverts and 3 comments on the talk page excoriating other editors for making similar reverts, with no constructive participation. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues at Chilufya Tayali, among them the addition of unsourced and promotional content, likely conflict of interest, and an editor who claims to be corresponding with the subject, who as of last month was reported to be missing and wanted by Interpol. See the discussion here [217]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Am I allowed to modify an opening statement in an AFD discussion that I opened? I have been reverted twice by an editor who insists that I make a new comment who then tags me as a commenter in what may be a bad-faith assumption of me trying to rig a consensus. Borgenland (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably here. No, you are not allowed, since that wasn't what was replied to. Any additions or modifications need to be accounted for, with a diff or a new comment. HTH. El_C06:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borgenland Please notify the involved user on their talk page as required under the ANI policies set out at the top of this page. I tend to agree you shouldn't have edited it, but I also don't think it involved exceptional circumstances that justified a user editing another's comment (which is effectively what happened here). The better approach would have been to ask you to revert your own changes. Local Variable (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd probably just ask the editor to revert and definitely make sure to personally notify them (i.e. via their talk page) if I ever did anything like that. But I also don't think reverting an editor's change to their own comment counts the same when it comes to editing another editor's comment. Especially if the change was made a significant time after the comment was made, had already been replied to, and the change wasn't fixing a simple typo or some other clearcut error. The point of not modifying someone's comment is IMO primarily because we don't want to modify someone's signed comments. But reverting a change isn't really modifying someone's signed comment, it's reverting someone's modification to the older version. The editor had already decided to post it. It's similar to the way removing someone's comment wholesale or hatting it isn't generally as big a deal than modifying it. And a closer example, if an editor wholesale removes a comment of their which had received replies rather than just striking it, it's hardly uncommon to just revert this removal and ask the editor to strike it instead. And for archived discussions even that might be controversial. It's not putting words into an editor's mouth to revert to something they willingly said at one time even if they later changed their mind. (If the editor's account was compromised that might be a different matter.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PicturePerfect666
Sorry, but as this dispute relates to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR and non-extendedconfirmed editors may not participate. Since the filer does not meet the requirements, this complaint cannot proceed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to ask for a topicblock on PicturePerfect666, both on all Eurovision articles and on any other topic that relates to either Israel or Palestine. They are being a disruptive editor in the Eurovision 2024 article, through bludgeoning multiple talk topics, disruptive editing, unnecessarily policing the talk page, ignoring consensus, breaching NPOV, deleting sections they personally disagree with, refusing to lose an argument, and malicious editing of the article in order to leave hidden instructions to warn editors to not make particular changes that they disapprove of.
Here there are 44 comments, and PP666 made 16 of them, over 35% of the comments in this section, double the amount of comments of anyone else involved. They continually changed what they thought was deemed wrong with this proposal, from "speculation and cruft", to "unreliable source", to "what is the relevance", to "the Eurovision rules weren't even broken", to "lets wait for further discussion", in order, when each of the previous reasonings were found to be incorrect. When examining that talk topic for consensus, there are 7 votes for inclusion, and only 1 against (PP666). When this was addressed, PP666 said "This is not counting votes", and immediately opened a request for comment about this exact discussion, presumably in the effort to delay anyone acting on the newly-established consensus. This disruption has been working, because despite consensus and the fact this was suggested a week ago, it is still not included in the article.
They have now seem to be not gaining the intended response in their newly opened RFC either, and have started bludgeoning the people replying to them there [220][221][222]
In PicturePerfects666's two RFCs (one which they asked an admin to open, and the other they opened themselves), so far every person who has replied to either of them has disagreed with PicturePerfect666's position, again. Multiple people replied to the RFC acknowledging that this was just a repeat of a recent already-settled discussion and not necessary [223][224][225].
Doing a rough count (doing some ctrl+f tallying), currently on the talk page there are 276 comments, and PicturePerfect666 has made 78 of them. Over a quarter of ALL talk page comments are made by them. They are dominating every single topic they are involved with and they refuse to back down on anything, even when there is a large consensus against them.
Disruptive editing and incivility
Warnings: [226][227][228][229]. Individual problems below often included their own pushback and warnings specific to the issue.
In the last few days, PP666 has:
Incited an edit war by repeatedly removing a section that describes the multiple Palestinian symbols displayed on stage at Eurovision [230], despite multiple editors asking them not to [231][232].
When told they were edit warring, they started personally attacking the user that pointed it out to them [233] - see edit description ("Reply to bad arguments, point scoring and attempted gotcha moments by a user with unclean hands.")
Got 48 hour site blocked for further personal attacks made during the edit war AN/I brought against them [234], as well as edit warring.
Attempted to escape that block via wikilawyering [235]
Opened a dispute resolution request that included 24 people, including a probable sock-puppet account listed as the first person involved. The sock has 3 edits in total - the first was to request someone restart PP666's edit war [236] (the edit war that happened 2 days before they signed up), the second was to "retire" the account exactly 1 minute later (5 minutes after signing up)[237], but they came out of "retirement" to post their third edit: literally posting "I agree with PicturePerfect666" on PP666's dispute resolution request. They have no other edits. Also note the similar username motifs.
PP666 added wikicomments in the article source, demanding that adding anything critical of Israel to the lead was against consensus and not allowed (despite knowing that was not true). They did not remove this message when this was pointed out to them. [238]
Moved the section that outlines the Israeli participation controversy further down the page to "alphabetise" [239]
Moved large sections of the Israeli participation controversy into a lower traffic article without consulting the talk page [240]
Removed large amount of detail about the Israeli inclusion protests without consulting the talk page [241]
Repeatedly removed an image of protest against Israel's inclusion happening in Barcelona because, as per the edit summary "we all know what a protest looks like" [242]. Also justifying removing this image again later using the reasoning "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" [243] (despite other sections having images at the time), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later [244][245]
Removing a one-sentence reference to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see [246]). Asked to revert, [247], but didn't.
When an admin removed some comments (full disclosure: my comments[248]) from the talk page because of the extended-confirmed protection, PP666 took it upon themselves to use this as justification to police everyone else in the talk page [249]
This led to PP666 opening a spurious AN/I, which was promptly shut down[250]. One admin said "No action needed other than for PicturePerfect666 to stop bothering them". During that AN/I, admins asked them to revert the policing comments, something PP666 pretended to comply with, but instead just wikicommented out instead[251]. The policing comments are still in the talk page code without any clarification that they are inaccurate and unwarranted. They refused to actually delete them when I pointed this out to them[252], quoting WP:TPO as the reasoning, which is completely unrelated to the situation at hand, and does not suggest wikicommenting at all.
Since my comments got deleted and I had the contentious topic explainer posted on my page, I have stopped interacting on this article's talk page (apart from one extended-protected change request), but I have still been observing what's been happening from the side-lines, and I think that PicturePerfect666's behaviour is massively disruptive and unhelpful, and they show no sign of self reflection or acknowledging a behavioural problem. This list was initially even longer but I decided to trim it down. There's no way of having a meaningful discussion or improving the article while they are involved. BugGhost🎤11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This largely factual incorrect. For example I only started one RfC and only did so after dispute resolution was declined after being advised to try routes that are different.
the matters complained about are already administratively dealt with as a block on me and another were rendered and have passed.
I’d like the reported to be boomeranged for this waste of time as this is already dealt with previously. They are also in my opinion on a campaign targeting me as they dislike the position I take compared to them.
if they have content disputes fine but this is targeting and bullying through gaming the system. An example was when an admin asked they and everyone else to not comment on my talk page and they carried on regardless.
this is the most nothing burger feet stamping laundry list complaint I’ve ever seen from someone doing so here because they dislike the processes of Wikipedia and can’t stand that contentious topics are going to need more input and have more people with different views than they like.
yes this reply is personal but I’m sick to death of the attitude of this user that they get to try and push an opposing voice on a contentious topic off because they can’t get their own way they should be trouted and warned they can’t go forum shopping on things already dealt with. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lines like this “one which they asked an admin to open”
Show how absurd and bad faith assuming this complaint is. I never asked any administrator to open anything I would therefor like that to be taken as prima facia evidence of bad faith and this nonsense closed with appropriate action taken against the filer. Accusations like that cannot be allowed as they damage the whole process and nature of Wikipedia.
I am not accusing anyone of "being your patsy", that is a ridiculous claim to make. The RFC was made after you and Ivanvector discussed dispute resolution, and when that fell through, and Ivanvector opened the RFC - I fully understand why Ivanvector created it, and it was done in good faith to try and reach a resolution on the talk page in order to have your concerns directly discussed. There is nothing wrong with that, and I have no complaints about Ivanvector or their actions at all. My chief complaints are with you opening the second RFC in order to disrupt a separate discussion, and your badgering of people trying to contribute to those RFCs. BugGhost🎤14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are. You are claiming an admin on my behalf through collusion, as my patsy opened an RfC. Which is complete nonsense. Quoting you directly “one which they asked an admin to open”. That is a clear accusation they opened the RfC at my behest. Trying to explain that away doesn’t cut it compared to the accusation you made and how much of a laundry list personalised load of rubbish this waste of time is. Which additionally has already had admin action taken related to it. Give it a rest and stop trying to game the system. I cannot take seriously any of your whingeing, it is just a bad faith attempt to remove a user from discussions because you dislike that they present opposing views on a contentious topic. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for the sake of stopping a derailment - if you insist, the phrase "asked for" could be improved. You may not have directly asked for it, but it was made to placate your concerns about the article, because your dispute resolution request didn't go ahead. Again: I have no concern about them whatsoever. I have no problems with the first RFC being open, this has nothing to do with this AN/I, and whether you "asked" for it or not makes no difference. I am making no claims about Ivanvector's behaviour and everything I have seen from them has been neutral, fair and in good-faith. The fact that you are trying to redirect this AN/I away from yourself and imply that I am actually attacking a third party is astonishing. This is a complete derailment, and I am surprised that this detail, out of everything in the original post, is the one you are fighting. BugGhost🎤14:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bad at Wikipeding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I fixed the diff seconds before you wrote that after you wrote that haha, yeah that's what I meant to link to, I forgot how the diff template worked Dialmayo11:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP 2A02:FE1:C187:BE00:7D27:BED1:E278:548A and the user Professor Timothy D. Snyder, an obvious sockpuppet that was registered in 2022, have repeatedly been deleting content from articles relating to Eritrea while also adding unsourced, poorly styled content: example diffs [258], [259], [260]. They have targeted the articles Italian Eritrea and Provinces of Eritrea. They have provided only brief explanation in edit summaries while repeatedly reverting instead of taking the content disputes to the appropriate talk pages. I believe that this user's edits have been disruptive and that administrators should consider taking action if despite this discussion they refuse to stop their disruptive behavior. I originally reported reported this case to AIV, but was told to take it here (page version).
An additional issue is their account's username; Timothy Snyder is a notable historian with his own article, but their edits have shown improper use of capitalization and punctuation, making it unlikely that they are a professor. Per the username policy, this username may be blockable for being misleading (pretending to be a professor) at best and for being impersonation at worst. Air on White (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the account indefinitely, as it is almost certainly impersonating the real Professor Timothy Snyder. If it really is him, I have provided instructions on how to prove it so that he can be unblocked. I have blocked the IP range 2a02:fe1:c187:be00::/64 for a month for disruptive editing. (The IP address 2a02:fe1:c187:be00:1980:93d9:ac21:57e6 has been used as well as the one given above by Air on White.) JBW (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A total mess of PA
This has all been discussed before, if you want to argue it again make a successful unblock request rather than using a proxy to spam all over the place and make TL;DR walls of text and invective. Acroterion(talk)12:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Users:
Chetvorno
Joy
Doug Weller
Bilseric
Complete disregard of NO WP:PA by all 4 involved editors.
B was blocked, but a number of PA happened long before he made his. I'm reporting J, C and D. I won't deal too much in detail with B as he is already blocked.
I'm listing ONLY PAs from 2024. I don't intend to deal with who deserved what, who did what before 2024 or (7 years ago!) and who was pushing which POV. None of this is an excuse for what I'm reporting here. If you want to deal with that , you are free to dig through this yourself.
2. D misinterpreting B's comment as PA against him and immediately starting a campaign of retribution by baiting a personal discussion on talk page. [262].
3. B answering to D talk page.
4. Despite this discussion on D's talk page, D continuing with PA on Tesla talk page, calling B "SPA with only 263 edits since 2017", digging history of past problematic posts, mentioning "WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:CHERRYPICKING". [263].
5. D is obviously preparing ground and baiting B into personal discussions on talk page. To avoid stronger words, this by itself is very troublesome behavior by such an experienced user who knows what he is doing.
6. B didn't take the bait, answers on D's talk page and D apologizes for mistake [264] , but continuing with campaign of retribution by sending mails to other admins prompting them to reopen SPI that dates years back. [265], [266], [267]
7. Yes, I'm aware of internal discussions!
8. J is not reacting to this PA by D, instead J is criticizing B's edits as forum-like behavior [268]. Not PA, but troublesome, especially since J was adamant to remove all "pointless flaming".
9. B noticing D continued with the "campaign" and asking about this [269]. He claims history of edits was rewritten and D changed his tone after apologizing.
9. Now C is making PA [270]. The dispute continues for a few posts.
10. J making PA. Accusing B of "anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC" [271], issuing a "final warning".
11. This obviously triggered B as later on he repeatedly claimed there was no such thing. The whole discussion [272]. B wrote to J's talk page asking for apology, which he didn't get [273].
12. B making a lengthy report to ANI and getting warned [274]. Continuing to argue on talk page. D asking B to take a year long pause. B agrees
13. Despite agreeing B continuing to post on talk page and even PAing J at ANI report another user opened. D warning B. B agrees again to take a pause 12. J making that B reverts [275]. D blocks B. B appeals. B makes personal attacks against D. B gets blocked. B makes more PA against D. B's talk page access revoked.
14. C continuing with PA on talk page [276]. J again not reacting to PA
15. I will even list my own PA, 3 comments total starting with this one [277]
16. Now J is openly PAing B [278] and of course retributing to me for my PAs
This is a clear pattern of troublesome behavior of all 4 editors.
The above IP has been spamming random admin talk pages (see its contrib history). IP is obviously WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, in addition to possibly being BE by Bilseric. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all that is true about me. Sock, spaming, disruptive. But you will provide no explanation why point number 4 is without merit. Pure example of "protecting your own". That's why I'm writng as an IP so attack all you want. Probematic behavior I pointed out is not tied to me 95.168.118.16 (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no excuse for behavior I listed above, expecially not mine disruptive behavior. I wasn't even present on Wiki back then unless I'm B's sock, but even then D,C and J problematic behavior started long time before B's as listed above. So yes, say it's without merit , but provide no explanation! 95.168.118.16 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D started with PA on talk page in point 4. J ignored it despite he is acting that he is there to prevent that behavior. C continued and only then B started with PA
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thier talk pages admit they are block evading. And all they seem to be doing is closing AFD's. As well as their talk page is a violation of NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as I was posting this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal is back yet again with disruption, stalking and harassment
Following on from several previous visits from some little vandal, they are back again under a new user name DiddyOwnsYa(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Again, this vandal has left some weak-arsed insults in the edit summaries. If these could be rev-deled and the account blocked, that would be great. Funny to think this lead to my rollback being removed because I called them a vandal and they turned out to be such a constructive editor... - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Faze flint has made many edits to articles relating to Elon Musk which have been reverted. For example, [286] which removes info in the lead with support in the body. Why? If you include it, you're a "brainwashed anti-Elon person." Likewise, [287] does the same, but with the misleading edit summary "changed the grammar." This user has been editing since January 2024; he is a troll and a vandal, and possibly a COI. His recently created userpage is trollish as well: "I do not harass Wikipedia users. I love fact-checking false information spread here by delusional people." I request that this user be blocked. Air on White (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in great length that this was inappropriate when I reverted instance number 3, and I also explained what i thought would be the appropriate steps (Special:Diff/1225642015). I also left a similar explanation at their talk page along with {{uw-tpv1}} (Special:Diff/1225644072). However, Wiki wikied keeps deleting these comments (I know this is their right) and seemingly ignoring them. I most recently escalted to {{uw-tpv3}} (Special:Diff/1225645397). Howrever, edit number 6 above came about 6 minutes after I posted that notice (and Wiki wikied is aware of that notice, because hethey deleted it). Please can an editor of higher standing assist in this where I have failed. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone keeps reverting things because they don't like having their pronouns assumed, perhaps the solution is to stop assuming their pronouns? (Underlining added, not in original post.) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 01:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree but the user needs to realise that "he" can be used to describe someone whose gender is unspecified ([288]) and people make mistakes - like above where auto-correct appears to have corrected a typoed "they" into "he". They can't just delete every comment where the incorrect pronoun is used. SSSB (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous response. Using "their" is clearly a neutral pronoun and is not an "assumption", aside from Wiki wikied refusing to clarify or engage in any way to constructively resolve the disagreement (which could have been rather straightforward). "If someone keeps reverting things because they don't like having their pronouns assumed", then that's petty, childish, and most importantly disruptive. We don't accept disruption because someone "doesn't like" the situation. That's not how we resolve issues and disagreements and "not liking" a simple error by Island92 (who I believe does not speak English as a first language) does not excuse or justify this disruptive behaviour. In fact, this has been the only thing they have engaged with on-wiki since April – a pretty strong indication that they're WP:NOTHERE to do anything constructive at all. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly sure Shirt58 is referring to the original comment which did use "he" throughout. I actually agree with Shirt58 regardless of he and she sometimes being used when gender is unspecified, it's increasing controversial and so should be avoided and especially avoided if someone objects. However, I don't think removing the comment was an acceptable solution and getting into an edit war over it even less. That said, if Island92 was one of those involved in the revert war, the immediate solution was for them to simply modify their comments. Editors could still discuss with Wiki wikied somewhere about better ways to handle such objections, but it benefits no one to insist in the right to call someone "he" when they've clearly objected no matter how poor their objection may be. But it doesn't look like Island92 was involved which complicates things since I'm unconvinced another editor should be editing Island92's comments. Nil Einne (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, SSSB's original post here used "they" and "their" throughout (diff). Island92 has not been involved since posting the original comment, which was about a seperate disagreement that has since been resolved. The message in question was posted on 21 April, and Wiki wikied let it stand without any engagement until 23 May. Nobody is trying to establish a right to call Wiki wikied by "he", the goal is here is to escalate the disagreement to prevent an editor from continuing to be deliberately disruptive. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that has nothing to do with what I said which is that Shirt58 is saying the comment being warred over was a problem, not that SSSB's comment is a problem. There is nothing in Shirts58's comment to suggest they were objecting to pronoun usage here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Shirt58 was suggesting that the solution was for Island92 to use they rather than he. However it seems their underlining was probably an emphasis that SSSB should have stuck with they rather than using he once, now acknowledged and due to a typo. Regardless, my main point remains. It seems clear Shirt58 wasn't objecting to the use of their etc. They were supporting it and emphasising all editors need to stick with it and not use he even once. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then I have no problem with Shirt58's comment, I agree it's always best practice to use a neutral pronoun until certain of what is appropriate. 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) <diff>
I used "he" once (where I struck it out). Everother instance used they or their some of which were later underlined by Shirt58. This was not an assumption, it was a typo being auto-corrected. My assumption right now would be to use "she" (balance of propabilites, only a small minority use pronouns of "they/them"). I agree with everything else you're saying - I tried to explain to Wiki wikied that if they objected to the pronouns someone used to describe them to take it up with the offending editor (and by all means consider it a personal attack if they refuse to acknowlegde your obejction to pronoun usage). But however controversial it may be, "he" is and can be used where gender is unspecified, and people do still make mistakes where gender is specified. People make typos, and in 6 months I may forget Wiki wikied's pronouns and default to "he" in a case of unspecified gender (linguistically acceptable even if contorversial). But to flat-out remove the comment is not appropriate or helpful and if we can't edit comments to correct grammar we shouldn't correct them for pronouns either? SSSB (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't remember preferred pronouns I strongly suggest you stop using he by default. If you refer to Wiki wikied ever again in a situation where it is not a typo, I'd support an indefinite block of you. And if you made a typo which resulted in incorrect pronoun usage, then even more reason for Shirt58 to object. The correct response is to apologise for your offensive typo and not claim it doesn't matter because it was simply a typo. The fact you did not set out to offend, doesn't change the offence caused by your actions. As I said below, this whole war is made even more silly by the fact the comment itself was a fairly pointless comment which doesn't even belong on the article talk page. So regardless of the poor way Wiki wikied handled this, I think it's a reasonable question to ask whether there's any real advantage to bringing this to ANI, and then make an offensive typo while doing do. Nil Einne (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to Wiki wikied ever again in a situation where it is not a typo, I'd support an indefinite block of you. That's an entirely unwarranted response and I cannot think of any administrator that would seriously consider that an appropriate course of action. But I think it's clear to everyone here that using a neutral pronoun is best practice, that's not why we're here or what the core issue is. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the pronoun issue, IMO the dispute is fairly silly since the actual comment being warred over doesn't really belong to the talk page. If Island92 wants to warn another editor they're free to do so themselves. But they should be doing so on the editor's talk page not the article talk page. Then the editor warned would be free to remove the comment without issue. The talk page should be used for discussing the changes rather than warning others. I still don't think Wiki wikied should have removed it like that especially without a decent explanation, but the fact remains if we step back the whole dispute is IMO very silly. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's petty and unproductive. However, Wiki wikied is still acting disruptively, and their editing activity since April (which has only been reverting the comment in question and removing warnings from their own talk page) suggests that this disruption could actually be deliberate. A warning that this disruption will not be tolerated, and that a block may follow if their activity continues to be purely disruptive in nature, is an appropriate response to resolve this. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then give such a warning. My point is that ultimately anyone involved was always free to do so so there's no reason this needs to be at ANI. ANI is for serious issues not those that can be resolved by someone recognising that even if the reasoning was poor, in the end there is no harm to removing that comment since it's something that simply didn't belong on the talk page so they could simply warn everyone who needed it not to repeat that shit again. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're at ANI because Wiki wikied has ignored all warnings (consult their talk page's history) and is continuing to disrupt. This may warrant administrator intervention to deter further disruption. 06:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) <diff>
I ran out of time to post this but if an admin wants to block Wiki wikied I see no harm in that. However I've tried to resolve the immediate issue by removing the misplaced warning and explained to Island92 why I did so and what to do with warnings in the future and also asked them not to refer to Wiki wikied as "he". I've also warned Wiki wikied against doing such removals again emphasising that even if they've asked an editor not to do that the correctly solution is to report it rather than remove it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your initiative Nil Einne – I see Wiki wikied has removed your warning so they have seen it, hopefully they heed that advice and there won't be any further disruptive behaviour. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said quite a lot so I'll leave probably one final comment. First I'll acknowledge I missed that the comment being removed was over a month old, I had thought it was quite recent. Even so, this only makes a minor change to my thinking.
I feel we and I'm definitely including myself in that, have a tendency to miss the forest from the trees in some disputes, and this is IMO one such example. As I've said, being generous the comment was at best a misplaced warning to a specific editor which would belong on the editor's talk page and not the article talk page.
IMO, it wasn't even one of those warnings that was a combination of warning plus possible starting point for discussion over some dispute. At least to me as an uninvolved editor, it's very difficult to parse from that comment why Island92 objects to the change and feels it's not an improvement other than something about "see history".
Assuming the history most likely refers to the article, I had a look and found comments like "We've already discussed this with no consensus to change" and "We've just discussed this". But this is by itself fairly useless as an explanation for the problems with the change, what we actually need is the older discussion.
The older discussion is I guess the discussion Grands Prix Results one which is at this time right above that comment[289]. So all that comment actual does is direct us through a very roundabout way to see the discussion which is now right above that comment!
In other words, it's fairly useless for any other editor and I see no purpose to keep it on the article talk page. I said "being generous" earlier since it wasn't even actually a warning. Instead it was asking some other unnamed party to warn the editor. If I had to guess, Island92 is an inexperienced editor and incorrectly thought and maybe still thinks there are mods responsible for monitoring behaviour and warnings editors which of course isn't how the English wikipedia works. So in some ways the comment was even more pointless.
Yes it's very common that editors have such confusion and misplace warnings, and a lot of the time we just let it be. But it's also very common we collapse, in-place archive, immediately archive to a subpage or simply remove such comments. In this particular case, it seems that the comment was causing offence, maybe even distress to the editor concerned. That being the case, there seems to be even more reason to just remove the comment rather than keeping it up.
While this was not an editor's talk page, the same principle actually applies. In so much as it was intended as a warning to a specific editor, we can assume that editor has already read the warning otherwise they wouldn't be removing it. So even more reason why it was simpler just to let the removal stand.
Yes the stated reason for removal might have been flawed, but it was simple to annotate the edit summary or alternative for some editor seeing the edit war to take over the removal and give a better explanation for why they were removing it like I did. They can approach the editors concerned and explain the situation as I did.
As an alternative, perhaps Wiki wikied would have been fine with the comment being archived to a subpage. Although frankly, removing pointless comments on talk pages which haven't yet been archived rather than archiving them, even after a long time isn't uncommon either.
Let's also consider the alterntive which is that someone needs to ask Island92 to change their comment, and Island92 need to go an modify a comment which as I now realise was over a month old and which did not belong on the that talk page anyway, and where the actual issue seems to be dead. (At least so far Wiki wikied hasn't returning to trying to change to their preferred version of the table.)
So I guess what I'm reminding editors is always consider taking a step back in disputes like this and rather than looking at issues of simple black and white, 'you removed the comment for a unjustified reason so I'll revert you' and when you keep on insisting on removal, the bring you to ANI to get you blocked probably also resulting in a bunch of editors needing to look into the dispute. While all these actions might be technically justified, I think we (and again definitely including myself in that) should never forget to look at the wider picture and ask ourselves, is there actually some way I can resolve that without all this? And also, even if an editor might not have left a good explanation in wikipedia terms, for their change but is there actually a good reason for their change nevertheless? (I.E. Remember to always consider the change rather than just the explanation.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP user 206.188.41.102 has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple users despite being warned repeatedly. The user is continuing relentlessly despite all of their attacks being removed. It's clear the user is not going to stop and a block is warranted (IP's contribs). RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they are still disruptively editing their own talk page (not sure if its technically vandalism but you might want to still take a look at it) Gaismagorm (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bafuncius (talk·contribs) is using automated translation tools to add content to Eastern esotericism. They have massively expanded the article with material that essentially duplicates our article on Vajrayana, apparently translated from the Portuguese Wikipedia article Esoterismo no Oriente [pt]. See also this comment, where they assert ownership of the material because they "wrote" the Portuguese article. Two editors oppose the extensive duplicative addition of badly automated translated material, but Bafuncius has reverted both of us, and their rhetoric suggests they will continue to do so. I'd just take it to 3RR, but the major issues is the misuse of automated translation. Skyerise (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this editor was also involved with the massive autotranslated article on Kardecist spiritism, which is still full of broken citations and other serious issues. I tried to fix it at one point, but gave up. Don't our rules on the use of automated translation require the editor to have enough knowledge of the subject to correct and revise the translations? Also, both Flemmish Nietzsche and I have tried to explain that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE does not allow for the duplication of 60,000 bytes of material which belongs in another article entirely, but Bafuncius (talk·contribs) has failed to respond about or otherwise address that issue. They argue that there may be information in the material which was added to Eastern esotericism that is missing from Vajrayana, but the answer to that is that it should have been added to the most relevant article rather than essentially creating a WP:POVFORK of an existing article. Skyerise (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bafuncius, you're not really listening to the main point here. In addition to what was said by Skyerise, you can't have a section of an article that is both a POVFORK and is almost the same length of the main article itself. Not all the content from both versions can be included in the Vajrayana article, too, as that would put it over the readability word count. Just because the combined content from two wikis on a subject may have some stuff one doesn't have, doesn't mean that both wikis need all the content from both language articles. We all must adhere to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were the one who auto-translated it, but Bafuncius wrote the original content on the Portuguese wikipedia. As the writer of the original article (in the Portuguese version, before it was translated to the English version) from the talk page of Eastern esotericism. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be a cross-wiki ownership issue here. Different language Wikipedia editors may make different editorial decisions about how to present material using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. It's not correct to try to force or coerce English Wikipedia to adopt the monolithic style chosen by Portuguese Wikipedia through edit-warring to keep the same structure as the Portuguese article. Skyerise (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the point I was making above — not every language version wiki has to present content in the same manner or have the same specific content on a topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no way was I or am I claiming ownership of the article; when I said As the writer of the original article (in the Portuguese version, before it was translated to the English version), my intention was to show that I am knowledgeable about the whole of the article and to intellectually reinforce my argument of why I completely disagreed with the massive removal: thus I stated some specific reasons, and in no moment did I say something like: "this is my article, no one can edit!". Also, it served to show my indignation against that destructive removal: many of the paragraphs are not found duplicated from other articles, and a good proportion of the removed content is also not found in the article Vajrayana. I see now that here in the English article there is indeed a duplication of some main topics: I've created the article in Portuguese, so I was not aware of the situation here. But as can be seen in the talk page, there was no effort in explaining this to me before this report, and most of the replies were unfounded threats that I was edit-warring or inserting bad automatic translations. Bafuncius (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor adds unsourced content to JP writing system articles
possible multiple account abuse by user:cheezitspullens and user:cheeseitsspecial
these two accounts are making disruptive edits of the page for pullen adding info about a fictional country called "pullenisti". both of these accounts also have somewhat similar names.
Since the 23rd of May, those IPs have reverted my edits and talk page without any explanations. It seems that those IPs are 'stalking' and trying to disrupt my edits to harass me. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the listed IPs are VPN proxies. I've blocked all that have edited today or yesterday (a couple haven't edited since May 23). That said, I have no idea what's going on, i.e., the merits of 117.'s edits, in other words should they be reverted in the first instance. Given the number of proxies, I would expect this would continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual response to persistent disruptive behavior by a range of random VPN addresses would be semiprotection. But if the disruption is happening on an IP editor's talk page, that would be counterproductive. I guess the only advice is: why not make a login? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Years of disruptive edits by IP incorrectly updating maintenance templates
91.106.57.222(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) is the current IP used by an editor who has, for years, consistently updated the dates on maintenance templates across many articles, while ignoring requests to stop and not responding to any talk page message. Although currently based in Iraq they have previously used IPs in Turkey in 2022 and 2023. The history of Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines shows many, many updates to the date in the sentence "As of [date], [number] COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide" without changing the number of doses administered (as well as changing the date in the "Use dmy dates" template)
The history of Sudanese civil war (2023–present) shows their approach on conflict articles. As well as incorrectly updating any maintenance templates, they constantly update map captions to the current date even when the corresponding image hasn't been updated (you'd think instead of making pop songs mimicing famous artists, someone could make AI do live updates for us)
Same behaviour on many other conflict related articles, no need to hammer the point home any more I hope. As well as that, they also incorrectly update dates on other maintenance templates such as "one source", "More citations needed", "Original research" and "Expand", "very long" and many more, I hope I've already provided enough.
Mooresklm2016 is behaving problematically around an AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meritt North. First they tried to repeatedly strip the AFD template from the article; even after I posted to their user talk page to advise them that they aren't allowed to do that, and have to leave the template on the page until the discussion has run its course, they simply reverted my post back off their talk page and continued to revert war over the template, forcing me to temporarily sprot the page. Now they're just trying to WP:BLUDGEON the AFD itself with long, long screeds of text and lists of primary sourcing — with this, in which they tried to give each individual paragraph in their screed the full == == headline treatment to the point that I had to do an WP:AWB edit on it to strip that because the page had so many headlines in it, being the most egregious example.
But since I was the initiator of the discussion, I'm obviously not the appropriate person to decide if any consequences are warranted since I'm directly "involved". Could somebody look into this and determine if any warnings or other repercussions are needed? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the most prominent TL;DR screed on the AfD debate shortly before giving my Delete argument. A request to remove the prot at RFPP/D by Mooresklm2016 got declined by Favonian, citing the AfD template removals. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to say I don't feel like I'm seeing a "smoking gun" in any of these diffs though. Lack of communication is a real issue, but I'm not sure a good case has been made that their edits are all that problematic. I'm willing to be convinced but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is a new user who doesn’t understand the goal of Wikipedia. But still I do think they might need some kind of block.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact users can get blocked for being non-communicative. Just don’t remember the page name for that policy.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:Quavvalos recently made a user page with the text saying "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 4 ACCOUNTS IN ONE DAY Your anti evasione system is ridiculous!!!🤣🤣🤣". this doesn't get any more obvious. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also check out user:Quovalos, which due to the similar name and user:Quavvalos responding to a teahouse comment made by quovalos about block evasion might be an account under the same person. Gaismagorm (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume you'd just delete them as vandalism. Do not ever respond or attempt to engage in discussion once it's clear it's a sock of this guy. Air on White (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since December 2023, User:Let'srun has been consistently WP:HOUNDING me by following me around and opposing me at various different places, including some extremely obvious examples coupled with some personal attacks, incivility, and general disruption towards football articles in the areas I work. I have been extremely patient in dealing with this user, trying to minimize contact, etc., but he has not stopped, and as such I feel I have no choice but to send this to ANI. Below, I have listed extensive instances of hounding and harassment directed towards me by this user. To make things a little easier to read, I have left some more minor evidences in small font, some moderate evidences in normal font, whereas more obvious examples are in bold font.
Background
To start, I found it peculiar that his first contributions were attempts to mass delete articles; see [306].
First interaction seems to be me commenting at an AFD of his (August 2023): [307] - nothing unusual.
September 2023: I assisted in saving an article he nom'ed for deletion: [308]
Started nominating football stuff in October with [309].
Saved an article he nom'ed for deletion on Dec. 11: [311].
Let'srun
Note that much of this comes from emails with other users from the past (who similarly believed the behavior was disruptive); as such, a few of the links may be out of date, but can still be found by looking through contributions lists.
From email one, late January
Right after (two minutes) he responds at the Boston College-Virginia Tech AFD (mentioned in above section), disagreeing with my provided sources for GNG ([312]), he bizarrely draftifies an AFC submission I accepted for having "too few sources" ([313]) when it had three and significant coverage.
December 16: he votes "redirect" at an article I substantially expanded; ultimately kept: [314].
Five minutes later: does the same at a different discussion involving me that I voted keep (eventually kept): [315].
December 18: I make a comment at one his AFDs (Darroll DeLaPorte), could be considered inclusion-leaning: [316]. Excluding two minutes later, his very next actions ([317]) are to tag two of my creations in two minutes, both Italians for the 1926 Hartford Blues whom I created in consecutive months, for missing significant coverage, one of whom (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Segretta&diff=prev&oldid=1190596820) that was incorrect.
Five minutes after replying to me at the DeLaPorte discussion ([318]), he nominates an article created by me for deletion, which was kept ([319]).
I save another article he nom'ed for deletion December 21: [320].
Seven minutes after it is kept, he mass tags for significant coverage 28 articles ([321]).
December 21: creates a merger article from my work without attribution ([322]). (Not that I really care that much about it, but I've seen others get upset about it before.)
Mass sigcov tags 23 articles on December 22, then eight more on Dec. 24 (not that its necessarily wrong, but he has access to sources and knows how to find them, so it'd be just about as easy for him to do that).
On December 26, I reverted "refimprove" tags on List of current CFL players added by Andrevan; one day later, tags are interestingly re-introduced by Let'srun; reverts by me with explanation are repeatedly either reverted by him with no explanation or explanations that didn't make sense: [323]. Something similar happened with the XFL and USFL lists; but he later brought them to AFD and they were deleted, so I can't view the history.
January 1, 2024, very oddly comes across Art Whizin, an article kept at AFD over a week earlier, where I had commented, and adds maintenance tags: [324].
January 2, there was discussion over whether to have a notability tag on an article just kept at AFD; I make a comment and include a source and Let'srun somehow finds my comment and finds a reason to discount it: [325].
A little bit later, oddly adds and removes categories to a 1895 Tufts football article ([331]); not created by me but I did other Tufts articles; odd.
Later that day, votes against me at an AFD; noting that he "never agree[s] with the constant [other stuff exists] arguments by BF" ([332]).
After noting his disagreement with a comment I made at the 30-game NFL player AFD, his next two actions are to nominate for deletion to articles created by me - both of which I created in a two-day span ([333]). I do not see how he could have found those besides looking at my userpage.
15:24 January 4: votes "redirect" at a AFD I was involved in: [334].
Soon after, I revert some of the ridiculous notability taggings mentioned earlier ([335]) - his first actions after that, seven more silly notability taggings (six reverted): [336].
Then I added a sigcov source to Bill Gutterson, Ellery White already had one (two of the articles tagged by him) - he continually re-adds the tags, then inserts some more maintenance tags, on account of the non-existent requirement that "enough sources to satisfy GNG need to be IN the article". Ultimately reverted (notability tags are not allowed to be re-added...).
The sixth (1901 Wilmington Conf. Acad.) on Jan. 19. Here's where it gets interesting: I comment "This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive." He leaves me a message ([338]) asking me to "withdraw my personal attack". I said it felt like a totally reasonable comment, especially since it was six straight and he was averaging one per three days of mine.
Later on Jan. 20, tags for notability four clearly notable articles (Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Marshall Edwards, Joe Rowe) in FOUR MINUTES which were all created directly after each other by me as some of my earliest work ([340]). He had said, in the talk page discussion, that he was not targeting my articles. That seems pretty clearly targeting. Also worth noting - the MINUTE after I reverted one of the taggings for being clearly notable ([341]) - he has two more plainly ridiculous notability taggings for obviously notable NFL players ([342] - Ty Coon / Buster Mitchell). Five minutes after I revert the notability tag for Mitchell ([343]), he slaps on a bunch of other maintenance tags and makes me do the work, even when I linked sources in my revert edit summary ([344]).
Right after, replies on my talk page (in response to me saying it was not a personal attack to point out his AFD statistics): "It comes with the inherent accusation that I am targeting your articles for deletion, which I am not." I respond by asking how he found the four (Swanson et al.) and the Tusculum season, he responds by avoiding the Swanson question, and saying "Using categories created for the respective teams, and the early college football seasons...For the last time, I ask you to strike that comment." Do you know what he does next? Tags for notability not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN articles relating to my work for notability (South Dakota, Columbian, Lewisburg - [345]).
I question how he found them in rapid succession, and ask "And even if that's all random, I still ask: what about Edwards, Swanson, Robinson and Rowe". His response completely avoids the question ([346]): "I'm confused, were you formally MisterCake? That is who created the Lewisburg articles I tagged." (One season after the 1883 Lewisburg football team – 1887 Bucknell football team – an article I created.)
I point that out, and again ask about Swanson; he replies "I already answered that above. Categories...." I point out that several of them had absolutely ZERO categories in common, ask again, and he gives the confusing non-answer "Because there are ways to switch queries beyond who created the article?" WHICH he follows by voting "delete" at an AFD I voted keep ([347]) and three minutes later doing similar for another AFD ([348]).
I leave two comments: the first "I'm finding your response difficult to understand; but the only place these articles (Swanson, Edwards) are connected are at my userpage, where they are listed next to each other. There are no "categories" that connect them; considering the thousands of NFL stubs, how could your "queries" come across only mine?" and "How about this: why don't you tell me, exactly, how you came across these articles (Swanson, Edwards, Robinson, Rowe), and we can end this discussion?" He avoids answering for a bit, adds another pathetic-and-now-reverted notability tag to a clearly notable NFL player ([349]) and finally responds with a non-answer to the first one (ignoring the second - [350]) - "They don't. You just picked 4 articles that I have tagged which were created by you through searching multiple categories of NFL teams (and you have hundreds of articles). I don't have any issue with the vast majority of your articles, just because I maybe disagree with 1-2% of your creations (if that) does not mean I am single-handedly targeting them." Five minutes later, another AFD comment in opposition to me ([351]).
I respond "You're avoiding the question; tell me exactly how you found those four completely unrelated articles in a span of four minutes ... answer the question: tell me, exactly, how you came across Swanson, Edwards, Robinson and Rowe in four minutes." He says that "I'll repeat myself: searching multiple categories of NFL teams." I tell him how absurd and unlikely that is; I am certain he just looked from the start of my userpage creations list to target: "OK - so in four minutes, you randomly searched Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players, completely randomly came across, out of over 200 others, Marshall Edwards which I happened to create, found it to tag for notability; one minute later, randomly searched Category:Los Angeles Rams players, containing over 1,000, and randomly choose to tag for notability Pete Swanson, the article I created right after Edwards; then one minute later randomly searched Category:St. Louis Rams players, a category of over 800, randomly found Joe Rowe, which I coincidentally created right after Swanson; and then one minute later, searched Category:Denver Broncos players, a category of ~1,600, and randomly found to tag for notability Frank Robinson, whom I also coincidentally happened to create right around the time of Rowe? If so, that is the most amazing coincidence I have heard of in my life". Never responded.
Soon after, I make a comment referencing him ([352]) and then within minutes, he nominates a category created by me for deletion ([353]).
From email two, c. Feb. 1
At the 1881 Georgetown discussion (mentioned above, where he opposed my draftification efforts), he repeatedly stated that I was advocating to keep it when I just stated to draftify so I could create a merger target - I straightforwardly tell him that I am not advocating to keep it - he replies with a massive failure of WP:AGF, straight out calling me a liar with ill intent ([354]): "You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace." (interesting how he considers pointing out basic facts - i.e. that he nominated nine of my articles for deletion in a month - as personal attacks, whereas this...isn't?)
Then, to prove him wrong, I simply start the merger target in mainspace (Georgetown football, 1874-1889) - now, in the past when others have done similar Let'srun has been supportive of this, even doing one himself on the Delaware State Hornets (which, actually, was a direct copy of my work without attribution) - however, within minutes of me finishing the Georgetown article, he starts by removing relevant contenttwice and then nominating it for deletion; the discussion has an overwhelming consensus to keep. (Also, interesting that, when I pointed out that he had done the same for arguably less notable groupings in DelState, he removed it from his userpage).
User:Cbl62 had sent him a message about "over-personalizing" at AFD, probably referring to the Georgetown discussion - on Jan. 31 Let'srun states that "Looking to the future, I will work to be better". His next edits are to nominate for deletion an article where he had a dispute with me (List of CFL players, which was a clear keep).
He also has repeatedly nominatied for deletion college football categories, knowing that I've opposed them before as its part of the standard categorization scheme; User:Jweiss11 noted at one ([355]) "Let'srun, these nominations are, frankly, a waste of time."
Feb. 16: votes rapidly in succession, without any other AFD contributions at two completely different AFDs I was involved in, supporting me weakly at Lubomir Pistek while opposing me at Radoslav Holubek (AFDs). I ask him "May I ask, how did you find both this and [Pistek], your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me?" Doesn't respond there, but makes sure to start voting at other discussions within three minutes, and also responds to another polite college football talk request regarding his CFD noms by saying Why are you singling me out?Iimmediately responded regarding how it seemed he was actually singling me out while later pinging him asking on the topic; he never responded.
Feb. 20: Only vote in a few days, "delete" at an AFD I found sources for.
Feb. 21: I had opened a close review for the NFL Draft discussion on Feb. 16 but stopped commenting afterwards; after a ping, I returned with one edit to the page on February 21. Very shortly afterwards, Let'srun opposed my close review with some bizarre comments about "forum shopping" that have since been criticized by a number of editors.
Feb. 24: as his first AFD comments in awhile, Let'srun votes against me rapidly in short succession both here and here without any other AFD comments. I politely asked he found the discussion with a ping - he immediately voted at another AFD while refusing to answer my question. I asked again with another ping; he again refused to answer how he found the discussion.
Morefollowing me around later that day, having never responded to any of my repeated questions about how he came across to oppose me at the discussions he did.
More recent developments
By this point, I was already extremely close to sending Let'srun here, but decided to be patient and give another chance, and he left me alone for a time. That is, until I rescued the New Britain Mules, an article he sent to AFD, in mid-April. The day after I made an expansion that convinced a "delete" !voter to switch to "keep", Let'srun critiqued one of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Wirth (cyclist).
May 2: he opposes me again at an AFD I voted keep, and the article was kept: [356].
I help rescue another article he nom'ed for deletion on May 2: [357].
This is quite a lot to respond to here, so let me try my best here. I have nothing personal against any user here, including BeanieFan11. Rather, if I disagree with any user or believe additional context is needed somewhere, I look to say it and the reasons as for such. Perhaps I could be better about giving supporting evidence at times, and if others consider my behavior to be disruptive, I am open to hearing why they think so. Let me start with the first bullet point. I edited under a IP before creating an account (which I noted when I was taken to ANI last year, apologies for not finding that post but I will continue to look for it). The first interaction I had with Beanie (or at least that I can find) actually was in July of 2023 when they commented (or critiqued, however you wish to view it) on my AfD for Eugene Petramale, which closed as delete.[[369]]. I have also done some closing of AfD's going back to last year, see this as an example of a AfD not involving BeanieFan11. [[370]]. And for the sake of transparency, one in which BeanieFan11 voted in [[371]] which I nominated and then closed myself as I was persuaded by the evidence provided.
Over 80% of my votes at AfD have closed as 'matches' and the vast majority of my nominations and votes (over 1200) are on articles which were not significantly edited or created by BeanieFan11. When nominating articles, including by BeanieFan11, I have looked to be open to ATDs, which is seen in my nomination statements. I also admit that some of my nominations were later shown to have suitable sources deserving that article to be kept and when that happens I look to refine my BEFORE. I am not sure about the CfD's but I would guess it is a similar match percentage, and other voters who commonly are at CfD have agreed with my nominations in that area, like at [[372]][[373]][[374]] and I have only disagreed with those users in that area that a WikiProject is the best venue for widespread policy to be discussed.
I don't label myself as an inclusionist or deletionist. I look at the available sourcing and follow the guidelines. I don't always agree with other voters but I respect their intentions and believe in WP:GOODFAITH.
Looking at the evidence provided here, I apologize for the conduct at the 1881 Georgetown discussion which was out of line and had unacceptable language, along with the lack of attribution on that combined season article (I wish you had brought that in particular to my attention earlier). I have not intended to hound anyone (honestly it is the first time I've ever seen that cited so I am only reading it now for the first time) and note that we edit in some of the same areas frequently due to common interests. I look at the deletion sorting for sportspeople and sports frequently and often vote in those discussions, several of which BeanieFan has already commented in or does so after myself. I have previously tagged articles sometimes in bulk after having added them to my watchlist but have stopped that practice.
Agree with devolving to ArbCom. These discussions regarding DYK are getting nowhere. There is lack of clarity over how BLP policy interacts with DYK, if it does at all, with the ambiguous wording: 
Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Elinruby#Block. El_C 22:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely (partial, article space): User talk:Countscarter#Indefinite partial block from the main article space. El_C 05:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
