Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Repetition of the same POV-pushing in the same caste article by User:Dympies for which they were topic banned

    [edit]

    Dympies was topic banned from Rajput by admin Abecedare after extensive discussion on the user talk page of admin Bishonen; the trigger was POV-pushing in a sensitive caste article, especially trying to promote the caste by relating the same with Rajputra (literally meaning 'son of a king')! Dympies is currently engaged in the same unfinished task (since the ban is no longer applicable) since the content earlier added by them was removed after their topic ban. I am providing the diffs of the detailed discussion on Bishonen's talk page as well as the detailed explanation by Abecedare how Dympies had abused their rights as an editor and engaged in POV-pushing slowly over a period of time; please check User talk:Bishonen 1 and TopicBanDetails. Would request admins active here to initiate necessary action against the user. Current activities are evident from the latest revision history of Rajput and Talk:Rajput. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion, these three users Abhishek0831996, Dympies and Ratnahastin are too much concerned about the Rajput caste and are surely related to this caste (having some WP:COI) as we can see by warring attitude displayed by them in linking this caste to some sort of kings or nobles.Here Dympies was agressively edit warring with LukeEmily 1.by including a substandard source and theorising that Rajputs are Son of Nobles ([1]). 2. Putting image of Maharana Pratap, though individuals are not allowed in caste article and the pov statement glorifying Rajput caste.[2]. 3.Smartly removing the sentence from the lead which highlights humble origin of the Rajputs from peasant background [3]. Abhishek0831996 also routinely works on maintaining the list of so called notable people of this particular caste, why not other castes as well?([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Here, his statement well respected and owned by Rajput community, it raises eyebrows as if they are working with some caste organisation of Rajput caste [10] ) Clearly, this is creating issue with their WP: Neutrality. Hence, all three should be topic banned from Rajput caste page so that they may contribute in other areas without their judgement getting blurred. Adamantine123 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to reduce the credibility of the quality edits by a particular editor only because he was once topic banned, then you deserve a WP:BOOMERANG here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about quality edit. This was already discussed that excessive focus on word Rajputra is not helping the article. It seems to be pov pushing to neutralize the origin section which says that Rajputs originated from peasants and pastoralists. A very long discussion happened in past over this and please don't try to do this again. Adamantine123 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamantine123, It was never decided that content related to Rajputra shall not be added to the article. Only that content is supposed to be avoided which is totally unrelated to the Rajput topic. But as explained by me at Talk:Rajput, this wasn't the case here. Btw, you too removed a line of mine citing "too much stress on Rajputra". Tell me if that line had anything to do with Rajputra. You tend to remove anything which doesn't please you and for that, you don't hesitate to give misleading edit summaries. Dympies (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Dympies: The problem with Ekdalian is that he hardly has any knowledge of the Rajput subject but he still pretends that his original research is fully accurate. My recent content dispute with him began on 28 September when he performed a mass revert to undo all my recent edits on the Rajput page. In his edit summary, he made personal remarks reminding me of my previous TBAN along with threat of reporting. Then he quickly realised that such a mass revert without due explanation can lead to trouble. So, he self reverted himself and reverted only my last edit. However, his tone didn't change and he wrote the same edit summary again. Not only he is ill-mannered, but he also has competence issues.

    On seeing my content being removed, I did put my clarification on talk page here. Now he was supposed to describe his objections about the content he removed. But he didn't comment. Instead, another user, Adamantine123 tried to justify the removal of content by Ekdalian but his justifications (according to me) were totally off-topic. Then Ekdalian gave his usual one-line support saying - "I fully agree with Adamantine123." Thats all what he describes as "his objections" to the content. After that, I responded. My response, as per me, was convincing enough to restore the content. And none of Adamantine123 and Ekdalian responded for the next 9 days. I kept on waiting and at last, on 7 October, I asked on talk page if anyone still has any objections. He responded with a yet another disrespectful comment accusing me of POV pushing and threatening me of facing the "action". This is a clear case of gaming.

    Then another user, Abhishek0831996 restored the removed content at Rajput asking Ekdalian to state his objections at talk page. As usual, he had nothing to say apart from accusing me of POV pushing and reminding that once upon a time, I was banned from editing that page! He says nothing but still he wants "his objections" to be taken seriously probably because he doesn't like the content.

    He has a strong POV that Rajputs have no relation with Rajputra. Last year, he tried to re-create a separate page titled "Rajputra" despite the community's decision to keep it as a redirect. His only motive behind that move was to push the agenda that "Rajput" and "Rajputra" are two completely different concepts, though almost all secondary and tertiary sources disapprove what he believes. Blinded in his WP:OR, he is eager to ditch the reliable sources. Dympies (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics

    [edit]

    The above comment by Adamantine123 that "In my opinion, these three users Abhishek0831996, Dympies and Ratnahastin are too much concerned about the Rajput caste and are surely related to this caste (having some WP:COI) as we can see by warring attitude displayed by them in linking this caste to some sort of kings or nobles. Clearly, this is creating issue with their WP: Neutrality. Hence, all three should be topic banned from Rajput caste page"[11] alone justifies a topic ban for their blatant violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. This happened after they were recently warned for the similar violations[12] after falsely accusing another editor of canvassing.[13] As such, I propose a topic ban from anything related to caste for Adamantine123. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Not only what has been mentioned above but he has been making reverts by relying on misleading and combative edit summaries.[14] Such WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality should not be tolerated. Dympies (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Frivolously tagging a user as being canvassed [15] on an AFD only because they were involved in a content dispute with them "based on our longstanding dispute on Rajput caste related articles" and then edit warring to keep that unsubstantiated template while casting bad faith aspersions in edit summaries [16][17] and doubling down on those bad faith aspersions [18][19] "these editors are working together to harrass me" after being sufficiently warned. All of these instances have proven that they are not capable of editing in this topic area without being hostile to other editors. The hostile speculation on the caste of editors displayed by them in this thread itself is highly concerning. I believe this topic ban will allow them to reflect on their problematic behaviour, they may appeal this ban after constructive editing in less contentious areas. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — This seems to be an attempt to digress from the main issue, POV-pushing in the article on Rajput. Adamantine123 is an experienced and capable editor, editing neutrally in the caste/social group related articles. Ekdalian (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I have been following this topic for a long time, and it compelled me to comment. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to ban Adamantine123 over a caste-based topics. I have been watching Adamantine123 for a long time, and I don’t think he has done anything wrong. He conducts his work in a completely neutral and courteous manner. Thank you with Warm Regards! Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Adamantine123 is frequently showing their battleground mentality. Secondly, I would like to know what exactly convinced you to make this first ever edit on ANI? Ratnahastin (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an editor's lack of familiarity with ANI should decrease the consideration of the argument they are presenting. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Uninvolved non-administrator) I believe the answer to your question can already be found in the very comment you're responding to: "I have been following this topic for a long time, and it compelled me to comment. [...] I have been watching Adamantine123 for a long time, and I don’t think he has done anything wrong." They'd been following the topic and the contributions of everyone, presumably saw that there was a dispute, and decided to speak up in defense of a contributor that they didn't think did anything wrong.
    Now, my question to you is: what exactly prompted this inquiry into the user's personal motives? Just in case: please remember to AGF.
    And just to be clear, in case my own presence here raises questions, I've been editing Wikipedia more frequently these past months (as my user contributions can attest to), and so I'd like to be more familiar with the processes, policies, and guidelines, in order to avoid mistakes and poor contributions. Hence, I'm visiting this board semi-regularly to get practical examples of what not to do. LaughingManiac (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — They are creating very obvious caste articles as surname listings in order to include BLP entries on the article without satisfying WP:CASTEID which states that self identification by the subject is required for BLP's inclusion into a caste article. I just cleaned up one such surname list that was created and almost entirely edited by them([20]) . The article was an obvious caste article, featuring caste boosterism and included a long list of largely unsourced BLP entries which were included there without any evidence of self identification with this caste which is a requirement per WP:CASTEID. I also note that there are many more similar caste articles created and mostly edited by them that exhibit this same problem, i.e Maurya (surname) [21]. Elsewhere, they moved Gangwar (social group) to Gangwar (surname)[22] and gamed their way into adding unsourced BLP entries onto an obvious caste page.[23] [24] Same thing with [25] Saini (surname) ,which was a left over redirect after a move from Saini (surname) to List of Saini people. [26]. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am sorry I was not following the discussion here as I was not tagged by anyone of you. Also, I am busy in my real life. But you should have checked the talk page of one of the surname article you are referring to. This comment from an Admin and a long discussion involving Sitush and that Admin made it clear that if a particular surname is used by a particular caste group in context of India, there is no problem in mentioning them in surname article, provided there are sources saying that XYZ Surname is used by ABC caste, with a tag that other mentioned name may or may not belong to that particular caste group. Check Talk:Saini (surname)#Discussion: Text of the intro [27]

      I confess I'm a little lost as to what pieces of the dispute remain. My general take would be that surnames may have association with specific endogamous groups, but are extremely unlikely to be restricted only to those groups. If a news source documents such a connection I think it's okay to use for something like "Saini is used as a surname by group X", but any more authoritative pronouncements need better sources, and in general we should not imply that a name is used only by a specific group unless we have multiple scholarly sources backing it up. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

      So, in your desperation you have removed highly sourced material here [28], without paying attention to the talk page or tagging the editors and admin involved in discussion, which included an Admin and a highly experienced editor in the area of caste related articles. That's why I proposed a topic ban for three of you, so that you may avoid this very contentious area and focus on something productive.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are falsifying that discussion. Sitush was thoroughly critical of your actions there. WP:BLP violation is not justifiable at any cost. It is embarrassing that you are not taking responsibility for your edits. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion ended with the comment of Admin I cited above and none of the editors involved reverted the edits or removed the stuff. The page Saini (surname) remained as it was for more than three months, which entails that we ended up on the conclusion that we can mention of a particular surname is used by some X caste groups is supported by sources. However, this is again diversion from the main issue for which this discussion began, i.e the problematic edits on Rajput caste by Dympies. I won't be replying here anymore as I have kept my opinion and the discussion will become long for admins to understand. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not address your falsification of the comments from Sitush. Yes this complaint (though without any merit) concerned Dympies but you have made it about yourself with your own actions. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The surname lists mentioned here are not BLP violations, as all of them already have a disclaimer on the following lines: 'notable people with X surname, who may or may not belong to aforementioned caste/community'. To confirm it, one can check the very first sentences of Saini (surname)#Notable people, Kushwaha (surname)#Notable people, Maurya (surname)#Notable people, and Gangwar (surname)#Notable people. This disclaimer is there to avoid BLP violations in India/Pakistan-related surname lists.

    The surname name lists are all over WP and they follow WP:APOS without any issue until it comes to India and Pakistan. Anyway, if the page is titled "surname" explicitly, we should mention the relevant clan/caste/tribe/ethnic group only if a reliable source mentions/discusses it while describing the surname. In all other cases, it is WP:UNDUE. If the surname list is ambiguous, i.e. the title doesn't mention whether it's a surname or clan page, we can have both details, provided they are based on scholarly sources. In both cases, the page must have a disclaimer that the listed people may or may not be related to the clan, caste, etc.

    If the surname pages mentioned by Ratnahastin don't have scholarly sources that mention clan/caste in relation to the surname, we should remove those WP:UNDUE details. But that discussion belongs to their respective talk pages, not here. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Even after seeing so much scrutiny over his behavior, Adamantine123 continues to unnecessarily demand topic ban against others without any evidence of a wrongdoing.[29] A topic ban from caste topics would be a lenient sanction at this stage. Lorstaking (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The repeated battleground mentality on this reply by Adamantine123 under this very proposal is concerning. It also doesn't help the fact that Admantine123 is misrepresenting a talk page discussion, where the editor clearly said "Irrelevant. This talk page concerns this article." Citing such a conversation for deflecting concerns over BLP violations is appalling. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The user got into trouble over falsely accusing 3 editors of COI and of belonging to a particular caste. Instead of showing any remorse, they have just made more than a dozen of edits to justify that very comment.[30] Surely there is a big WP:CIR issue. Orientls (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Based on the edits that I have seen from @Adamantine123: on caste pages, I think they are quite neutral towards all castes. Their interest seems to be Bihar because of which they edit all castes. I don't understand politics in India but their caste based edits on caste pages are neutral and balanced. BTW, everyone please use "ping" instead of mentioning the user onthe talk page directly. I don't know if it is a bug(or maybe some setting on my side) but somehow I do not get notifications if I am mentioned directly. I was reading the Rajput talk page and clicked on the edit history of a user(to see if there was further discussion elsewhere) and came here. I agree with @Ekdalian:. Please avoid digression from topic and please continue your productive discussion on the talk page of Rajput. Thank you. LukeEmily (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support : Per diffs presented in and under this proposal, and in particular this diff presented by Orientls. The fact that Adamantine123 continues to display battle ground mentality despite a topic ban proposal and heavy examination of their behaviour in this thread makes it clear to me that Adamantine123 is unable to work collaboratively, and a topic ban is warranted right now to minimise their disruption on caste articles. Nxcrypto Message 15:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Undoubtedly required as the most lenient sanction for this behaviour. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Adamantine123 has been a prolific editor for multiple years in a couple of highly contentious areas, namely caste and Indian politics. Looking at the above proposal, I can't find a reason to topic-ban them.
    Adamantine123 proposed a topic ban on Abhishek0831996, Dympies and Ratnahastin. The three editors in turn proposed/supported a topic ban on him. Ratnahastin and Dympies were topic-banned for Rajput/Caste-related stuff in the past, but their topic bans have been lifted around 10 months and 2 months ago respectively. So Adamantine123 should focus on their edits, rather than on them. Even the "opinion" that they have "some WP:COI" should be avoided unless it can be proved. Based on a diff provided above by Adamantine123, I would suggest Abhishek0831996 to simply provide reliable sources, rather than making such claims.
    The three editors and the remaining Support !voters are repeating similar claims against Adamantine123. Regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND, Adamantine123 has merely four comments in this thread and three of them are given to clarify their stance. This is anything but WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, after clarification, they have already disengaged. Note that they make multiple edits to complete their comment, as it must be very challenging to provide diffs, etc. in one go using a mobile. Regarding the AfD, Adamantine123 should have refuted Dympies' !vote and moved on. Regarding the surname lists mentioned above, none of them are BLP violations, as I explained in my previous comment here.
    Finally, Adamantine123 should "discuss edits, not editors" and avoid taking the bait. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamantine123 is attacking editors by speculating their caste, falsely accusing them of a COI and then double downing with such absurd comments. You cannot pretend that none of this did not happen. I would rather prefer a topic ban from the whole WP:ARBIPA for this bad behaviour. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not pretending anything. In fact, I discussed exactly these points. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why are you falsely claiming that no bad behavior from Adamantine123 took place when it happened on this very thread[31][32] and resulted in this proposal? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Adam's actions on Caste system topics have compromised all viewpoints of people learning about the dangers under the system. WP: BATTLEGROUND will not be tolerated.
    Ahri Boy (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User running citation bot on others sandbox/draft pages

    [edit]

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

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

    Less WP:INCIVIL (that's more for if the user responds in disrespectful ways) and more WP:COMMUNICATE (user not responsive). 172.56.234.76 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he also tried to get AWB privileges, but didn't respond to a question there so it was denied: Special:Permalink/1225165878#User:Dominic3203. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, there's a tremendous number of edits invoked by Dominic3203 on other's userspace pages. I see a few other third-party uses, but it's very sporadic, 1 or 2 edits, unlike what Dominic3203 did. One problem is that Dominic3203 has a pattern of editing for a few days or as much as a week or two, then going away for a month or two, so the user may literally be not here to answer your query. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must be old OLD school because I don't understand how an editor "runs" a bot but it leaves no trace in their own contributions. He otherwise doesn't look like a very active editor. Liz Read! Talk! 20:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I guess because he's using the toolforge expand citation bot so the bot runs on a page but it handily tells us who ran it on the edit description. I think that's why because its the bot making the edit but the bot also points out who's responsible for it.
    @Rsjaffe: I had considered that but given he has edited (and run the bot) after I left him a message, I felt concerned that it best to report here because it feels annoying at best and disruptive at worst to be doing things like that in people's userspaces. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's your responsibility to do so, but just FYI, for a low drama way to stop this, you can put {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} on your drafts. I agree it's sort of uncool what they're doing, in a hard to define way. Not saying this is necessary at this point, but out of curiosity, is there actually a way to prevent someone from doing this? It's not on-wiki, so a block doesn't work. I don't know that there is a Citation Bot blacklist. Finally, not as an accusation but as a genuine question, did the Citation Bot run actually harm anything? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose not in terms of damage because its easy to just revert it but when its every single draft page page, its more of an irritant and very discourteous to be doing it without asking. I didn't know about the tag but it seems odd because no one expects to have someone to do this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, concern here is the waste of resources when the citation bot is running from the same common instance https://citations.toolforge.org/ also used by other Wikipedians, who end up with their requests processed slower. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits of my sandbox pages make no harm to anyone, but the excessive use of the bot on non-productive means which effectlively slows down the bot used for legitimate purposes of expanding citations on the main namespace - that is a point of concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive misuse is a cause for concern in my view. Especially with the aforementioned declinations to engage on wiki with people who have questions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any excessive use of Citation bot without double checking the results afterwards is cause for concern as well. I don't understand why Citation bot runs in namespaces other than 0 at all, and editors should not be modifying pages in the userspace of another editor without good reason (copyvio, povforks, blpvio, impersonation, etc are all good reasons; "a script might think it can improve citation metadata" is not). imho Folly Mox (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was looking at Citation Bot's edits in User and Draft space and it's not limited to this editor, apparently many editors do this. Now that I've seen experienced editors setting up bot runs, I don't think this editor should be penalized. It's unusual given their level of experience but it's done by other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken, you do need to be unblocked to Oauth for the bot to run. However, I am not saying this user needs a block for this, as it is basically harmlessly eccentric. Andre🚐 07:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan: I wasn't angling for a block for him at all. Just really wanted him to know that that sort of eccentric behaviour is not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be a little disruptive. I was hoping if the admins could impress that on him (as indeed consensus seems to say) and maybe find a way to stop it being used on userspaces without permission (albeit I know that last one might not be technically possible). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least the user should reply quickly if they run a bot. Running a bot and not replying I consider a harmful behaviour. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially since he has been editing since the notification and chosen not to come here to explain. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, OAuth was implemented for the bot such that edits did appear assigned to the editor, but there were immediate complaints about that behavior, so it was changed to the current behavior. I would have preferred otherwise, but so it goes. A consensus could conceivably come to another arrangement, but that's a discussion for another page and time for what seems like a minor annoyance... IznoPublic (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kyiv citizen

    [edit]

    I have already told this editor that the consensus is not to change Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts. However, they are still refusing to follow the consensus and are still making mass changes. See for example this edit to Mikhail Bulgakov. They have no other contributions except changing the spelling. Mellk (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mellk, if I remember rightly, there was a huge RFC about this a few years ago, I'd present them with a link to this discussion. It was probably in the Talk:Kiev archives but maybe another editor can locate it. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked WP:KYIV which mentions the RfC and also told them explicitly about that discussion. Their response was their edits have nothing to do with the historical context, but this does not sound accurate. Mellk (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with Mellk, Kyiv citizens editing seem to be in clear violation of the guidelines and their response to people bringing this up with them has so far been not good. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given them a e-e ctop alert [33] which at a minimum might help them better understand the need to take this seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, I do not recall talking to you Nil Einne before. And by the way I just responded to your comment on my Talk page. Please elaborate on how my responses to people were not good Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes precisely. I have never talked to you before but was alerted to this thread about how bad your edits were, a quick review of them confirmed this. I have explained why your edits were bad on your talk page, as have others below although I'd note people have already explained this to you before so it's deeply disappointing you still did not get it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's call it a rough start than, I will be replying to the accusations about bad edits on the talk page then. And thanks for actually looking into my edits and not just blindly reverting them as did the other user. Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you don't mention here that you failed to explain how this is a historical context? All my changes so far were done on biographical pages, mostly fixing inconsistencies in Ukrainian cities spellings that according to the same naming convention page are meant to use Ukrainian spelling: The names of cities should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're editing articles on people who died in the middle of the 20th century. Clearly anything about the city during the time they were alive are historical contexts. If you don't understand something that basic, it's likely best if you stay away from editing anything remotely contentious since unfortunately being able to understand such basics is needed to edit here. Perhaps edit a wikipedia where you can better understand the language instead? Also the part you highlighted is for "naming of articles on these subdivisions". These are not articles on the subdivision. No one is contesting that our article Kyiv or Kholm Odessa should be named that way. The issue is how we refer to the places in text in other articles. And at least for Kyiv, it's clear that in historical contexts before 1991 we generally use Kiev. While this doesn't deal with other cases like Kholm, it's likely a similar scenario would apply. Definitely the guidelines do not say anything suggesting we should use Kholm in historical contexts. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't looked properly into Chełm so it was a poor example and I've struck it. I'm not really sure what the correct solution is for that as the Kyiv guidelines are largely irrelevant. It may be that calling it Chełm in our article is the best solution. However that's best discussed in the article talk page in the absence of some existing wider consensus elsewhere on the issue. One thing is for sure, if there's dispute you need to discuss it and if you're going to be making that change in the middle of other inappropriate changes like changing Kiev to Kyiv for someone who died so long ago, you should expect your changes to be reverted even if some of them might be appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this how you welcome all new contributors into your community? Regarding Mikhail Bulgakov, it violates MOS:CONSISTENCY since there're both Kyiv and Kiev variants of spelling.
    Also how did you deduce that I didn't make any other contributions? For example, take a look at Kliment Red'ko, my edit was a completely new text added along with the reference. How is it even related to Kiev->Kyiv change? Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyiv citizen, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) says For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content. At Kliment Red'ko, your edit changed the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv in a description of his activities in 1919, clearly a historical topic. You also changed Odessa to Odesa. It seems strange that you bring this edit to our attention as an uncontroversial edit, when it clearly violated the naming convention. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same is true of your edit to Mikhail Bulgakov, Kyiv citizen. You said that that you were making the spelling consistent, which is certainly a good goal. But in the biography of a person who died in 1940, the naming convention calls for consistent use of the Kiev spelling. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I am not against using Kiev instead for consistency throughout the Mikhail Bulgakov article, but unfortunately, it violates the very convention you're referring to, since there's hard stop at 1991 for usage of Kiev, which is absurd in my opinion. If I were to choose between the 2, it would be Kyiv simply because this not a purely historical topic, like the name of state Principality of Kiev and the article spans both 20th and 21th century. Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At Kliment Red'ko I used the spellings provided by the source which are actually the proper spellings in English, for example: Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, not Kiev Pechersk Lavra Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why we are discussing edits by a user who may not even make them according to WP:RUSUKR. If they continue, even making a single edit, they must be blocked right away. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello? Are you sure yourself what you are even accusing me of? This baseless allegation out of blue seems like yet another tactic of intimidation for the community newcomers. People, is this type of behavior tolarated here? Because it should not be! Ymblanter, you are not the sole ruler of Wikipedia, so leave your personal hate to yourself. Kyiv citizen (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, now we probably need to block. Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they are still edit warring and continuing to make such edits, I do not see any other choice but to block them. Mellk (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely because of the egregious personal attacks here. If the user is willing to stop the contentious editing and willing to avoid any further personal attacks, another admin may unblock; no need to ask my input. I'd recommend some sort of topic ban to prevent the disruptive edits to mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Singleton4321

    [edit]
    Per clear consensus below, Singleton4321 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Oliver James (psychologist), broadly construed. While this topic ban extends to anything related to Oliver James on any page on the project (by virtue of being 'broadly construed'), I am also placing a pblock from the main article and main article talk page as proactive enforcement. Daniel (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was alerted off-wiki to a discussion on Talk:Oliver James (psychologist) involving Singleton4321 (talk · contribs) and Martinevans123 (talk · contribs). Singleton4321 has asserted he is Oliver James, and having looked through the discussion, I don't think he can edit in a neutral manner compatible with Wikipedia policies, so I'd like to propose that "Singleton4321 is topic-banned from Oliver James (psychologist), broadly construed'. I've got a feeling that as soon as I start this thread, I'll get an extended reply on exactly why I'm completely wrong and he's completely right, which just strengthens my argument, if I'm honest. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, I've seen some of this matter. I at first thought that he should be limited to edit requests, but I'm not sure he can even do that neutrally, based on his comments. I can't say I disagree with Ritchie. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor in question is also very combative when engaging with people who disagree with them, regularly accusing others of vandalism or secret agendas. And at least once, teetering on the very edge of a legal threat. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] and so on. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There was a problematic statement in the article, which has been amended to a positive statement about Mr James's standing. Now, rather than making constructive requests or suggestions, Singleton4321 is repeatedly attacking Martinevans123 for not jumping high enough fast enough. What's more, we don't know that Singleton4321 is the subject and arguably they're now bringing the subject into disrepute. Either way, their involvement is not leading to improvement of the article. NebY (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Having read through that talk page, this is a textbook example of why we don't encourage subjects to edit their own articles. John (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This has been going on for literally years. If necessary, semi Talk to protect against logged out edit requests on James' behalf. Star Mississippi 18:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The combative, imperious, bludgeoning behavior and the false accusations of vandalism have gone on far too long. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean imperious, or impervious? EEng 01:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definition of imperious per Merriam-Webster: marked by arrogant assurance:domineering. Please select your own word, EEng. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, Cullen328, you've sure gotten cranky recently. You missed the pun: impervious as in "impervious to reason or advice". It's like, ya know, one letter off and yet coincidentally gives another applicable ass-holish attribute. EEng 03:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps another editor can explain to me how my reply was cranky, EEng. The next time I think of using the word "imperious", I will consider "impervious" as an alternative. Cullen328 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I'll take my crankiness detector in for recalibration first thing in the morning. EEng 04:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although I'm unconvinced this editor is actually the subject of the article. It seems more likely it's an imposter bent on making the subject look like a jerk. A professional as accomplished as this guy keeps telling us he is wouldn't act that way. EEng 13:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And he needs a page block too. I'm just not sure whether it shojuld be for just the article, or the talk page as well. EEng 01:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive edits by user:Lightburst

    [edit]
    The merger and Licks rocks' closure has been endorsed at the AN thread. As it has been closed for nearly a full day, that issue appears settled. This discussion cannot meaningfully move forward as it apparently relies on off wiki and other private evidence which cannot be handled at ANI. Please take the underlying issue to ArbComm or other appropriate venue. (Disclosure: involved as AfD1 closer, which led to the merger discussion but otherwise uninvolved). Star Mississippi 01:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lightburst is disruptively reverting a closed merge discussion and reverting a completed merge because they disagree with the consensus. Revert of uninvolved close and also closers additional talk page comment: [39]. Also reversion of the redirect: [40]. I left a message on their talk page pointing out correct process would be close review, but the close was a valid uninvolved close: [41] I said I would put things back, did so but was immediately reverted. I asked Lightburst to self revert, they refused [42], so here we are.

    Brief background: this is a long running saga of a page that was taken to AfD and there was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. The closer of that discussion suggested a merge proposal might be tried. TarnishedPath tried to bold redirect the page and was taken to ANI by Lightburst on 6 September. TarnishedPath apologised for the bold action, agreeing it was out of process.[43] I started a merge discussion per the suggestion of Star Mississippi (the AfD closer) The merge discussion is here: [[44]]. I requested uninvolved closure, and this was actioned by uninvolved editor, Licks-rocks.[45] Although consensus can change or be challenged, there is no doubt that an editor simply reverting a merge and the closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor is disruptive. Equally it is clear that Lightburst is aware of this, having taken TarnishedPath to ANI for the bold redirect that was also out of process. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Lightburst, if you want someone uninvolved to close the merger, you similarly can't be the one to undo it. All parties should be uninvolved. Take it to a close review, this isn't the place for BRD. I'm Involved as @Sirfurboy notes as AfD closer but am otherwise uninvolved in the discussion and take no position on the actual close itself. Star Mississippi 21:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A controversial close should be handled by an experienced administrator. This looks like a no consensus and it looks like there was an immediate discussion about the close, but the closer did not respond. I reverted and would be satisfied of a non-involved experienced admin closes. Sirfboy wants this article deleted or redirected and has been very vocal but there is WP:NORUSH. Lightburst (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the message @Star Mississippi:. It is a no-consensus and would have been an easy no-merge if not for the WPO involvement. An experienced admin like @Liz: or another could probably sort it quickly. Sad that Sirfurboy thinks we need to ramp it up here. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep seeing mention of "WPO involvement". What am I being accused of here, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not you. Lightburst, their articles, their entire contribution history, et al, has been the topic of extensive discussion at Wikipediocracy. Users who feel free to dox, threaten, harass and be uncivil there while pretending to be choir singers on-site. Such behavior on WPO uufortunately cannot be linked on-site, because of the result of an RfC that prohibited the linking of such material. This ANI thread is hopefully for the best. Perhaps ArbCom can finally create a policy on-site, holding users to account for their behavior on websites like WPO. The accounts are linked, after all, via the same email address used for their Wikipedia account. Because enough is enough of the toxicity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WPO and Wikipedia accounts are not linked by email address unless one specifically chooses to use the same email for both. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, although I know you know this @Lightburst. I am unaware of whatever the ties to WPO there are in the AfD and subsequent merger discussion. I simply closed it per my read of the discussion and it showing up when I was patrolling AfD that day. Star Mississippi 01:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    but the closer did not respond. The closer responded, but you deleted their response in this edit [46]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you also deleted the talk page comment of Gidonb in that edit. Another previously uninvolved editor who agreed with the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reverted the article and the target talk page to their closed status. Note that this is not an admin close but merely reverting to the pre-edit-war status (and restoring the editor comment that was removed by LB). In case of challenges to closures, WP:CLOSE says clearly that it should be discussed with the closer first (this was not done) and only if that is not productive then it can be taken to WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: autopatrolled removed, not autoconfirmed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, as far as I know you can't remove autoconfirmed. Having autopatrolled removed implies nothing more than that the user's page creations could benefit from being reviewed by others. I was the one who proposed a one-account restriction, based on the fact that they had socked a while back and it was not detected until much later, but there is no real connection betweeen that and the autopatrolled removal. In fact it is a bit odd as it was Tarnished Path who proposed it be removed and I'm not seeing "has socked" anywhere in the language of their proposal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm referring to MoneyTrees report. Apologies if it came accross that the issues were connected. TarnishedPathtalk 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was revealed that Moneytrees could tarnish my reputation easily with zero evidence. TP your comment above is a kind of PA but I expected it. You came to the article from WPO like several others. And I lost my autopatrolled because another WPO member named JSS started a thread to punish me over my BLP on a guitar playerstruck as provably false after LB repeatedly refused to do so himself. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC), not this one. I won't comment here anymore as this thread as is about to slide into WPO nonsense and PAs. I will go to AN about the merge no-con. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that you wrote this at the exact same time as I was making my above remarks regarding the revocation of your AP status, and even funnier that you say I I lost my autopatrolled because another WPO member named JSS started a thread to punish me over my BLP on a guitar player which is completely wrong in every single detail. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that I came to the article from WPO is completely lacking in evidence. You need to retract that mistruth. TarnishedPathtalk 23:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a real issue anyway. There's no rule that says your opinion doesn't count if you found out about the discussion "the wrong way." Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very apt. TarnishedPathtalk 00:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User licks-rocks has just over 2000 edits and it is clearly a controversial close. I started a discussion at AN and Licks-rocks, you should not be closing controversial discussions until you get more experience. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look bud, I was going to strike the above comment because there was a tiny chance you edit conflicted my comment out and just didn't notice somehow. The fact that you didn't even respond to the accusation and instead chose to attack my competence is making it kind of hard to keep that goodwill going. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no looking again in the morning with a fresh head, my edit was at eleven in the morning, yours deleting mine was a full eight hours later. There is seven other edits between mine and yours, and a further fourteen between my clarification and the close you reverted. What's more, you get warned about edit conflicts. Even if you thought you were just reverting the close, you deleted someone else's comment too, and then you succesfully reverted the actual close immediately after. You only reversed your change as "erroneous" a full two hours later, after someone called you out on it at ANI. You absolutely intentionally deleted that! --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you shouldn't be reverting a close just because you didn't like the outcome. An experienced editor knows there is a process to follow when they disagree with a close, and for unexplained reasons you didn't follow that process. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Lightburst, this was a valid close. If you wanted to challenge the closure, which is your right, you should have followed our policy for doing so instead of reverting which is disruptive.
    By the way, I don't visit WPO so I have no knowledge of what discussion there has to do with this Merge proposal. I think we can get into dangerous territory when we start guessing at the motivations of other editors that isn't demonstrated in actual comments they have made on this project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't appear to have been any discussion of the merge proposal on WPO. And regarding the AfD, differing opinions were offered. The alleged 'canvassing' seems, if anything to have actually resulted in improving the chances of the article being kept, since the only WPO contributor I can see who commented on the AfD after it was mentioned there went on to provide more (and better) sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic; more heat than light. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Why don't you violate the RfC prohibiting the linking of WPO content by posting a link to the WPO user's comment you mentioned, like you just instructed me to do? You never know... your post may indeed open the floodgates to enable us all to post such content. That would certainly be beneficial to every administrator, bureaucrat, and arbitrator watching these discussions. I'll take your word that "there doesn't appear" to have been any public discussion of the merge proposal on WPO. I have no reason to doubt you, since you currently have over 3,000 posts on WPO and have been an active member there for over a decade. However, there are 8 months worth of other public "discussions" that could indeed be linked. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read up on policy regarding submitting private evidence to ArbCom. And then read up on policy regarding making multiple entirely unsubstantiated allegations of misbehaviour on noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd be so obliged, please forward a message on my behalf to the dancing guy of WPO. Tell him to try harder next time. He was off by an entire continent when he tried to dox me earlier this year. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck off with your evidence-free guilt by association smear attempts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True colors... shining through. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of preserving Ms Lauper's reputation, I should probably point out that True colors is a love song, despite the bizarre link above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repeatedly asked Homeostasis07 to do just that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AndytheGrump has never asked me to do any such thing. And WPO has everything to do with why Lightburst has been harassed these past 8 months. It's the reason why his every move is being scrutinized in harassing detail. It's the reason his articles have been nominated for deletion, a process that has lead us all here. It does not benefit the community to shove the underlying causes under the rug and attempt to examine this as a singular incident. This has been brewing for 8 months now. @ArbCom: definitely needs to examine everything. Everything. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have just posted a link above to my comment where I told you to take it to ArbCom, where you can submit any evidence you see fit. Do so, and stop spamming multiple pages with the same evidence free insinuations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so bring a case to ArbComm with private evidence if needed. This ANI is about Lightburst's revert of a close. You said it wasn't about @Sirfurboy's edits either. So please take that discussion where it belongs, which isn't an ANI about a merger close. That is my point, not that it should be swept under the rug. (Utterly uninvolved although I think I did !vote in the prior ANI between these editors) Star Mississippi 03:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndytheGrump: I've not posted any link, other than a link to True Colors. And I have become very aware of the ArbCom process these past several months. @Star Mississippi: As I've explained above, all of the above does exist within a vacuum. It's a gradual degradation of the entire Wikipedia process, where people can insult and harass other Wikipedia users on a website like Wikipediocracy for eight months, then come on-site and act like they aren't partaking in such behavior. I'm sure many of the users who contributed to the AfDs and the merge discussion aren't aware of the sheer scale of the harassment thrown Lightburst's way these past several months, but it is clearly the underlying issue here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If and when this ArbCom case ever takes place, I suspect they may take a very dim view of your insistence on evidence-free off-topic soapboxing in multiple threads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    May also take a very dim view of you telling me to "Fuck off". [47] Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly, Though then again, when one takes into consideration that Wikipediocracy contributors include several current and former ArbCom members, it seems entirely possible that they may sympathise with my sentiments, even if they don't agree with the wording. Guilt by association doesn't tend to work to well when you use a scatter-gun approach that takes down half a dozen innocent bystanders along with the local law enforcement... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And with this, it has become clear that you are more concerned with defending Wikipediocracy above all else. For clarification, I have previously communicated with ArbCom my concerns about Wikipediocracy, but have in no way impugned them for their participation on that website. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His articles (at least the one that is the focal point of this discussion) have been nominated for deletion because they are demonstrably deficient. Dial back your unsubstantiated crap about ulterior motives. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst's usual diffusionary tactic at play here; when in the wrong, muddy the waters with vague irrelevancies about WPO (AKA bullshit, for the vernacularly-inclined). While that's par for the course, and will doubtless boomerang be addressed at some point, it's a shame to see otherwise respectable editors lose their heads (and not a fair amount of hard-earned respect, I dare say), defending him. SerialNumber54129 13:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple users in this thread who are simultaneously talking shit about Lightburst on WPO while claiming, here, that Lightburst is doing something wrong by complaining about people talking shit about him on WPO. You all need to stop gaslighting him. You've been harassing him on WPO for months, cut the shit already. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should name them, if that’s allowed. The WPO model is pathetic and it’s good to know who’s taking part to contextualize their contributions to a pertinent onwiki discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly should be more evidence and fewer aspersions being tossed around. Like this: [48]. The repeated attempt to smear editors with guilt by association to some off wiki site needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. If there is off-wiki coordination, take the evidence to arbcom. But this kind of thing is a blatant unsubstantiated personal attack. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fuck it. @AndyTheGrump, you're getting thrown under the bus. I'm not going to post links; if anything I say is wrong, Andy can correct me, and then I'll either correct my mistake or post links and a direct quote to substantiate what I'm saying. (So be careful calling bullshit.)
    • On July 9, Andy posted Bent's Camp Resort on a WPO forum discussion entitled "Lightburst Part Deux." ("Part Deux" because there are multiple separate forum sections, just in the public area, nevermind the private areas, entirely dedicated to Lightburst. That's why LB is sensitive about this. I would be too, so would any other person). Andy's post included a link to the article and this comment: Another masterpiece by Lightburst.
    • Andy started the AFD
    • LB pointed out that Andy posted at WPO in this edit on July 10 -- so this accusation is not unsubstantiated in any way, and has been on-wiki for months -- that's why, Andy, you're the one getting thrown under the bus here.
    • Andy also voted in the merge proposal, voted in the merge proposal close review, and commented in this ANI
    • Aside from Andy, and I'm not going to name their names, but I count four other editors whose names I recognize as regulars at WPO, who also voted in the AFD, the merge proposal, the merge close review, and/or have commented in this thread. They did not all vote the same way, but most of them voted the same way as Andy. It'd be very cool if those editors stood up and identified themselves, and showed that they are not ashamed of their posts at WPO and their posts on Wikipedia about this subject. But I doubt they'll do that.
    • For context, I just want to point out that I saw a former arb, a current arb, and an admin, post in those forums just today (not about LB) -- there are a significant number of "power players" on-wiki who are also WPO regulars, part of what makes this relationship incestuous and insidious
    • Andy, in this thread, wrote There doesn't appear to have been any discussion of the merge proposal on WPO. That may be technically true (I have not read everything on WPO so I don't know for sure), but it's basically a lie, because while the merge proposal may not have been specifically discussed, the Bent's Camp Resort article (the article to be merged into the Mamie Lake article) was discussed on WPO, by Andy, when he nom'd it for AFD.
    • Andy, in this thread, yesterday, wrote Fuck off with your evidence-free guilt by association smear attempts. On the same day, he posted in the WPO thread about LB.
    • Andy, on WPO, today, wrote All this, because Lightburst couldn't be bothered to create an article that didn't look like it had been cobbled together in five minutes from Google-scrapings. If he hadn't tried to pad it out with off-topic hogwash about Bigfoot, I'd quite likely have never commented on it in the first place. As an article, even a promotional one, it was an inconsequential nothingburger, given that the Camp is in little position to benefit in any real manner from it. You don't promote obscure campsites/restaurants/music venues by writing Wikipedia articles that only get read by people who already know about them.
    Now, I don't really care if Andy wants to talk about LB on WPO. But that certainly gives LB the right to complain to Andy about it here on Wikipedia. What really pisses me off is when people who are doing what LB is complaining about come here and pretend like LB's complaints are evidence-free guilt by association smear attempts as opposed to accurate complaints that people are canvassing on WPO. And it really pisses me off when it's not just Andy, but several people who join in on this absolutely blatant bullying and gaslighting. And it pisses me off even more when I see fucking admins and functionaries just hob-nobbing with these folks over there, being all blaze like it ain't happening right in front of their faces. That's when lines get crossed.
    So no, Sirfurboy, this kind of thing is not a blatant unsubstantiated personal attack, it's simply true, and a legitimate thing to complain about. The reason that this stupid dispute about an article about a summer camp has been dragging on for many months is because the flames have been fanned on WPO for months (longer than that, really, when it comes to LB), by the very same people who are now, in this thread, claiming that LB is making it all up. That is complete fucking bullshit, and if it continues, I and others will be happy to continue exposing it on wiki. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What the above rant entirely fails to mention is that nobody on WPO had commented on this obscure article about a minor camping ground for months, until Lightburst and Homeostasis07 chose to drag WPO into what was a perfectly reasonable discussion on the merits or otherwise of an article merge. As for "fucking admins and functionaries just hob-nobbing" on WPO, if you really think this is contrary to Wikipedia policy, I suggest you take it to ArbCom. Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Good luck with that," you say, because you know that -- and this is true -- at least 20% of currently active arbs (2 out of 10) have made more than 10 posts on WPO (as a metric of significant participation). I can think of four former arbs who have done the same. They don't hide the connection, they're open about it. There are probably more than I know about. That's without getting into the number of current/former admins, which is definitely a double-digit number. Arbcom isn't the right venue, nothing on Wikipedia will stop this. If LB wants to do something about it, I suggest he just send an email to T&S with links to edits and WPO posts by the same users (and make sure to include posts by all the arbs, to show why community processes won't work for this issue). You know, if WPO members had the backbone to stand up on-wiki and say, "Yes! I posted on WPO about this dispute," or "I have posted on WPO, but not about this," then I would have a lot more respect for them. And even if they don't, I usually keep my mouth shut when I see it, because nobody here really cares anyway. But what really crosses the line is when, without disclosing, people start saying that it's unsubstantiated. What a crock! Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If 'nothing on Wikipedia will stop this', why are you posting here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To counteract the gaslighting. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you were trying to throw me under a bus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying? I think I accomplished it. But the reason I did it is to counteract the gaslighting. Sirfurboy said the claims of WPO involvement were unsubstantiated personal attacks. So I substantiated them.
    Accusing LB of engaging in a smear campaign against you, because he accurately alleged that you've engaged in a smear campaign against him, is DARVO behavior, it's gaslighting. It crossed the line. If you can't handle being called out for calling out people on WPO, then don't call out people on WPO. Or to paraphrase our colleague below: So you don't want people to chat shit? Don't give em fucking shit to chat. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere have I accused LB of running a smear campaign against me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except when you wrote "Fuck off with your evidence-free guilt by association smear attempts"? Levivich (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As anyone who bothers to actually look above can plainly see, that was a response to Homeostasis07's utterly evidence-free attempt to link me with imaginary doxxing on WPO. Nothing to do with LB. Please try harder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit, you're right, my bad. Still, accusing anyone of engaging in a smear campaign, while simultaneously engaging in a smear campaign... Levivich (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding which, I'm going to politely ask you to retract your 'DARVO' comment above, before I decide whether to escalate the matter. I don't appreciate insinuations of sexually predatory behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record (i.e. disclosure, though I'm under no obligation to do so, since Wikipedia doesn't - and fucking well can't - demand that conversations I have elsewhere get 'disclosed' here.) , my comment about the Bigfoot-padded camp article was was posted in the long-running WPO 'crap articles' thread. It's still there, if anyone cares to look. It was subsequently copied to another thread by a WPO admin, since the thread was going off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following on from TP's comment, and re. the VAGUEWAVEs towards WPO and concomitant aspersions leveled towards several respected editors, the lesson really is that if you produce poorly-sourced articles with a belligerent attitude, you are judged by the poorly sourced article + belligerent attitude. As Lightburst finds out everytime he complains about another editor. So you don't want WPO to chat shit? Don't give em fucking shit to chat. The apemen of the Indus have mastered that principle; something that certain parties here have not. SerialNumber54129 18:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a +1 to Levivich. As SN54129, et al. repeatedly communicate here [indirectly], Lightburst is a great example of a particular kind of case on the English Wikipedia whereby if you make mistakes or exhibit bad judgment on-wiki, there are enough people who take a "you deserve whatever you get" attitude to harassment, doxing, and hounding (which have all happened in the Lightburst case, at various times and to varying degrees) that the only person who will be held accountable for anything at all is you. Personally, give me a lousy article about some barely-if-at-all-notable smalltown resort that nobody ever sees over this public demonstration of yuck. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit, to quote your +1. LB hasn't been harassed or doxed (hounded if you mean, has drawn attention to himself but now doesn't like it. A human Streisand effect), but personally give me an editor who doesn't accuse others of demonstrating bad faith while demonstrating bad faith regardless of the quality of the articles they write. (As this discussion ios not about some camp resort, it is about the behavior of an editor.) SerialNumber54129 20:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a human Streisand effect because he wants to shake off the band of bullies that has spent months talking shit about him. Just so mean and for what? To defend the invaluable public good of protected participation on a second site where people are five times as nasty and one tenth as helpful? If an article is bad, handle it on wiki. If an editor is bad, handle it on wiki. There is no sequence of behaviors that morally justifies WPO-style hounding as inevitable and all on the conscience of the victim. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting for the record that the actual review of the merge closure review linked below has itself been closed, with eleven users endorsing the result. The article is merged, we stil have the content on the resort, it certainly doesn't seem like any sanction on LB is forthcoming (although I will note that LB has still not struck fact-free accusations about my actions above. I don't believe this was a deliberate lie, just LB not bothering to fact-check their own statements before posting them, then being obstinate and refusing to back down even when what he said is easily proven false. He should probably stop doing that.), nor does there seem to be a boomerang sanction for anyone else involved here. I think we can all just move on as nobody is going to get what they want here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LB hasn't been harassed or doxed. This just comes off as gaslighting. Do a better search. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank Levivich for the timeline and for pointing out the gaslighting. I start to seem like a crazy person with all of the denials. And with Sirfboy, an IP editor and Serial Number 54129 reverting my various talk page discussions I am not even allowed to communicate? I am concerned that we are encouraging Licks-rocks (with just over 2000 edits) to wade into these types of discussions and supervote in a contested discussion. They were also evidently not aware of the WPO involvement. It is sad that a group of off-wiki trolls can marshal their forces to mess with the articles on the project; without ATG and the WPO this would just be another article. I am not going to edit war with the folks who are reverting me and I cannot fight the off-wiki participation in our processes. So I will give myself a break for a while. Lightburst (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AN

    [edit]

    Related merge review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Merge close Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal. TarnishedPathtalk 01:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    INVOLVED close

    [edit]

    I don't think it is appropriate at all for FeydHuxtable, a fellow ARS member who has rushed in with hagiographic defenses of Lightburst at every other major ANI report on him(*), to close an active discussion on Lightburst's behavior.

    (*) See, e.g.:

    "What do about the ARS?" Option B could be to dissolve the project, while option A should be to commend it, or at least the most active members, such as the Colonel (Andrew D), Dream, Lightburst and [thirteen]. Their scholarship, helpfulness, and coolness is most impressive 1

    Sadly, it's too rare we find skilled editors with the heroic, resolute temperament of folk like the Colonel, Dream, [thirteen], Lightburst & GreenC. 2

    At least the spotlight on the ARS has drawn attention to lesser known editors like 13 & Lightburst, showing they warrant a place in the Wikipedia half of fame. Whatever happens to them, at least while perceptive editors still draw breath, their names and deeds will never be forgotten. 3

    JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reopening it because of the fact that this closure is INVOLVED. Granted, I've been a critic of Lightburst's actions previously, but I haven't been in this discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting a disruptive user & myself

    [edit]

    Greetings. I require this board's attention on user RealEricson, who continues to publish disruptive edits while also marking them as 'minor' edits. I have reverted most of them, but the user continues. Now they are also trying to mock me by repeating my edit summaries with their new reverts. Last month [49], they also violated WP:PERSONAL but I did not report it.

    Here are some diffs of their recent reverts/changes. Where they remove the sourced text, mostly replacing them with unsourced text, or adding poor quality refs that are not suitable: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]

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

    RealEricson is currently under investigation for sock puppetry as well.[57]

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

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

    Hi! Regarding your own edit warring issue, you technically didn't violate 3RR (the four reverts were made across two days, and not in a 24-hour span), although it is a "bright-line" rule rather than a formal definition of edit-warring. While you did still edit war, the fact that you stopped and realized the issue shows that (in my non-admin opinion at least) there shouldn't be a need to block you for this, as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged, here is the SPI case in question. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First thing I want to clear is that I'm not a sockpuppet, my account is old enough to be an indicator for this. The user who edited the sindhi page alongside me isn't related to me, and neither is this Hammad Baloch account.
    Secondly, my edits aren't disruptive in any way, in fact atleast in one case one of your revisions of my edit can be considered disruptive, as you removed a genuine source that I added (see edits on Jadgal people page).
    None of my revisions seem to be problematic? In the case of the Brahui page I saidd in edit logs that I removed Nazir Shakir Brahui's source as he isnt reliable especially on ethnography, his ideas being controversial.
    The only problematic edit I might have made was removing Dravidian people from the related groups box, but I have sources to prove this that I didn't find the need to post (TLDR, dna tests have proved that brahuis have no genetic link to dravidians and are only linked by language, hence linking the brahui ETHNICITY to dravidians as a whole would be completely wrong).
    The rest are small changes and there's nothing wrong with them, they are uncited because your own sources confirm the words mentioned (for exampe the gichkis being baloch regardless of their past origins which I also have doubts about).
    My previous personal attack was due to my unfound assumption that you were on a spree of cultural appropriation of Baloch tradition and tribes, but im letting that go for a fair and proper debate, since my problem is with the edits not the editor. RealEricson (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Brahui's are very similar genetically to Baloch, "no genetic link to dravidians" would be an exaggeration since a large chunk of South Asian ancestry, shared by all, is IVC derived. It is also explained in the research paper linked in the Brahui article alongwith theories on various migration paths of those people. Not to mention Dravidian speakers are quite diverse themselves, varying along caste/coummunity/grographic lines. More importantly, the "related ethnic group" parameter isn't particularly restricted to ancestry, but linguistics as well. For example, the Macedonians (ethnic group) infobox includes Southern Slavic-speaking groups only, despite the fact that Greeks and Albanians are closer to them as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say Brahuis had no links to Dravidians, just that any DNA they shared was not much different from the DNA other neighbouring groups like Balochs shared with Dravidians. There has been a study done on this (L Pagani , 2017) , the researchers coming to the conclusion that Brahuis show no relationship to Dravidians and proposed some theories like total replacement, similar to what happened to the Magyars in Hungary, a stark shift from Finno-Ugric+Turkic Admixture to purely Central European. Just like Hungarians today are most closest to Slavic speaking Slovaks instead of their Finno Ugric ancestors, Brahuis are also closest to Iranic speaking Balochs rather than their supposed dravidian ghost ancestor.
    Your example of Macedonians doesn't fit this example as Macedonians do have trace amount of slavic ancestry, more so than Greeks and Albanians. In the case of Brahuis there is no genetic component that makes them more dravidian shifted compared to their neighbours.
    Based on this, I think only Baloch people should be placed in the related people section of the info box. If a source needs to be added to the infobox to confirm this, then so be it. RealEricson (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently my comment was rather "simplistic". I should have elaborated: 1) A major chunk of south Asian DNA is Harappan/IVC related, which in turn is mostly derived from an Iran N population related to Belt Cave hunter gatherers and Ganj Dareh herders (Rakhigarhi sample gets around 83%~ Iran N ancestry, and other InPe samples show similarly high percentages). This particular Iran N ancestry in question is alluded to as the carrier of Dravidian languages from Iran into South Asia by later papers (Narasimhan 2018, 2019, Shinde 2019). As for Pagani, it is a year older (2017) and didn't use aDNA from IVC and InPe areas, hence compared the Brahui with "modern Dravidian speakers from South India", but they did find a good chunk of the said component. In the "Fig 3" of the paper, the "ochre" colored component at K5, which is associated with "DR-Indians" or the "southern Dravidian group" does occur at 20-25% (some outliers getting much more) in both the Brahui and Baloch samples. They did talk about an "ancient Dravidian genetic substrate", though the total replacement theory wouldn't be correct. What's likely is that the (Proto)-Brahui were largely derived from remnant Dravidian speaking high Iran N IVC groups who later mixed with incoming west Iranian speaking (Proto)-Baloch groups, the latter bringing more ANF rich / BMAC like Iran related to the region, resulting in genetic similarity of both groups.
    2) The second point is regarding linguistics, which is why I mentioned Macedonians (ethnic group). They, according to plot, are as much close to Greek and Albanian groups as to other southern Slavic populations (the Croatian/Slovenian samples and Greek/Albanian samples are equidistant from the Macedonian average), but the infobox parameter - "Related ethnic groups" only mentions other "South Slavic groups" and not the Greeks and the Albanians. The only reason I see for this exclusion seem to be the language families. If that's the case, what's stopping us from adding "Dravidian people" in the Brahui article? When they share the same language group (as well as substantial (historic)ancestry as explained above). I wouldn't have a problem including both "Baloch" and "Dravidian peoples" in that parameter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " What's likely is that the (Proto)-Brahui were largely derived from remnant Dravidian speaking high Iran N IVC groups who later mixed with incoming west Iranian speaking (Proto)-Baloch groups, the latter bringing more ANF rich / BMAC like Iran related to the region, resulting in genetic similarity of both groups. "
    I would agree with this theory, this seeming the most viable explanation for brahui origins, but the main thing going against it is that Brahuis and Balochs do not have any difference in their ancestry compositions. I have seen both compared side to side and baloch samples did not have more ANF and bmac related ancestry than Brahuis,instead having the same amount or sometimes less. Same with Brahuis,no extra Iran N or AASI.
    To make sure, I also have samples from Iranian Balochs,who wouldn't have encountered this proto Brahui substrate as they live further west. But still the same ancestral composition, and no higher amount of ANF or BMAC. The one or two outliers having more ANF seem like examples of mixed people (Balochs with extra Persian or Kurd-like ancestry).
    As for your last proposal, I would be inclined to it but the fact is that the Brahuis have no unique cultural or genetic links to Dravidians that aren't already shared by neighboring groups like the Baloch or Sindhi. Putting them in the related info box purely for language seems disingenuous if only 15% of the vocabulary is dravidian, the rest derived from indo aryan or Iranian languages. RealEricson (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the appropriate forum for content discussion which should take place on article talk pages. This noticeboard is for discussions about any alleged misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I won't continue this discussion regarding the Brahui info box anymore since I'm mostly ok with both Balochs and dravidian people being added.
    I've already given my argument regarding so called misconducts quite far back. Read it if you want. RealEricson (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I removed nazir Shakir Brahui's rise of a brahui consciousness is that it's a political text, promoting a political ideology (Brahui nationalism), which shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia page solely about ethnicity. It would be like citing white supremacist texts in the Wikipedia page about White people.
    And it's unreliable and wrong on many of it's wording. It says that Brahui is spoken natively by the Brahui language, HOWEVER a large part of the brahui people adopted the language (this being recorded in their folk history as well as written sources). This includes the Lehri, Langove and Bangulzai tribe,who previously natively spoke Balochi, or tribes like the Zehri or Mengal, who previously spoke Jadgali.
    Second is the word Brahuistan itself, which actually isn't used by Brahuis for their homeland.Instead they call it Balochistan. He says that folk tradition of Brahuis calls their area Brahuistan, yet one of the most famous Brahui folk songs Danah pa dana calls the area Balochistan, if you want to confirm this go listen to the song and also read the caption.
    Lastly, he says the British contemplated renaming the area Brahuistan in account of the fact that Brahuis ruled the region and were a majority, which he is right about. However the british went forward with Balochistan not because of the great game (i don't know what the great game has to do with this) but rather the wishes of the Khan of Kalat himself, who styled himself Ameer e Balochistan
    I would be inclined to delete the entire page about Brahuistan based on this but I've only removed Nazir's bogie source since Brahuistan is a good term to describe the area where Brahuis live. Also Nazir Shakir's own ideology is a failure and has limited support,with most Brahuis backing the more popular ideology of Baloch nationalism.
    Basically, don't use political manifestos as sources.
    @Rasteem RealEricson (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add @Rasteem to the ongoing report for personal attack (accusing me of sock puppeting despite the fact that the case going against me is inconclusive according to one admin's opinion), edit warring and pov pushing, most evident on the page about Bhurgari, where said user overrides my edit without reading my edit summary which provided a fine reason. Also see brahuistan, where the user engages in the same behavior.
    I will stop edit warring on these pages and let an admin read each of our arguments and determine the way forward. RealEricson (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RealEricson, I'm not the only one who believe You're a sock of @HamadBaloch: but Fylindfotberserk[58] also believe you're socking here. Do not ping me again as I'm not involved in this discussion. I've reverted your non-constructive edits made with misleading/false edit summaries[59][60] & removal of sourced content.[61][62] You should start discussion on related article talk pages for the consensus or use content dispute resolution. ®asteem Talk 09:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, you are now a part of this discussion and a party to ongoing report. You have taken sir calculus's stance on every edit you have made, and the fact that he has reported himself as well (meaning that we are both defendants and plaintiffs) means you will be part of this discussion too.
    Also,like I said the report against me for being a sock has been given the status of inconclusive by an admin, so you have removed my edits for a still ongoing report which hasn't concluded.
    Lastly, I gave my reasons for removal of sources content (now added to the talk pages of each article too), yet you reversed the edits without taking them into account, which reeks of POV-pushing.
    Don't try to run away now. RealEricson (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported myself for unintentionally violating the 3RR at Sindhis. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The timing is very odd. An account with only 7 edits returns to make a similar revert.[63] Furthermore, they also removed an academic reference just like you did at the Dodai tribe article.[64]

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

    You removed sourced content, you also removed the academic reference and instead added a ref regarding a nationalist opinion on an article about an ethnic group rather than an academic ref about the group. That's not 'genuine'.[65] Here you replace the sourced text and POV-push.[66] What is also odd is you posting all that as 'minor' edits.

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

    Other editors clearly disagree. Your recent edits have been reverted by others, and you have also been warned regarding the removal/blanking of cited content. Regarding your edit on Brahuistan, you removed an academic ref as well.[67] Now about Nazir, first establish which 'ideas' in the article are controversial?

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

    It is clearly not a political text or a 'manifesto' as you claim. And relating it to white supremacist texts is simply ridiculous. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It quite literally is
    Nazir Shakir Brahui is the most vocal proponent of Brahui nationalism, a fringe ideology who propose the establishment of a Brahuistan separate from Balochistan in the territory of Sarawan and Jhalawan.
    The fact that the ideology is fringe is shown by the fact that no prominent Brahui has shown support for it in Brahuistan itself, it's support coming entirely from Brahuis living in Sindh (and their opinion doesn't matter, since they don't live in Brahuistan). Nazir Shakir himself is a Sindhi.
    The ideology promotes various pseudo historical claims, like Brahuis being descendants of the Indus Valley (proven wrong by genetic studies, Brahuis have more genetic links to civilizations like the BMAC instead like neighbouring Balochs).it also promotes vicious anti baloch hatred,which has been one of the reason it hasn't taken off, and also why I gave the example of white supremacism here.
    If my given source by a jadgal baloch nationalist can be removed,why not this? Since both are political in nature. RealEricson (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please read the rest of my argument where I completely debunk each of his points. RealEricson (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I removed the academic reference on the Brahuistan page by accident, because that source was being used to cite a completely different piece of text. The text itself shows the range of Brahuistan,while the text it cited said something about the goals of Brahui nationalism,probably from Nazir's manifesto. RealEricson (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lastly, about the sockpuppet allegation. The grammar seems too rudimentary to be me, I've always given links to hypertexts and capitalized important words. RealEricson (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to ask you some questions.
    On the Jadgali Language page, your own source has to say this:
    www.elararchive.org. Retrieved 2024-04-08. Jadgal people......... Only their language distinguishes them from others in the region. They share the same traditions and customs with the Baloch people
    Yet you cherrypicked another line, and didn't add this one. Clear example of POV pushing. RealEricson (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    your own source has to say this

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

    At least verify what you are writing. I neither inserted that ref in that article nor did I insert its quote. Another editor did.[68]
    I do not add such sources. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) To quote Liz above, ANI is not the appropriate forum for content discussion which should take place on article talk pages. This noticeboard is for discussions about any alleged misconduct. If there are suspicions of sockpuppetry, then let the existing report work and submit evidence there. I note the talk page in question is blank; discuss content there. In general, discussion (and other steps in WP:DR) should be attempted before either reverting a bunch of times or ANI; less drama, more progress. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I've already created two requests on the talk pages of separate articles that I changed. I'll discuss the problems I have with content there.
    I'll also agree that anything about me being a sock will be discussed on the talk page of the above report.
    But this AN incident thread should still continue for some problems.
    For example, SirCalculus and Rasteem's allegations that i'm POV-pushing and edit warring,and my own counter allegation that they are quite literally doing the things they accuse me of themselves.
    Anyways, I don't have anything to say for now till one of the parties reply or an admin intervenes. RealEricson (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Read WP:PERSONAL. If you have accusations then provide diffs. Like the other editor and I did. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided examples for you in the Jadgali language page, where you removed my given sourced text, and also on the Sindhi page where you continuously removed my added image for no reason.
    And for rasteem for removing normal edits on the Bhurgari and Sardarzehi pages for no reason, other than possibly POV pushing. RealEricson (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted Jadgali language because of your unconstructive edits. The citation you claim I 'added' was not 'added' by me. It was a result of this revert. I also already provided the diff proving that in this thread above.
    Regarding, Sindhis, the reason was provided in the edit summary. You made a controversial change by removing a longstanding image, with a misleading edit summary. That image too is scheduled for deletion.
    Your edits on Sardarzahi were not just reverted by Rasteem, but another editor as well, who believes you were block evading. Furthermore, Rasteem seems to have reverted most of your recent edits clearly to prevent possible disruption. As some of your edits include removal/blanking of sourced content. In the diffs, provided in this thread, some of the references were RS. Sir Calculus (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Friday Times article clearly does not appear to be a 'manifesto'. Just your words alone do not make him a supremascist. A citation to support your text will. Regarding your bottom text, it is because the article is about an ethnic group. Not for nationalist text. Regarding Nazir, kindly cite some sources of him being a nationalist or a supremascist. From what I surfed today, he does not appear to be a supremacist. He's a director at the Brahui Research Institute per his Linkedin. If he is what you say he is, then I have no objections over his ref's removal. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Go to his quora page page and have a look.
    /profile/Nazir-Shakir-Brahui/https-www-quora-com-Do-the-Baloch-people-of-Pakistan-share-any-cultural-or-historical-ties-with-the-Sindhi-people-answ https://www.quora.com/profile/Nazir-Shakir-Brahui/https-www-quora-com-Do-the-Baloch-people-of-Pakistan-share-any-cultural-or-historical-ties-with-the-Sindhi-people-answ?ch=15&oid=107022520&share=926c742b&srid=F3ePZ&target_type=post
    According to him:
    "Yes. In the fifteenth century, Baloch settled in Punjab and Sindh. Then the Kalhoras kept them as hired killers, then prepared an army against them. Then the Baloch took over the government of their Kalhora and founded the Talpur government in Sindh. In 1843, the British defeated the Talpurs badly and established the British government. The Baloch nobles accepted the slavery of the British and obtained large jageers. Now they exist as feudal lords in Sindh, Punjab and modern Balochistan.
    Common Baloch people do theft, extortion, robbery, murder, kidnapping. This is their real profession." RealEricson (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, reply to my post debunking his claims in the Friday times article. RealEricson (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find! This is conclusive. I have no objections on removing his ref at Brahuistan (region). Sir Calculus (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-appearance of a new users' unsummarized reverts on Bulgarian election pages: Bgmasterrrrrr

    [edit]

    These contributions bring back memories of now indeffed block evader Jorkdkskakaksjjsk w. sock Number57s nightmare. So it would be helpful if someone could look at that. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At this rate, protection should be placed on all affected pages. Borgenland (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the targeted pages for the next month. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might you try raising this to SPI directly. Borgenland (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them as an obvious sock and reverted their edits. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluebot NG just deleted an addition..... Australian aboriginal english.... WHY?

    [edit]
    Not an issue for ANI. Star Mississippi 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Why ..Only the administrator can determine this.... what I wrote (212) is true and logical and surprises me it was deleted. PeterMcgrath wiki (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a matter for WP:ANI. Regardless, you need to cite your addition. See WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have insight to how Cluebot exactly works, but I'd say it's down to how it was written – quite casual language, caps lock for one word, and elipsis. This gives it the impression of not being encyclopedic.
    However as Yamla said, the main issue with what you added is that it appears to be unsourced speculation. — Czello (music) 12:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced, unconventional prose, such as CAPS, excessive dots, etc. There is also a form to report Cluebot malfunctions in the edit summary, why come here? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why come here... 1st time using. Working through issues, learning. Didnt know in wrong area 49.178.83.2 (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Consistent removal of sourced information on a page

    [edit]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Flack is constantly being stripped down and edited out by the user Viewmont Viking.

    The user removes all of the copy and leaves inaccuracies, such as an incorrect Ministerial title.

    His first two edits claimed that the material was unsourced, so thorough references were included, then, his third edit claimed the material is promotional, when it is in fact factual, similar to the biographical and life details on any politician.

    I am asking for the user to be banned from making edits to the Rob Flack wiki page immediately please. He is doing the public a disservice by removing factual, sourced information, and leaving incorrect, scant copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.132 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. I informed Viewmont Viking just now, but please leave notices next time when you report an user to AN or ANI. Also remember to sign your posts by using four tildes. Scourge of Arceus (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Babysharkboss2 is now repeating the same process, can that user be blocked, or Viewmont Viking's IP banned? I cannot undo the reversal of the addition of information. Rob Flack is no longer the Associate Minister.. factual inaccuracies continue to be edited in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.132 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rob Flack page has a long history of promotional edits with new accounts or IP users. Most prominent was User:Dda92 who was blocked from editing for undisclosed paid editing. Then multiple IPs started adding back in the promotional information until the page was protected by @User:Robertsky. That block ended and a couple of months new IPs were editing the article adding back in the same promotional information, a new user was created @User:Cdnhistorian12 was created and added back in the same information. After user Cdnhistrian12 was warned about COI editing the IPs came back and started editing back the same information. I have requested the page be protected again. --VVikingTalkEdits 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is basic, factual background information. If you look at every Wikipedia article on a politician, there's information on their background, their records in business, their tastes and preferences, how they grew up. There are background sections, a personal life section outlining their habits, tastes, preferences. I don't understand how you are unaware of this, have you read any political pages before?
    You claimed in your recent edits that the Minister is an Associate Minister, he is not. You have not fact checked your revisions. You also edit out the correct current title of his Ministerial portfolio, and defer to an inaccurate old one 'Farming, Agriculture, and Agribusiness.' You have not even researched the individual in question.
    You originally claimed simply that the sections that were added were 'promotional.' When sources were added, you removed everything again, claiming it was promotional.
    Multiple accounts were created because of a block on editing.. your erroneous edits were challenged and reversed, and you asked DDA92 to be blocked..
    This is all regressive, so I can again ask that you be blocked from removing sourced, accurate information, and polluting the page with scant, inaccurate information. 204.40.130.131 (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I came from the WP:RFPP. I read over what was written, and personally found it to be promotional. I apologize if my judgement was wrong, however. Babysharkboss2!! (I spread pro-Weezer propaganda) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment: what was there before babysharkboss2 removed it looked like WP:PUFFERY to me Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The information is basic, factual background information. If you look at every Wikipedia article on a politician, there's information on their background, their records in business, their tastes and preferences, how they grew up. There are background sections, a personal life section outlining their habits, tastes, preferences. Please review the Barack Obama's page, are his personal life and background sections promotional, or factual? Please reverse your edits. 204.40.130.131 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. semi protection for 1 week. For edit warring, and also adding poorly sourced materials.
    2. if anyone wants the material to stay:
      1. declare any WP:COI that you may have;
      2. follow the WP:BLP,WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:SOURCES policies. Make sure that the materials are sufficiently backed by third party, and independent sources.
      3. see WP:PROMO for whatever words or phrases to avoid.
    Don't use 'but other articles are unsourced too!' excuse for not doing the above. Those articles may have been acceptable in the past, but they should be worked on and updated to current days' standards. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP/OP, unreferenced promotional statements like he nurtured a lifelong passion for agriculture and agribusiness and Their daughter, Emily, inherited Denise’s vocal talent are not acceptable. That stuff belongs on his website or campaign brochure. When the word "passion" appears in Wikipedia's voice in a biography of a living person, it is inappropriate 99% of the time and indicates a promotional intent. He maintains a family farm, where he raises Dorbay Polled Hereford cattle. In his spare time he golfs, spends time at the family cottage in the Ottawa Valley, and is an avid follower of ice hockey, having been a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs since childhood is referenced to his own web page. The Verifiability policy says that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves but only if the content is not unduly self-serving. So, date and place of birth, basic details of education and marriages are appropriate. Hobbies, vacation homes and breeds of cattle are not. Every substantive assertion must be verified by a reference to a reliable source, preferably an independent source, and the overall tone must be rigorously neutral. This is a matter of policy and is not negotiable. Also, block evasion is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Rob Flack is the appropriate place for anyone who is not evading a block to discuss non-promotional improvements to the article. Use the formal Edit request process. There are no substantive comments on that talk page yet. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Vritra and Solana (blockchain platform)

    [edit]

    Arthur Vritra recently hit 500 edits, the vast majority of which have been adding Wikilinks to various articles in a short span of time. They then headed to Solana (blockchain platform), an article under extended confirmed protection and community authorized general sanctions, to make various promotional edits, including deleting information about lawsuits. It is worth noting that the article has a history of promotional editing, including occasions where the developers of Solana have edited (and/or directed their community to edit) the article. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Solana_blockchain_article.

    Is this an instance of gaming the extended confirmed user right? - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and the edits are definitely promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've p-blocked them from the page and removed E/C. Star Mississippi 15:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently gained extended confirmed user privileges and used this privilege to edit the Solana (blockchain platform) article. My edits aimed to update the information on the page as the article hadn't seen a major update in quite some time. My edit was reverted by [ollie] on the claim that it violated Wikipdia's neutrality. I attempted o address this issu with him but I wasn't honored with a response. I reverted his reversion and my privileges were stripped as well as my edit reversed. I'll be addressing the claims made by Mr Ollie here. First, I would like to state that I am in no way related to Solana Labs or any of their affiliates. Next, I was accused of writing promotional content. Positive content is not the same as promotional content. The edits were necessary to provide a truly balanced view to the reader. I did little editing to pre-existing content on the page. I was also accused of deleting information regarding a lawsuit. The information was only deleted as it was untrue. Solana, being a blockchain platform cannot be sued and this was what the article stated. Lastly, it would seem Mr Ollie is against the inclusion of any form of positive information to the article as he constantly reverted edits to the article stating facts which are viewed in a positive light but are still true even when such edits are necessary to represent the current state of affairs in relation to the article. I would like this issue to be reviewed in relation to; 1)The need of an edit to the article. 2) The restoration of my extended confirmed user privileges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Vritra (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be appropriate to merge this with the above section (Arthur Vritra and Solana (blockchain platform))? I don't see why we need two sections. Babysharkboss2!! (I spread pro-Weezer propaganda) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Babysharkboss2!! (I spread pro-Weezer propaganda) 18:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arthur Vritra: You are aware everything Web3 is under a community-authorised contentious topic designation, right? Gaming XCP to edit an article protected under its auspices is a good way to get admins to scrutinise you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were really concerned about the accuracy of the specific entity being subject to a class-action lawsuit, you would have changed the reference to Solana Labs being sued, not memory-holed the entire text. That you chose to just wipe it out completely is a strong suggestion to me that the reason was pretextual. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind your airy assumption that intangible entities are immune to legal action, an uninformed premise which any number of actual legal professionals experienced in the cutting edge of commercial law would no doubt love to discuss with you. (Or that lawsuits can't be filed on specious or illegitimate grounds, an uninformed premise which would set just about anyone with half a semester of law school into laughing jags.) Removing only disparaging information and attempting to add nothing but "positive" information is a poor way to achieve "a truly balanced view." Ravenswing 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that you'd say this seeing as I am currently studying law and if your understanding of the law is anything above the surface level, you'd understand that a blockchain is neither a juristic person nor a juristic personality. In regards to your statement that lawsuits can be founded on illegitimate claims, this is true but it's also the fastest way to get a case thrown out, and is something which individuals with proper understanding of the law like the lawyers who actually initiate suits would not willingly do.
    Furthermore, the article referenced stated that Solana Labs not Solana was sued. The information was deleted as the article was about Solana and not Solana Labs and while the information is relevant in relation to the article about the Solana blockchain platform (which was why I didn't delete the section which detailed on the lawsuit, I only added that the request for judgement on the suit had been withdrawn) inaccurate information which defames the blockchain certainly doesn't have a place in the summary of the article.
    Lastly, in regards to your later statement, I did not remove only disparaging information, I removed inaccurate information. Besides the claim about the lawsuit, (which was inaccurate) I did next to no editing on the material initially on the page and I suppose your view on a balanced article is the maintenance of information that time has made inaccurate and irrelevant? Arthur Vritra (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a blockchain is neither a juristic person nor a juristic personality – You sure about that? [69] EEng 06:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. A blockchain is an invention. Attempting to sue a blockchain is the equivalent of suing a faulty manufactured car which resulted in injury to persons rather than suing the company that manufactured the car. Arthur Vritra (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yemen meh's unreferenced edits

    [edit]

    @Yemen meh: was warned four times in their talk page for unreferenced edits, and to use the edit summary. This is the editor's most recent edit [70]. All edits from the editor are unreferenced and without an edit summary. There's also no communication from the editor. Hotwiki (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) The editor is new to Wikipedia as their account is just 8 days old. Therefore, I think a little time off will do, and also recommending them to familiarize themselves with the basic guidelines will do. We have all been there, and we've worked our way up. Just my opinion tho. dxneo (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this editor is either not noticing or ignoring user talk page messages. A block may be necessary to make them take notice. Back in the day, before people started trying to follow Facebook et al., we made sure that people read talk page messages by splashing a banner right across the page when they were editing anything. I yearn for those days. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After being reported here, the new editor is still not posting references.[71][72][73] Still no communication as well. Hotwiki (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Phil, temporary block will do. Seems like they are interested, but just don't know how it works. dxneo (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP will not engage

    [edit]
    Thanks, I meant to but got side tracked on their talk page. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please sign your notices too, that's what the ~~~~ in the mentioned standard notice is for. – 2804:F1...B4:D2F0 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 64.233.226.130

    [edit]

    64.233.226.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning. See block log - IP has been blocked 4 times previously, with the most recent block being for a year in January 2023. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked x 3 years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deceased Wikipedian

    [edit]

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

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

    My condolences to their family, friends and colleagues; thanks for letting us know. All the best, Miniapolis 22:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Condolences. But please it's not an incident. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahri Boy, that's not necessary. But typically, these deceased notifications are posted at WP:AN not WP:ANI. But I don't think anyone will object to this. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: You might wish to post at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Narky Blert (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've crossposted it there, thanks tgeorgescu for posting this. jp×g🗯️ 13:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2603:7000:B500:5D4:0:0:0:0/64 misusing talk pages

    [edit]

    2603:7000:B500:5D4:0:0:0:0/64 has been repeatedly adding large tables to talk pages. From their comment "I think a big table is improving the talk page, so I want to put it." (diff). Also the additions to Talk:Equaldex, Talk:China–Russia relations, and Talk:South Korea–United Kingdom relations are not discussing improvements to the respective pages.

    Talk:Equaldex (diffs: 1, 2); Talk:China–Russia relations (diffs: 1, 2); Talk:Citizenship (diffs: 1, 2, 3); Talk:List of countries by age at first marriage (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

    Please take a look - thanks! Ttwaring (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note No edits since being warned. Re-report if they resume disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were warned here, here, here, here, and here, but with IPv6 there's no way of knowing if they actually read these warnings. Ttwaring (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a very recent edit that they've done. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • /64 blocked for one month; they had been blocked for one week for the same behaviour last month. Besides the earlier block and the warnings on their various IP talk pages they have also been addressed directly about their edits on several of the article talk pages. Wikipedia's handling of IPv6 is quite broken, and that regrettably means our usual options for talking with an anonymous editor don't really work with IPv6, other than blocking a range and waiting for the editor to reach out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jepuliz777

    [edit]

    Low-tier trolling, changing my warning on their talk page about unsourced information to praising them. I have warned them twice that it is not ok to edit other people's talk page messages to make them say something they did not say, but this user has not stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jepuliz777&diff=prev&oldid=1251495538 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jepuliz777&diff=prev&oldid=1250909818 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jepuliz777&diff=prev&oldid=1251131107

    GraziePrego (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Jepuliz777 for one month for disruptive editing. Falsifying the comments of a fellow editor is utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's block log says indef. 2600:1012:A021:4D69:586B:4CA6:CC81:1371 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected that error. Thanks for pointing it out, IP. Cullen328 (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    64.189.18.X resumption after 1-month timeout

    [edit]

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

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

    Insulting and discriminatory edit by User:ltbdl

    [edit]
    Both User:ltbdl and the /64 under which the IP is editing have been blocked. Nothing further to do here. Star Mississippi 18:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (1)

    This is not helpful and straight up unacceptable when I am trying to hold a talk page discussion in good faith instead of edit warring.

    Edit: i only did this because i was upset at my friend who told me my fictosexual relationship with a character from a game called Cassette Beasts was little more than an infatuation and that ill never experience true love

    i wanted to prove him wrong but not in the “the wiki article says so” sense. in the sense of just having it on there. that me and many other people want our relationships to be on the same boat as so-called “real relationships

    i know this is not an excuse. just close the thread already, revert what you have to just don’t block me 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OP, while it's possible to think of a more constructive response by ltbdl, you really haven't initiated anything workable or requiring ramification: you've cited no sources and made no arguments actually based in site content policy. This type of rhetoric is exhausting and we can't make decisions based on it. This ANI post was exceedingly premature and you should likely go back to try and back up your arguments with sources that give other editors something to work with. Remsense ‥ 论 04:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are none. All of the studies for fictosexuality were cited in the article. There’s not much more to add. This is about the attitude of the editors to this HEAVILY stigmatized topic, not anything to do with the content itself. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article says what the sources do, then we're operating as an encyclopedia as we should be, not a venue to right great wrongs. Remsense ‥ 论 04:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the studies by Matsuura are actually supportive of fictosexuality and are trying to explain the orientation and motifs instead of the studies just being studies to prove thag it’s real. It’s the editors that twist it into being fake by claiming it’s “niche”, “an obscure “sexuality” a few otakus are trying to make a thing”, and “being shoehorned into the LGBT+ community. Their words, not mine. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you've already been blocked for this as 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2. ltbdl☃ (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant. Explain your mocking edit. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very relevant, and This type of rhetoric is exhausting and we can't make decisions based on it. will likely have to suffice as an explanation for you, I think. I don't think your conduct has really merited anything more deliberate. Remsense ‥ 论 04:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s nothing wrong with my conduct. I am trying to be as calm as possible. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppeting generally does not manifest in the unproblematic behavior of a calm individual. Remsense ‥ 论 04:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not socking. I have made no accounts, and my IP changed by itself. I haven’t been using any different devices or proxies or anything. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    eh, it's not sockpuppeting. every ipv6 user has 64 million ips, see WP:/64. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clumsy choice of jargon on my part, but saying one's block evasion (if unintentional) is beside the point does not inspire confidence. Remsense ‥ 论 05:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about Ltbdl. Not me. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. Remsense ‥ 论 05:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's established that the conduct of the editors making reports here is often also subject to just as much as that of those being reported. (I swear this used to be written in blackletter at the top of this page, and am not sure where it has gone, as it is a very worthwhile notice.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs are dynamic and we don't view alternating IP accounts as sockpuppetry. However, 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142, many of your edits you have made have been reverted because they are based on your personal opinions, not reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the platform for "righting great wrongs" or being an activist. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t like activism and I’m not an activist. Just trying to make the article neutral 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    this user has a history of disruptive editing, see [74], [75], [76], this teahouse thread, and a lot more examples can be seen in their contribs. ltbdl☃ (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ltbdl, I don't think your initial comment to this editor was helpful. Please maintain civility and respect with all editors. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    apologies, i lost my cool. ltbdl☃ (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now stop gawking at my edits and treating me as a lolcow. Then this can be closed. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, now you have completely crossed the line just as things were cooling off. Do not accuse other editors of affiliations or tendencies like that—I can't speak for Ltbdl, but as someone who has had friends die in the aftermath of kiwifarms-style harassment, it's totally unacceptable to pin that on them here.. They're trying to engage in good faith, and I assume that you would like to do so as well. Remsense ‥ 论 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confident that they are deliberately following me around and looking at my edits as a form of entertainment. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong. Don't accuse them of that again. Remsense ‥ 论 05:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve been through that as well and because of it I’m not a fan of them keeping track of my stuff. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoping this comes across as merely blunt and not bludgeoning, but we all have to work together here, like you said. That means your contributions are not your personal property, and you are not entitled to perfect privacy onwiki. Conflating maintenance that involves checking edit histories with bigotry-fueled harassment remains totally unacceptable on your part. Remsense ‥ 论 05:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you’re accusing me of being a bigot and harassing people for no reason? Who are the REAL people assuming here? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying that is what you're accusing Ltbdl of. Remsense ‥ 论 05:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were making fun of both me and fictosexuality. That is discrimination against fictosexual, and therefore LGBT+phobic. Not saying they’re hateful. But what they said was hurtful and unacceptable. This is why it’s acceptable to harass us every day. They will never understand. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will suggest something, and hopefully you will take it in good faith. If you want, could you please post anything else you feel is at issue here. Then, I invite @Ltbdl to either clarify what they meant, apologize for any misunderstanding, or make any other remarks to rectify this as they see fit, so we can return to improving the encyclopedia with mutual understanding. Remsense ‥ 论 06:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m fine with that. I feel like Lt made fun of me because they don’t believe in fictosexuality, and implying I need therapy and to touch grass. They would rather make fun of me based off something they think is alien than collaborate with me on the talk page on the article 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty easy in my experiences to make brief remarks that lead to fissures online like these. Not to put all the onus on Ltbdl here, but it seems reasonable to acknowledge this as an honest misunderstanding, so that discussion of what tags should or should not be present on the page in question, et al. can revert to discussion based in site policy on the respective talk pages. Remsense ‥ 论 06:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to believe it’s a misunderstanding. They actively did it out of malice. Why else would they “lose their cool” at me? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't assume good faith from a fellow editor, then there's nothing else I can do here. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no scenario where making fun of an innocent editor by laughing at them is “good faith”. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People become frustrated and can become less than civil while operating in good faith. They have already acknowledged this has occurred here. It is a misunderstanding because you two are strangers with differences in personality and communication style. It is possible, I promise. I ask a final time that you try to work with them and quash this with to achieve mutual understanding: if you cannot, there is nothing further I can do. Remsense ‥ 论 06:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I have already asked them what is fringe about the article but they haven’t responded. However, this thread is getting hard to read on mobile. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i believe the article is loaded with fringe content, and suggesting the tag should be removed is comical. ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain what is “fringe” about it. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142, all of your behavior on this platform, including your edits and this ANI report, have served to draw attention to yourself. I'm sure there are many editors who are watching your contributions because you haven't shown that you honor our policies and guidelines. This is not for entertainment but to protect the project. If you want less attention, abide by our editing guidelines and don't post on noticeboards that many editors visit. That's up to you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve seen how they talk about me. They don’t talk about me normally. It’s all pitying and anger, and assuming I’m severely mentally ill. It’s demeaning.
    And I’m not attention seeking. Please don’t assume that of me. I’m just trying to improve the wiki like everyone else. If I have to open talk page discussions to remove biased content, I will. If I have to add sources I will. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were the editor who was blocked as user:2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 (as seems likely given that it was active on the same article and is the same IPV6/64 address) then you are evading your block. It does not matter if your IP address automatically changed. A user is blocked, and is not allowed to edit using any IP or named account while blocked. Stop editing until the block on 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:A8A5:BCAF:5476:2D2 ends. Meters (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to removed unneeded content in articles. Sure i should’ve posted on the talk page about it but what’s the point if every single edit i make is gone in a matter of minutes 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this person is clearly evading the 72 hour block I issued. It would be great if another administrator can act here. I will step back. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not reblocked 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0::/64, as their 72-hour block has expired, and it looks like they weren't really aware that they were block evading. Cullen328, for another time, please just block the /64. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I’m not acting in bad faith. I’m not ban evading. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can be better than this, I'm sure of it. I would much rather that you gain validation and attention through constructive edits instead of... whatever it is you're doing here. Please stop. You'll gain nothing from this and you'll lose other's trust, more so than you already have. I believe you have the capacity for change. Please don't prove me wrong. Sirocco745 (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not for “validation and attention”. I’m trying to help out by making articles neutral and free from bias. I would be more than happy to abide by the rules if people tried to listen to me in the first place instead of making fun of me and reverting my talk discussions. 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to continue to yap about this, at least do it via email to me so that you're not being disruptive to everyone else. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How am i being disruptive? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will now remove myself from this thread. If I am required by anyone except the IP user, contact me via my talk page or ping me here. If the IP user wishes to talk to me, they may do so via private email, as they have already done previously. I'm done here. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell you’re frustrated at me. When are people not frustrated at me? When am I not being punished and scolded? 2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:400C:4040:CD7A:4142 (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Email or nothing. That is all. Sirocco745 (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ltbdl, you are under an WP:AMPOL and WP:GENSEX AE topic ban [77], a topic ban which you are currently appealing at AN [78]. Why on earth are you editing Talk:Fictosexuality at all, surely this falls within the area of your topic ban? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    oh yeah i forgot ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Three days ago you started a section at WP:AN to have this topic ban lifted (here), and today you had already forgotten them? That seems highly unlikely. Fram (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ya, i forget easily. ltbdl☃ (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then write it on a post-it note. That is facially unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论 09:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I forgot. I've blocked them for their repeated violations of their topic bans. Once is an accident. At least three times? RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the /64 for a month for disruptive editing, block evasion, trolling, and pov issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. WP:TROLLFOOD. Grandpallama (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spamming of deleted article mirror

    [edit]

    User:10stone5 created the article College Lacrosse Records twice in the past few weeks. It went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Lacrosse Records, where it was deleted on 11 October. Literally two minutes after deletion, 10stone5 pasted that article to the WP mirror site infogalactic.com, and began adding its external link to See also sections of lacrosse articles: [79], and sometimes as a reference. User:Kuru and I have been reverting these, and explaining in our edit summaries and at 10stone5's user talk why this is a bad idea [80], [81]. Their response was to delete our posts, and go on a spamming spree with the link. As I write this, there are 65 lacrosse articles with one or more links of that infogalactic.com mirror article, after Kuru removed more of them yesterday. All of the ones I've removed so far have been added by User:10stone5. It doesn't seem right that we should have to go on cleaning up after this editor, so I propose that we either blacklist infogalactic.com, or some other intervention to end the spamming. I'd prefer that they weren't blocked, as they've been adding useful content since 2005, with nearly 12,000 edits. Wikishovel (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    10stone5 (talk · contribs)'s ignoring the ANI thread and continuing their behaviour is not acceptable. Blocked for 60 hours for disruptive editing. Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    60 hours should give you time to request a blacklist addition. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor’s recent history might benefit from a deeper dive. There appear to be several issues with reference/external links sections being misused.
    At one point they simply removed an entire talk page’s content instead of addressing the concerns. See Talk:Eamon McEneaney.
    I can’t link diffs from this app. Errors out every time. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. Yes, they certainly did. I've reverted their most recent blanking. Wikishovel (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2607:FEA8:C225:1600:0:0:0:0/64

    [edit]

    2607:FEA8:C225:1600:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, and hasn't responded to warnings. See block log - /64 has been blocked 4 times previously, most recently for 6 months in April 2024. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

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

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

    Wangshi Group

    [edit]
    The removal has been explained to everyone's satisfaction, no further actions are needed. (non-admin closure) Schazjmd (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm at 3 reverts on Wangshi Group where a fellow unregistered editor is continually blanking a section with no reason being given. I'm stopping now for obvious reasons, but would like to invite others to consider reverting. Thanks. 80.42.207.226 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not reinstate the edit because I see that the table entry is unsourced. This may or may not be the reason the person at 24.196.147.211 has been removing it, but we don't know while they are being so uncommunicative. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They finally explained. It was a joke that got out of hand (which is one of the many reasons not to make joke edits, IMHO). This can be marked as resolved, please. 80.42.207.226 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mohamed M. Farid

    [edit]

    The BLP for Mohamed M. Farid is under attack by new accounts and unregistered editors due to local political events. An edit filter is preventing me adding it to RfPP (and, ironically, from reporting the edit filter issue to the edit filter issue reporting page). Would someone else like to try requesting protection? 80.42.207.226 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 10 days by Ohnoitsjamie. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at WP:ITNC by Kasperquickly

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    Was blocked in July for 1 week by Star Mississippi for "personal attacks or harassment". Doesn't seem to have learned from that experience. The above is quite a rap sheet for an editor with <700 edits. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Daniel for the ping. I blocked based on this ANI and noted I went high for a first timer due to the same behavior that has apparently continued. I don't have time to dig into the links above but endorse a longer block. Star Mississippi 21:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Kasperquickly for one month for disruptive editing, which includes POV pushing and trolling such as this gem yep, kek is a known nazi word only nazis use (wikipedia says so, must be true), and retarded is a word only sexists and racists use (wikipedia says so, must be true). seriously man, touch grass. Not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time on ANI tonight that I've seen the quote, "Touch grass". What is that supposed to mean? Old timer, here (I guess). Liz Read! Talk! 09:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's zoomer-speak for saying someone doesn't go outside enough - wikt:touch grass ... sawyer * he/they * talk 09:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clueing me in and providing that link. Wiktionary says To spend time outside, off of the Internet and that makes sense. Much appreciated, Sawyer777. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:194.38.172.194

    [edit]

    There has been long established consensus that Catalan independence leader Carles Puigdemont should be described by his Catalan nationality rather than his Spanish citizenship which would be the norm as MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. This came after protracted discussion on the article's talk page in 2017 and 2018 and two RfC - one specifically for Puigdemont and another on Spanish regional identity biographies in general.

    194.38.172.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been changing the article's first sentence to say Spanish instead of Catalan in violation of the established consensus, as well as making various other POV additions/changes to the article. They have been informed on their talk page about the consensus but they have ignored this and continues to make the changes. Their changes have been reverted by several other editors but on each occasion they continue to revert against the consensus - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

    Their contributions and the numerous warnings on their talk page show that they are engaged in POV edit wars in number of other articles as well. It's clear that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a Spanish nationalist agenda.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP from the same range, User:194.230.146.37, has appeared making the same revert.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is even more consensus reached in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catalonia to normalize the presence of someone as "Catalan", the same way there is recognition of the Kurds, the Scottish, or the Uigurs, being that Catalan people do identify as such further than in Catalonia. Xavier Dengra (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

    I know, I know, we all thought we were done here, but LB is posting childish attacks on his userpage [82] apparently thinking he is very clever to be posting the names backwards. He clearly has a serious issue with knowing when to drop the stick. This immature foolishness needs to stop. I don't think simply undoing the edits is sufficient, this is a deliberate, malicious provocation right after a thread about his uncivil behavior was just closed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How about we just ignore it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy for you to say, you got "godfather of trolls" on his list of dicks. Top billing even. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, how about you just ignore it. Since you're complimenting AndyTheGrump on his "top billing", you're clearly not offended in the slightest. Suggest you find someone else to interact with, for a year or several. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. [83] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Homeostasis07, simple, policy forbids this kind of content anywhere, specifically on user pages. There's no reason to be doing this and nothing good can possibly come of it. It is indefensible. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JSS, you complain that Lightburst needs to drop the stick, but it looks to me like you are the editor who needs to do just that. I saw the user page edit, was mildly puzzled by it, but didn't understand the meaning (spell the usernames backwards) until you explained it here. After you posted this and this on Lightburst's talk, you did the opposite and kept watching, looking for something to raise here at ANI. You should unwatch, and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've arrived at a conclusion not in evidence. I was not looking for something to raise here at ANI and I don't think shooting the messenger is an appropiate response to trolling. You don't seem to have considered other possibilities, including a third party letting me know my name was being dragged into user space trolling. I didn't expect this, or want it. I never would've imagined that he would actually be this infantile and I don't want anything to do with him, but he keeps bringing my name back up. He's not a victim here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's truly indefensible is the conduct of Wikipediocracy users these past 8 months. The guideline you cite says "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". The list was related to Wikipedia, in that it relates to the conduct of Wikipedia users on WPO, who have acted in disruptive and hounding behavior. If you don't like Lightburst, simply stop interacting with them. Remove their userpage and talk page from your watchlist. Simple enough solution, instead of dragging them to ANI yet again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know? it’s in some kind of complicated indecipherable code. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Floq removed the userpage content that has been objected to here. I agree with that, and I think it solves the problem. I hope that we can all more on, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we're just going to let trolling pass from someone who was just at ANI for their ridiculous behavior because one of the targets of the trolling happen to notice they were being accused of trolling/being a dick? Seems totally reasonable. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's how you see it, then don't feed the troll. (And, strictly speaking, you didn't just "happen to notice".) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does how I became aware of trolling make it not trolling? Is this a special rule just for me or does everyone now need to explain how they baecame aware that their name was being besmirched by a troll? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t appear that the community is going to be able to resolve this matter. Perhaps it’s time to refer the matter to Arbcom, including WPO’s influence regarding the entire mess. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post the same. I don't know the full history here but this seems like an longstanding, intractable dispute between groups of multiple users. It's clearly not suddenly going to be resolved in this ANI thread, especially given the off-wiki element. Pinguinn 🐧 00:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no off-wiki element to LB openly trolling other users on his WP userpage. It's obvious, childish, malicious trolling. Usually that gets a person a block. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how that could work in practice. As much as I appreciate ArbCom for their help in regards to another issue I was involved with earlier this year, I concur with the user who suggested in the last ANI thread that the Trust & Safety team may be the more appropriate venue for this now. There are at least 1-way interaction bans that should be issued against several of the users who have been hounding and gaslighting Lightburst this past year... if not outright site-bans. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been frequently remarked here, in relation to other topics, nobody needs to obtain consensus or consent here at ANI to start an ArbCom case on anything. The same applies to contacting Trust and Safety. My only advice to anyone proposing to do either would be to take into consideration that their own behaviour is also certain to receive scrutiny. And in particular, that the repeated use of noticeboards etc to make allegations about alleged improper behaviour, unaccompanied by evidence to actually back it up, even after it has repeatedly been requested, has real potential to rebound. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the full image, but the userpage diff provided is surely an evidence of unacceptable behavior (uhh, crossing the red line?). If someone can point me out where users are "hounding" LB (as Homeostasis07 said) that'd help me. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such evidence cannot be linked on a public forum like ANI. For instance, AndyTheGrump accused me in the previous ANI of an "utterly evidence-free attempt to link me with imaginary doxxing on WPO." I was indeed doxed by a certain user on Wikipediocracy, who not-so-cleverly repeatedly misspelled my username as "homostasis" when posting what they thought were my personal details. I'm not homosexual, but I have LGBTQ+ friends and family members, so I consider the repeated intentional "misspelling" of my name to be a derogatory slur. But I can't provide a link to those WPO posts without one of the WPO regulars accusing me of doxing them. That's a fairly typical example of WPO harassment, obfuscation, and gaslighting that users here have been dealing with. And it needs to stop. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess ANI thread isn't doing the job anytime soon then. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I can find no evidence whatsoever that anyone was 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy under the misspelled name 'homostasis' I am going to formally request that Homeostasis07 provide evidence of such supposed 'doxxing' by email to a member of ArbCom. Pick any ArbCom member you like. Just ask that they confirm or deny such evidence exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I object! Not to all the hot air being blown in this thread, but to my old nicely-organized userpage being turned into a chaotic mess! Images? On the side??? Put them in the centre, like a normal person! Lightburst, you can do better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Htap T - Soldier troll"?
    More baseless guilt by association bullshit that lacks any merit. This is the third time in a week that LB has called me a troll. ATG got a block for less than this last time. Do we have different standards for different editors depending on whether there has been pile ons regarding civility in the past? TarnishedPathtalk 02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if Wikipedia users weren't associating with WPO users provably guilty of wrongdoing, it would be much easier to dispel any talk of "guilt by association". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take your gaslighting and excusing bad behaviour elsewhere. I'm not interested in it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, as an admin completely uninvolved in whatever off-wiki drama keeps getting alluded to here, do we have an editor (i.e. Lightburst) who, while in a dispute with a number of other editors, posted their names under the not-so-cleverly concealed header "dicks" and proceeded to label them as trolls on their user page? And most of you in this thread are, like, ok with that? If I had seen that post before I saw this thread, I would have blocked for 48 hours. Is Lightburst an exception to our policies regarding civility? Because whatever is happening (vague hand wave) over there is one thing, but this is unacceptable behaviour here.-- Ponyobons mots 19:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So if Editor X trolls Editor Y on WPO, that's OK, but if Editor Y then trolls Editor X on Wikipedia, that's not OK? Levivich (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are incidences of trolling happening off-wiki involving Wikipedia editors, then evidence can be provided to Arbcom. Accusations of such behaviour are not carte blanche to violate our policies here. Are you suggesting that anyone who is in an off-wiki dispute, whether it be WPO or otherwise, can host personal attacks on their talk page regarding active editors on this project? -- Ponyobons mots 20:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "if," we are all 100% sure that trolling is happening on WPO, because it's public. You can go verify that for yourself if you want. Evidence has been provided not only to arbcom, but also posted on wiki. When WPO trolls Editor X, I wouldn't characterize Editor x as "in an off-wiki dispute." Levivich (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WPO doesn't have any policies against trolling WP editors, there's nothing we can do about that. But WP does have policies against trolling and LB knows that, so what he did was wrong, and he knows that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WPO may not have policies, but Wikipedia does. Our policy on off-wiki attacks states that personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it and that Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process. So I'm not sure there's strictly nothing we can do about the former. We can and should do something about the off-wiki behavior as much as we can and should do something about the on-wiki behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It strikes me that LightBurst hasn't even seen fit to come here and apologise for his behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are we heading?

    [edit]

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

    Based on the result (or, more likely, lack thereof) of this discussion, I may file at RFAR. Sincerely, Dilettante 02:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Perhaps a block on LB’s account until they commit to cease the personal attacks? Could be over and done in minutes. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LB is provably not the user responsible for personal attacks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits to his user page are concerning and could be considered PAs. I can’t speak to the harassment on WPO, but I take you at your word that it’s happening. 209.212.33.81 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A block of LB would prevent further trolling. TarnishedPathtalk 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going to fly to Arbcom, isn't it? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something going to ArbCom doesn't prevent the community from taking any action. Stating that it should be only handled by ArbCom may be a stalling tactic especially in the absence of an actual case. Even if a request is made to ArbCom for a case, there is no guarantee they will take it. TarnishedPathtalk 04:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning left-and-right here, after taking a look through the mentioned WPO threads about LB and Homeostasis (and WPO site admin's "comments" on it), and examining how the thing in the thread has gone so far. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you and that stuff may result in a ArbCom case, however there is zero excuse for LB's wilful trolling. It's simply not justified. TarnishedPathtalk 04:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not start this thread as an intentional prelude to an ArbCom case, I expected an admin would see this childish trolling and issue a block of some sort, as it usual when someone with LB's level of experience suddenly just starts out-and-out trolling. Since that doesn't seem to be forthcoming I do think this may be a case of the community not being able to handle certain issues and it may be time for a case. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that that nobody in any of these comments is expressing surprise or puzzlement that LB made a "list of dicks" using an infantile secret code. Nobody seems to think this is out-of-character and the account may be compromised, they are just finding other excuses for it. It says something that this is the case. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to point out somewhere (maybe the previous section would have been better? maybe this section but not as a reply to JSS? too many choices too late in the day on a Friday) that the list has been off the page for a full day now. Not all policy violations require a block. Some of them can be smoothed over by removing the problem, letting tempers simmer down, and seeing if it recurs. Removal instead of blocking is not condoning or "finding excuses for it". I do not condone LB's post, nor their attacks on several WPians whose only "crime" is being a WPO member. That can't continue. But I can give afford to give some small amount of grace to someone who is being harassed by other WPO members, and see if just removing the list works first. LB has not edited WP since then. let's see what happens. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you but also WP:ANIFLU is a thing when one knows they have just done something monumentally stupid and out-of-bounds. That's worth considering. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are about as far away from AGF as it is possible to get right now, beeblebrox.--Licks-rocks (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CBAN proposal

    [edit]

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

    Well, looking at how LB tried to avoid detection by reversing usernames I guess IBAN won't do anything but generate a 3rd ANI... I'm leaning towards supporting a CBAN. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Slight Oppose I agree that wider investigations needs to take place. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. It has become clear in the discussion above that a wider examination of the entire circumstance needs to take place, either at ArbCom or even the Trust & Safety team. This is a preemptive CBAN proposal by a potential involved party, presumably in hope of the wider examination not taking place. So if anything... a WP:BOOMERANG for obfuscation. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statements about my intentions are entirely lacking in evidence of any sort. I'd ask you to strike your WP:ASPERSION however given your WP:ABF I won't hold my breath. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Seems excessive. If LB wants to look infantile on his user page, it doesn't harm anyone but him. There may well be broader grounds for a block (the socking some years back, and the subsequent personal-attack-ridden denials come to mind), but they need to be discussed properly before any CBAN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, unchanged opinion since the last time I !voted at one of these, which wasn't long ago, and am close to supporting one for Homeostasis07 as well for their disruptive defense of LB which includes multiple castings of WP:ASPERSIONS of their own. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Can_comments_from_Wikipediocracy_be_linked_directly_on_a_request_for_arbitration_case? Because enough is enough of the harassment. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - In one of the multiple threads in the public forums on WPO about Lightburst, somebody named "TarnishedPath" posted an ironic message, The suggestion that canvassing had occurred it pure idiocy. Somebody else named "Beeblebrox" has posted there more than 10 times. I'll email the link to arbcom rather than posting here. What I don't understand is whether you guys think we won't notice this? Or we won't care? Or it's OK to do this? But I do support Floq's removal of the ill-considered userpage content, and @LB: don't sink down to their level, let it go. Levivich (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know what you meant by WPO, but holy damn that thread's a hug concern for me. I guess that's why ANI failed us this time? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that was a comment I wrote, there is absolutely zero evidence of me engaging in harassment. Claims of misbehaviour require evidence supporting them, not just stuff you don't like because hey fuck it lets just hang everyone for the vaguest of connections. TarnishedPathtalk 04:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When one editor talks about another editor on both websites while pretending they're not talking about the editor on both websites, and then expresses indignancy at the other editor complaining about it, even going so far as to propose a CBAN, I find that behavior so blatantly duplicitous as to be morally repugnant, even more-so if the editor uses the same username on both websites. It stirs strong feelings in me and compels me to take action like emailing the link to arbcom. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're talking out of your backside. You and I both know that any comments I've made have not been personal attacks. I first became aware of WPO precisely because of the complaint that LB started about ATG. I find your guilt by association bullshit morally repugnant. TarnishedPathtalk 05:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment LB is not a new user and has had numerous conduct related issues come to this forum and others in the past; so given that context I find it absolutely baffling why anyone would think it's acceptable for them to make a "List of Richards" (e.g., "dicks") and not merit sanctions. This isn't a user who didn't know better. This is someone who took time and effort into making and then masking a direct personal attack against several other editors. I am not voting one way or another because I don't know if a CBAN is the right sanction or not, but a slap on the wrist and "don't do that" is beyond insufficient. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fact is, Swatjester, is that LB is aware they are under scrutiny and they had to know that this addition to their User page would be noted pretty much immediately either here or on WPO (or both). And that's what happened. So, I don't really think there was a serious attempt to hide anything. It seems like basic trolling to me. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's assume you're correct -- does that make any difference? Either way, it's deliberate and intentional, and we expect better. The issue isn't the poor attempt at hiding the personal attack, it's the attack itself. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if anything "knew they were under scrutiny and deliberately attempted to provoke their perceived opponents" is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one here. Wikipedia userpages aren't a place to settle personal scores with 'enemies'.
    I don't fully understand all the off-wiki background here, but if there is really an actionable case then LightbreatherLightburst should have taken it to ArbCom, who are capable of dealing with off-wiki evidence, rather than acting like the schoolchild who keeps poking at their classmate until they snap at them in order to get them in trouble. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC) (corrected by mix-up in editor names Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    And.... that's ok to you? Lulfas (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, assuming Lightburst doesn't do anything monumentally shortsighted like restoring the user page. WP:BRINE aside, I don't feel comfortable with a cban given the circumstances. With that said, Lightburst has a history, and I can't promise I won't support if there's a next time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, excessive. Nobody (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose since this incident has been handled by Floq, however, if the conduct continues, I'd encourage an admin to take decisive action and block LB to prevent another ANI timesink. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We're nowhere near that point yet. But that list was a major violation of user page standards (and of course of civility), and is a black mark on Lightburst's record. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose but Lightburst is on thin ice and the ice is getting thinner. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Nowheere near CBAN territory, it does matter how the reporter found it, this report reads like an attempt to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - out of proportion to the matter, which has been dealt with by an admin. An indefinite CBAN would require community consent to overturn, and that would be an unfair bar to clear, particularly as this seems to have been created in a fit of pique, and is not the measure of the editor. But it would be helpful if Lightburst would recognise that TarnishedPath did them a favour here in proposing the most stringent ban and not something more targeted and moderate. In the barely closed thread above I pointed out the aspersions being thrown around, and some fairly disgraceful comments intended to discourage a proficient editor [84] I say again what I said there: this has to stop. Sadly that thread was then derailed onto discussion of alleged provocation of Lightburst, but nothing excuses these repeated attacks aimed at that editor.
      Because that thread was closed early, the behaviour was not challenged, and Lightburst doubled down, e.g with [85] And it is not just the aspersions against one editor either. Guilt by association is also an aspersion. Yngvadottir sided with Lightburst throughout the discussion, and, it seems, does not hide their identity when posting on the taboo site. But here they are told that they cannot say they are not a troll simply because they post messages where alleged trolls can read them. Guilt by association. Aspersions. If there is off-wiki coordination to shepherd something off the platform, the evidence needs to be presented and action can be taken. But we are not going to assume every Wikipedian who has a Twitter account is a troll simply because they cavort on a platform filled with bullies and trolls. WP:ASPERSIONS are sanctionable. But not, I think, by a community indef. At least not here. Lightburst needs to bear this carefully in mind. Provocation is no more a defence here than the time I stood before my headmaster trying to explain why KS had suddenly acquired a nose bleed. The Tipex on my blazer was deemed irrelevant. We can behave better. This has to stop, and apologies are overdue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. But I think the community has limited patience for this type of thing, so I would suggest there is no repeat of it. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and kick to arbcom I'm not happy about what lightburst did to me specifically the other day, but there needs to be an arbcom case here. The behaviour of editors on WPO is not acceptable either, and makes this case more gray than it otherwise would be. There's no reason to call it coördination (as lightburst seems to think), but I think a good case can be made for harassment. And when you don't seem to mind when the comment directly above yours is stuff like this... Look, the named wikipedia editors might be too smart to be the ones slinging insults directly most of the time, but they're still still playing a role, even if that role is coached in civil language. WPO has some lofty goals, but I don't think it's achieving more than upsetting editors through low level harassment in this particular case, and I want them to cut it the fuck out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think LB has very clearly earned a block of some sort for this overt malicious trolling, but I don't think a case has been made (in one place, at this exact moment) for a cban. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't see this as trolling of other Wikipedia editors, so much as trolling people at WPO. (But yes, I do realize that quite a few of these people, including JSS, are also editors in good standing here.) I think someone who understandably feels mistreated by people at another website can vent about it without being CBANned for it. Floq removed the list of backwards names (and I removed the header), and Lightburst has not (at this time) restored any of it, so a CBAN would be very excessive. And a block would potentially be punitive, rather than preventive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. Lightburst was clearly attacking people from another website who comment on Wikipedia. Sure, these people happen to share the usernames of Wikipedians, but we have to assume they're not the same until they publicly disclose the account. Userspace should not be used for polemics of any kind and this was correctly removed, but it doesn't carry the full weight of personal attacks against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if we assume, for the sake of common sense, that they are the same people, the context makes it distinct from personal attacks on Wikipedians. (If, purely hypothetically, LB were to have edit warred to keep the userpage material after it had been reverted, I would be taking a different position on a block.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So, if a troll attacks people who we aren't sure are Wikipedians trolling is fine?
      That's putting aside that several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO, and (I know the haters won't like this as they assume the worst at all times about WPO) the mods there actually do their best to verify such things and will block accounts they suspect are using the exact same name as known Wikipedians if they seem to be impersonating them. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, here on WP are baffling to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's be fair here, the WPO people are trolling back at least as hard, and there's a couple more of them, Several of whom I would immediately seek sanctions against if their behavior were to be on wikipedia itself. Repeatedly calling an editor on wikipedia "brainfart" in lieu of their actual handle is not exactly the kind of behavior that invites a civil response. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with that. And under these circumstances, I feel that the best thing to do is to deescalate the dispute, rather than to roll out the banhammers, and that's what motivates the comments I have made. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We have different rules because we are an entirely different thing than a critic discussion forum. We don't allow trolling here, or at least we aren't supposed to. Different spaces, both real and virtual, have different expectations. People don't generally act the same at their workplace as they do in a bar in the middle of the night, because the expectations are different. This is not a complicated concept. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And yet I would still step to HR if my colleagues kept referring to me as "Brainfart" at the bar after work.Or saying things like "A pod of Levivich's as he reproduces the only way he can... asexually. ". A joke @AndyTheGrump: elected to participate in without even a hint of objection, by the way. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      while this discussion was ongoing --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am 100% sure you are a Wikipedian and so is everyone else on that list. The lengths you are going to to excuse trolling right in front of our faces, on WPO, is baffling to me as well. Levivich (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for a community ban for being a gargantuan net negative and an ongoing timesink. Acalamari 01:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Homeostasis07 on Wikipediocracy

    [edit]

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

    • I'd be more than happy to never talk about Wikipediocracy for the rest of my life. As explained here, comments made on Wikipediocracy cannot be linked on-site because it would constitute "outing". I'm awaiting confirmation from ArbCom as to whether those links can be posted publicly on an Arb case. In which case, I can provide dozens of links to doxing, harassment, homophobic slurs, insults, hounding and incivility. Not just regarding me, but for several users, many of whom I've never even interacted with. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just how many times do you need to be told that ArbCom will accept evidence submitted by email if there are privacy concerns? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just how many times do you need to be told that the issue needs to be dealt with publicly, but can't because of an RfC that determined posting links to WPO on Wikipedia is "outing". The harassment of Lightburst has clearly expanded on-site, with the multiple ANI discussions, so the overall issue is not just WPO conduct, but on-site conduct as well. The 2 need to be linked, which can't currently be done. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then you need to submit the evidence privately instead of dropping hints about it here in a forum that can't do anything about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Best served in a public Arb case. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're entitled to that opinion, and I'm glad that you've finally reached out to ArbCom to inquire about the possibility of a public case. If only you'd done that in the first place, we could have avoided a lot of needless drama. As ATG has noted above, this is not your first go-round on the issue of unsubstantiated claims. When are you going to learn your lesson? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Homeostasis07: I do not think you understand how it works. If you have evidence you can't post, you are correct, you certainly don't post it. Instead, you email the committee your evidence. They then privately debate any off-wiki/outing concerns, etc., and decide upon the merits of a private vs public case. The point is: you do not get to choose whether the case is public or private. You can't: all you can do offer your suggestions. But ultimately they will decide whether the community is best served in a public Arb case or not, and that decision will be based on policy, rather than your opinion. SerialNumber54129 13:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - there is a public forum thread on WPO entitled "Homeostasis07" where they posted links to what they believe are Homeostasis's social media accounts, as well as details about the person they believe Homeostasis to be based on information from those social media accounts. There's also a lot of mockery of Homeostasis in that thread. I recognize six names amongst the dozen or so who posted there (so far), and will email it to arbcom (along with a request that some arbs recuse themselves because they have participated a lot and/or recently at WPO). (Star, I AGF that you didn't check WPO before making this proposal?) No, I do not support preventing victims from talking about their bullies. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is such a thread, certainly, though your description is a little partial. The thread was started after Homeostasis07 posted entirely false allegations about an alleged 'doxxing'. Like Wikipedia, Wikipediocracy takes note when people start bad-mouthing contributors. Would you expect any different from any other forum, anywhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the ongoing mess escalated from retaliations against retaliations? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It escalated from specific allegations made on Wikipedia, by someone who has refused to provide the slightest bit of evidence to back them up, even privately via email to ArbCom. Regardless of what goes on at Wikipediocracy, that is an issue for Wikipedia - and evidently this isn't the first time Homeostasis07 has done this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely expect differently, yes. Doxxing is psychotic and threatening. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm sure WPO has many fine contributors in addition to those whom we see posting here, but it is generally a toxic site with occassional redeeming features such as outing severe COI editors. The idea that WPO contributors need protection from Homeostasis07 is laughable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone is suggesting that WPO needs protection. It is the ongoing on-Wikipedia disruption resulting from these repeated evidence-free allegations that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought Lepricavark presented some evidence, well the best that could be done without including a link to the discussion thread.
      And, just to acknowledge what is going unsaid, everything said on Wikipedia about Wikipediocracy, including this discussion, is fodder for comment and analysis on that website. So be aware of this. And I say this as someone who was also doxxed on WPO many years ago. But around the same time, I was also doxxed by Gamergate folks on 8chan and I was much more worried about what those folks would do than I was about WPO users. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. If this is enough to warrant a topic ban, then half the site would be topic banned from one thing or another. I don't have an issue with the fact that Wikipedians aren't supposed to identify offsite accounts. But I don't know what you expect to happen when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ...when you comment about other users and then pretend to be affronted (or worse, throw an actual tantrum) when people discuss these comments indirectly is precisely what LB and HS07 have been doing. SerialNumber54129 10:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have no idea whether Homeostasis07 is being harassed and bullied off-wiki, but what I do know is that Homeostasis07 is fully aware that there is a process to follow in cases like this, and Homeostasis07 also knows that endlessly talking about it on WP is not part of that process, so a TB seems appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Getting beyond silly at this point. Lulfas (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. A series of unsupported allegations, and pouting insistence on a public case; enough is enough. ArbCom's e-mail is thataway. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unfortunately, it comes down to trust, and what HS07 says regarding WPO is by now thoroughly discredited and untrustworthy. Basically, he is so likely to lie about the site, its members and its discussions that it is a waste of the community's time trying to uncover any kernel of truth. ArbCom can do that better, and it will give HS07 the opportunity to submit his case against those he claims are are trying to discredit him. SerialNumber54129 10:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Continued unevidenced allegations is WP:casting aspersions and needs to stop. A topic ban seems minimal here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose with the caveat that if arbcom come back and so no to public appeal than homeostasis should drop the stick at that point. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lavalizard101: Ah. So HS07 needn't drop the stick until some point in the future? I'm not sure that's a healthy aproach to a collegiate community atmosphere, but YMMV of course. SerialNumber54129 10:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's getting to the point of ridiculousness that HS07 can make claims on-wiki and then when their veracity is challenged, say "well I'm not allowed to link to the evidence". Either take it to ArbCom or stop bludgeoning every related discussion with it, either is fine. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This user's activity on the topic as of right now is profoundly unhelpful --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if HS07 wants to endlessly threaten to contact ArbCom or T&S, they can put their money where their mouth is and actually do it. Since they can't give up the soapboxing, this topic ban will have to do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Homeostasis07, if I may suggest: if you want a public case so badly, you should try to request one before this topic ban goes into effect? I'm sure the extensive documentation you've built up will be very helpful in doing so quickly and with minimal research in the time before an admin places the TBAN. If ArbCom accepts the case, I'm sure they will grant you an exception to the TBAN. Sound good? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support At this point, the failure to acknowledge that there is a proper procedure for reporting private evidence is being used as a cudgel to cast aspersions with no consequences. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is getting ridiculous. SirMemeGod  14:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per AndyTheGrump, and allowing that proviso. Bans are preventative. Constantly raising this issue without evidence is disruptive. It derails discussions, and draws editors into partisan support, which is unhelpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Homeostasis' refusal above to provide private evidence to Arbcom because "Best served in a public Arb case". If you're not going to let Arbcom handle what they're best equipped to handle, you're going to cause disruption. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the direction I thought this would go in, but yeah, Support as their commentary on this subject has been disruptive, with them filibustering discussions with unproven accusations and refusal to use the proper channels. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose mostly per Levivich, but also because I feel like the idea of a topic ban about WPO is kinda nuts. If someone made accusations they were being harassed on reddit, and it was true that there were threads on reddit heavily criticizing them, we would not in a million years topic ban them from talking about reddit no matter how over-the-top they were being about the accusations. A topic ban just isn't the relevant sanction here at all. If HS07 is casting aspersions, and I'm not convinced he is, then we ought to impose a sanction about casting aspersions, not a topic ban about an external site. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, technicially everyone is already topic banned from casting unfounded/unproven aspersions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You'd think very differently from this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 04:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If they kept angrily bringing up specific harassment on Reddit for which there was no evidence of existence and claimed to have private evidence that they wouldn't provide ArbCom, and continued to do so disruptively, they'd sure as sugar be topic-banned from discussing Reddit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I want to see evidence of this behavior and its disruptiveness before someone gets ballgagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How many chances would you like us to give them to put up or shut up before we are allowed to acknowledge there's a problem? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to see evidence of this behavior and its disruptiveness before someone gets ballgagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at minimum, and I think this is too lenient. The last time I remember this editor's username was Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sdkb when they claimed Sdkb was engaging in inappropriate offsite behaviour to facilitate editwarring (etc), and that evidence was being "Compiled now" to be sent to ArbCom. Unsurprisingly nothing was sent and Homeo disappeared for the rest of the RFA (ie catching the flu). These were blatant aspersions and are completely inappropriate. They're impossible for editors to defend themselves from. No action was taken at the RFA, action should be taken now to show these kinds of personal attacks are completely unacceptable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would prefer if the ban is interpreted to include any kind of accusations editors (including vague, unnamed groups of editors) are engaging in inappropriate offwiki behaviour, as that seems to be the pattern in these instances. That's regardless of whether Wikipediocracy is explicitly mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, no editor should be making unfounded accusations against other editors. On the other hand, from what I've seen from Wikipediocracy from when I occasionally posted there years ago, these accusations seem very likely to be true although Homeostasis07 seems to be accusing the wrong editors of harassment. But having seen harassment on that site back in the day, there is no doubt to me that it has occurred for years and probably still does. It would be best if a topic ban came out of an Arbitration Case but that won't happen any time in the near future, unfortunately. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liz There is now a thread about HS07 on WPO, however it was started on Wednesday when he/she started throwing all these accusations about. No-one, including the mods, at WPO can find any evidence or posts to support any of HS07's accusations about historical harrassment or doxing. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, and the next time we have one of these brouhahas, can we have separate sections for people based on whether they posted in the WPO thread in question? jp×g🗯️ 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wouldn't that require that we actually had evidence that 'the thread in question' existed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Searching Google for site:wikipediocracy.com homeostasis07 yields many results. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This topic ban proposal was specifically started because Homeostasis07 repeatedly made entirely false claims about being 'doxxed' on Wikipediocracy, while refusing to provide the slightest bit of evidence. Prior to that, there had been nothing on Wikipediocracy referring to Homeostasis07 beyond a few mentions in passing, and absolutely nothing which even remotely attempted to link him with any specific identity. Anything posted since is a direct result these false claims. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Wikipediocracy should ignore these false and malicious claims, without response. If a few WP:ANI regulars think that evidence-free assertions are sufficient grounds to go around perpetuating complete falsehoods, that is Wikipedia's problem - Wikipediocracy is under no obligation however to engage in such charades. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - At some point all these insinuations have to run smack into WP:HARASS. There is a reason ArbCom handles matters implicating the privacy or real-world identity of others in camera, and it's to keep people from being revictimised again and again while they deliberate a case. If you keep making these insinuations in public in an attempt to drive off other editors, then either ArbCom needs to get involved or administrators need to 86 you from the project. And since the latter is pretty much off the table based on the above, he needs to be sending this to ArbCom via email instead of continuing this bald-faced harassment campaign publicly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two-way IBAN between LB and ATG

    [edit]

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

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

    Just wanted to note

    [edit]

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

    JSS states several of those people, including myself, make no secret of the fact that they are the same person posting under the name at WPO just further up this thread. Regardless, this is a blatant violation of NPA and I request you strike it, Silver Seren. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If JSS is not one of the people supporting the CBANned trolls and harassers, then I'm not referring to them, as I pointed out above. And it is not directed at anyone on Wikipedia, so how is it a violation of NPA? SilverserenC 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RPA'd. Don't wikilawyer, User:Silver Seren. When you say everyone on WPO, that encompasses everyone. It's quite clear from above in this thread that numerous Wikipedians reply to banned users, and are thus encompassed by your statement. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, when I specifically point out only those on WPO that positively support the CBANned trolls and their harassment activities, that means everyone on WPO? So every user there is participating in said harassment, you're stating? SilverserenC 16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silverseren: Everything I said in re harassment in my argument for a TBan above applies to what you wrote. Your post was dumping kerosene on a low fire. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering your argument above doesn't whatsoever address the well known and well documented years long harassment of Wikipedia editors by WPO users, driving many off of Wikipedia and personally harming several, I don't see how your statement there even attempts to respond to the topic at hand. You seem to be acting as if such claims are made up. SilverserenC 16:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as someone who was the target of a notorious LTA who only finally got 86'd last year because of tangentially-related legal troubles, all your post does is waste your breath and insult/encourage those trolls. (No, I'm not linking to any articles about the legal troubles, but suffice it to say there are news articles about his sentencing.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, no-one has endorsed your post—or even claimed it's a constructive contribution—besides you. I recommend you log off or move onto another area of the wiki, come back in a couple hours, and see if your views are accepted by even just a decent portion of the community, or just facile wikilawyering. You're not convincing me, merely digging that hole a little deeper. 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the people thanking my posts. I do wish they would speak up, but I understand why they wouldn't want to get involved with WPO nonsense. SilverserenC 16:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I wasn't going to reply to this, but as you bring the issue up I must state that I fully endorse Silver seren's posts here. It is time we got rid of the cowardly, childish bullies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. The WPO bullies have gotten out of control. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't cut it. Next time you have to specify that all of the Wikipedians who engage on Wikipediocracy publicly as themselves are very fine people. You're only engaging in personal attacks against the Wikipediocracy accounts that are not publicly connected to any Wikipedian (even if they happen to have the same username). That way you're not violating WP:NPA, as it only applies to attacks directed against other Wikipedians. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really sad post and not the "gotcha" you think it is. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your contribution. SilverserenC 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (I saw you self-reverted, so I'll just leave my reply here) The point of it is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. The active harassment and even doing so in the personal lives of editors by WPO users is actively ignored and allowed. A large part of this is because so many Wikipedia long term editors and admins here are a part of that WPO harassment group and so defend any sort of attempt to deal with the problem. It has been an ongoing issue for years and despite explicit evidence being shown time and time again, and despite off-wiki actions being covered by WP:NPA as well, they repeatedly use the defense of "if it happens elsewhere, then nothing can be done". Usually falling back on the "but you can't know they're the same users" defense. SilverserenC 16:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren: Please check your trolling at the door. For someone whose largely just staying out, you've got plenty of personal remarks to make and the fact that you don;'t name names does not make them less personal attacks. Homeostatsis07 has tried something similar: be mindful. It merely shows you do not understand WP:NPA (or WP:POLEMIC or WP:FORUM for that matter). Your new "section" is based on your opinion, and does not have the traction you think it does. SerialNumber54129 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could name tons of WPO user names. That's not difficult at all. You likely are already aware of all the ones I would name and already know about their activities harassing Wikipedia editors. Please, do explain WP:NPA though and the application of off-wiki harassment through claimed unrelated accounts. Does WP:NPA policy apply or not? It seems like the answer has long been no, no matter what the harassment is and no matter what real life harm is incurred (though only so long as the ones doing and protecting the harassment are long-standing Wikipedia editors, it appears). SilverserenC 16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of [the post] is to showcase how WP:NPA is broken and not followed in the first place. That seems spot-on for WP:POINT. I'm glad you didn't revert the redaction. If your intent is to convince others that WP:NPA as-written has flaws and should be fixed, perhaps making a discussion at WP:VPP would let people engage on the merits and perhaps develop a solution, rather further inflame an already heated discussion and have your points dismissed due to context and presentation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They did revert. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Threatening towards editors

    [edit]

    An IP made a comment on Talk:Vettaiyan here and I replied here, telling them about WP:RS. In return, User:Wikiwarlord007 replied to me here, saying "Will have to report you for incorrect editing". Given the only three edits this user has made till now, looks like they have a WP:COI as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vestrian24Bio, just to be clear, a 3 day old account who has made 3 edits said they might report you and you thought you would escalate this to WP:ANI and it needed the attention and action of admins because it was an urgent, intractible problem? I disagree strongly with your assessment of the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess it means this should've reported somewhere else... like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They probably meant this matter is not worth taking to ANI, because it's not serious enough. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The real point is that it is not feasible to rely on admins to solve all problems. Wikipedia is largely a self-governing community. The best thing in this case would be to ignore someone with three edits when they make inappropriate comments that suggest engagement might not be fruitful. You might watch their talk for a month in case other issues arise. In other cases, you should try to patiently explain how Wikipedia works. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many new users imagine that Wikipedia has a hierarchy which does not exist. It (in my opinion) means that you should not BITE them but should help them learn. I've left a welcome on their user talk. Cabayi (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, I'll be careful with that in future. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factspear direct attack, POV pushing, edit warring

    [edit]

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

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

    Quite aside from that Factspear has not, in fact, backed up the assertion with sources. Ravenswing 08:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being added to the lead so shouldn't need sources since it should be in the body. That said the body doesn't quite say the same thing. It says he attempted it over nine years. (Earlier saying he kept failing over those 9 years.) I guess you can take it once per year hence 8 times but this isn't directly stated in the article. I suspect but don't know it may be clarified in the sources. Either way I'm not convinced this belongs in the lead. That said I also dont understand why this is at ANI when the talk page is untouched since July. Perhaps the personal attack is enough for a block but since it came on the third attempt there was ample time for some one to try and discuss this before that happened. Also 3 edits may be edit warring but it's obviously not a bright line 3rr violation since 3 is not more than 3. In fact the first edit doesn't even seem to be a revert as the material was just added. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I see an IP very likely Factspear added it just before so Factspear's first edit would count as a revert. Still only 3 though. Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seefooddiet: You need to read WP:3RR again. It is about reverting 3 times - not making 3 of the same edits. And although it's not the end-all-be-all of edit warring, you are citing it incorrectly.--v/r - TP 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, to violate WP:3RR, one must make more than three reverts, so the operating number there is 4. El_C 15:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the fourth edit. [88]. I'll post on the talk page. seefooddiet (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really should read threads from the beginning. Way too much from a brand new user; almost indistinguishable form trolling. Blocked indef. El_C 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2601:40:CD00:EA20:0:0:0:0/64

    [edit]

    2601:40:CD00:EA20:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced release platforms to video games with the unhelpful edit summary of "Ok", hasn't responded to warnings. This appears to be the same individual as 2601:40:C482:A390:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also adding unsourced platforms with the edit summary of "Ok") - that /64 was blocked for 3 months in June 2024 as a result of this previous ANI report. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mellk, unreasonable reverts and possible POV-pushing

    [edit]

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

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

    Shahray was blocked by Asilvering on 13 October for 24 hours due to continuous edit warring during an ongoing ANI discussion. They made an unblock request where they indicated that they wanted to resume edit warring, but by asking another editor to do this on their behalf (and of course this was declined).
    Since the block has expired, they have not made improvements on their behavior. On history of Ukraine, they made a large edit to the lead of the article before the block was imposed. They were partially reverted by another editor, and I made a partial revert as well, but they have restored this multiple times now since the block expired,[89][90] claiming that since the other editor did not remove this, they have consensus for their change. I started a talk page discussion about this, since there was never any discussion about that change, but they decided to restore the change. The discussion is still ongoing, and I asked them to point to this agreement or else to self-revert, since they claimed: this changes were agreed upon by two editors.
    It is a similar story with Yaroslav the Wise. They made an initial unsourced and POV change before the block and despite being reverted, they have restored their change multiple times after the block expired [91][92]. Like in the previous ANI discussion, they are still claiming that they are simply reverting unreasonable reverts, so it is clear that nothing has changed here. Mellk (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their latest remark is I don't see any productive discussion with this other aggressive editor.[93] I should also note that their very first comment minutes after being unblocked was bad-mouthing me: I am glad you actually give explanation for your reverts unlike some editors.[94] Mellk (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks of other people doesn't make you innocent. The fact that you pulled out that quote and took to personal account suggests that you are well aware of your unreasonable reverts yet you continue to push them rather than improve upon your unconstractive behavior. Shahray (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Shahray#Block_2. That said, Mellk, pointless addition falls short; seems more like convention, rather. You need to be more responsive on your part, too. I am formally warning you on this. Noting that I've blocked you in the past for edit warring as well (for one week as well as it happens). I presume when Shahray writes above The fact that you pulled out that quote and took to personal account, they meant personal affront or something to the effect...? Possible language barrier, but this is the English Wikipedia, so we do have a competency threshold there. And one must use clear language especially when in conflict in a contentious topic area. Thank you. El_C 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @El C. For what it's worth, my read of the situation is that Mellk lost patience sooner than the other editors involved, but that Shahray really has been driving people up the wall, and is clearly something of an unreliable narrator when it comes to summarizing talk page discussions and reporting whether any particular change achieved consensus or not. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for help how to contribute to wikipedia

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    As a user without an extended-confirmed account, you are unable to edit about anything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the war with Hamas, as it is a formally designated contentious topic. I'll post some information on your user talk page shortly. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hey just to make sure I understand,
    I am not allowed to Express my opinions regarding this topic in A Civil way in ANY WHERE on the site at all????
    It is seams to me very obscure and goes against the five pillars of Wikipedia I learned about at school 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. You aren't meant to express your opinions. See WP:FORUM. Note this applies to everyone. I'm an admin here and nobody cares about my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be inappropriate for me to express my opinions on that, here. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I may have used the wrong word, would appreciate if you could help me find the right term for the situation:
    if two editors disagree, You think that x is the correct way to say something because the reliable source support it x,
    and the other editor Y think that the correct way to say something is Y because he brought is own reliable source that support that, what word do you use to express the disagreement between thus different _________(replace with word that isnt opinion)? 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that in most topic areas, you should discuss concerns about article content with other editors. However, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a formally designated contentious topic- I assume you understand why that might be, given the strong feelings on each side of the issue. That means that normal rules do not apply, as you have found out. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to get makeAndToss to Communicate with me on the contentious topic, as the policy says:
    "Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something but not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus."
    I must say that it dose not feel friendly to have all of my contributions deleted and getting told "you are not allowed to voice you opinion in that area" in a site that have on is flag "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute".
    seams more like the "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, but only selected members with the same agenda can edit, and distribute" 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't be getting anyone to talk about it because you aren't permitted to talk about it here. Being a website with free content that anyone can use does not mean you are allowed to speak your mind on any topic, this is not a free speech forum, this is a private entity that can have rules about what is said here, just as you can have rules about what is said within the four walls of your residence. See WP:FREESPEECH. You are conflating speech with an project to write an encyclopedia. If you find the rules here to be unfriendly- well, you are free to go somewhere with rules that you find more palatable, or work to change the rules(which won't be happening). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't be getting anyone to talk about it because you aren't permitted to talk about it here.
    I have posted bellow the policy I have followed that pointed me to ask that on the user page, I did not know that I was not Allowed to talk about that topic, I was simply trying to address some edits that were seams to me a bit biased and that they go against COI policy so I have tried to address them and now I understand why the articles are locked 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    Respectfully, it is not a question of agenda, but of experience. While it doesn't apply to everyone, a lot of newcomers might not be familiar with the norms about collaborative editing, or might even join the encyclopedia solely due to strong feelings about the topic. Especially on a contentious topic, this often has the tendency to exacerbate conflicts between editors.
    The extended-confirmed user right is granted automatically after one month of activity and 500 edits, rather than given out to individual users. There is no question of agenda here, and there are both staunchly pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors working on these articles, although the more controversial changes are often settled based on consensus-building discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you were already given that information. Please review it carefully. The only possible contributions you can make in that topic area without an extended-confirmed account are to propose formal edit requests that are completely uncontroversial(like fixing spelling or grammar). 331dot (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles don't have owners, least of all that one. Contacting the last person to edit will not be very useful, or asking the person who notified you of the page restrictions to edit on your behalf will not be very useful.. And M.Bitton isn't an administrator, contrary to you assumption on their user talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the Impression M.Bitton is and administrator, because of the way he revert my attempts to discuss with MakeAndToss 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any established editor may do that, since you were in violation of the article restrictions, which apply everywhere. And see below, please do not try to circumvent the restrictions that way. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression I am allowed to talk with fellow editors:
    "You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but do not take discussion into articles." 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On contentious topics you may not do that unless you qualify for editing privileges in the restricted topic. User talkpages aren't a means of circumventing the restriction. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, asking editors questions like this [95] to try to elicit information about themselves is at least frowned upon, if not out of bounds, particularly in a contentious topic area. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey thank you for you comments,
    could you please direct me the guideline/policy that says that? 109.64.53.152 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTING. Editors are not obligated to respond to you at all if you're asking them for personal information, least of all in a contentious topic area, where an editor might be trying to discredit somebody solely on evidence of their background. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on individual editors' experience. Acroterion (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to follow the policy as I understand it to the word but my post in @makeAndToss was deleted.
    I do no understand how to continue from here to follow the guidelines on conflict of interest
    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to handle conflicts of interest
    Thank you once again for talking to me 109.64.53.152 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to stop these efforts. Even leaving that aside, you haven't shown a conflict of interest- and you seem to gravely misunderstand what one is. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by IP

    [edit]

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

    1) You haven't notified them of this discussion, which you're required to do (see info at the top of the page). 2) I highly recommend that you provide diffs if you want this to be taken seriously. 3) Less seriously, it doesn't look like you've done anything to advise the IP that their edits are disruptive? DonIago (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doniago Apologies for the oversight, done so now, here are the diffs: [96], [97], [98], [99] Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is disruptive about these edits? 331dot (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot Firstly, they are a recently blocked sockpuppet targeting my edits in retaliation for the report I filed against them, which constitutes wikihounding and block evasion. Secondly, their edits are problematic, as they are re-adding an unsourced birthplace to the BLP article about Shahzad Qureshi. On constituency articles, they are restoring incorrect election results, which also involve living people, seemingly just to spite me. They are not here to build the encyclopedia but rather at retaliating against me for having their account blocked. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're a sockpuppet, that should be handled via the SPI, not this board. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot They typically don’t connect IPs. Additionally, several other issues are involved, including wikihounding, block evasion, BLP violations, and edit-warring. The BLP violations alone should be sufficient grounds for a block. Not being here to build the encyclopedia should be enough for action. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems and I see nothing urgent or chronic, intractable in the edits of this IP. Just my 2cents. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, OP came straight here without even trying to discuss with the user first. I have to say that is somewhat troubling to see from someone running in the admin elections. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways Kindly refer to my response to @331dot for the reasons I believed a discussion with them would not be productive. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Step Sideways, I really hope @SheriffIsInTown start using the talk page more often, which isn’t the case at the moment and are more considerate, even towards IPs. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing and stonewalling of consensus by Snokalok

    [edit]

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

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

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

    I have no idea why you think bringing this to ANI is a good idea, and Snokalok's characterization of my position is totally accurate. This is a content dispute and there is in fact no consensus for inclusion. Loki (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion (yet anyway) on this in general, but as a point of information on sources the BMJ article is a WP:SECONDARY source (review article) in an reputable (MEDLINE/index medicus) journal, so a golden WP:MEDRS source. Wakefield's fraudulent paper was primary research so not WP:MEDRS and at the other end of the quality spectrum (indeed Wakefield's paper is one of the informing factors of why MEDRS is, as it is). Comparing the two sources would therefore be very odd. Bon courage (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't get beyond how much this post was quacking, a trip to the edit history[104] only makes the quacks more thunderous. Based on the level of WP:DUCK and WP:BOOMERANG I think the primary editor we should be discussing here is Frank Forfolk. If Snokalok is an issue someone else can bring them up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on quackiness, but for context, Frank Forfolk claims to be 212.36.63.7, who has been participating on the talk page for at least a month. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you that context, that really is key although I have to say that[105] doesn't give me all that much more confidence. The eight edits before they got involved in this dispute are an unsourced addition[106], unsourced and confusing changes to a BLP[107][108][109][110] (it kind of looks like vandalism), an unsourced BLP addition [111], another unsourced BLP addition[112], and another BLP addition this one with a source which does not appear related[113]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits from before 5 July 2024 are another individual at the same IP. The edits from then to now are all me. I have been observing Wikipedia and editing very sporadically for over 10 years; as I have never previously edited any CTOP or GENSEX related articles or been subject to any sanctions, and due to the controversy and toxicity associated with this subject, I believe I'm complying with WP:GOODSOCK by creating this account for privacy purposes. If you're not satisfied with my interpretation of that policy could you raise it on my talk page instead of continuing it here, though? Frank Forfolk (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand, are you saying that when you made the IP edits you also had an active wikipedia account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not active, no. I’ve not used it since before I got involved on the Cass Review page. Frank Forfolk (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so if the edits on the account are covered by WP:GOODSOCK what are the IP edits covered by? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The approach taken in the written policy seems to be that IP editing is treated the same way as editing through a sockpuppet account. Frank Forfolk (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response forthcoming Snokalok (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a matter for ANI. Two editors have labelled what is obviously an RS as unreliable through specious reasoning, their reasons are obviously motivated by a POV. It is just civil POV pushing to disregard something that is obviously a fine source. This is just stonewalling to try and either waste time or get editors to give up and move on. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, let’s go through this one at a time.
    1. The following names were arguing against inclusion: Myself, @Usr Trj[114], @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist[115], @LunaHasArrived[116], and our dear @User:LokiTheLiar[117] as shown above.
    And as for your reduction of Usr Trj’s involvement to mild opposition, they’d been directly opposed to including the specific source on grounds of responses to responses - grounds which I directly echoed when questioned by Apophis[118] - and I’d like to remind you of the policy I cited several times in our conversation, which is that no one is obligated to satisfy you. An editor who states their opposition once and ceases to respond is perfectly valid in their opposition all the same.
    In the face of clear evidence for a consensus against Snokalok's arguments What evidence did you present though? Because I’m reading back through your edits on the talk page, and you never actually listed off the editors for or against, you simply kept edit warring while saying that there was consensus without ever actually backing it up. To my reading, the closest thing you ever presented to evidence was saying “read the writing on the wall” while threatening admin involvement.[119]
    Additionally, I did initially think Maddy from Celeste was part of the list because of her participation in the thread (it really did get jumbled into multiple topics simultaneously), but when I looked back and saw I was mistaken, I immediately struck her from said list I presented at the time once it was clear I’d misremembered her involvement[120] - which happened long before you ever replied to the comment, so all your invocation of her reads as now is a deliberate ignorance of that very visible correction to paint a worse picture.
    But regardless, when you have several editors arguing against an edit in talk, and you go in and reinsert an already reverted edit simply because you don’t find their arguments satisfactory, that’s generally pretty frowned upon.
    And on that note, let’s talk about YOUR behavior. I want to start by looking at the edit war you waged to keep reinserting that material despite editors other than I reverting you just as surely - in particular, how you chose to respond in the edit summaries to being reverted: You are outright lying.[121], This is unacceptable, a couple of POV-pushers who are never, ever going to change their minds[122]. At best these are failures to assume good faith, worst they’re personal attacks but either way - they’re a refusal to collaborate with and show proper respect for editors which may disagree with your point of view. (Honorable mention: [123])
    Finally, since you seem so familiar with the Colin case, let me give you another quote from one of the three presiding admins in that case:
    I think Colin's communication style makes it easier to assume their snark is targeting editors, and as it contributes to a battleground it makes it less likely that editors will assume good faith. I'm willing to assume good faith that there were some misreadings, rather than misrepresentations here.
    Finally - I’ve cited my list of editors’ involvement, I request now that you do the same. And yes, this post quacks like the largest duck I’ve ever seen. Snokalok (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m afraid I’ll need to reply piecemeal, but I think this is important to flag up for those who who may not be paying close attention to the timeline: the evidence linked for Luna and Loki agreeing with Snokalok comes from after my edits were reverted on the basis that ‘half the users in the thread’ disagreed. At that time neither had said anything whatsoever about the topic! This makes Snokalok’s claim that The following names were arguing against inclusion another misrepresentation.
    I would appreciate knowing what I’m being accused of quacking like. If you’re accusing me of being a sock of another involved user or some outside figure I can assure you I’m not. I am a complete nobody and I have not engaged in this topic in any way beyond my acknowledged edits.
    I’m not trying to defend my own conduct here. Edit warring was a stupid way to act even given my conclusion that you were ignoring and stonewalling emerging consensus that the source was reliable and probably due, which is why I’ve done the more sensible thing of bringing the issue here. I will note that as a fresh account I cannot edit the semiprotected page any more anyway. Frank Forfolk (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the evidence linked for Luna and Loki agreeing with Snokalok comes from after my edits were reverted on the basis that ‘half the users in the thread
    You were perfectly free at any time in the conversation to compile a list editors for vs editors against, as I did for the against side. But you never did, you never even challenged that point or provided evidence against it. Why you chose not to is beyond me, but if you wanted to challenge that at the time you were perfectly free to. Additionally, I openly added Luna after she replied to my current list saying she agreed, because I wanted to keep things in good faith from sprawling with the assumption that edits plainly available in the page history would be seen as open and good faith gestures and not some underhanded attempt at misrepresentation or what have you. Certainly not like making a minor edit which the summary says is to fix a linking issue but actually changing the title of the ANI thread long after the fact.[124] Additionally I notice you have a running pattern of assuming bad faith, first in your edit summaries and now here.
    which is why I’ve done the more sensible thing of bringing the issue here Fascinating choice of venue. Snokalok (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not like making a minor edit which the summary says is to fix a linking issue but actually changing the title of the ANI thread long after the fact. I changed my own words (I cringed a bit at how ‘denial’ sounded), how is that misrepresenting anyone else? If people have a problem with it I can change it back…
    What other venue would be more appropriate? It was not being resolved on the talk page no matter how many editors, including ones experienced with MEDRS, explained to you and YFNS that the source was reliable and the arguments you were making against its reliability had no basis in policy. Outside arbitration seems like the best option, no? Frank Forfolk (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait. This is your choice of venue. You invited me to take the issue to ANI 8 hours before calling it an ‘interesting choice of venue’ on my part. Did you forget that you’d done so? Frank Forfolk (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you're relatively new here, so let me explain something to you:
    When someone tells you to take them to ANI, that does not literally mean "I think ANI is the right venue for resolving this". It means "I think your accusations are obviously bullshit and I'm going to demonstrate that I'm not intimidated by inviting you to tattle on me".
    Snokalok calling ANI an "interesting choice of venue" is in this context perfectly consonant with what they said before, in that it's another way of saying "I think your accusations are obviously bullshit". Loki (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On conduct issues I think this is a clear boomerang case (given the edit warring, including reverting by other people)
    On content issues (if those should be discussed here) I don't see how this BMJ article is due, nobody has discussed it and it really doesn't talk about the Cass review. Given that we don't repeat any claims from the integrity project white paper in wikivoice and it is clearly not fringe (been repeated by medical institutions) I don't see the need to include this. Now if in the coming days rs's start talking about this review my opinion could change but that is crystal ball territory.
    I should say the main reason that the Yale white paper is due is because multiple papers have reported it and it's cited in lots of Cass criticism. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    especially if Flounder's edit counts as approving inclusion

    I neither approve nor disapprove. I merely noticed problems and fixed them immediately. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I only skimmed the discussion after seeing a bit of spillover on another article talk page, but I must say I am very surprised to see it here from what I saw. I frankly do not have the energy to look into conduct in this case on my own initiative, and the evidence presented is not very clear cut in my admittedly not-conduct-experienced and did-not-really-look-at-the-conduct opinion, but might I suggest (regardless of what actions, if any, are taken here) that should a similarly deadlocked content dispute take place in the future, one might seek out our content noticesboards, such as WP:FRINGEN and WP:RSN, as a first point of call, as suggested in our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy, rather than escalating it to ANI? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood, and that makes a lot of sense. I'll take it there if this carries on. Frank Forfolk (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

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

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

    At a glance, their edits seem correct, though. The country's name is Bosnia and Herzegovina, the league is Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc., with Bosnia per se., whether piped or otherwise deemed "informal." What am I missing? El_C 18:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, edit warring is edit warring, who is editorially correct generally is not considered a mitigating factor (which... I mean... you know that...right?). And I am seeing warnings not just from the OP but from several other users to cut it out, so it does seem there is an issue here. I woudn't go so far as to say a NOTHERE block is justified though. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (To the parenthesis) Not really pertinent to my above note. El_C 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, in such a contentious region, there must have been a consensus reached about how we should refer to the country and its citizens? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were warned that Balkans topics were deemed contentious back in August after edit-warring with User:Joy. I suggest picking up that ball and running with it. SerialNumber54129 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that will not be me now. But hope it works out. El_C 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully my indentation suggests I was replying to the OP. SerialNumber54129 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that. I was just wrapping it up on my part. If another admin is gonna patronize me when I'm just beginning to conduct my inquiry, I can leave the matter to them. There's no shortage of reports on this noticeboard that could use attention. El_C 19:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks El_C, apologies for any confusion. SerialNumber54129 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, thanks for your timely replies! Well, I don't find these edits correct cuz "Bosnian" had been used for many years on Wikipedia when this editor began replacing it with with "Bosnian and Herzogovinian" (per this conversation); also, I haven't discovered a single reliable source that called Lana Pudar "Bosnian and Herzogovinian". Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bosnian" being used for many years isn't really a good argument against changing it to "Bosnian and Herzegovinian", since things can be wrong for years and years before being noticed. The reliable source argument is much better. As for the issue at heart here, it looks like this is someone who wants everything to be standardized, a very common type of wikipedia personality and not in itself evidence of WP:NOTHERE-type behaviour. I see they asked a bunch of times for a link to a discussion on whether it's appropriate to call people from Bosnia and Herzegovina "Bosnian" - is there such a thing anywhere? An RfC or something? -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to preface this remark by saying that it is WP:OR and that language is often illogical, but isn't it impossible for anyone to be Bosnian and Herzegovinan? Surely if we want to acknowledge both in describing someone's citizenship the form should be Bosnian-Herzegovinan? If no consensus has been reached about how we describe people from that country I'll check out later how we describe citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, which may or may not be informative. Can anyone think of any other countries with "and" in their names? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few countries with "and" in their names, generally the casual demonym is either one or the other. Usually one is more prominent, as is the case with Bosnia in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I went and had a look at some Bosnia and Herzegovina UN speeches to see what they themselves used in formal English, and my observation is that they studiously avoid needing to use a demonym. CMD (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google search finds several dictionary definitions defining Bosnians as citizens or inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have an article Bosnians with some discussion of the name in the talk page archives. TSventon (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One example is Antigua and Barbuda, for which the demonym in the infobox is Antiguan and Barbudan - though I wouldn't be surprised if individuals called themselves one or the other. There's also the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (five major demonyms), and in some contexts England and Wales; too deep a rabbit-hole to go down here.. Narky Blert (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen "Trinidad and Tobagonian", "Trinidadian" and "Tobagonian" to describe people from Trinidad and Tobago on Wikipedia (the latter two most likely describing the island the person in question is from). Not sure what the consensus on that would be though. Procyon117 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A good example. I can easily imagine statements in wikivoice like "a Trinidadian sportsperson who represents Trinidad and Tobago" or "a Tobagonian politician in Trinidad and Tobago". (I express no opinion on the Bosnia/Herzegovina issue.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like Adelbeighou is an infrequent editor, the last time they edited regularly was more than a month ago, so I don't expect them to respond here any time soon. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Conduct of user FlightTime towards other editors

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Today they rolled back in one go (just as twice within minutes five days ago), concurrently, my 100-byte (this time) initial contribution on a second article and a 137-byte contribution by someone else in the same paragraph. "Unsourced" was the one-word explanation. (I am relieved not to have been criticized again today, having in truth been a little late in furnishing a directly to-the-point citation.) Cebran2003 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, they are less responsive about and more hasty about wholesale rollbacks than might be readily inferred from @OXYLYPSE's and my comments above. Five days ago, I chanced to guess wrong what content required speedy citing in their view; the reversion of this wrong guess constituted the entire difference between rollback 1 and rollback 2 (timed a few minutes apart). In fact, I have yet to receive from that person any indication of what they wanted cited (though I appear to have wound up guessing correctly a day or so later). Cebran2003 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately not bothering to try to justify their call for citations with respect to my contribution of today, that person actually rolled back only the following where my 100 bytes were concerned. I had noticed an improbable statement characterizing two boys, two years apart in age, as being concurrently in a single grade in elementary school. I tracked down which of the two later reported (in an interview) having been in that grade at the relevant time. I corrected accordingly. I then deleted a dead link (for that interview), possibly thus setting the person off (unless I had already done so with only the correction). As I was preparing to carry over a good link from a related article to today's, the person took the opportunity to roll me back. Cebran2003 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cebran2003 Hey Cebran. I get you're trying to thoroughly explain the situation here, but try not to excessively comment here on this thread as it might be disruptive. Doing so can bloat a lot of text on screen and deter possible contributors with this giant wall of info. Thanks. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My intention was only to cover the main points. I already considered myself done, and now in view of Toby's feedback I am declaring myself done, with thanks all around. Cebran2003 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The perception of trolling explaining all, apology accepted. (I have yet to interact at all with FlightTime's talk, and my edit from yesterday actually included the citation from the outset rather than *the latter's* following by some minutes.) (Pardon the grammar, what with the occasional lapses like that.) All good now. Cebran2003 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cebran2003:, Thank you. Stop by my talk anytime. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My apologies to everyone involved, at the time I thought the article(s) and my talk were being trolled, I was obviously wrong and thought I fixed everything, again wrong. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about to look again at those edits on Eddie Van Halen, and I think I might roll them all back. It's perfectly understandable why User:FlightTime reverted some of them. Those edits were unverified and totally unexplained (how is it that his place of birth was moved from Amsterdam to Nijmegen), and contained a number of errors of various kinds. Asking editors to a. explain and b. verify is fine, and this response Cebran is not. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Thanx for cleaning up Van Halen. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies has made a series of absolutely incorrect comments just above. Eddie was definitely born in Nijmegen, to take the most salient example. By no means does anything warrant rollling back. Cebran2003 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SheriffIsInTown’s POV-Pushing, User Conduct

    [edit]

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

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

    I looked into the first example (the one linked in "false information"), and I agree that this is a misuse of the sources. This could easily have been a mistake and I wouldn't conclude from this edit alone that anything untoward is occurring, I'm just stating it so no one else has to duplicate the work. The statement added to the article is However, his critics contend that his struggle is driven by personal ambitions and self-interest. It is sourced to three sources. In the Guardian and ST articles I didn't find anything similar. The BBC has His opponents say that all his policies while in power were only about his own ego and whimsy. When in power, they say, he spent more time hounding his opponents than he did running the country. I don't think "driven by personal ambitions and self-interest" is a good reflection of that statement, but given the three articles I've read, I can easily believe it to be a true and verifiable statement about what Khan's critics say about him in general. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering That's exactly what happened, and I explained it here in my second-to-last comment in that discussion. I believe there's an ulterior motive at play, aimed at tarnishing my reputation as we approach the admin election, in which I'm a candidate. Some individuals have started making accusations like POV pushing, but in reality, I'm the one striving to maintain NPOV, and I can provide examples to prove this, if needed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the context. Do you have a comment on this diff? (The second example in the original post.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheriff, it may be good to lower your tonnage or bring in a third party voice. The talk page appears to show that, so you're probably fine here. OP needs to also understand that adding content without a source, regardless if others do it or not, is easily ready to be reverted. To Sheriff, WP:AGF, they seem new and likely need assistance. To OP read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND and maybe move on to something else in the project. (non-admin comment) Conyo14 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Conyo14 I've actually been quite patient with OP, as they tend to exhibit a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles. Much of their content is heavily promotional towards PTI, which is why I felt the need to step in to maintain balance. They argue over images and challenge every change made to content they've introduced. They demonstrate a pattern of WP:IDHT behavior, repeatedly making the same points in discussions without relenting from their viewpoint. One example is when they insisted that sources weren't necessary in certain cases, only backing down after @CNMall41 intervened. Frankly, a WP:BOOMERANG should be issued against them, as they are often the ones pushing a biased POV in most situations. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see quite the opposite that you have a sense of ownership over all PTI-related articles, especially election ones and viciously trying to erase signs of PTI, converting them to Independents. You can check my edit history I have never threatened Sheriff while he has constantly used intimidation tactics with me and other users. Sheriff also only backed down after @Borgenland intervened removing the not cited information of Sheriffs. And just saying, Sheriff’s behavior has been everything but patient. Titan2456 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I request administrators to take serious action against Sheriff. Because of people like him, editors get dishearten when they work hard to edit and people like him revert or remove edit by a single click. I have seen in Indian election articles that even before election they add party lists and candidates in their constituency pages before polls so that after results it would be easy for them to edit and complete articles but when I started adding candidates names in constituency pages like NA-1 Chitral, he started reverting my edits without telling me. It was decided by the editors that in light of Media PTI backed Independents will be shown separated instead of showing with other independents because PTI backed independent candidates got party ticket and support from PTI but he still imposed his rule in all constituency pages. I support taking action against vandalism but imposing your order like you own this site is insane and bullying which is not good. Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I acknowledge that Sheriff has been hauled here multiple times but based on my personal experience I do not believe that said user is acting out of malice. As for the revert I do not recall that specific incident but I acknowledge making multiple reverts in Pakistani politics primarily on copy-editing and ensuring statements are watertight with citations. In fact, Sheriff has been helpful in helping me kick out a WP:SOAPBOX hyper-partisan PTI editor who turned out to be an LTA sock who kept bludgeoning me and the 2024 Pakistani general election with a non-credible source and resorted to vile WP:IDNHT, WP:NPA and WP:CIR attacks. Borgenland (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Burmiester and my talk page

    [edit]

    After I reverted some anonymous edits based on tourism review sites, Burmeister arrived on my user talk page. After a rather spirited discussion on my talk page at User_talk:MrOllie#Three_magi, Burmiester is refusing to accept that the discussion is over. I have asked them to stop posting on my talk page. Would someone please have a word, they aren't listening ([125][126][127][128]). - MrOllie (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If I catch a ban for this, so be it. I'm just tired of being pushed around by petty tyrants on Wikipedia who refuse to allow for a neutral point of view and gatekeep articles. I've made thousands of edits over the years. This used to be fun for me. It's not fun anymore. I'd also like to add that instead of responding to my visible frustration with understanding and discussion, he escalated the situation with snarky comments. What I did was not right, and I understand that. But what Mr.Ollie did was also not acceptable, at least in my opinion.(Burmiester (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    As a general principle, user talk pages are a poor place to engage in content disputes. Try discussing such issues where others can join in and there's less room for petty tyranny, real or imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Hostility just gets old.(Burmiester (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    Burmiester, it looks like all MrOllie is asking for is that you stop posting to their User talk page, at least about this issue. Can you agree to that and moving your discussions to article talk pages? In general, on this project, when an editor asks for you to stop posting on their User talk page, that request is honored except for notifications that are required. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hostility, Burmeister? Your prolonged ranting and raving and repeated personal attacks on MrOllie's talk page was way over the line, and exemplifies hostility. If editing Wikipedia is not fun for you, then the solution to that problem of yours is obvious. Find another hobby. If you choose to keep editing, you cannot blow your stack if another editor questions the reliability of sources that you use. Never do that again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Petty tyrants is below the standards expected, and should be withdrawn. MrOllie is entirely entitled to ask an editor to stay off their talk page and this should be respected, per WP:USERTALKSTOP. Daniel (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, you marked the wrong user, your issue is with "Burmiester", not me. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for that, Burmeister. Do you think that the other editor is trying to impersonate you? Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Burmeister's account was registered in 2007 and Burmiester's in 2009, so unless he's playing a very long game, I don't think impersonation was intended when the account was registered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe in impersonation, just a similar user name. Burmeister (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive category additions by 68.69.37.6

    [edit]

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

    That IP may be WP:NOTHERE. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. I noticed they also add categories "x about violence", when a video game or film which have violence in it isn't necessarily about violence. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User disruptively moving articles to userspace

    [edit]

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

    I move-protected the Klea Pineda article and its talk page for a while before I saw this complaint, I hope that drives the message through. Liz Read! Talk! 09:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also request protection on pages vandalized by aforementioned sock accounts. Borgenland (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they also stole Rere Madrid, which was created by another user, before other users could get a chance to review or contribute constructively to the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

    Return of the Diddy / Fistagon vandal

    [edit]

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

    Now sorted by Daniel, to whom many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, they are linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499/Archive#09 October 2024, and were recently blocked following my report. After that, they began reverting my edits using IP addresses, which led to them being reported under WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP. Now, they've created this new account and have continued, this time with offensive edit summaries. It would be best to run a CU and establish the connection. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are a sock of Fistagon and are listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of FiveSidedFistagon, where you'll note the other 'Diddy' related accounts. This is the 10th(?) time they've targeted my edits (along with other people) for their own type of vandalism. Their post on their user page referred to Fistagon as well. - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just curious as to why they would target my edits, given that I've had no previous interaction with them unless they are both one and the same. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

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

    User report to personal talk page

    [edit]

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

    I ran into this edit on the Islam wikipage. I checked that specific user's history and they've vandalised a Jewish page too. They've been IP blocked before but appealed that it's an error. They mention on their talk page that they used to have a Wiki account with over 500 edits, but I can only extrapolate the meaning of that. So far they don't stick around, they hit & run and move on until boredom strikes and vandalise another page. I don't want to reach out to them incase I land on their radar and so by deferring to you, I'm hoping I can maintain a degree of separation.
    Feel free to ask me any questions. But before you decide to take an action, like speaking to anyone else about this, can you please delete this talk entry? Don't archive it, just edit > backspace > save.
    Thanks for your time and consideration.
    (Signed, the other user)

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

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

    User:RoyalCream persistent unsourced edits after two blocks

    [edit]

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

    This user has been blocked twice now for unsourced edits and on the last occasion they were given a final warning that if they continued, the next one would be indefinite ([129], [130]). And indeed, they've continued to do the same, including:

    • Unsourced additions: [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], etc.
    • They created this completely unsourced article and then, when moved to draftspace by another editor, they ignored the feedback and simply moved it back to mainspace ([137]).
    • Unexplained, disruptive deletions here and here.
    • And continuing to edit-war over their unsourced edits here: [138], [139], [140], [141], [142].

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

    IP address persistently adding unsourced information

    [edit]

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

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

    User:Affinepplan (Wikihounding, disruptive behavior)

    [edit]

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

    In retaliation, they seem to have resorted to wikihounding by repeatedly injecting themselves into talk page discussions involving me, despite the user having made no edits to the the article. Examples can be found in their contributions, which consist exclusively of edits to talk page discussions I've been involved it. I've also been informed of apparent off-site canvassing behavior in the r/endFPTP subreddit, with examples in the comments here and here, and at least one thread I didn't manage to archive. (Archive.org is down, and I only learned about archive.is after the thread had been deleted.)

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1252095259"