Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Personally attacked again

    Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.

    16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [1]

    04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [2]

    10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [3]

    Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf

    10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [4]

    21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [5] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [6]

    Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion [7], you bring me to ANI. [8][9]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [10]
    This is tiring. I’ll just copy and paste here my final comment (at ANI) in the last complaint you filed against me:

    I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).

    Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.

    It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.

    I would say this kind of interaction is just exhausting. I really don’t think I have the time and energy to deal with the bait anymore. This is sapping up the community’s time. But I know you will never stop until there’s a boomerang.
    Again, you can go on with your diffs. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dustfreeworld If you believe Vacosea is trying to get you into trouble to win an argument, why are you giving them so much ammunition? The "sea lion and their bait are disgusting" comment really sounds like you're calling Vacosea disgusting, which is a clear personal attack. Similarly, the "big lie technique" comment is hard to see as anything other than calling Vacosea a liar, which also seems like a WP:PA. Your accusations of paid editing might have merit, but the place to do that is WP:COIN, not an article talk page. And your comment telling Vacosea that you consider their accusations libelous, despite having cautioned Vacosea against using the term "defemation" for the same reason.
    If, as you say, interacting with this person is exhausting, then perhaps moving to another area of the encyclopedia would be better for you. As valuable as your contributions are, that part of Wikipedia will survive if you need to move on, and the project will be all the better for retaining your time in an area that doesn't exhaust you instead of burning you out on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In reply to the accusations (of which 4 out of 5 happened more than 9 months ago)

    Hi there. Most of the diffs cited above were months ago, and I think I’ve responded to them (multiple times?) at different venues already. And now, you are asking me to respond to those again, one by one. Can you see how exhausting it is??
    Not to mention that, ANI is a high traffic venue, making untrue claims against someone (in this case: me) can do much more harm to them (e.g., to their reputation) than doing that on talk pages. And this just happens again and again.
    Filing a case for them is easy. And it’s a great way to harm others without any consequences (I’m not commenting on the other cases here, but just this particular one that I know so well. I believe many cases are legitimate). All they need to do is just start a discussion like this, and then those who see their comment will just help them keep the ball rolling. Even if I reply to your concern above, you and others (who maybe relatively new to what had happened before) or maybe them, will continue to respond and again, I’ll need to answer one by one. This is the third time it’s happening in this venue, not including talk pages. If memory serves, the first ANI I mentioned above had lasted for months (with dozens of irrelevant diffs they posted). Isn’t that tiring? Issues like this are exactly what drive good editors away. Further, all these and the stress that brings can drive people crazy I would say, especially when occurs repeatedly.
    They are the one who made untrue claims, but they don’t need to reply or worry about that at all, just because the victim is not interested in filing compliant, and also, is now busy defending themselves …
    Anyway, I’ll response to some of the newer claims now. I’m not sure if there’s any language barrier. For me, the word “disgusting” is just similar to “annoying”, “discouraging”, etc. it’s just a word used to describe my feelings and I don’t think it’s “attack”, and it’s used to describe my feelings towards the sealioning behaviour:

    ”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”

    If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor of, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...
    I think I’ve written long enough and hope that I can just stop here. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does sound exhausting. That's why I'm hoping we can find a solution that works for you. The issue is what an uninvolved editor can be expected to do. If editor A accuses editor B, and B does not refute the accusations, it seems likely that uninvolved editors would conclude editor B is at fault. If you don't have the mental energy to defend yourself and provide diffs of Vacosea's bad behavior, then it seems likely that you'll be sanctioned by the community sooner or later. This is why I suggested abandoning the article you helped create, because the alternative could be a forced abandonment of all articles. Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation, even if you move to different articles.
    Of course, if you CAN muster the energy to provide diffs, that could end things differently.
    I see where you were coming from re "disgusting", but I would avoid characterizing other editors that way in the future; if someone called me or my behavior disgusting, I would certainly be upset! In any case, I hope we can solve this in a way that you don't have to deal with ANI again; I can imagine how stressful it'd be to get dragged here, and I rather suspect you have better things to do than come back here again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EducatedRedneck, I agree with most of what you said. However, it’s probably not as simple as “providing diff”. Actually diffs have been provided before many times already. If people (who are capable, which may also mean knowing the language) are willing to (take the risk and) spend the time to look into the issue, they can do so by viewing the article talk page, previous ANIs, etc., even if there’s no diff. Btw, sometimes sealioning behaviours are just so obvious that we probably won’t need more diffs.
    “Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation” probably won’t work. As far as I know, some mistakes *can* stay in articles for months and even years, without anyone correcting them (e.g.,[11] ). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I was willing to work it out with them again at the first ANI before the personal attacks began [12]. They later crossed out comparing me to Joseph Goebbels but everything else remained as stated. To date they have not specified what they mean when accusing me of spreading misinformation or making untrue claims. Vacosea (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. It seems to me that you / your diff. have mixed up with the timeline. Further, the issues that being asked for specification had been specified in various venues multiple times (1st ANI, 2nd ANI, multiple threads on article’s talk page, the RFC you started, etc.) already but people are still “pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity”. [13] And, the above comment does have untrue claims as well.
    For the record, they have started an (IMO unnecessary) RFC on the article talk page on 9 July while this ANI discussion is going on, which is a second one after another “dead” RFC they started last October (not about the same issue, but again an unnecessary time sink IMO). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please self-revert your changes to my comments [14]. Vacosea (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Vacosea! That’s a careless mistake I made. What happened was, I noticed I wrongly typed “HK” while I should have type “Wuhan” the first time. Then when I tried to fix it, I tried to use the “Find in page” option of the browser to locate it. Then due to misclick some text was deleted (not just in your comment, but in my comment as well). I’m sorry about that, I hate making mistakes, it’s corrected now and thanks for pointing it out. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

    BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [15]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IOppose sanction based on evidence presented: in this edit Baharatlı fixed the order of two items in the infobox. They didn't edit any text regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or any Azeri/Turkish conflicts with Armenians. I don't think this should be counted as violating the topic area and if it did, the place for that discussion is ae not here. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for butting in, but wouldn't there be concerns (if not general sanctions) regarding WP:CT/EE? Remsense诉 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent ethno-nationalistic disruption

    Just had to clean up more nationalistic editing by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı [21]. And just before that I nominated a fictional article made by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı for deletion [22]. I'll compile a list shortly to show how much of a serious matter this is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support sanctions This is a repeat issue with this editor, and I think that the WP:NPOV issues are going to continue unless some sort of administrator action is taken. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BaharatlıCheetos2.0 has a habit of using very sketchy (not WP:RS) and not accessible (WP:VER issues) citations to push a nationalistic pov.

    • Nationalistic editing to claim the Saka as Turks [23]
    • Nationalistic editing to claim the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [24] and Turukkaeans [25] as Turks
    • Nationalistic editing to suggest an Ottoman "victory" at the Battle of Muş [26]
    • Fictional event to give another Ottoman "victory" [27], now nominated for deletion by me [28]. I removed all the citations due to WP:RS and WP:VER issues, only to be sneakily (no edit summary, no notification) reverted by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı who also removed the deletion template [29] [30] [31]
    • When they actually use WP:RS, the information is not supported by it (and no page was even cited in this instance) [32]
    • They add "citation needed" template to a infobox whose result is sourced in the article itself [33]. However, the same "rule" does not apply to them, here they are adding unsourced info in another infobox and which was not supported by the article [34]
    • Even the Etruscan civilization in ancient Italy (!) have to suffer the nationalistic disruption of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı, who also wants them to be Turks [35] [36]. Yes, this might not be a diff from the English wiki, but it says a lot about this user and is just more evidence that they are indeed a proponent of the Sun Language Theory. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Turkic peoples, broadly construed This user is primarily here to push fringe claims regarding Turkic peoples as demonstrated by HoI's diffs, and as such they are wasting the community's time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per the above evidence. Pinguinn 🐧 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey articles, broadly construed - since this report, the user has made more violations of the WP:GS/AA restriction, in articles covered by it [37], [38]. They also made POV edits in Turkey related articles as shown above. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just noticed that the subject of this ANI complaint has updated their user page to say they are working to become an extended confirmed user. Special:Diff/1236829027. This is highly concerning to me considering the history of sanctions regarding content that protected under WP: GS/AA. I would like to get the opinion of @Firefangledfeathers on this matter.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's pretty optimistic of BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı considering they're on the verge of getting topic banned. And they are still yet to make a single comment in this report, very concerning. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish

    Subject editor is bludgeoning DRV for Segun Toyin Dawodu, not taking friendly advice, and looking back on past contributions and talk page, appears to resemble a 15-year SPA with a passionate interest in this article that is sufficiently outside the norm that I'd encourage an UPE investigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just wrote a comment along these lines at the DRV unrelated to the above report, and was coming here to report pretty much the same thing. It is very disruptive at this point, and if I wasn't borderline involved (by virtue of advocating 'endorse deletion') I'd have considered a pblock to allow the DRV to get back on track. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User_talk:Doczilla#Deletion_review_for_Segun_Toyin_Dawodu. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took note of this diff while temp-undeleting the talk page. This user is either the subject of the article, or was already behaving enough like the subject would in 2013 that DragonflySixtyseven tagged them as such. —Cryptic 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    commons:File:Segund Toyin Dawodu.jpg lists it as Ckanopueme's "own work". Mmmmmm. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked at the DRV. The subject did not answer the question. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evasiveness of the (non-)reply speaks volumes. Absolutely no desire to answer the question. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is the same as on the front page of dawodu.com, [39]. Between that and this user's denial that it's his own work, I've tagged it as a speedy at Commons. —Cryptic 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said at the DRV that I haven't reviewed the deleted article in detail and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I do have opinions on a content issue, which I expressed at the DRV, and on a conduct issue. The content issue is that the closer correctly assessed consensus. The conduct issue is that the subject editor is being disruptive, as reported by the nominator, by bludgeoning the DRV. I recommend, at a minimum, a partial block of the subject from the DRV. That's the minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, we are at the point that (at a minimum) a pblock is required from the DRV page. A full siteblock might also be merited for the UPE/COI general disruption also. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a pretty anti-intellectual one at that, that could be summarized as "Look, we're volunteers here; I've got two minutes max to consider this matter, I did that and made my decision, and I don't have time or interest to have a big back-and-forth about it". Which is true; we pretty much have to make snap decisions here a lot. I wouldn't make a virtue of this necessity tho, particularly as people can just skip anything they don't want to read last I heard. So I'm not a big fan of the you'll-shut-up-and-like-it approach to dealing with opponents in discussions.
    It looks to me that subject might well rate an article, based on there's a full biographical article in an extremely widely-read newspaper, just for starters. Of course an editor is going to get excited when their legit work is deleted for what may be insufficient cause. What do you expect. Do we want editors who don't care about their work. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, if you can intervene as a disinterested party and explain the behavioral issues to this editor, I'm happy. Of course, the response so far is pretty much what I would expect from a dual doctor/lawyer, so I'm not optimistic that you, or anyone, can get this editor to learn how to approach issues productively. Still, if you succeeded? Awesome. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I don't want to. He should pipe down, but apparently he won't, and it's just something we have to live with I guess.
    There's IMO a big difference between rolling your eyes as you skip some screed, or telling a person to please pipe down because they are A) being annoying and B) actually hurting their chances after a certain point, and using FORCE to make them unable to speak in discussing an internal procedure. Topic bans for articles (including their talk pages), that's different, and just below I recommended that for the article for this person. But AfD and DR are discussions about internal procedures. To me that's way different. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked things over, I concur in every respect. Therefore, how about this as a minimal solution? I propose a topic ban from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. We can see if Ckanopueme has a mind to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. Ravenswing 05:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is the correct solution. (It's kind of moot since the article is gone and is going to stay gone whether it should or not.) Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all that moot. He can recreate it with a name tweak, and a number of his edits over the years have been inserting his name into other articles. Better to be safe than sorry. Ravenswing 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If this could get 30 seconds of attention from a not-already-involved admin, that would be great, because now I'm being likened to the fucking mafia for trying to describe the concept of duplicate citations. [40] —Cryptic 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ckanopueme despite everything, assume good faith and being civil are a must here. Focus on the content and not on the editors here. Being likened to the mafia here is a personal attack. I suggest that striking out the comment and that an apology is in order. – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    y'all know what... I am blocking @Ckanopueme for doubling down on WP:NPA for 31 hours. This is not the first instance of making personal attacks. It seems that they do not pay attention to well-meaning warnings. Come back when you are in better frame of mind. The apology is still expected. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban

    It was floated above and received some support, but I'm going to formalise the process here with a subsection to help develop a clearer consensus.

    Ckanopueme is topic-banned from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. This may be appealed to the administrators' noticeboard after 12 months, and once every 6 months after.

    This is based on Ravenswing's original proposal above.

    • Support as proposer. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Let's give this editor a chance to work on other things, when interactions surrounding this article have not been remotely collegial. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feels like we're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but while this article looks unlikely to ever come back - none of its refs pass the laugh tests for both independence and significant coverage, and the afd pretty much eliminates a WP:NPROF end-run around the GNG - I don't have any confidence the user will just stop putting this name into other articles. —Cryptic 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - If the editor honors this topic-ban, then a partial block from the DRV will not be necessary because the T-ban will cover it (and if not, not). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: This is pretty much the chance the editor gets. Next step is a cban. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Made absolutely necessary by the editor's behavior. Better to do this cleanly now than messily later. The narrow scope of the topic ban allows the editor to fulfill their stated goal of writing articles about "notable Nigerians," rather than their apparent role as Segun Toyin Dawodu's de facto publicist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be inclined to just indef Ckanopueme as WP:NOTHERE and skip the topic ban, but if you want to do that first then just I support it. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support To prevent more disruption. I'd oppose a Indef per WP:ROPE. Nobody (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Pppery on this. If the bludgeoning on DRV wasn't bad enough, this SPA's responses on their Talk page to well-intentioned attempts to reason with them make it clear they are WP:NOTHERE for anything other than to defend the (autobiographical?) page. Giving them WP:ROPE will just waste more of our time in pointless AfDs and DRVs, since they'll just keep introducing the page under new titles, as they have over the past 15 years. In this case, an indef isn't a sledgehammer to swat a fly. It's topical solution for a single-topic disruption. This SPA clearly doesn't care which other parts of the project they're blocked out of. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by SPA editor

    Bobsource123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA editor. Of their 35 contributions, 33 have been to Þorgrímur Þráinsson. Their additions look to have been largely unproblematic. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly removed a Template:POV tag added by @Buidhe: in November 2019 without explaining why: June 2022, October 2022, August 2023, June 2024, June 2024, July 2024. They have avoided responding to messages left on their Talk page and instead blanked their entire Talk page today: [42]. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Today, they removed the ANI notice from their Talk page which means they've seen it. Still, they again removed the tag and they also removed the short description while they were at it. I would consider this "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should've tried more dispute resolution before bringing it to ANI .
    Also the article talk page has no section about NPOV,(which the NPOV template documentation says is needed) and a quick read doesnt make it seem it has WP:NPOV issues . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Isotalo: aspersions, misrepresentation, and canvassing

    Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been persistently uncivil at Talk:Human history and related pages:

    I would like to see a formal commitment from Peter to improving their behaviour, as they have so far refused to. If that commitment has to come from the sharp end of ANI, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My purpose for canvassing was to get attention to the talkpage and try to involve other editors. My comments are based on general behavior I've seen for a long time and which isn't limited either to last few weeks or even human history. If it was about just a few specific users, I would be singling out those users, but I think the problem goes beyond this. Peter Isotalo 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they were "calls to action" intended to influence editors' opinions before reading the discussion. As explained at WP:CANVASS, that compromises the consensus-making process, and is entirely inappropriate. Please state that you understand the above. Please also comment on the aspersions within the canvassing messages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any assumption of good faith in your behavior, Airship. The tone of your interaction with me has been consistently unfriendly even to the point that you dug up your own months-old unfriendly commentary and held it against me.[43] Your reaction to my trying to seek input at WP:3O was to remove the request[44] and ignore the issue, including a direct question to you in the GA. Your interaction has been consistently ungenerous.
    Whatever you're planning here seems to be purely disciplinary. That's not something that requires my willing participation or consent. If you're interested in non-threatening dialogue, you're welcome to take it up on my talkpage. Peter Isotalo 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Isotalo the rule for 3O is " only two editors are involved". Are you really claiming that was true when you asked for a third opinion? Doug Weller talk 10:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I interpreted the issue as primarily being a disagreement primarily between me and Phlsph7 at that point. I also assumed the main the point of seeking a 3O was to try to seek uninvolved input which seemed appropriate. If I was in a position of being a party to a dispute (which Airship was at that point[45]), I would at the very least try to help bring in outside opinions. Peter Isotalo 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Isotalo In other words you ignored the instructions and it was properly removed. But with your experience you must know about DNR, RfCs, etc. Or NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess I have the wrong experience then. Peter Isotalo 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No Peter, you have been consistently obstructive, and once again you misrepresent events. First, you replied at the GA review clearly ignoring the sources in the comment you were replying to. In response to my suggesting reading it to you again, you made the following aspersions-riddled comment:

    "I saw your criticism there and noted you have personal opinions about various sources and discussion among academic historians. I don't know what point you're trying to make other than that you seem to dislike how academic historical research is written and debated among professional historians."

    In other words, without explanation or justification, you accuse me of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. Ungenerous much? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting too far into things just yet, of the 3 points above, the latter 2 lack diffs. Specifically for the accusations of misrepresentation and that of casting aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in those talk page discussions and some of Peter's controversial comments were directed at me, so I am not an impartial judge of this situation. With this disclaimer in mind, my impression is that AirshipJungleman29's description is a good summary of what has been happening. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that Peter is receptive to the issues raised here since the same behavior of misrepresenting other editors continues: [46] and [47]. Their recent comment on this ANI also indicates that they are not receptive. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This behavior is so unfortunately typical it feels archetypal. Disgruntled editor can't be bothered to be patient or courteous: spams tags, canvasses (always unsuccessfully), and takes productivity to new lows. How can Peter expect anyone to work with him under such circumstances? If they want to actually move forward, they could start by removing their clearly retaliatory tags, acknowledging and apologizing for their behavior, and offering actionable suggestions—not vague accusations. – Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the merits of the content, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. The short version is that periodization is not nearly as important as Peter Isotalo believes it is. He seems to see it as some catastrophic error, but it isn't. The important thing is the content, not the arbitrary divisions. Wikipedia divides up content for all sorts of reasons, including WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Or for the human history article example, just for division into reader-useful sections. There is not some ideal, Platonic set of sections / divisions to use that deviation from is terrible. Even if there was, Peter Isotalo routinely refuses to actually give concrete examples of what he does want to replace it. So I strongly disagree with these edits on human history - again, these are Wikipedia section headers, not statements of divine fact. It's not "OR" to subdivide articles.
    • On editor behavior, even if we accept for a moment that Peter is in some way correct, he needs to translate his nebulous wishes into concrete proposals, and not tag-bomb everything he doesn't like. If Peter says "hey, here's an alternate periodization scheme, it's supported by historians X, Y, and Z, let's change the articles to use that", then fine, that's something that can be concretely discussed. Instead he's currently simply asserted that "historians" en masse reject the good faith efforts of other editors, even when this doesn't appear to be true. It's not a collegial approach to matters. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with those concerned about this way of working. I have been a watcher for the most part, on several articles. I am seeing the situation spread from being a dysfunctional talk page, to bulk edits on multiple articles, which have a "point making" feel to them. I think other editors have tried hard to work appropriately and discuss things at their own pace, based on their own perceptions of the cases involved. Peter's habit of answering constructive posts with simplistic insults and the rewriting of the opinions of other editors is disruptive. Peter seems to steamroll the valid concerns of others. Of course most experienced Wikipedians will sympathize with Peter's feelings of frustration, which are common in this communal editing environment, but this seems to be the wrong approach. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this - this been a pattern for years. Fortunately he only shows up on my watchlist at long intervals, presumably because he's away editing linguistic/maritime/cooking stuff I don't see, but when he turns up on wider history articles a lot of heat and smoke is to be expected, but little light or actual improvement. He has been a good deal ruder than this to me in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bowing out

    This ANI is just a pile-on of bad faith accusations and seems largely retaliatory. I mean, even simply replying to a straight question about why I posted a 3O is being met with distrust and finger-wagging. I'm not interested in being interrogated and I've already made it clear to Airship what I thought about the threat of an ANI before it was posted.[48] Not my circus, not my monkeys.

    I'm going to take a break from editing for a week and get back to trying to resolve the disagreements over at human history, hopefully with fresh eyes. It's up to Airship if they want to continue this process or not. Peter Isotalo 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, a curious case of ANI flu—how handy!—and with a farewell helping of aspersions to boot. No, I have no control over ANI, sorry to say, but I can propose something, if you don't want to?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not up to Airship, it is entirely up to you. You have patient and experience editors that are attempting to work with you. Alas, you have managed to make that impressively difficult. Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ARBPIA 1RR

    u:Qplb191 refuses to follow 1RR in ARBPIA, in spite of being warned about it and the lack of consensus for the changes they've been making. See User_talk:Qplb191#1RR_violation. Reverts: [49] [50]. Alaexis¿question? 21:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing how this is related to the Israeli - Arab conflict? What we have here is two relatively inexperienced editors that need to work it out on the talk page.... Nothing actionable here except for guidance on how to resolve disputes. Not seeing how this post helps the problem whatsoever. Moxy🍁 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, there was a discussion on the talk page about adding a section on culture to the lead, many users, including me, objected to the current version and despite this there was an insistence on adding it even though there were reservations about the proposed version. I sought to achieve a broad consensus regarding the proposed version and to take into consideration the suggestions of the editors such as @Makeandtoss. Qplb191 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. You're right, it's not directly related to the conflict. Alaexis¿question? 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alaexis: Re your edit, I don't think the text in question is longstanding content. CMD (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, probably my mistake was due to a similar sentence being in the beginning of the Demographics section for a long time. I'll add a comment at the talk page. Alaexis¿question? 08:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know! Alaexis¿question? 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Israel (the modern state) and all of Palestine (the modern state) are part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly construed. That's why those two articles are tagged as under ARBPIA. (This could have been posted at AE.) Levivich (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still edit warring: Special:Diff/1236078657, Special:Diff/1236239487/1236270907, Special:Diff/1236418157, Special:Diff/1236621589. Also appears to be WP:1AM on the talk page. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already pblocked for a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Skyerise: Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking

    Been 12 years since I've been a serious wikipedia editor (also, full disclosure: this is a public network I'm on so not all constibs are mine), so bear with me. On the 18th I reverted an edit by User:Skyerise I considered undue. She immediately reverted me, telling me to take it to the talk page per WP:BRD, the posted this screed, accusing me of "reverting because I didn't like Alester Crowley", claiming that the fact that Crowley has his own Wikipedia article makes his opinion more due than the subject experts mentioned in the article who don't have articles (I don't think that argument is based on policy *at all*, but I could be wrong), then accusing me of censorship (which is a confusing accusation.

    I reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this), reminding her that per BRD that once she has been reverted, discussion is supposed to take place *before* the content is reinserted into the article, and responded on the talk page.

    She then reverted me again, and made another hostile post on the talk page, and added a source to the page that was written by notorious neo-Nazi Kerry Bolton (she even linked his name in the source to his page, so she can't claim ignorance here). At this point, I disengaged, but she followed me to an article she had never touched before to revert me there.

    Normally I'd bring it to DRN or whatever the current procedure is, but this seems to be a long-time problem with her. She already drove off another editor from the same article for disagreeing with her on the same issue, and has a long history of being brought to this board for similar civility issues: [51], [52], [53], [54]. On top of that, she's been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, edit warring, casting aspersions, and harassment.

    She seems to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat whenever she perceives someone as speaking negatively about something she is passionate about, which is a problem considering her passions involve FRINGEy things like magic and the occult. Maybe some form of topic ban is in order, but I don't know how Wikipedia's current block system works.

    At this point, I'm washing my hands of this and leaving this thread to editors more experienced in Wikipedia's current procedures, as I have better things to do than argue with such an unpleasant person over a low-traffic article. Happy editing. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this related to the section #Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru?
    The page tyrannicide, where this happened, seems pretty central (from a quick glance) to that section. – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is just upset because I actually have sources which clearly and unambiguously establish the relevance of something they consider WP:FRINGE. Their claims of my being hostile and uncivil on that talk page are overstated. The characterization of my reply as a "screed" seems to be the actual personal attack here. I'd also like to point out that the IP has previously been blocked for LTA, and that the editing-pattern of the IP seems to include questionable edits to LGBT topics, including apparently vandalizing a user's LGBT userbox (see User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Fixed userbox). They were recently edit-warring over hatnotes at Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - several editors reverted them but I placed the warning message about it on July 5; what were they saying about stalking? Do they have a history of editing tyrannicide? I was there to add something I thought was relevant. I had two sources for that, but that wasn't good enough for the IP. I added four more sources to establish relevance, but instead of critiquing the sources, they bring me here? Say what? Skyerise (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you are talking about with that userbox. Per the history, it had said one thing for a whopping eighteen years, prior to having its text and image unilaterally changed to say a completely different thing by a new user in April 2024 -- how could restoring the previous version possibly be "vandalism"? jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'd like to address the aspersions cast using an accusation of editing WP:FRINGE articles, which seems to be intended to imply that I believe in, support or am trying to promote these topics. In point of fact, I am a Tibetan Buddhist, not a follower of Crowley. My interest in Western esotericism is specifically about the history of the topic in the 20th-century: this includes things like New Thought, Thelema, Neopaganism, and New Age from an historical perspective. For example, with this series of edits I put the material at tyrannicide - which was all out of order with Roman thought before Greek, early and medieval Christian authors also mixed up time-wise - into correct historical order. I take history seriously, which is why I added topical information about a historical document that is discussed by multiple sources as having influenced the whole Neopaganism and New Age movements. The article discussed ancient pagan views, early and medieval Christian views, but omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. Yet all this historical work is dismissed as "FRINGE" because of topic without taking into account the nature of the changes to the content itself. I did similar work on Witchcraft last year: medieval, early modern, and other periods were jumbled together in a way to support specific arguments rather than presented in the order of historical development. I just hate non-chronological presentation of historical timelines. It confuses the readers. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. To tyrannicide? [citation needed!] NebY (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1941 document which advocates for the right to commit tyrannicide and which influenced not only modern neopaganism but also the entire New Age movement? I'd say that is significant, and the citations (6 of 'em, 3 for each point) are all in the article and the discussion is on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it might be highly relevant to articles on neopaganism and New Age but that doesn't make it WP:DUE for tyranicide. In fact, it looks pretty irreleavnt. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, I disagree. The section is on political theory; the author is recognized as a political theorist; and the manifesto he authored is credited with influencing a broad range of people in two different but related movements for over 80 years from the writing. I'd note that the New Age movement is even more popular in Latin American countries than it is in English speaking ones, so to omit it would be an example of the systemic bias which exists on Wikipedia in three ways: bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism as WP:FRINGE. I'll alert the related project of which I've been a member for some time. Skyerise (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FRINGE content does not become more DUE in articles on non-FRINGE topics just because the content happens to be popular in the global south... We shouldn't cite ayurveda or TCM practitioners as sources on medical ailments because, despite having billions of adherents, they are by consensus pseudoscientific nonsense, not legitimate significant-minority viewpoints, and thus UNDUE for such topics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Jimbo from WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" besides the prominent originator, Aleister Crowley, his view is directly espoused by Kerry Bolton, prominent Odinist and Neonazi and a prolific writer of books on political theory himself. There's whole list of people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles who adhere to this view at List of Thelemites. So it doesn't fall into Jimbo's third category of things which should be removed as undue. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is completely unbalanced. Having more on Aleister Crowley than Thomas Aquinas on the topic of tyrannicide is ridiculous. If that's not obvious to you you shouldn't be editing the topic. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, that's not how I work. You want I should add more about Aquinas? I already added more about Lincoln and David George. OP IP says there are hundreds of other political theorists who could be added. Ok, name them. If the section were anywhere near comprehensive, what I've added about Crowley would amount to no more than a footnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not how you work? It's called WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It's not optional. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand DUE against the context of what the Class-B article would contain. Not against the current C-class or less that exists in that section. Due mean proportional. If something stands out because the other topics have not been expanded in their own robust fulfillment, is that the fault of the addition or the state of the article? Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that Crowley "is recognized as a political theorist" who once wrote "Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights", and New Age movements are popular in Latin America, therefore failure to feature Crowley at length in our article on tyrannicide is bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism, does not go an inch towards satisfying WP:DUE. Still, it's understandable you'd abandon the previous argument that we featured Plato, Plato was a pagan, Crowley is a modern pagan, therefore we must feature Crowley. NebY (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that's my argument, then you misunderstand me. My argument is that the populations that were influenced by Crowley's manifesto, namely adherents of Thelema, modern neopagans and the New Age movement, along with contemporary Australian neonazis and Odinists, make up a significant enough part of the population to warrant inclusion. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:TERTIARY, I'd be interested if you can produce any general tertiary source that even mentions Crowley et al. in its coverage of tyrannicide. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds, Volumes 1-2, J. Gordon Melton (1988): "... Liber Oz ) , which states the basic principles of the thelemic world view . It is used by all branches of the O.T.O. as well as other groups that rely heavily upon the writing of Aleister Crowley . The text of Liber Oz consists of ..." Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No! That's your problem. You're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. I said a "general tertiary" text. Obviously stuff from Crowley is going to appear in The Encyclopedia of American Religions. But this is not an article about American Religions. It could have an article about cheese and it may well mention Crowley's treatment of the diary product. But that's nothing to do with what's WP:BALASP for cheese. Would the Encyclopedia of Cheese mention Crowley? Show me a general encyclopedia article on tyrannicide that mentions Crowley. Or even a tertiary work specialising in political theory. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No! That's your problem. You want to hold Wikipedia back from using newer secondary sources based on the fact the other tertiary sources haven't picked them up yet. The secondary sources delving into Crowley as political theorist date to 2010 and 2014; I don't think ten years is "too soon". There are sources, so it's not OR, and there are good WP:GLOBALIZE reasons for inclusion. While we've been discussing this, I've written entire paragraphs on each of several other authors mentioned in the political theory section, adding both Locke and Rousseau, who were missing. How have you improved the article? Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't interest me. If you can dilute down your New Age content by building up the rest of the article so that it puts it into it's true (and rather small) relevance then that's all to the good. But that's not what you said when you posted "See, that's not how I work." DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's exactly what I meant when I said that. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because tyrranicide is a significant theme in thelemite discourse does not mean thelemite scholarship is a significant theme in tyrranicide discourse. If everyone else is ignoring them then their views are not BALASP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please inform skyrise next time I already did it for you Maestrofin (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They actually did, on my IP response page, here. Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that the characterizations of my posts on the talk page as "screed", "hostile", etc. are complete mischaracterizations. They are pretty much rational conversation exclusively about the content, the relevant sources, and reasoning for inclusion. The only objection the OP seems to have is that they were well-reasoned enough to support my additions to the article. I mentioned relevant policies without actually accusing the OP of anything! I mean, does the OP wish to state that they actually like Crowley? Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally wrote "So it would seem to me that the removal is motivated by dislike for Crowley rather than any valid argument about due weight. In context, the weight is not undue."
    There were no mischaracterisations. And I'm pretty neutral on Crowley, leaning towards finding the guy interesting, but that is completely irrelevant here. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "So it would seem to me" - that statement is very clearly about my perception, allowing the possibility that I might be wrong, and not an accusation toward the user. Skyerise (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, you wrote "this isn't over." rather than continuing the discussion, which was still open and ongoing. That seemed like a WP:BATTLEGROUND threat to me, which was comfirmed when shortly later you opened this ANI thread. Skyerise (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, before you opened this thread, I reduced the verbosity of the paragraph and posted this on the talk page informing you both of that and that I had requested a third-opinion at WP:3O, which is still open. I think that really refutes your accusations and calls your own actions into question: rather than wait for someone to respond at 3O, you've tried to use ANI to stop me from editing. Very BATTLEGROUNDy, don't you think? Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't necessarily wish to butt in here, but Skyerise has been, and continues to be incredibly hostiple to other users. A recent example is in this very discussion
    This is a shame, because it does seem that this user is quite dedicated to the project and this topic, however, in my personal opinion: if you are unable to interact with this topic in a manner that prevents you from making aggressive (or passive-aggressive) comments then perhaps you shouldn't be interacting with this topic at all. Just my two cents. Sinerst (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Skyerise Clearly either does not understand and is very stubborn (WP:CIR) , or does understand and does not care . She also show's a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour . Maybe a topic ban would be appropriate . AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also WP:Ownership behavior on Victor Neuburg (poet), (another article with occult content Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    @Xxanthippe: How so? Since when has cleaning up an article, posting on the talk page about the changes I made that I thought someone might object to as I made them, with nobody on the talk page objecting to any changes, nobody reverting any edits, etc. How is that "ownership"? I call it improving Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide diffs where I overrode some other editors opinion. But you seem to be grasping at straws here, with no apparent motivation. Skyerise (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, it is the above editor who shows ownership issues, reverting a simple cleanup of sources, with clear edit summaries as to what I did on each and every edit, and insisting that I explain these edits on the talk page - which I did - and then didn't even have the courtesy to respond to that explanation! When I started, the article was terribly sourced (10,076 bytes: 6 sources with 7 footnotes), when I finished there were 14,160 bytes, 12 sources with 22 footnotes. Meanwhile, what were you, @Xxanthippe:, doing to improve the article? Nothing. Nothing at all. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My Way or the Highway. It is possible to edit articles on topics that contain fringe material like occultism in a manner that is not abrasive or provocative. User:Guise's very many calm and patient edits of Gilles de Rais are a case in point. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    @Xxanthippe: you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say; I responded to your request (in an edit summary, not even the talk page) "these substantial edits need to be explainedon the talk page": here. An extremely detailed response all about exactly what I did and why. Did you make any further objection? No, you didn't. Am I supposed to stop editing after justifying an edit simply because the other editor fails to respond? Skyerise (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick update, she also seems to have followed me to a userbox page to re-vandalise it after I removed some vandalism. Didn't even bother to check the history of the page, just reverted. Pure spite. Luckily User:JPxG stepped in. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh! and she started editing Transgender rights in Australia after I edited it. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not all about you, [noname 180]]. Transgender articles of multiple nationalities have been on my watchlist for some time. I've simply not edited the Australian one before. Anyone can check my contributions to verify that I've edited multiple trans rights related articles in the past, long before string-of-numbers showed up. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pervasive, deliberate falsification of sources in hoax articles from COI editor

    JoeK2033 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) is partially-blocked from Draft:James Naleski for persistent promotional editing (see deleted contribs), their block from the page). This draft was previously frequented by blocked socks Jpaul2015, Jpaul03342, and Fancy vibēs. Naleski, according to the draft that JoeK edited, was "the son of Janet Frost, a university professor, and Victor Naleski, an American businessman". Since their November block, they've edited a great number of pages related to Janet Frost, James A. Frost, and the like. However, this is a normal COI case, and does not warrant an AN/I thread. Here I am interested in something quite a bit worse: they wrote two articles about scientific papers in which they substantially, demonstrably falsified sources by getting a LLM to write fake slop and pasting it directly into the edit window.

    I have written a detailed explanation of how I know that both of these articles are hoaxes, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se -- in addition to the very recognizable GPT style, there are numerous very basic errors that imply the articles were written without actually reading the papers (e.g. confidently claiming that they had used techniques which would have made no sense and appeared nowhere in the paper).

    It is my opinion that both of these articles warrant an immediate WP:G3, their author an indefinite block, and the greater Frostosphere a thorough examination for any more hoaxes, but lest I be accused of acting rashly I've chosen to open a thread here first to see if there is any objection. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with G3 deletion is that it is only supposed to be for hoaxes that are obvious, and this one took some investigation to confirm. In this case I don't think it matters much as the AfD is heading for a snow delete (I can't close it as I participated but it might already be ready for that). Indef-blocking and deeper examination of other contributions are appropriate, though. We can't allow editors who deliberately perpetrate non-obvious hoaxes (or who lack the competence to tell that their AI-generated content is a hoax) to continue editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of this I have indef-blocked for the hoaxes and persistent COI editing; I'll let the AfDs run out the clock, and we can start going through some of the COI stuff later. If he was willing to slop out two giant articles about dense biochemistry dissertations, I would be willing to bet hard cash that more slop lurked within. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At a glance, most of the other articles the user created on books or dissertations or papers by James A. Frost seem like the same kind of slop. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have nominated the other ones, but bundling them with the dissertations would've been too much and I didn't want to be excessive on AfD. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @XOR'easter: whose comment spurred me to look at the damn dissertation in the first place.
    jp×g🗯️ 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that version of James A. Frost, I saw a lot of boilerplate/hype: Frost excelled at the Air Corps School for Administrative Officers, demonstrating strong academic performance and proficiency in military drills, During this time, Dr. Frost implemented significant personnel changes and restructured various programs, etc. I don't trust JoeK2033 to have accurately summarized any of the references; I've no objection to anyone going through them manually and redoing the job properly, of course, but cleaning up after Coldwell taught me the virtue of cutting and reverting without regret. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People, there's a citation to a 1949 newspaper article attached to a claim about the intricate narrative provided by a book published in 1968. The same newspaper story is cited in the first line of the article on A History of New York State, published in 1967. What a mess. I hope the person who did this has the decency to feel guilty about the cleanup job they've dumped on us. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, before seeing your comment I was just about to write: Something that stands out to me in both Life with Elsie and The Establishment of the Connecticut State University, 1965-85, Notes and Reminiscences is the use of references that predate the work described by the article to make confident-sounding evaluations of the content and reception of the work itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I don't see Janet Frost passing WP:NPROF]. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about GNG on Elsie Frost too. I'll leave it for now but might nominate both soon. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After having a look at the articles again, I've gone ahead and nominated both for deletion. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So far:

    There's more slop in A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People. Only one of the six references given actually post-dates the publication of the book. It's conceivable that the story from late 1967 mentions a book that would come out in 1968 (I don't trust the "January 1" in the infobox, but the year agrees with WorldCat, at least). I can't access newspapers.com at the moment, so I can't check. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I don't consider the publication day necessarily a red flag. Just as all horses in the Northern hemisphere are notionally born on January 1, some websites (e.g. Amazon) specify that as the publication day when unknown; it might be a required field chosen from a drop-down list. I've seen duplicate entries where one said January 1, and another something more realistic. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well heck, we could just redirect all of the books to the author's article, since it seems unlikely there's much to say about them other than "a normal school textbook for which there may or may not be any real refs beyond them having been published". jp×g🗯️ 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see OCR text by following the newspaper.com link even without a subscription, it's always a bit garbled but you can get the general idea. Checking the first couple of references they don't appear to have anything to do with the book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same appear to be true of the newspaper links I've randomly checked in the other article, they appear to have random words that link them to the article but are otherwise unrelated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm just not finding enough to substantiate articles on A History of the United States and New York: The Empire State. They're both multi-author books, but since Frost is the only coauthor to be blue-linked, making those pages into redirects seems OK. So, if someone can check Janet Frost and Elsie M. Frost for verifiability, the rest will probably be resolved when the deletion clocks run out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there's also a template: {{James A. Frost}}. It looks like nearly everything linked there has been/will soon be eliminated by deletions and redirects. The only article not already gone or already up for deletion is Olivia Dalton, which is tagged for notability concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to nominate the template once the AfDs/PRODs were done, but I've gone ahead and done it now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Olivia Dalton article survives we could mention that she is a granddaughter of James Frost (who is definitely notable) — see e.g. this obituary – but I'm skeptical of her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the president of a university system count for C6, or is it more an administrative role? I know we typically have the chancellors of the U of California system but is that standard across the board? JoelleJay (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the University of California, the chancellor is the head of an individual university while the head of the whole system is the president. In the California State University system, the president is the head of an individual university while the head of the whole system is the chancellor. It's confusing, I know. Anyway, James Frost clearly meets WP:AUTHOR so we don't have to decide whether he also meets WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I was just wondering based on your comments about the obit (since his being president/chancellor of various university systems was what I assumed you were referring to there). JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion; no, I linked the obit only as a reference for his relation to Dalton. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders if this entire thing was a galaxy-brained 5d chess scheme to build an entire Potemkin village of slop articles in hopes of restoring James Naleski. jp×g🗯️ 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose they wanted to create articles on the entire James Frost family (and their academic works where applicable). Still, all of the slop is now gone or in the process of being deleted. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm wondering if it's worth adding an explicit policy against adding AI-generated content. It would be helpful for good-faith editors who are not aware that it's a bad idea. I remember a case from a few months ago, that also ended up here at AN/I, of an editor that was using AI to generate leads for hundreds of articles. He was adamant that this was a positive contribution and only stopped when he got blocked. Of course, this is bad for Wikipedia, and also for the AIs themselves, as they use Wikipedia as training data. Tercer (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Large language models is currently an essay, but it has some arguments that could be used to tweak existing policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised it's not an existing policy already; WP:RSPCHATGPT is there, but it's not much. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that it ought to be acceptable to remove content that is identifiably LLM-generated on-sight encountered fierce resistance recently... JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A very long story and a note to myself to comment it. jp×g🗯️ 01:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

    AfD is closed, SPIs are running. I think we're done here. Star Mississippi 16:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Marked for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Gharios_El_Chemor_of_Ghassan_Al-Numan_VIII

    This is an on-going attack on the person of Prince Gharios El Chemor that has spilt over into Wikipedia due to Frank Parlato Jr and others in Spain and Italy because Prince Gharios publicly called out someone using a fake Italian princly title and giving out knighthoods. Prince Gharios was backedup publicly by credible authoriies, such as the ICOC and other Italian scholars. The reasons given for deleting the entry are unfounded and do not apply the standars with equity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianboyd (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the avenue to debate whether an article should be kept. That is at the AfD. Discuss it there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Afd is a total trainwreck. Sockpuppetry and/or external canvassing seems self evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've never heard of this guy, and the sources seem not to have heard of him either. His Excellency, President for Life Field Marshal Dr. Sir jp×g🗯️, Esq. 09:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Was just going to create a thread on this issue, ironically because of people like Xianboyd. There has been massive disruption of this AfD by SPAs and IPs as previously said by Andy. Would appreciate this AfD being cleaned up and perhaps having some level of protection applied to prevent further disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that AfD is a mess. In addition to the OP, 2 accounts in particular, one with 42 total edits the other with 139 total edits (plus assorted new SPAs and IPs) have been bombarding it with the WP:TRUTH. It was unreadable (not that there was anything worth reading from them) until someone hatted the worst of their bludgeoning. Unfortunately, Daniel Case turned down Hemiauchenia's protection request at RPPI. They've all simultaneously gone quiet in the last 8 hours - probably they're all on the same time zone. Might start again when they wake up. Maybe some blocks for disruption if no protection? DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there are evidently some serious issues re: the SPAs that are arguing against deletion, I don't think that justifies the apparent outing that has occurred both here [55] and here [56]. Axad12 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably unnecessary. Discounting the obvious sockpuppet SPA, it's heading for a SNOW delete anyway. Ravenswing , Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans 08:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On this issue, perhaps this is a bit too revealing of my parochial plebeian democracy leanings, but it's my sincere hope that some day we can respond with this same sort of bemused indifference to every random bloke who claims that being descended from some other bloke a thousand years ago means he gets to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, as is currently the case in some several dozen-odd countries (although I would also accept if everyone got to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, if possible). jp×g🗯️ 10:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point is that the person was featured on- at least - 20 independent media outlets in - at least 12 different countries- and received officially by heads of state and religion. For those who don’t understand international law (apparently all of you) that’s legal recognition! (See Montevideo convention) Anyway, he’s undoubtedly notable, there’s no question about it. The problem is that some of you have decided - without any knowledge of the subject- and without having the minimum decency of checking the presented sources, to delete the page. Your so-called judgement is pure emotional ignorance. My whole point in saying all of this is that you’re all wasting everyone’s time with this stupid discussion. Go ahead and delete the page! You decided that anyways no matter what is presented and proven. I don’t know you but a lot of people have other better things to do than to debate with nihilistic Wikipedia collaborators. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of "This is not the place to discuss the deletion of this page" did you not understand? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of it, I presume. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough already
    If you read what I wrote, clearly you didn’t, you understand the point I’m making. There’s no debate about a subject when there’s nihilism and denial. All of you are doing is just wasting everyone’s time! If you want to delete a page, go and delete it! Don’t pretend you’re being democratic or fair, because this process is as fair as elections in North Korea. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the “tactic” you’re using can “destroy” anything purely based on your own imagination. I can say someone with a doctorate from Harvard is illiterate! I can claim this person bought his degree and even if Harvard confirms his degree I can say he cheated on the exams. It’s endless! That’s exactly what you’re doing not only about this page but about all deletions! Again this present discussion is equally useless! Again, wasting everyone’s time! But I’m sure you have time to waste. I don’t. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, you might have expertise on many different areas but none that voted for the deletion has any knowledge about the subject. Beyond clear by your comments, your understanding of royalty comes from tabloids and Disney films.
    How can you be qualified “decide” if a page is deleted or not when actual world experts and authorities have the complete opposite opinion? Sorry but it’s beyond preposterous! Again, if the deletion is based on “how you feel about the subject” don’t open a debate, just go ahead and do it! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that its likely a mix of meat and sock puppetry... But Leo0274 and Xianboyd at least appear more socky than meaty... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP vandalism at MrBeast

    I applied for page protection on the grounds that @Gen. Rhett keeps selectively removing information from an article to say that a BLP subject (whom he misgendered in the edit summary) is a groomer when the source cited says the opposite and the previous article text followed that source.[63] He does this despite not providing any citation or source. I was told at page protection to issue a BLP warning and take it to ANI if he continues.[64] He has simply begun reverting the text to include a BLP violation.[65] So now I’m here. Don’t like being here twice so close together but, I was advised as such. Snokalok (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/178.138.193.125

    LTA, revdel needed. Frost 07:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, revdelling edits as appropriate. Utterly deranged that they are typing the word... with an asterisk. Like what? Why are you censoring the word in your graphically offensive vandalism? Must be some TikTok thing. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was bypassing the edit filter you absolute buffoon @JPxG: 178.138.193.101 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see -- my mistake. Well, at any rate, I still think you should stop doing it. jp×g🗯️ 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeaucques Quœure and apparent LLM abuse

    Amid what seem to be consistent communication and content issues, @Jeaucques Quœure has twice (to scriptio continua, now to libation) added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's been reverted for having no sources, which they've immediately readded with an apparently dishonest edit summary claiming they're "adding sources". Remsense诉 07:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I apologise for the inconvenience but the content wasn't LLM-generated rather general information about the subject matter (in scriptio continua & libation) referenced through wikilinks and biblical verses respectively. However they were subsequently referenced to sources later. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Could you explain why my edit to improve the lede sentence was "useless". FYI ledes of science articles generally start with 'In', e.g, In electromagnetism, In thermodynamics, In molecular biology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would on the relevant talk page, but it would be wholly irrelevant here. Remsense诉 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at their edits and they are clearly AI generated AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Bland bullet points of bullshit, reinserted with an untruthful edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I don't think this is true of most of their edits by edit count, but unfortunately it seemed likely for each substantial addition of theirs that I looked over. Remsense诉 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They also added a block of LLM generated content to the article Inhalation, as well as writing at least one article entirely or almost with the use of an LLM (Artificial intelligence in education). Explodingcreepsr (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There also seem to be AI generated edits on the articles Marsupium and Anglocentrism. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block for repeatedly adding low-quality LLM-generated slop to articles and then backfilling with dubious references that were not used as the basis for the added content. This kind of content is a net negative both to the encyclopedic values of our articles and to the time and effort of the good faith editors working hard to keep it out. It needs to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block for the reasons articulated just above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 Saurya Airlines Canadair crash

    Socks filed, articles semi'ed. Star Mississippi 17:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User Deleting Historical Information

    Totally unnecessary to escalate this to ANI. Further, a reminder that WP:COI needs to be complied to by anyone who has involvement with the organisation itself. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I want to report @Bgsu98 for repeatedly deleting historical score and repertoire information from several drum and bugle corps wikis. When I addressed it and reverted, they claimed that this is the standard which presumably is just made up by this user. I was able to fix the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps but other groups such as the Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps, Reading Buccaneers Drum and Bugle Corps, and Connecticut Hurricanes Drum and Bugle Corps have all had edits made since so I would have to manually type everything back out for them. Competitive drum and bugle corps has existed for decades prior to the 1970s and all of the mentioned groups have published information from then. I cannot be certain but I am assuming that this user's decision to pick 1972 as a starting point is related to the formation of Drum Corps International, which none of these organizations were members of until 2024 and it was not the only competitive circuit so should not be used as a "standard" for when information cuts off. Odysseymsc (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But you didn't give them a chance to reply to your note (diff), instead going immediately the reporting route — what is up with that? You also didn't notify them of this complaint on their talk page (which is requiered, a ping is not enough). Anyway, at its face, this looks like a premature report of a content dispute, with insufficient efforts undertaken to resolve the dispute normally (WP:DR). El_C 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you didn't "fix" Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps, you just copied a huge chunk of unsourced material back into it. Also, since your edit-summary says "the administration of the organization is maintaining this page" (which is presumably you), you have a WP:COI and shouldn't really be editing it at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps is one massive copyvio and I've blanked it and sent it to the copyright investigations page. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now fixed and appropriately revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any administrator should feel free to shut this nonsense down. Odysseymsc was inappropriately trying to assert ownership over the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps article, as Black Kite observed. This is a content dispute, but as all of these former DCA drum corps are now part of DCI, these articles will all be formatted to match the format of the DCI articles. Several of us (as in, I am not making any decisions "unilaterally" as I've been accused) worked very hard to bring a sense of uniformity to these articles a few years ago. Any concerns should be addressed on the article's talk page or the Drum Corps WikiProject page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please remove vandalism / attack / accusations

    If possible, please remove vandalism / attack / accusations made by 2409:4063:ae81:99d5:8e6:f858:49a5:f307 at, 24. jul. 2024, 08:41, 08:42, 08:43 on my discussion page. I do not know what the person or bot is talking about. --Glenn (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. In the future, feel free to remove those kinds of messages and report the problem editor/IP to WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a LTA. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you have any more problems. AIV works as well. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks --Glenn (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dimadick

    User:Dimadick has posted this antisemitic libel. How is such a thing still allowed here? --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You have got to be kidding. Which part of Zionism as settler colonialism was not clear to you? Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in Zionism as settler colonialism does it say that "the main purpose for Zionism's existence" is "genocide"? Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to sound like devil's advocate but the article mentions stuff like this:
    "This perspective contends that Zionism involves processes of elimination and assimilation of Palestinians, akin to other settler colonial contexts such as the United States and Australia."
    That sounds like the definition of genocide to me.
    May not say it is the main purpose tho.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "processes" does not mean "purpose" Levivich (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that according to the article this is just one perspective, hardly a definitive defintion. Rlendog (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I guess I should cross my comments.CycoMa1 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an editor trying to impose their own beliefs as fact and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which is certainly an indictment on their ability to participate in this topic area (as is the case with a good number of people in this topic area). But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to take it straight to ANI with a single diff. If you have more diffs of the editor engaging in this sort of behavior over a longer period of time, then it might be appropriate to file at WP:AE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thebiguglyalien You are aware that the diff was a Support/Oppose vote on a move request from Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide? How else could you support such a move request without claiming it as your belief that the other title was more accurate? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement that is being objected to goes beyond saying that the editor believes that Palestinian genocide is a more accurate title. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest using sources and policy based arguments, not just your own belief on what Zionism means. It's also needlessly inflammatory so say that the main purpose of Zionism is to commit genocide, rather than establish a homeland for for the Jewish people. There is a wide chasm between something being a purpose and something being a possible result.
    We should really be clamping down on personal views as an argument in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make sure I understand, if an editor says an homophobic, raciest, or other hateful speech, but only does so occasionally, it's ok? So saying something like <Hateful speech> followed by This is the main purpose for black people's existence, This is the main purpose for gays's existence, or This is the main purpose for women's existence is fine? Or if I truly believe it as Black Kite comments, then there isn't even an issue here? Gonnym (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that sexual orientation and race are immutable characteristics, while Zionism is an ideology or a belief. If someone said something to the effect of "the main purpose of communism is genocide", that's obviously inappropriate and raises questions about whether the person should be participating in the topic area, but it's not at the same level as making such generalizations against black people or gay people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People who use "Zionisim" use it as a substitute to mean Jews, and it's plainly obvious. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a completely ridiculous nonsense statement. Zionism is not Judaism. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zionism can absolutely be used as a dog whistle for Jews, especially by people who deny that it's ever a dog whistle. But that's the point of dog whistles: they can also be used innocuously, so there's plausible deniability. Do you have any evidence that this particular use is meant to invoke Jews more broadly, beyond a hunch? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this could be considered uncivil and inappropriate for the venue, labeling it as “antisemitic” is being downright deceitful. There is nothing even remotely anti-Semitic in the linked comment. Conflating Zionism and Judaism is a common way for Israel’s supporters to silence and deflect criticism and shouldn’t be humored by the community. Having said that, I can see how the contents of Dimadick’s could be seen as inflammatory and uncivil. Unless there are any substantial accusations of anti-semitism or further examples of incivility, then I don’t see anything that needs to be done here aside from maybe a warning for both users. Elspamo4 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Like you can be jewish and be anti-zionism.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thought I should jump. Personally I think saying:
    "This not an accusation, this is a historical genocide. This is the main purpose for Zionism's existence."
    goes a bit too far.
    But I also think it's a stretch to go around accusing editors of having bigotted beliefs for a single comment that seems problematic.
    By any chance, can someone provide anymore diffs that may such suggest this user has bigotted beliefs? No, then I doubt this user is a nazi.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Behaviour is not binary between policy-compliant and demonstrating nazism, this Godwinistic jump does not help the discussion. CMD (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know. Just coming in as an outside neutral force.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of policy. I have seen only one comment in this discussion link to any policy pages.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe this kind of thing wouldn't happen if !vote arguments based on personal opinions rather than policy were treated like hate speech, or at least came with some kind of disincentivizing cost. Wikipedia editors don't need to know that Dimadick thinks Zionism is genocidal and Gonnym thinks this is antisemitic libel. Make a policy-based argument or say nothing seems pretty straightforward. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you but substance-free !votes are a problem everywhere on Wikipedia. (I would love it if we started sanctioning people for it, though, right down to "keep, it's important!" and such, because substance-free votes are disruptive.) Levivich (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opportunity cost of enforcing that is too high. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. We don't really need to sanction editors, what we need is to have closes that discount such votes, and close reviews that uphold such closes. The thing that everyone on this website can do, right now, today, to help improve the quality of discussion everywhere, is to vote in close reviews (e.g. at WP:DRV, WP:MR, and WP:AN) to uphold closes that properly discount bad votes, and overturn closes that don't. If enough people do that, things will change. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Until that happens that's another huge opportunity cost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you discount non-policy compliant votes then you're accused of "supervoting". You can't win. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a swear jar-like thing. A personal opinion based !vote costs you your extendedconfirmed rights or 500 minor typo/gnoming fixes. Or maybe editors in contentious topic areas could be paired-up like couples to get helpful ego-crushing feedback from their partner. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Too punitive, and too hard to enforce. I agree there should be something to help this situation though - maybe something like how SPAs' comments can be tagged with {{spa}} (which looks like this — example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ), maybe a different version could be created for opinion based voting - eg. {{opinion vote}} "— The previous comment seems to be based on personal opinion rather than citing Wikipedia policy". This in effect would act like a minor trouting, and an indicator to the closer. (Actual usage of this template would be discouraged unless the topic necessitates it - in the same way usage of {{spa}} is generally discouraged). BugGhost🦗👻 08:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ambeskine

    Promptly after their 48 hour block for edit-warring expired, they are back to continue with similar changes on more articles [67], [68], arguing after warning of their disruption and creation of an offensive userbox User:Ambeskine/woman. It appears this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raladic (talk • contribs)

    I've blocked them indef per WP:HID. Definitely not here, either. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 00:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of origins on Alauddin Husain Shah and Hussain Shahi dynasty

    The user @Muydivertido: has disruptively edited the page a plethora of times, editing the page of Alauddin Husain Shah's to remove his alleged Afghan origin due to "lies" as shown in some of his revert edit summaries:

    [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]

    I've warned this individual a plethora of times both in my edit summaries and on their talk page as shown here:

    [75] [76]

    The ANI notice warning: [77]

    There has also been a talk page discussion for this before at Talk:Alauddin Husain Shah where I was personally attacked before; this thread: [78]

    To TLDR - this individual disruptively edited the page to edit a sourced origin section and calling it "lies" as the basis of his edit. There is clear behavioral problems here. Noorullah (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple WP:NPA violations from user

    The user @Cenbutz1 has broken the WP:NPA policy two-three times that I have counted now as of writing this, including:

    Here, where they replied to a user on their talk page with a brief "smartass".

    Here, where this user stated "You Americans always with your annoying [...] is the very first president who [...] and so on."

    And maybe even here, where this user states "What do you want from me?" (Although I'm not exactly sure if this is a WP:NPA violation or just being aggressive.)

    Also apologies if this is formatted incorrectly or a bad WP:ANI, I've never done this before.

    Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely trolling... I do think their comment on Talk:Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election is silly/trolling but what they replied to another user on their talk page violates WP:NPA. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    “Smartass” was 5.5 month ago. The other two comments aren’t really personal attacks, and one was last year. I’m having a hard time seeing this as ANI worthy. Cenbutz1, pleaee don’t call people a smartass. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Dave Plummer Troll is back

    As the edit history of Dave Plummer clearly shows, occasionally the Dave Plummer Troll comes back and tries to portray Plummer as a malware author and convicted criminal.

    On Talk:Dave Plummer SaranSDS008 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) made the following claim:

    "Dave himself in Twitter/X acknowledging the ownership of a scam software he wrote called "Memturbo" which served popup ads, misrepresented functionality of the app and wasn't fully uninstalled from the os (of which he was sued for by washington attorney office on behalf of washington state)"[79]

    But the tweet in question, far from acknowledging that MemTurbo did any of those things, directly denies such allegations. Also, he was sued over Registry Cleaner and InternetShield,[80] not MemTurbo.

    Lying to us and hoping we won't check the sources given is a standard technique for the Dave Plummer Troll. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added 2 citations, which you failed to read, neither notice. Also, i've been adding proper links/references to every single instances i mentioned previously, so not sure where you got that "troll" narrative from. The Citations in the original edit request, which are court documents, which clearly indict Dave Plummer of being guilty for distributing deceptive popups, ads and mislead customers. It was issued by King County court, where the lawsuit took place. As with Sharewareonline LLC, that was also later found to be owned by Dave himself (which i later added by citing proper links for). MemTurbo was indeed distributed via sharewareonline.com (later softwareonline.com), and had misleading descriptions, served ads, and is difficult to uninstall. I cited the MSFN forum, which describes it's nature and the way it was distributed, thus proving it's authenticity. I haven't cited original links for the website, and the software due to it's malicious nature (PUP/Scareware), and it's difficulty in uninstalling the software. Antivirus vendors have also flagged these softwares he distributed long ago. SaranSDS008 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You included two citations in your original edit request[81] and haven't edited it since. Neither supports the change from .com to LLC that you requested.
    You misleadingly titled one of those citations "Court Lawsuit and Verdict Document on Washington State vs SoftwareOnline LLC issued by King County, WA:" when the actual document was filed against SoftwareOnline.com Inc.
    The reason I call you the Dave Plummer Troll is because you posted an edit request for a simple change from SoftwareOnline.com to SoftwareOnline LLC then in the comments started spouting the same acusations using much of the same phrasing that the previous incarnations of the Dave Plummer Troll used, and are now repeating the accusations in your ANI comment above. Plummer's settlement with Washington State is already covered in the article. If you think we can do a better job of covering it, put your suggested changes in an edit request, but be aware that Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. We don't blindly assume that what a prosecutor (or a defense attorney!) claims is true. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources in question appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources — if we're adding contentious material to a BLP, expectation has to be that the sourcing is excellent to exceptional, and primary sources don't reach that threshold by a country mile for me. Daniel (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to keep SaranSDS008's assertions about the State of Washingtom settlement here because the WP:DUCK test tells me that this is the same Dave Plummer Troll who has been disrupting that page for years, and to keep the question of SoftwareOnline.com vs SoftwareOnline LLC on the article talk page, but I should mention that I am seeing the same pattern of behavior in both places.
    Might I suggest a topic ban from the subject of Dave Plummer? SaranSDS008 is clearly not here to improve that article. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Rasnaboy

    Hello Admins, User:Rasnaboy suddendly removing WP:Discrimination project from the talk page of Talk:Narendra Modi. I asked him to first discuss this matter on talk page and reach consesus on this matter. Let other editors give their point of view then he can remove it. But he seems to be in no mood telling some sock has added. Then he has again added [82] WP India project at Talk:God in Hinduism talk page. I reverted that edit explained him India is a secular state as per Constitution of India (Source). Moreover, christians are in majority in over 150 countries and muslims are in majority over 50 countries does that mean we have to add all individual WP Country projects to Christain & Islamic related articles. There are over 200 million muslims & over 20 milllion christians too live in India. They way WP India project is being added to Hinduism-related articles it seems India's Constitution declates it being a Hindu state. Hence, I urge admins to take this matter seriously. Thanks--2409:40E0:4:BB81:EC0C:96B8:6002:2F12 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've informed Rasna about the incident. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    India’s constitution has no bearing on the relevance of WP India to Hinduism-related articles. To me it seems relevant, since Hinduism originated in India and India is majority-Hindu. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do wanna point something out.
    The article on the country of Israel (yes I know many countries don’t recognize Israel) is placed in WikiProject Judaism.
    Also can somebody link to any policy pages on inclusion to WikiProjects.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the article on Utah is on WP:LDSM.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t also say too much on WikiProject Discrimination to be honest here. Because I’m not too familiar with Narendra Modi.
    Anyway I think I have said everything I needed to say here.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    67.0.224.219 at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

    Two dozen posts, forumy, disruptive, soapboxing, deleting other editor. [83] O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gave them a time out. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack on Talk:Gino Jennings and edit warring

    A certain user, Joefromrandb has been disruptive against other editors and I, and it has led to them verbatim telling me, "go fuck yourself." They would rather edit war instead of discussing their desired changes against the majority of other contributors (myself included), and throw profane slurs. How shall this be handled? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joefromrandb, don't tell editors to go fuck themselves.
    TheLionHasSeen, read WP:BLP. This diff does not look good. The source you cited for fundamentalist doesn't use that label, and a campus newspaper for a community college isn't the kind of source we used for contentious information in BLPs. This source you added to support the First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Inc. grew through Jennings emphasizing and teaching doctrines of inner and outward holiness, Jesus' name-only baptism, baptism with the Holy Spirit alongside required evidence of glossolalia, and an embrace of nontrinitarianism—teachings common among Oneness Pentecostals and others descending from the Holiness movement doesn't mention Jesus' name-only baptism or glossolalia, and the source itself is a Catholic advocacy organization, not suitable for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you for helping me understand. I try my best to be a suitable editor here, but I guess I need to have better understanding sometimes. Sorry! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what shall be done as drafted edits, because quite obviously that edit which has been placed as the status quo against other contributors and I is full of grammatical errors. May someone please correct those errors? Thanks. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The grammar issues can be fixed without using poor sources to attach labels to a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to add, I was also called a "dumbass" in their edit summaries by their contributions. I just noticed that. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're calling themselves a dumbass, noting the irony of their errors despite being a copy editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that makes me feel less attacked. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I full protected the article for a week while assessing the situation. While ScottishFinnishRadish said most of what I wanted to say, I'd like to reiterate to Joefromrandb that being right is not a reason to be uncivil to other editors. In the future, if you ever find yourself wanting to tell others to "fuck themselves", consider taking a break and returning to reply at a later point in time.
    @TheLionHasSeen: Next time someone undo your edit invoking WP:BLP, you should discuss with them on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. If you feel that more eyes are needed, you can always call for uninvolved editors at noticeboards such as WP:BLPN. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Isabelle Belato. Thank you for your wisdom. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User: ScottishFinnishRadish: Your rebuke for saying "go fuck yourself" I accept, and readily acknowledge that that I let my irritation get the better of me. It's at that point, however, where you lose me. It was not I who made these edits for which you're apparently chastising me, rather I reverted them. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at who I'm pinging when talking about that edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, and I stand corrected. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    InterComMan

    InterComMan insists on making incorrect edits to various telecommunications related articles (most specifically to Vodafone Group articles), where he removes the legal names of companies (here), misuses the Company type field in the Infobox (here) and edits logos incorrectly, clearly ignoring the logo edit history (here), these aren't all the issues, they were just the ones that came to mind.

    The main problem is though, that he won't take any advice on these matters and correct them, he just baits people into edit wars which I will admit, I unfortunately fell for. Hope this can be addressed. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup a WP:NOTHERE troll.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like trolling. ICM is WP:NOTHERE to build. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahri Boy who is WP:NOTHERE? Me or @Adriazeri? InterComMan (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's you ICM. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why am I WP:NOTHERE? Can u watch pls all my contributions on Wiki? InterComMan (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide us diffs showing that you have made useful contributions to this site?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    for example:
    InterComMan (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Wind Tre where you keep reverting my edits which fixed some pretty obvious problems (here). FASTWEB where you appear to have just decided the Infobox guidelines don’t apply, Wind (Italy) where you’ve done much the same, Vodafone Czech Republic where again you were edit war baiting, and Telecom where you were also edit war baiting, especially blatant as there was literally nothing to argue about there (diff). Professional Adriazeri (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to my previous reply, you've just recently reverted the Vodafone logo to an old version which was decided as being unfit to use, when I then reverted back to the suitable version, you undid that.

    I'd make the assumption that you're just looking to pick fights. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soibangla

    They have made many attempts to deny the fact that Trump was hit with a bullet in the assassination attempt, and when they were confronted with various sources that prove that he was shot, they went to their talk page and tried to undermine the credibility of the sources by saying that no primary sources said that Trump was shot (an unnecessarily claimed requirement). The only “evidence” pointing to Trump not being hit with a bullet, one FBI director, was contradicted by many sources, including a statement by Trump’s physician. soibangla’s talk page in general also seems to show many edits of hard-left bias, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. As such, action should be taken against this user to prevent their misinformation from spreading. LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see.
    1. You failed to notify User:Soibangla, as was required for you to do when making this post. I've now done so.
    2. ANI is not for content disputes, which this seems to largely be.
    3. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to user pages, or non-article pages in general. You would know this if you actually read the first sentence of the policy you're citing.
    4. "I apologize for the personal attacks, however..." is never something anyone wants to hear, and rarely instils confidence that you actually care about anything but being called out for categorically unacceptable conduct.
    5. ...Especially when you continue to make personal attacks in this very filing. I would worry about your own conduct before this person's, frankly.
    Remsense诉 21:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's interesting to see this attack by LordOfWalruses just 12 minutes after I warned them about personal attacks such as "Now get off this site and go to Reddit to cry about the editors “biased” towards conspiracy theorists like you." on Soibangla's page. They have not replied there, instead calling Soibangla "a far-left conspiracy theorist" here on ANI, so I guess it didn't impress them much. (Addition: in fact now they have replied to me.) I've blocked LordOfWalruses for 48 hours for repeated personal attacks. Thanks for alerting Soibangla, Remsense. Bishonen | tålk 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Whatever is going on with the OP of this thread, soibangla seems to have been fixated on this teleprompter glass shard theory for a very long time, despite nobody else on that talk page ever seeming to agree that it was plausible (there was a big RfC which they opened, which was almost unanimously in favor of just saying he was 'shot'). @Cullen328: who was involved in a thing just now I see. jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, it seems like it's most recently been resolved in favor of the only tenable position—in their words: all hail RS. Remsense诉 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I was involved at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump as just another editor, not as an administrator. I opposed using the word "dubious" in the lead to call into question the claim that Trump's ear was grazed by a bullet. I argued that the explanation is plausible but unproven at this time, and that the "dubious-discuss" tag was inappropriate. The matter seems to be resolved at this time and I agree that LordOfWalruses behavior has been inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election - IP prod'ing it probably isn't allowed due to ECR rules, but also, this article needs to be reviewed thoroughly for BLP and related reasons. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think there's any ECR requirement for that article. AFAICT, no admin has places any such restriction on it and only Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics would apply to the entire article, so there's no standard ECR restriction (unlike with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict). Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks — you are, of course, correct. The article itself causes me great pause about its content, I'd be interested to know if I'm the only one. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage thorough scrutiny of the article soibangla (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably a really good AFD candidate. While the sources are mostly good, the sources don't really connect to the topic of the article; they support a larger argument that you are making rather than making the argument itself. And the few things that are directly on point are generally predictions of what could happen later this year. It's a real WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTH mess. Though hopefully someone else will nominate it as I try and avoid the mess that is US politics on Wikipedia as a headache I do not need. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like kind of a redundant article -- either a WP:POVFORK of one article or a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of another. Currently, our articles specifically about Donald Trump's election antics include:
    The last two of these were created by soibangla. I think that, in general, we have an outrageously excessive amount of coverage of US elections and specifically we have an outrageously excessive amount of coverage of Donald Trump in particular. This list is fifteen articles -- our series on the Gallic Wars in which Caesar conquered the bulk of Western Europe over decades constitutes seventeen! But I don't know that AN/I is necessarily the proper venue for addressing this kind of thing. jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 to be clear, I did not place the "dubious-discuss" tag in the article. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soibangla, I never said or implied that you did. but you defended it repeatedly. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say you did, now you have proposed lead language indicating the "shot" claim is, well ... dubious? soibangla (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soibangla, I did no such thing and I object to your mischaracterizion of my words. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 [84] soibangla (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that this statement is supporting the "dubious" wording is itself baffling. Either you're misreading it, or misrepresenting it. Regardless, you should step back and drop the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    soibangla objects to the statement "Trump was shot" (or equivalent), on the grounds that reliable sources are divided and unclear on this subject (about whether he was shot or whether he was instead hit by a piece of shrapnel). Cullen's position in the linked diff is in agreement with soibangla's position. There is some misrepresentation that has taken place in this thread, but it is misrepresentation by others of soibangla's position. 82.194.106.58 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that was the case, then we wouldn't be here. To give context, starting several hours after the shooting on the 13th, soibangla started a discussion claiming that Trump was stuck by glass using Twitter as sources. Of the two sources, one was an Axios reporter who has since deleted their tweet and the other was a NEWSMAX reporter. Discussion follows, but before it concludes, soibangla starts a second discussion seven hours later, this time listing which sources say he was shot and which do not, favoring not by 16-8 when FOXNEWS is included. When one user challenged soibangla's summary of things after soubangla edited the article to state Trump was only injured, it became clear that more reliable sources were saying he was shot rather than injured, including a number of sources that soibangla had claimed were not saying Trump was shot. This led soibangla to instead say that we needed "decisive proof" as law enforcement nor the Secret Service had officially claimed he was shot with a bullet. Discussion continued on without soibangla, as soibangla then started a RfC called "Trump shot in the ear", which was WP:SNOW close as Yes within 24 hours.
    Again, if this was all, then we wouldn't be here. Following the RfC, soibangla left the article and did not comment on the shooting anywhere, besides this user talk page discussion. However, following the testimony and interviews of the FBI director, solibangla again suggested Trump was not hit by a bullet and again edited the article due to new information coming to light. I think the best quote for a summary is one from soibangla yesterday: [...] I have been skeptical of what reliable sources have reported here, that he was hit by a bullet despite the total lack of evidence to support it, so I'm not inclined to expect they would now tell us their reporting is was dubious. we, as editors, need to say it's dubious, despite our insistence to rely on what reliable sources say, when evidence has arisen to call it into question. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Super Goku V: right off the bat, soibangla started a discussion claiming that Trump was stuck by glass is flatly false, consequently I will ignore any more of your depictions of events. there sure are lots of people piling on to misrepresent what I said and did. soibangla (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be false, when I just quoted you twice with your glass comments and when there is a third time on another article where you wanted to know what evidence dismissed the "glass shrapnel story?" --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both quotes show that soibangla taking the view that trump may have been struck by glass rather than by a bullet, i.e., that the available sources do not provide a basis for definitively rejecting either possibility. This view is consistent with everything soibangla has said in this discussion, and is obviously not the same as the view that trump was struck by glass. --134.147.24.41 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 soibangla (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory. this has never even remotely happened. please waste your time looking for diffs showing I have. or, maybe strike the comment and apologize for smearing me as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. then go block yourself. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not apologize, no. I am not particularly invested in what tag is on what sentence in this article (I have not edited that claim in the article ever iirc), but it's unbelievably dishonest of you to say this, and since you have baselessly claimed I made a false accusation, here:
    • Direct quote from you in that section: it has not been confirmed he was struck by a bullet
    • Direct quote from you in that section: it has not been described as the bullet that struck Trump, except by some who have erroneously deduced and conflated
    • Direct quote from you in that section: there were multiple bullets and there remains no public evidence Trump was struck by any of them
    • Direct quote from you in that section: it is one of the bullets and passed by Trump but there is no indication it made contact with him
    • You opened a thread on 14 July, called "sources that report he was shot", saying again "The Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have not yet publicly confirmed that Mr. Trump was shot in the ear".
    • Direct quote from you in that section: we know for a fact he was injured, we do not know for a fact he was shot. we should err on the conservative for the time being.
    • Direct quote from you in that section: my concern is that some sources may be adding 2 + 2 and getting 3: shooting + blood = shot
    • Direct quote from you in that section: let's wait until we have decisive proof. for now, all we know for a fact is that his ear was injured.
    • Despite nobody agreeing with your claims in these talk page sections, you proceeded to open an RfC, titled "Trump shot in the ear", in which you again argued that the article shouldn't say he was shot in the ear -- there were 24 RS saying this, and of all thirteen people replying to the RfC, not a single one agreed with your characterization, and it was SNOW closed.
    It's one thing to repeatedly advocate, against unanimous consensus, to put biased language about a politician in an article (and it would be far from the first time you've done this). But it is another thing to later say you "never advocated" for it and cast baseless aspersions on anyone who doesn't sit back and let you POV-push. Is there anything else you want to be wildly dishonest about, or is that it? jp×g🗯️ 04:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a long history, well before you became an admin, of misrepresenting my words, commonly in a mocking tone, and I'm fed up with it. Here I said specifically said I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory which you falsely interpret to mean that I claimed to have never advocated anything. There is absolutely nothing untoward about my comments you cite here. That's as far as I can go with this without resorting to personal attacks. soibangla (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and when you're not busy misrepresenting my words, you're busy ignoring them to pivot to irrelevant diversions. at long last, I have totally lost my ability to AGF in your behavior. I recommend you adjust your attitude toward me. soibangla (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and it would be far from the first time you've done this prove it and ban me. soibangla (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that sealioning is "assuming good faith". You are either lying or concern trolling. The claim is that you aren't technically advocating for the article to say A -- you're simply, for some totally unrelated and non-POV-pushing reason, saying that it could say A, and then spending an entire day posting impossibly far-fetched pedantic about some minor objection (you don't raise these objections to anything else) why it shouldn't say B, and it shouldn't say C, and it shouldn't say D, and it shouldn't say E, et cetera, et cetera.

    It is genuinely insulting that you expect people to believe this.

    I realize you think your POV is the correct one, but you still have to follow the policies here. You cannot just make articles say stuff by saying the same thing over and over and over and over until everyone gets too frustrated to continue arguing, and leaves you alone to do whatever you want with the page.

    I will not ask politely again: please stop doing this. jp×g🗯️ 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did advocate to gain consensus that "shot" was unsupported by evidence, going so far as opening an RfC, and I failed miserably, but I did not advocate what you just claimed I did. and lo and behold, presently the lead does not explicitly say he was "shot," but rather "Trump was wounded in his upper right ear by a bullet or shrapnel." soibangla (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New York Times today:

    The F.B.I. is examining numerous metal fragments found near the stage at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., to determine whether an assassin’s bullet — or potential debris — grazed former President Donald J. Trump’s head, bloodying his ear, according to the F.B.I. and a federal law enforcement official. Unanswered questions about the object that struck the Republican nominee for president have lingered since the shooting on July 13, with Mr. Trump claiming that he was struck by a bullet — and casting his survival as an act of divine intervention. F.B.I. officials have been more circumspect, citing the need to analyze the evidence before determining what struck Mr. Trump — a bullet, metal shard or something else.[85]

    soibangla (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is going a little off the rails and probably should return to the talk page from whence it came, or take it to Dispute Resolution. Conyo14 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am done here. soibangla (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never advocated any teleprompter glass shard theory. this has never even remotely happened. please waste your time looking for diffs showing I have.

    there are reports he was struck by glass from a shattered teleprompter
    — User:soibangla 02:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    not confirmed he was struck by a bullet! may have been shattered glass!
    — User:soibangla 02:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

    For the record. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Super Goku V: you falsely asserted the first one was me "claiming" that theory was true. the second one was a hastily composed edit summary in a rapidly moving story. in the third one (above), I simply asked another editor how they discovered it was not true. so congratulations, you really got me bigtime. how many hours did you waste for that? haha, smh soibangla (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bishonen or someone, the issue raised by the OP has been resolved and I suggest this thread be closed as it has descended into a free-for-all to bash me. editors are of course welcome to come to my Talk page to bash me. they are also free to file charges against me. soibangla (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • There does seem to be a serious issue pushing conspiracy theories. Even yesterday it looks like you are trying to say his injuries were not caused by Crooks' gun? And stuff like nothing coming from a Republican-controlled committee should be accepted as true on its face is rather concerning. Maybe a topic ban from America Politics is in order, especially given the combativness above. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's right to characterize soibangla as pushing conspiracy theories, I've been quietly following soibangla's activity on that page since it started. My take is that soibangla has been pointing out that all RSs rather hastily jumped to the conclusion that Trump had been shot before any conclusive evidence that his injury was actually a gunshot wound had been reported. Even now there has not yet been any report by an independent doctor's examination or any completed investigation by a relevant and independent agency on what the exact nature of Trump's injury is. Soibangla never made any assertions that the injury was caused by any particular thing, merely that stating in wikivoice that it had been caused by any particular thing was still premature and subject to change after details are finally released by official independent investigators. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats kind of the problem. Reliable sources on the topic are not divided. So their questioning them is inappropriate since its from their own original research. It is not our place to question RS in the face of fairly overwhelming uniformity. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any conspiracy pushing. I see soibangla pointing out that there is much info lacking. Indeed, no medical report, no info from treating doctors, no statement from the Secret Service, Trump resisting an FBI interview. We don't actually have any official statements describing the injury. Most likely Trump was hit by a bullet. But it is not conspiratorial to say it hasn't been confirmed since it hasn't been confirmed. Now, we do what we do, which is document from reliable sources. That's fine. But I think the situation calls for some caution. That's true soon after any major event; but this seems to have an unusual dearth of significant info. I can see the logic behind caution using WikiVoice in such an event prior to the completion of any investigation. I think the call for a TBan is absurd. Keep in mind that we have WP:NODEADLINE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I second what Objective3000 said. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thirded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) --19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fourthed -- it is flatly false that RS have been in uniform agreement on this topic, as evidenced by e.g. this (which might, going forward, lead to a consolidation of RS -- but whose existence also is strong evidence that that uniformity has not already happened). [I am the same person as 134.etc above] 82.194.106.58 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have topic banned Soibangla from the topic of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, broadly construed, for 90 days for bludgeoning, NPOV, and disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good block. Soibangla kept digging themselves deeper with every reply here. Ravenswing 22:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility of User:Fa30sp and continued disruptive editing against consensus

    The user in question has repeatedly made inappropriate remarks or engaged in inappropriate conduct in their edits and their edit summaries towards multiple people and refuses to discuss the consensus on the matter of what edition of the tournament is to take place. Relevant diffs are as follows:

    In edit summaries: [86] [87]

    On my talk page: [88]

    In the previous discussion on WT:FOOTY: [89] [90] [91]

    Additionally, they appear to be engaging in the very same types of edits on 2029 FIFA Club World Cup that got them banned from editing 2025 FIFA Club World Cup. The content issue that recently reach a consensus aside, this is an inappropriate way to treat other editors. I have tried dealing with them civilly, and I am done trying at this point. Jay eyem (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop lying bro hahahaha there is no consensus at all at this matter!
    Also, I couldn't discuss because I'm blocked editing at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup, so I was silenced and could no longer express my opinion! Not even on the talk page!
    Finally, I didn't even know about that discussion open up at WikiProject Football, otherwise for sure I would be there before! Because my goal is to make Wikipedia better and gain more reliability!
    But, the matter is that you are going against FIFA, the entity that rules football in the world, since they are treating that tournament as the 1st edition of a NEW FIFA Club World Cup, as we can see many times at FIFA's website and social media, being the most recent post about that here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9ehOK8oXrT/ Fa30sp (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is a content dispute outside of ANI's purview, a basic fact about Wikipedia is that we're not bound to parrot an organization's marketing hype. With that, reading the talk page, you were not blocked to censor you. You were blocked because you were bludgeoning the conversation and insulting your fellow editors. (We are also, your apparent inability to post without using the term notwithstanding, not your 'bros'.) Ravenswing 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A basic fact is that this is not a marketing hype, this is how FIFA treats the NEW tournament, while FIFA Intercontinental Cup is the successor of the old FIFA Club World Championship/Cup (2000-23) with the same format, the fact indeed! With that, I'm censored! And yes, I was censored because I was bludgeoning the conversation while not agreeing with another editor!
    Also, bro is a slang bro hahahahaha! Fa30sp (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andy Dingley

    I've spent the last few weeks on and off making edits to various pages, such as LNER Class A4 (diff) or BR Standard Class 9F (diff), with the goal of improving the way citations are laid out in older articles - a lot of such articles were a hotpot mixture of general citations, citations without templates, and manual citations with various formats (especially the A4 page, which had books laid out in multiple formats). As part of this, I spent time standardising them to make use of citation templates such as Template:Cite book, as well as removing the, in some cases, excess of short citations with single inline citations using the R template to differentiate the pages used. I've never had any issues doing this, until now.

    Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that the most recent change I have made, at British Rail 10800 (diff), doing the exact same thing, is worthy of a revert and a rude message on my talk page. I will note here that I also got heated and accused him of bullying, for which I have since apologised on my talk page (as his forum of choice), so happy to accept a trouting there by all means. However, I simply cannot quite fathom why this user is owning this article to such a degree.

    As part of his talk page messages, he has accused me of houding, as well as making rude and inflammatory remarks such as "I don't expect much better from you, I've yet to see anything other than deletionism and pettiness from any of your edits". My response has been, and will always be, that I happen to edit the article after he does primarily because the article is on my watchlist - so if someone makes an edit, it springs to the top of said list, prompting me to look at it. I haven't been anywhere near any of the other edits this user has made in the intervening time.

    What I'm after at this forum is twofold:

    • Firstly an acknowledgement fromo Andy Dingley that talk page messages like the one linked above are simply not on - WP:CIVIL always applies. Again, I admit I wasn't civil this morning, and have already apologised as such ([92] - accidentally replied to the wrong comment on my talk page).
    • Secondly, some clarity as to what is the correct course of action here. I'm firm in my belief that I'm trying to improve articles by standardising how cites are formatted as I've described above. I am also under the impression that where possible, cite templates should be on a single line, not spread over multiple lines with linebreaks - this is something that User:Redrose64 instilled in me some years ago, but now it's being challenged to such an extreme degree, I'd like to get some more clarity on it.

    I'm very much open to accepting I was wrong if that's the consensus, and would accept a thorough trouting - but as of now, I simply don't have any such clarity. Danners430 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me of 1 2 -- I don't think there is any reason to suppose that there is widespread consensus about the relative virtue of putting citation templates on one line versus spreading them out. 134.147.24.39 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors prefer the vertical format in citation templates vs. the horizontal format, some editors prefer the WP:LDR format over inline, some editors prefer the {{sfn}} format. At British Rail 10800, it looks like it is a mixture of sfn, LDR and vertical. Most importantly though, if someone objects to you changing an established style, then don't continue to change it to your preferred version, take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, yes, a reminder/warning to Andy to be civil, other than that, I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On that article though it’s not really an established style is it - it’s a mixture of multiple different styles… as for taking it to the talk page, I did try (Andy immediately started a thread on my personal talk page) - but I’ve barely received any useful responses, it’s as if Andy simply wants it left and is unwilling to reach any agreement… Danners430 (talk) Danners430 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A mixture of multiple different styles is still an established style, and it is not uncommon for articles to have mixed and/or multiple styles. The point is, if someone objects to your changes; don't revert to your preferred version; get consensus for your changes, and absent that, leave it alone. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that first sentence is correct; WP:CS says Each article should use one citation method or style throughout. Schazjmd (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should does not mean there is an imperative to change existing articles, though. It's more of a suggestion than a hard-and-fast "you have to fix this" rule. If no one objects to standardizing the cites, sure, go for it. But the minute someone does, BRD applies and it's time to talk it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that I’ve tried, and have been met by Andy’s rather uncivil ownership of that page Danners430 (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I was hoping you'd move on, but since you insist:
    You claim Andy is guilty of uncivil ownership, but after he reverted you on July 15, you reverted him here with the message:
    I'll bite - what policy. Each and every inline citation on almost every page I've read or edited is formatted like this - it aids reading diffs
    That was a failure of WP:BRD. Andy then took it up on your Talk page: User talk:Danners430#WP:CITEVAR. The accusation of hounding might be a bit much, but...
    Today you made similar changes, Andy reverted you, and you reverted him again here with the message:
    And here we go again. Take it to the talk page if you don’t like it, I’m finished interacting with bullies.
    That was an unnecessary escalation on your part, calling him a bully. So he brings it to your Talk page, where you both keep sniping at each other. Andy does explain why he dislikes your preferred citation style, but instead of discussing that you shoot back with:
    would you rather I just went to ANI instead of asking politely?
    This had no reason to come to ANI, period. You both got a little hot under the collar, but you chose to escalate this beyond necessity. As others have pointed out below, citation styles are a preference and it's seriously not worth fighting over when someone rejects your changes to the style. This isn't WP:OWN, it's just a disagreement over cite styles. Insisting on forcing your preference into an article is going to get some push-back, and dragging such a minor dispute to ANI just gets mud on your shoes.
    Neither of you look good here. I suggest you simply drop this matter entirely and move on to some other editing topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article uses list-defined references and inline citations in the body of the article, that is a mixed style, and acceptable from what I've seen, or an article uses sfn and cite book, that is a mixed style and also acceptable. I just don't see this ANI filing as an urgent incident with anything substantive that is actionable by the community or an admin. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I am a rather passionate advocate for list-defined references in vertical format, and find positions to the contrary unconvincing. The only actual argument against LDR is that the visual editor is incapable of parsing them -- the visual editor that's over a decade old, and was introduced at a time when LDR already existed -- that is to say, the visual editor was shipped broken, remains broken to this day, and the WMF has simply decided not to spend money on fixing it at any point in the last decade. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs.
    However, the world we actually do inhabit on a day-to-day basis is rife with necessary compromise. Christianity and Buddhism and Islam cannot simultaneously be true, yet Christians and Buddhists and Muslims edit Wikipedia together in a way that is generally peaceful. Such as it is, WP:CITEVAR is a sort of Wikipedian "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", so I think that without a very compelling reason to act otherwise, we should respect individual preference. jp×g🗯️ 19:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CITEVAR doesn't say anything about vertical vs horizontal, possibly because the output is the same. It's a cosmetic change. There's a pretty strong norm against those types of cosmetic changes. WP:BRD applies there. If we're talking about an article that has a mix of citation styles with no clear established style, then WP:CITEVAR doesn't really apply. The absence of a style is not a style. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to be one of the lamest issues imaginable to fight over. Seriously? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Danjoel99

    User is a SPA account/possible sockmaster that has edit warred to put in mostly unsourced (and possible copyright) info at Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, trying to turn the article into a sort of promo for his release. The edits are almost the exact same as various IP edits and he has targeted the article over a 2 year timespan. The edits come in various shapes and sizes depending on how the article is leaning [93] [94][95].

    I would have probably brought this to AIV if the account was younger, but the account is over 2 years old. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for 6-month Israel-Arab conflict topic ban to be overturned

    Appeal moot. OP blocked for illegitimate use of alternate account and violation of topic-ban. See this, this and this. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Overview:

    20 days ago, I received the following topic ban:

    "You are topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for six months"

    I was also banned for one week from editing Wikipedia, which has by now expired.

    I am appealing for the topic ban to be lifted.

    My perspective:

    I created the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article from the ground up, as I have extensive knowledge on the subject and aimed to contribute positively to Wikipedia by doing so. However, I lost access to the article after it was upgraded to extended-protected status. When my appeal for extended-protected permissions was rejected, I resorted to requesting edits on the article's talk page.

    Initially, a helpful user implemented my suggested edits, but subsequent requests went unanswered for weeks. I then reached out to the user who previously assisted me and posted blurbs on relevant WikiProject pages. Eventually, I connected with @Adolphus79, who showed interest in the article after we interacted on the Ohio State University page.

    We had a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the use of Instagram as a source. I argued that announcements from protest organizers on Instagram should be considered reliable if their authenticity is clear. After presenting a detailed argument and citing specific Wikipedia guidelines, Adolphus79 did not respond to my argument.

    Adolphus79 began removing substantial amounts of information from the article based on his stance that Instagram is never a suitable source. I tried to engage in further discussion, providing additional evidence and sources, but my comments were subsequently ignored.

    He then marked many of my article talk page suggestions as "not done" in a tone which I (erroneously) perceived as condescending. He did not implement any of my requested changes, except the removal of an unnecessary period. Information on the article, such as "students criticized the sniper," was removed, even though I attempted to engage in discussion surrounding why I believe this, and other similar examples, were verifiably true.

    Feeling increasingly frustrated and ignored, I inadvertently violated Wikipedia's canvassing and "assume good faith" policies by presenting my concerns in an emotionally charged and unbiased manner on WikiProject pages. This led to my six-month topic ban and a week-long general ban 20 days ago, during which I've had time to reflect on my actions.

    What I did wrong:

    • I engaged in canvassing.
    • I assumed bad faith by @Adolphus79.
    • I got too emotionally attached to this article, seeing it as "my own" article rather than something managed collectively by the community.
    • I tried to rush advocating for changes, rather than taking my time advocating for changes to be implemented.
    • And overall, I was emotional and unobjective.

    Punishment:

    • The week long ban was reasonable.
    • A two-week long topic ban is reasonable.
    • However, a six-month topic ban from editing the Arab/Israel conflict is something I would like to appeal.

    I have had enough time at this point to reflect on my actions and acknowledge/learn from my mistakes. I am very sorry for violating Wikipedia's policies. And @Adolphus79 specifically, I am very sorry for assuming bad faith.

    If I make the same mistakes as I made last time in the future, then please sanction this account more severely (maybe a 6-month general ban, or something along these lines, would be appropriate).

    But I respectfully ask that I be given a second chance before such a severe punishment as a six-month topic ban is handed out. If this could be lifted, I would be extremely grateful and will be much more careful in the future to adhere to Wikipedia's high standards for editing. I have been keeping close tabs on the pro-Palestine campus protests, and I believe I would make a great volunteer to maintain the 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestinian campus protests article and keep it up-to-date, all while being a better editor than I was before the ban gave me time to reflect by adhering to Wikipedia's policies. I would also like to have a more collaborative relationship with @Adolphus79 in the future since he is one of the main editors maintaining the articles on which I've primarily been focusing.

    I'm of course open to any discussion. Thank you.

    Onlineone22 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a six-month topic ban was more than reasonable given your continuous WP:OWN of the article and lack of WP:AGF. The responses of Adolphus79 [96] and ScottishFinishRadish [97] when you requested the topic ban be reconsidered are still as valid now as they were two weeks ago and on point.
    You now admit you sort of acted incorrectly, but only very grudgingly since the admission comes with more justifications and accusations, and only so long as there are no meaningful consequences to doing so. A two-week topic ban would clearly have been extremely insufficient; waiting out the clock apparently did little to get you to drop the stick, and since you are not EC, and have made no edits since to become so, you wouldn't have been able to post anything to that topic in those two weeks anyway (and still cannot now, even if the topic ban were lifted). A two-week topic ban would have had no more effect than a site ban starting in the year 2200.
    I would urge the community to not accept any more appeals at AN/ANI on this issue and to toll the six-month topic ban (in the event that get EC). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > You now admit you sort of acted incorrectly, but only very grudgingly since the admission comes with more justifications and accusations, and only so long as there are no meaningful consequences to doing so.
    > waiting out the clock apparently did little to get you to drop the stick
    > responses [...] when you requested the topic ban be reconsidered are still as valid now as they were two weeks ago
    I'm sorry but I genuinely don't know what you mean by a lot of this. In what way does my admission come with more justifications and accusations? In what way are there no meaningful consequences to me making an admission? The ban did little to get me to drop what stick—the stick of trying to appeal the topic ban? Why is that a "stick"? To what specific points in the responses of those two users are you referring?
    Onlineone22 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why is it that you are only interested in editing about this one single event? 90(ish)% of your edits have been on this one page, or on other articles (or talk pages) related to OSU, adding (sometimes inappropriate) information about this one event. You have made no effort to even try to work on any other articles (unrelated to this event), and you are trying so hard to get the t-ban dropped to edit these few articles related to this one event. A t-ban doesn't mean you can't edit other stuff, there's a whole universe of other articles that need help, need expanded, copyedited, created even! You should be using this time to edit other articles to show that you understand resources better, that you can interact civilly with other editors, that you aren't only here for one reason. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, thanks for stopping by!
    The reason why 90% of my edits on this account are on that one page is because my main account, @Gabetucker2 (I just saw your question on my talk page, hopefully this answers your question), reveals personal information in the username of that account. I have safety concerns when it comes to editing topics relating to the OSU protests using my real name since many people I know have been doxxed after their identities were tracked down by counter-protesters (e.g., on canarymission.org). I created this alternative account to make edits that can't be traced back to my identity as easily by using an anonymous username. If you take a look at my main account, you will see that I've edited a broad range of topics unrelated to Palestine including ACT-R, lion lights, National Taiwan University Hospital, and more.
    I hope that proves that I've edited a range of topics outside of Palestine. But even so, I'll admit I have a personal interest in the article because no one else on Wikipedia is adding anything to it, despite the fact that there's a lot of stuff going on that's been widely reported on, so I wanted to take advantage of the fact I'm know pretty knowledgeable on the topic to make this information more easily accessible to people seeking to learn more. There's not really a source outside of Wikipedia that gives an overview of what's gone on with the protests, so I think Wiki offers a really unique opportunity to give a credible overview of the events that occurred. That's why I've been pretty devoted to trying to get so much information added that wasn't there previously (although of course I acknowledge I need to slow down and go about it more systematically, which you correctly criticized).
    Just as a side note, I certainly don't want to sock-puppet two accounts, but I also don't want it to be easy for people to discover my real identity through this account. So if you have any concerns or ideas for how to address this topic, I'm definitely open to further discussion on my talk page.
    Onlineone22 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've been evading the t-ban this entire time with your sock?!?!? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've edited anything relating to the Arab-Israel conflict on my main account since the t-ban, no? I've been focusing on other articles on my main account since then. Onlineone22 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your week site ban expired nearly two weeks ago. However much your topic ban enjoined you from making edits regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict, what prevented you from making constructive edits on any other topic? Lack of experience with Wikipedia policies and practices is the chief reason we limit new editors who are not yet extended-confirmed from fraught topic areas. Get that experience in less fraught topic areas, then we'll talk. Ravenswing 22:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I just responded to @Adolphus79 where I explain how and why this is my alt account. My main account, @Gabetucker2, which is over a year old, has made many edits since my topic ban and account suspension on this account.
    Onlineone22 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Delectable1 CIR issues

    Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reposting after this user came down with a case of AN/I flu until the original post was archived.

    This user has a poor grasp of English, yet insists on changing grammar on a wide array of articles. They are also on an apparent mission to go against WP:Red link. They will do things like improperly replace "this" with "the" and "these" with "they", and a favorite error is to needlessly use a person's full name in the body of a biographical article as well as change the proper use of their last name with informal and unencyclopedic use of their first name ([98], [99], among others).

    The rest of their edits are littered with grammatical errors, and this bizarre interaction on my talk page speaks for itself. Talk page warnings are blanked and ignored, and their edit summaries are almost always a single-word non-sequitur. They clearly don't have a sufficient grasp of English to make the edits they make, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that.

    Here's the most recent gem instance: Meyer was born in Columbia, Kentucky and grew up there and in Greensburg, Kentucky the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer. Not only is the prose horrendous, there's no source to support the change. A block is clearly the only way to end this user's disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The changing of "these" to "they" in the diff you linked is this:
    −
    The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. These flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.
    		+
    The active visual warnings are usually in the form of flashing lights. They flash in order to attract the attention of other road users as the ambulance approaches, or to provide warning to motorists approaching a stopped ambulance in a dangerous position on the road.
    You say these are gems, but it looks like pure coal to me. What in the world are you talking about? This is not "improper" by any means; in fact it looks to me like an obvious improvement to the sentence. jp×g🗯️ 21:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More coal:
    −
    Meyer stated the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[College football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunted him, saying he would never be good enough to become a Marine.
    		+
    Meyer said that the reason he chose to enlist in the military instead of going with his original plan to play [[college football]] was a result of a [[Marine Corps Recruiting Command|Marine Corps recruiter]] taunting him. Meyer walked up to the recruiting sergeant from about an hour's drive away who was sitting in the school's lunchroom and was asked what his plans were after he graduated. Meyer told the sergeant "I'm going to go to college and play college football." The sergeant dared him, saying that he would do the same thing if he was Meyer because there's no way you can become a Marine. After first walking off, Meyer came back five minutes later and told the sergeant, "If you pack up your stuff right now I'll go sign the papers".
    It's true that the sentence they've written has some errors, but they are also fixing very bad writing (stilted use of "stated" for no reason, "taunted him" is used incorrectly). jp×g🗯️ 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't expect that the sarcastic use of the word "gem" would be troublesome. I've struck and replaced it.
    −
    In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources, and this will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.
    		+
    In the United States, the cost of an ambulance ride may be paid for from several sources; that will depend on the local situation type of service being provided, by whom, and to whom.
    −
    Meyer was born and raised in [[Columbia, Kentucky]], the son of Felicia Carole Ferree "Killy" Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.
    		+
    Meyer was born in [[Columbia, Kentucky]] and grew up there and in [[Greensburg, Kentucky]] the son of Felicia Carole Ferree"Killy" née Gilliam and Michael Allen Meyer.
    −
    His mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Moakler,
    		+
    Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse and his father an architect. His father's stereo and record collection inspired Steve,
    −
    Spielberg has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Spielberg attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].
    		+
    Steven has three younger sisters: [[Anne Spielberg|Anne]], Sue, and Nancy. In 1952, his family moved to [[Haddon Township, New Jersey]] after his father was hired by [[RCA]]. Steven attended Hebrew school from 1953 to 1957, in classes taught by Rabbi [[Albert L. Lewis]].
    How are these okay? Yes, you can cherry-pick parts of this user's edits that aren't disruptive, but that doesn't negate the persistent disruption. --Sable232 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with the diffs you posted. Maybe a smidge awkward at times, but certainly not indicative of a poor grasp of the english language like you are implying. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are implying they are disruptive, post diffs proving it. No one here is going to do your homework for you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF?! I have the diffs in my original post and the exact quotes above showing exactly where and how the user in question has made the articles in question worse. Where have I asked anyone to "do my homework" for me? --Sable232 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think your examples completely fail to support your accusations. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what Insanityclown1 is seeing because these are generally pretty ugly diffs. Wikipedia would be unreadable if articles were generally written in this manner. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (But at the same time, this feels like something that should be discussed with the editor, not something that rises to ANI at this point). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, these just seem like normal edits to me. Specifically using someone's first name in the section about their other family members is reasonable. The semicolon is reasonable. "Steve Moakler's mother was a nurse" is dumb, but it's not against the rules to occasionally do something dumb. The née thing is dumb if it's not sourced. It is somewhat concerning that in an AN/I thread where you're specifically trying to present examples of somebody's edits being so dumb as to be disruptive, even your carefully-picked examples mostly just show them improving grammar. If there is some issue with their overall pattern of editing, this is probably a worthwhile thing to bring up at the ANI thread, not a bunch of diffs where they are acting normal. jp×g🗯️ 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b "Fan Request: Medal of Honor Recipient, Sergeant Dakota Meyer | Letterman". Worldwide Pants. 19 September 2011. Retrieved June 24, 2024.
    2. ^ a b Baxter 1996, p. 16.
    3. ^ a b McBride 1997, p. 48.
    4. ^ a b McBride 1997, p. 53.

    User:Blanes tree

    See [100] (discussion on these tags), Talk:W. David Marx, and basically all the discussions on [101]. User has had a number of excessively rude outbursts in conversations. They sometimes show remorse, but double down on similar behavior either in parallel or soon after apologizing. Multiple users have suggested that the user take a break from editing or, in my case, writing anything negative sounding, but these suggestions have been rejected. Recommend some kind of block. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theobrad has a partial COI disclosure on his userpage and has been exhibiting ownership over W. David Marx.
    I only logged on tonight because this little cabal was posting on my talk page about what I should or shouldn't do. And 104.232.119.107 has deliberately esculated disputes when I've suggested we take a break. This user clearly has an anger management problem. I can't even remember how all of this started but they've blown it all way out of proportion. Blanes tree (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Theobrad sexually harassed me with this kiss emoji on the talk page of W. David Marx. This is after I warned them on their talk page over their COI with the BLPs that they've created.Blanes tree (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight: you're claiming that ending a comment with an emoji is "sexual harassment?" Throw in your claim to be a friend of an author who died 84 years ago (how, by Ouija board?) and it doesn't sound like you have the competence necessary to edit Wikipedia. Ravenswing 23:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging related parties: @Theobrad, @Dclemens1971 @SilkTork 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know what this IP is accusing me of anymore. All I did was edit a page that User:safariScribe approved because frankly I have doubts about his judgement at WP:AfCBlanes tree (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least I've made some constructive edits.Blanes tree (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blanes tree, if you are learning how to use twinkle, then be very very careful. Why would you be warning editors of paid contributions Special:PermanentLink/1236851898#July 2024 and Special:PermanentLink/1236855350#July 2024? Please stop or you land yourself into a bigger trouble. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the block. Despite numerous warnings from other editors on their talk page, Blanes tree has been making disruptive edits and repeatedly engages in WP:HOUNDING anyone who disagrees with them across many articles, including half-a-dozen unrelated editors such as @Zelda Zanders, @Theobrad and myself. See User_talk:Blanes_tree regarding their behavior which they continue to engage in today. Note that this user admitted they are targeting other editors and noted they are aware that their behavior warrants sanctions yet continue regardless.
    After reverting edits by Blanes tree on VFS Global, Blanes tree stalked me to The Great Gatsby article where they claimed that their personal friendship with novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald (who died in 1940) supersedes needing to provide any sources and is sufficient to demand a rewrite of the Featured Article. As their Talk Page shows, Blanes tree has been asked by many editors to alter their behavior. After noticing Blanes tree's unwarranted incivility, @Dclemens1971 went to great lengths to ask the user to change their ways and warned there would be repercussions. They refuse to listen. — Flask (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a block (involved). Here are the issues as I see them:
    For these reasons (plus WP:CIR) I believe sanctions are in order. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ergobus uploading hundreds of images without any license or source information

    Ergobus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who has gamed the system to gain autoconfirmed status by waiting 4 days and then making a series of 10 edits to their user page. Since that 10th edit, they have proceeded to upload over 500 images, none of which have any source or licensing information provided. Between myself and ImageTaggingBot, over 100 of the images have been tagged, with corresponding noticed placed on Ergobus's talk page, and yet the uploads continue. I'm reasonably confident that the images are screengrabs from a Plants Vs Zombies game, and thus not free images. I'm not sure what use ENWP would have for 500+ images of a game. Certainly some smaller number may be possible under fair use, but not as many as have been uploaded and continue to be uploaded by this user. I think we may need some kind of block, since it does not appear that this user will respond to talk page notices. Hamtechperson 22:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them from the file namespace, and will leave a note. The namespace block is indefinite, and if no convincing explanation is forthcoming, I will place a full NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now they appear to be constructing a Wikia-style set of game guides. I've increased to a site block. I have to go out for a little while and will consider nuking options unless some explanation is forthcoming. Acroterion (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass-creation of unreferenced Plant vs Zombies character articles

    Ergobus (talk · contribs) has created a massive amount of game guide-style articles on Plant vs Zombies characters, which look like they've been copy-pasted from some specialist wiki. They're not responsive on their talk page, and the vast majority of these articles (if not all) are likely non-notable and will end up deleted. It's going to be a huge mess to clean them up, and I'm wondering if a mass AfD or a faster process might be warranted. The user is still creating new articles as I'm writing this, and I hope they will stop soon. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't see the previous thread, I've merged this one as a subsection. @Acroterion, the site block appears to not have worked correctly as they are still going on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in a hurry and didn't convert the block correctly. I will consider nuking after I eat dinner. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot! No need for a mass AfD then? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby Not likely to be needed. I think Nuking is a near given at this point due to Stary90's comment below. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me for randomly joining the discussion, but most of the pages they are making are pasted from the Plants VZ Zombies Wiki on Fandom, that's where the info is coming from. I should also note that they are also pasting templates and categories from the wiki as well onto Wikipedia. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm nuking it all. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Nuke is rebelling, I may have to do it in smaller chunks after dinner. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to DanCherek, they're nuked. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the files, thanks to Bbb23 for taking care of the articles! DanCherek (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently marking the pages for speedy deletion, if that helps, but there's a lot of them. I will start marking the files for deletion also. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stary90 With Acroterion going to nuke them all, Speedy delete nominating shouldn't be necessary and is extra work for you. Thanks for checking and confirming the copyright violations. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I regret not seeing this thread earlier! I started tagging their articles like crazy! Thanks to Bbb23 for deleting them all. CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your welcome. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they were all copied (presumably automatically) from Fandom. They aren't technically copyright violations because Fandom is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Surprisingly some of the topics may actually be notable enough for separate articles, but copying source code straight from other wikis is obviously not helping. C F A 💬 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see a "List of Characters of Plants Vs Plants" page existing, and possibly the odd solo page for a major character (think like Mario of Super Mario Bros franchise), but most of these won't qualify for a full article in my opinion. I don't know the exact line to draw on the copyrights vs licensing issue due to my editorial focus on Wikipedia, but copying any text (that isn't a direct quote) in full from another place like Fandom is going to be making editors uncomfortable. And WP:FANDOM was not correctly followed here. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: All the files they uploaded have been deleted. ⋆Stary90⋆ (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked a few more socks. I guess if more show up, you can leave a message on my talk page, and I can look into it deeper. It's probably going to take a bunch of range blocks to stop this nonsense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User continually recreating salted page at different titles

    This is unfortunate, but at this point I think the user has been given ample warning and friendly guidance. After the page for a newly formed American Communist Party was deleted at AfD for lack of any independent coverage, and salted because of persistent recreation, User:Imxxd17 has continually recreated the page at alternative titles. This is despite ample warning and discussion on the user's talk page that doing so could result in a ban, and guidance suggesting they should read up on the notability guidelines.

    I'm not sure if there is a solution at this stage other than salting the alternative titles and, unfortunately, some sort of block. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of their variant titles (American Communist Party (2024), already redeleted once, and Plenary Committee of the American Communist Party, already redeleted twice) are currently sitting in CAT:G4 where they belong. If salting and/or blocking isn't enough, the next step is a request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. —Cryptic 01:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P-blocked by @NinjaRobotPirate. Star Mississippi 02:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Binksternet

    OP blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So recently I made a change on the page Blasphemous Rumours / Somebody. I saw that user Binksternet had removed a genre which is reliably source. I reversed this change and left a notice on his talk page about not removing info without an explanation. He deleted this notice and reverted my edit. I, again left a notice on his talk page, this time he falsely accused me of sock puppetry, and again, reverted his edit. He again, deleted my notice and reverted my edit once again. Now, he's accusing me of WP:WAR despite the fact he's the one who made an inaccurate edit. On his most recent reversal of my edit, he claimed the genre source was a "WordPress blog" despite there being no info backing this up linked, or in existence at all. It's clear he's editing to fit his ideology, and his practice of silencing opposition is very dictatorial like. I believe he is a disruptive user that is making Wikipedia a worse place and an investigation into him is sorely needed for the good of this site and it's future. I already left a message about this on his talk page, but really, it's time an administrator gets involved, because he keeps reverting my correct edits to fit his own personal bias. It has to stop. Wikipedia should be all facts, no opinions, but users like Binksternet are getting in the way of this. Please thoroughly look into his account, it seems I'm not the first who've had such experience with Binksternet based on the results you get when looking up his name on Google. Thank you in advance, I strive to make Wikipedia a better and more accurate place, but stuff like this gets in the way of that, so it needs to be stopped, simple as that. Mappy1983 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    He's only reverted twice, as Acroterion said. I saw on Bink's talk page that you were making personal attacks. So basically you're the one who is being disruptive, not him, and thus you need to be blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mappy1983: As I warned you on your talkpage, you're making personal attacks. Binksternet isn't even at the threshold of edit-warring, while you're aggressively arguing about genres. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1236897342"