Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Intentional harrassment by Hemiauchenia

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

---

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am bringing this here at the offending editor's specific suggestion. Said editor has been posting a series of personal attacks with the tone of trying to harass a fellow editor off of the site.

• you're the kind of low quality editor that Wikipedia needs to weed out. I suggest you stop whining and stop wasting the time of contributors who are far more valuable to the encyclopedia than yourself.
• It's not discrimination, it's called taking out the trash.
• You have nothing valuable to contribute to this website, and I suggest you find something better to do with your life.

Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This was an editor that was arguing that a medical textbook was not a reliable source. Their few other edits include additions that completely fail WP:MEDRS e.g. their additions to Banisteriopsis caapi back in 2018 What is one to say to an editor that can't respect basic WP:RS policy? Such editors are not useful encyclopedic contributors. You've redacted the comments and I don't plan to restore them, and I consider that the end of the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If one cannot respond without violating WP:NPA and engaging in harassment, there is the option of not saying anything at all. That you feel that such conduct is not actionable and that you deem it appropriate to continue such attacks on this noticeboard only makes it more vital to make it clear otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In one of your comments you asked What's the point of respectfully discussing with people like you who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) or Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"? Does this same logic apply to people who don't respect basic Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I accept that I could have been less hostile (and it probably would have been better to do so) and I do not object to NG's redactions, but my view that this user was a disruptive editor who didn't respect basic Wikipedia policies remains. I've struckthrough all comments I made in the discussion if this helps. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote out this long rant but deleted it. TLDR: Hemi was right, you took the wrong editor to ANI. Levivich (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. It is a simple, demonstrable fact that Wikipedia routinely 'weeds out' contributors who demonstrate the abject failure and/or refusal to understand how Wikipedia works that was being exemplified in the WP:BLPN discussion. And given that it is necessary to do, so, one cannot reasonably describe a suggestion that it be done in such an obvious case as 'harassment'. Being told this is no doubt unpleasant to those on the receiving end, but we aren't here to hand out free hugs and candy floss... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's absolutely possible to tell an editor they're not editing constructively without referring to it as taking out the trash and other language like this. Civility is still a policy, and it doesn't mean hand[ing] out free hugs and candy floss. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 08:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the civility policy could be rebranded as reinforcement learning for civil POV pushing. I think that might be where it has had its greatest success. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, unmanageable behavioral problems". Is the OP suggesting something here rises to that level, or is this an isolated incident? Bon courage (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Hemiauchenia has 48,409 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. NatGertler has 40,667 edits and has improved 1000s of articles. Maybe Hemiauchenia didn't use the best language but their message was accurate. I really do not get why experienced users feel the need to report each other or infight when the real issue are accounts with no productive edits on this website causing trouble. This account here is the real issue [1] they have been disrupting the John McDougall article when their edits were reverted they filed a false complaint on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ‎claiming a book doesn't include the word fad diet even though that very term is in the title. After they lost that discussion, Now they are back on the talk-page of the article writing nonsense. It's obvious this account won't give up on their crusade. In a few days or a week's time we may be back here at this noticeboard talking about them. As above the wrong editor was taken to ANI here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because not just of the culture of harassment, but because of the culture here at ANI which has judged harassment to be just fine if it comes from an experienced user (I have slipped back into the habit lately, but will likely be pulling that back._ If the WP:NPA is only meant to be no-personal-attacks-except-against-those-we-think-aren't-very-good-editors, then it should be rebranded as such, but until such is done, WP:BRIE still applies. Does the other editor need to get attention as well? Possibly, and you are free to do something about it, but there is nothing that says that both editors can't be in the wrong. Hemiauchenia originally blew off concern about his actions and said that I should bring him here, which is when I did so; that he has since pedaled back, admitted that some of his speech was improper (even if at times half-heartedly) is to be recognized and if he makes some statement that he would watch it in the future, would probably now be sufficient... but none of that should be taken as backing the idea that personal attacks intended to drive someone off of the site are not a "real issue". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can second this. Hemiauchenia acknowledged that it could have been handled differently, and I'm satisfied by that if it actually is handled differently in the future. But Wikipedia's toxic culture is one of the main reasons I've been less active over the last few months. I can only imagine how many would-be productive editors we've lost just so the old boy's club at ANI can engage in victim blaming and act like incivility is perfectly fine if it's "justified" or a "net positive". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree with this, there is absolutely a culture of defending incivility, up to the point of harassment, in the name of being correct/being a "net positive" contributor. And, needless to say, this absolutely goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. You shouldn't get a free pass every 10 thousand edits you make. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "experienced user" greatly decreased his Wikipedia involvement because when people lie about what sources say, instead of doing anything about it, the community will punish other people for calling it out. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Psychologist Guy this amounts to bullying when enabling insults and pushing half-truths just because you don't like what I say.

  Yes, I'm at fault for questioning weak sources, even textbooks, but I don't deserve harrassment for asking fundamental questions. Teleoid (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• I propose that this be closed with no action against Hemiauchenia. Anyone is free to remind them of the need for civility in dealing with people who do not meet our requirements, but it seems that there is no need to as the editor has already acknowledged that. Yes, Hemiauchenia could and probably should have worded things a bit differently, but I see nothing remotely blockworthy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• This report fails to recognise the aggressive tone that was being used by the person Hemiauchenia was addressing - neither party was blameless here. I do not believe that any action is necessary, but I would advise Hemiauchenia that even if the other party is being aggressive, belligerent, or just sealioning, resorting to snide remarks does nothing to enhance your argument, and often ends up with threads like this one getting started. Don't try to score points - you can avoid handing people a stick to beat you with if you are able to keep your interactions dispassionate. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Are you thinking about [2]? If so, it should be considered that [3] effectively implies that Teleoid, who presumably takes the subject seriously, may be 'religious' and 'evangelical' about whole-food plant-based diets. I'm not saying that Teleoid's reaction was justified, but there was no need for the original insinuation either. It's in fact a huge and persistent problem within the fringe subject area that editors tend to address other editors with the same contempt they personally have for the subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's one comment out of many personalised and hostile posts that Teleoid has directed towards other editors. Here, they accuse other editors of being motivated by spite. Here the accuse others of gaslighting them. Here they are again attacking other editors' motivations. While I don't think that Heniauchenia's comments were necessary or helpful, it's Teleoid's mixture of belligerence, cluelessness and their willingness to personalise disagreements over content that is at the root of this issue. If we need to apply a sanction to prevent disruption, I think a TBan on Teleoid from that particular subject area would probably put an end to all this disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your last two diffs came out as links to the talk history. I agree though that the disruption is caused by a combination of Teleoid's incompetence and belligerence. I was assuaged by this, but I didn't realize that this and this was posted later. At least they seem to be having trouble dropping the stick. If the behavior doesn't stop soon I agree a TBan would probably help. As for the rest, I tend to agree with Johnuniq's comment below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm - odd. You'd think I'd know how diffs work by now. Oh well, here goes, for the record: accusation of gaslighting; attack on people's motivations. These latter two pre-date any of the diffs by Hemiauchenia in the original report - they weren't a response to them, they were a response to other editors who were trying to discuss the content rationally and in a civil manner. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to apologise for my defensiveness and if offended any of the editors, I reacted to perceived hostility in kind.

  I truly barely understand the rules here while the learning curve is very steep.

  This is despite being a member since 2018, as you can verify I have very few edits, and very little experience. Teleoid (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing that in my view would improve Wikipedia more than a stricter enforcement of civility requirements would be a much, much stricter take on WP:HERE and WP:COMPETENCE: in my opinion, these should be policy and they should say that all editors are required (a) to gain a basic knowledge of what an encyclopedia is and how it is written, and (b) to demonstrate within a reasonable timeframe that they are actually capable of improving the encyclopedia in some way. Those who neither have the required knowledge nor show any sign of wanting to acquire it should immediately be blocked indefinitely, as do those who after a certain amount of time and edits cannot come up with evidence of having actually improved the encyclopedia. In effect, in my view we should do what Hemiauchenia suggested and 'weed out' 'low quality editors' quickly, systematically, and without fuss.
  However, we should never use such language when addressing editors. To speak of specific individual human beings in terms of 'weeding out' and 'taking out the trash' is never acceptable. Personal and condescending comments like 'find something better to do with your life' are also beyond the pale. Not only could Hemiauchenia have worded things differently, they absolutely should have. I think it's deeply problematic to take 'being right' as a sufficient cause to render WP:CIV null and void. For one, people think they're right all the time when they aren't, which would make such a principle extremely destructive also in cases where it's not actually warranted. But even when someone is right, insulting, dehumanizing or bullying those who are wrong is likely to have all kinds of negative consequences. And who's never been wrong? WP:BRIE indeed.
  Perhaps the unspoken idea behind some of the views given above is that for editors who are so wrong that WP would be better off without them, being uncivil towards them is an effective way to actually chase them away and make WP better, and so editors should be given some leeway to do just that. While I understand that rationale, I think it causes an unacceptable and largely unfathomed amount of collateral damage. Much more effective would be to have stricter policy, and proactive but civil enforcement of that policy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

(see below) As usual, everyone siding with the more experienced editor with no thought, what did I expect. WP:BRIE everyone. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 16:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you consider this comment civil? I have difficulty seeing how it is consistent with the admonition that [editors] should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. --JBL (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I sided with the more experienced editor not because the editor is experienced, but with plenty of thought. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Both aspects of your assertion are false and seem to have no thought behind them. How ironic. The unappointed civility policy police contribute very little apart from a heavy-handed dose of self-righteousness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is proof Shakespeare isn't dead and is editing Wikipedia. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while these comments went too far, the civility policy is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant to type 'police' instead of 'policy'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually relies on volunteers to be involved and address problems, including making ensuring that policies are adhered to. If you don't think there should be policies regarding civility, then there are various ways you can seek to have those policies changed or eliminated. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how Wikipedia works. I corrected my typo above, so there is no good reason for you to surmise that I don't think there should be policies regarding civility. My personal opinion is that civility is important to maintain, yet it is often true that the editors who make the most noise about civility fail to understand that it is only one pillar and that the overarching purpose is to create an encyclopedia, not to establish a community where everyone is always as nice as possible. In attempting to achieve an unrealistic civility panacea, these editors often waste community time and resources through overzealous prosecution of editors who frankly are doing more than they are to actually build and maintain the encyclopedia. I realize you probably don't agree with my position, and that's okay, but hopefully you will at least refrain from making further insinuations that I don't think we should have civility policies at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As you continue to be derisive towards folks for seeking to have the policies enforced, I can't say I'm swayed much by your claims. As a productive editor who cut his activity way back because of the hostile space that has been created here, I would say that the civility rules and the reasonable enforcement thereof are key to the health of the encyclopedia-building effort. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Striking this out. Sorry, I always get a bit emotional with this kinda stuff for some reason — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Adding that editors can and absolutely do learn and improve, and being uncivil to editors for not being right on the first try might chase away people who would've made great editors a few weeks or months later. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Given that you chastised me a few months ago for rewriting a Wikipedia article you had a major part in writing in to fix serious, glaring issues with neutrality (See Talk:Francevillian_biota), and never acknowledged the clear problems, I think it's a bit pot calling the kettle black to make statements about editor competence like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I know this discussion is about Hemiauchenia, but the issue stems from the behaviour of a user with hardly any edits on this website Teleoid. This user has been canvassing off-site (Redacted). What is the correct way with dealing with this? From experience from what I have seen in the past, when new users create threads on internet forums asking for help this doesn't usually work. I have not seen any new users edit the article or talk-page so this is probably a non-issue in regard to disruption but the behaviour is clearly problematic here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• The pious language above about being nice to everyone is fine but the real reason to be nice to POV pushers is that it makes less of an enemy of them. That makes it easier for them to slip away when faced with reality. Many examples show that goaded people will fight forever while people who are merely stonewalled by policy often give up. That's a trout for Hemiauchenia. Posting neutral messages on noticeboards asking for opinions should get enough editors involved so that each can revert without approaching 3RR. Use bland edit summaries that repeat mentions of NPOV and FRINGE, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that in hemi's contribs in the last day there is also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1195168702 -- @Hemiauchenia: I am open to an explanation as to how adding the summary "loony rambling" to an edit removing a talk page comment improves the project in a way that simply removing the comment without remark doesn't. The impression I get is that viscerally insulting people in a way that implies you're speaking on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole gves ammunition to haters and damages the credibility of the project in exchange for absolutely nothing. jp×g🗯️ 05:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This was removing an antivax comment saying that Wikipedia's purpose is to be "echo chamber for Big Pharma". I very much expect and hope that it is the position of Wikipedia that this is indeed "loony rambling". There are ways to remove such wibble without being so forthright about it, mind. Anybody who thinks this removal damages Wikipedia's credibility is probably already beyond redemption anyway, Bon courage (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not only possible, but also quite simple, to remove inappropriate comments without making gratuitously demeaning comments towards the people who left them. jp×g🗯️ 06:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And in response to that being pointed out, Hemiauchenia continues to make it clear that civility issues are not something he should be bothered with. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that an editor is WP:HERE and competent when such brazen intransigence towards behavioral standards are present. It's not that hard to be civil; I'd argue it's much more difficult to be competent. SmolBrane (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have previously been blocked for this kind of remark. That's actually impressive in a way given that CIR/NOTHERE jabs are typically free insults that can be lobbed without backlash. Look, there are a variety of positions that can be reasonably defended when arguing about civility enforcement, but what you wrote is a cheap shot at someone who is clearly both competent and here to build an encyclopedia. Using those insults in this context is an absolutely classless move. Or to put it in terms with which you are familiar, it is uncivil to use HERE and CIR to insult competent editors. You should be blocked again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason civility scolds have such a hard time is that they choose such incredibly poor examples to make a fuss about; that warning from jpxg was absurd and pointless, the edit and edit summary it was in response to were completely appropriate. This is the internet, there are people who write loony conspiracy theorizing here, and there’s nothing wrong with accurately describing such. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Like seriously look at the thread — there’s a very good reason every single competent editor in the discussion is saying the same thing in the same way as Hemiauchenia! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not. In that same section, Muboshgu says:

The notion of thiomersal causing autism has been sufficiently disproven by scientific consensus, in spite of what that one cherry-picked study says. We have a whole page on it at Thiomersal and vaccines.

[...]

You complained of "censorship". Wikipedia "protocols" are quite alright with removing disruptive WP:FRINGE posts like yours. Our agenda is the verifiable truth, not conspiracy theories. Leave the science to the scientists. You have the personal right to not trust them, but not to spread that nonsense here.

You can tell he is kind of annoyed, probably because the person he's arguing with is saying stuff that doesn't make sense; but at no point does he attack the commentator or insult their mental stability. jp×g🗯️ 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's okay to call the nonsense of other editors nonsense? Got it. Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

For example, it is acceptable to say that someone is "incorrect" or "wrong". It is, contrariwise, unacceptable to say that someone is a "nutcase", a "son of a bitch", a "lardass", a (Redacted), or things of that nature. jp×g🗯️ 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe you're getting it. A view can be 'nonsense', 'loony rambling', 'conpiracism' etc & it is fine to be forthright describing the view, but do not attack the person. This is the distinction you have failed to make. Bon courage (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No; it would also be inappropriate to say that a comment was "nutcase bullshit", "son-of-a-bitch yammering", "lardass whining" or "(Redacted) drivel". To give a trivial example: saying "I note that the things you say are the exact same things that a big fat stupid dipshit would say" is obviously an actionable personal attack. jp×g🗯️ 22:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference, in terms of severity, between 'loony rambling' and 'saying stuff that doesn't make sense'? Perhaps it would be simpler if we stopped trying to police civility with such a fine-toothed comb. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If someone needs to be told the difference, then they might not be a good fit for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's so easy to answer the question, why didn't you do so instead of taking a personal dig at me instead? That hardly seems like the civil thing to do. Why is it that the civility police have such a hard time being civil themselves? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Substance-blind tone-policing is completely unworkable, and the people who want to do it shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of any fringe area. Is it ok to call a post someone made "nonsense"? Well the answer is that if what they're doing is arguing that vaccines cause autism on Wikipedia talk-pages, yes, absolutely, that's fine. (And the same is true of "loony conspiracism".) Of course it would be better if nonsense-pushers were restrained before anyone got to that point -- but imposing that constraint is a content-sensitive act, and you can't get to the right conclusion just by looking at who uses the fewest naughty words or the most strenuous tone. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRIE: Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute. So no, there's no "content-sensitive" exception for conducting oneself inappropriately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've participated in plenty of discussions on contentious issues. So I've had the opportunity to witness what happens when somebody shows up to say everyone they don't agree with is insane, evil, retarded, etc; the outcome is not "the discussion improves and a bunch of really smart stuff happens". The outcome is that the discussion turns into worthless sewage. jp×g🗯️ 23:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying that a post is "nonsense" is absolutely acceptable (there's even a guideline using this term, although it's about a different kind of nonsense). However, "loony conspiracism" is closer to crossing the line as it involves words describing the person ("loony") rather than the points they are bringing.
The notion of getting to the right conclusion and the notion of whose conduct is fit for a collaborative project are two different things. Someone can be a civil POV pusher, while someone on the other side could be objectively correct but be a real piece of work about it. That doesn't prevent us from acknowledging that one was right on a basis independent from behavior, but again, being right isn't enough, and in that hypothetical example neither had an acceptable behavior, and both were at fault for different reasons. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be grounded in WP:It's Okay To Be Uncivil If The Other Person Is Wrong, which is not as of yet a policy or even an essay. If you would like to see that be policy, this would not seem to be the venue to cause that change to happen. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY means treating fellow editors with civility; the policy does not give automatic respectability to the views they express (and the 'personal attack' being complained of in this thread is an attack on views, not on a person). In fact, Wikipedia has little tolerance for certain views: WP:NONAZIS, but also pro-pedophilia, holocaust denial, transphobia, quackery, and various other forms of fashionable antiknowledge. Perhaps WP:CIVIL needs to updated to get with the community reality? Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Nobody has said that we should give "respectability to the views", or that these views are correct, or that people should be allowed to put them in articles. jp×g🗯️ 20:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRIE upholds civility as a reflection of the current community reality. I don't know what you are specifically suggesting with the last sentence, but it might run the risk of being headed in the other direction. SmolBrane (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• For interest, "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia", PNAS Nexus, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2023. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Lest anyone ever accuse me of lacking integrity, this paper which supports my argument draws some questionable conclusions from incomplete analysis. jp×g🗯️ 05:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, they are trying to do something that seems rather difficult to get right. It's nice to see people try though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Can we say that Hemiauchenia comments are unkind and designed to hurt another editor? The comments do nothing to help the project. I see others trying to defend or explain the hostility of Hemiauchenia. He has a lot of edits, he improves articles etc. I first encountered this editor when they accused me of pure axe grinding with an edit summary of

don't care about your opinion Lightburst, take it to ANi if you care enough and watch the sparks fly.

when I posted on the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021. I deleted the PA but they reinstated it. And then they started a COIN investigation against me. I questioned them on their talk page.

So I have experienced the editor's biting comments myself and it has a negative effect on editing. I removed their personal attack against me in April and they kept reinstating it.

You're basically the Wikipedia equivalent of a sovereign citizen. Nobody should listen or treat your drivel with any respect whatsoever.

Hemiauchenia only stopped by the AfD about the notability of an embassy to snarl, not to actually participate in the ivote. As many know, the common refrain at AfD is that Ambassadors and embassies are not inherently notable. And I came to their talk page but they deleted my note I have no intent to engage further with you on this matter.. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this still going? There's no proposal for anything by anyone. Everyone needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think a lot of people, actually, have made a very specific proposal, which is that Hemiauchenia stop making rude posts. If you want, I can format it nicely, like an RfC, and then we can have bolded support and oppose votes. jp×g🗯️ 15:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And in fact, unless I missed something, every participant who identifies themselves as an admin on their user page (you, Girth Summit, JohnnyUniq) has made that request in some form. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  One of them said no action, one said a trout, and the third had their comments partly redacted by a fourth. Meanwhile, the low quality editor was weeded out days ago. I agree it's time to drop this stick. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, in the same Wikipedia day as you say this we had another editor pop up with new examples showing that this is not just an off incident for this editor but part of a running pattern of harassment, so this situation seems to merit further attention. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not new examples, old examples. The longer this stays open, the more likely it is that more editors who had conflicts with Hemi in the past will show up here to share. But Wikipedia doesn't do RFC/U anymore. I'm disappointed that you still think, after all that's transpired, after reading all the above, that this situation still merits further attention. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And I'm disappointed that you think that information showing that an editors personal attacks and harassment are not something we should be taking notice of. Not suprised, mind you, given the blind eye you chose to turn toward even the initial concerns, but disappointed nonetheless. I guess Wikipedia is a land of disappointment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  As some German guy once said: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Just a random midweek thought. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  That Kant be true. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  He also said we should treat our fellow man as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end. I think that includes being civil to each other. Ergo, Kant supported the fourth pillar. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have no doubt he would! My point is simply that "civility" is not a binary quality either as to an individual's perception thereof nor even one's moment-to-moment behavior. In this sublunary world, incivility can creep up on even the most pious among us. Put another way, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of Wikipedia. Civility includes not only etiquette and solicitude, but also forgiveness for venial sins. I have a hard time seeing anything impactful here, but as ever, I am happy to trust in the wisdom (or facsimile thereof) of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  That we are all imperfect doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be decent, nor should it be an excuse to avoid accountability. As you say, civility isn't a binary quality, but it isn't unary either — not every act of incivility, of unkindness, is equally harmful. Piety and sin aren't necessarily a good way to describe what is a very human social contract, rather than an absolute ideal. Rather than an abstract sin against a greater glory, incivility is what is done against our fellow editors, and, while it is indeed the more noble thing to do, no one is obligated to forgive someone else's behavior.
  Put in another way, Wikipedia isn't a judge of our sins of incivility, it is what we build together, and incivility is what hurts that "together" part. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 04:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club. The recent outbursts of handwringing, many of them heavily perpetuated by editors who have made only minimal contributions to the actual encyclopedia that we are supposed to be building, tend heavily toward the social club misperception. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I share User:TarnishedPath's amazement that this is still open. The original complaint has no merit. I'm sure I have myself disagreed with User:Hemiauchenia in the past (I really can't be arsed to check where), and have certainly disagreed with at least one of that editor's supporters here, but that doesn't merit a witchhunt. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You can avoid consequences when the in-crowd is in your corner. We can see that Hemiauchenia's behavior is hostile and uncivil and we can also see that it is a pattern, but the in-crowd recommends closure of the thread. Levivich made sure a report here against me stayed open for two weeks but he thinks this seven day old report needs closure. Seems legit. This forum of backslappers and WO offline buddies is cancer to the project. Thanks for fairness (sarcasm intended). I am just glad that Nat Gertler did not catch a block for the report. Thanks for that. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRIE was established less than six months ago as an administrative principle, passed 11:0. It has been cited three times by three different editors here. Given that experienced editors are more likely to be right, it could be argued that the purpose of BRIE is to ensure behavioral standards in more experienced editors. Less experienced editors typically get sanctioned by more conventional PAGs. SmolBrane (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to speculate for a moment. I'd say that many of the "more experienced editors" and the "in-crowd" with civility issues are seeing developments like WP:BRIE and these ANI discussions, and they're realizing that the community is running out of patience with their antics and drama. The smart move would be to mature a little bit and treat others with respect. But they're not going to do that, either because they think that being right entitles you to be uncivil or because they can't see past themselves and they think that it's "no big deal". What we're seeing is that instead of improving, they're getting more aggressive and defending each other more passionately, as they feel like they're being backed into a corner. After all, if one of them is indeffed for constant incivility, the others are at risk as well. The irony is that when all of them consistently show up at the same time whenever one of them is called out, it just makes them look guiltier and erodes the community's goodwill more quickly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your speculation seems plausible but I can't say more than that; I'm too inexperienced. But I would say that BRIE and discussions like this need to be integrated. Low profile editors get blocked for misbehaving, not for being wrong, so why would we exempt behavioral expectations if someone is usually right/constructive? As Loki said a logged warning seems useful here, at least—prolific editors are going to get less sympathy if they have a history of being warned, and their prolific-ness will offer insights into their behavioral standards, more so than an IP editor for instance, where it is harder to establish accountability. I don't really like the fondness on this board to avoid warnings and skip to blocks (and to utilize boomerangs). More to the point, I would never revert an admin's polite advice to me on my own talk page, with a dismissive edit summary. I would expect a sanction if I did this. (Also, I miscounted the references to BRIE, there were four, now there are five.) SmolBrane (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:TINC, and Happy Friday everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally astonishing that anyone would ever accuse you of axe-grinding. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm in with the in crowd. At least it certainly doesn't feel that way. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just checked with the committee secretary - you're not. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm kinda astounded that so many people think nothing untoward has happened here. ArbCom has passed "being right isn't enough" as a principle unanimously and recently. This is several bright-line violations of WP:NPA in the same thread, and the fact that they were towards an editor who was straightforwardly in the wrong in the underlying content dispute is totally irrelevant. I can't imagine any reasonable out here that doesn't involve at least a logged warning. Loki (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

BilledMammal disruptive editing

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

---

I'm reporting BilledMammal for disruptive editing at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, specifically for edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING. Note that this is an especially contentious topic.

As for the edit warring, CarmenEsparzaAmoux added content (with references/sources) and BilledMammal reverted it. I later on restored the content and BilledMammal reverted that. kashmīri then restored the content and BilledMammal reverted them as well.

This user seems to habitually engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. See for example the other discussion on the same page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Iran_'child_recruits'_and_whole_%22Use_of_children%22_section (similarly a highly contentious topic)

Quotations about BilledMammal's editing/debating there are as follows:

"You are effectively admitting that the section isn't adequately sourced and is simply an attempt to impose your own notion of 'fairness' or 'balance' to the war crime coverage." Pincrete 06:52, 4 January

"I have already made my objections clear and it is increasingly difficult to assume good-faith." Pincrete 15:20, 6 January

Additionally, an extremely recent example of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, where some quotes from other editors about BilledMammal's conduct include:

"I closed the previous RM, and not much has substantially changed from the past RM" Sceptre 21:26, 5 January 2024

"I have to agree with Turnagra on the idea that the RM process is being used – whether intentionally or not – as a front for culture war politics" idem

"And you have completely missed my point yet again, which I can only assume is intentional at this point." Turnagra 09:22, 31 December 2023

"I don't elaborate because I can't be bothered with you WP:BADGERING every point, per your actions here and in every other move request." Turnagra 05:03, 31 December 2023

BilledMammal also seems to apply double standards. In the "Use of children" discussion (regarding allegations against Hamas) BilledMammal admits "while it is disputed whether children have been used [...]" and says "My point is that we don't require allegations to be proven or universally accepted to be included", but regarding allegations against Israel in the "Organ harvesting" discussion, BilledMammal says "I've ed your recent restoration; the source you provided is insufficient to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you can't find high quality reliable source that give the story any credibility, please don't restore it without formal consensus."

I hope an admin can review these cases and ideally someone could review more of BilledMammal's recent edits, which are of an extraordinary volume, as this disruptive battleground editing seems to be habitual with this user.

I resent that I have to spend this much time "investigating" and reporting this user when I would rather be engaging in more productive editing. I also apologise for the lack of diffs and overall unprofessionalism of this report, but I don't think it is fair that I should have the burden to do so much work just to report a user. Note that it is very difficult to "prove"/demonstrate this type of disruptive editing which is usually never egregious in any particular instance, which I suspect is why this user hasn't been reported more often or more recently.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have time for a full reply, so I’ll just make a brief one now and expand on it later if necessary.

IOHANNVSVERVS alleges that I’ve been stonewalling, which requires that I am pushing a position which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree. The discussion in question has had participation from five editors; three for inclusion, two against - there isn’t even a rough consensus here, let alone a clear one.

As a relevant side note, IOHANNVSVERVS has jumped straight into this topic area; even now, despite the ECP requirement, they have less than 500 edits outside of it.

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. I keep half an eye on this page out of curiosity and would have seen this anyway, but regardless I appreciate being given a heads up when I've been mentioned. It also seems telling that you are concerned at there being such a wide range of people potentially taking issue with your conduct. Turnagra (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve long been concerned about BilledMammal's conduct (BATTLEGROUND is an apt description) and no, I didn’t get a notification. Schwede66 07:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have long had an issue with BilledMammal's approach to engaging with Wikipedia, and have considered opening something here about them myself. I haven't yet, simply because that sort of thing isn't what I'm on Wikipedia for, and that I'm perfectly happy to leave it be when my niche of interest (New Zealand-related topics) isn't in their crosshairs. But in nearly every discussion I have had with them, I have found the exact sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and frequent WP:BADGERING which IOHANNVSVERVS describes, as well as a frustrating tendency towards WP:SEALIONING and a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I'd also note that this is not the first time that BilledMammal has been brought to ANI for this behaviour - at the time, they stated that "it is clear that in general how [they] engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action [they] will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust [their] behaviour to address it". I think it is also clear that this attempt has failed, as the sort of things brought up in that first ANI discussion (disruptive editing, harassment, stonewalling and so on) are being raised again and are clearly still issues. Incidentally, one of them (accusing other editors with opposing positions of being canvassed) has already happened in their first message in response to the ANI.

I won't expand too much more for now - this and the previous ANI cover a lot of my concerns nicely, and as mentioned this sort of thing isn't my cup of tea or why I'm on Wikipedia - but I will say that I believe there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing across every topic area which BilledMammal wades into, and I hope that some action will finally be taken as a result of this. Turnagra (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me. I agree with the OP view and also find BilledMammal's editing pattern quite disruptive. Wars tend to be an emotive matter, and it's no surprise that editors sometimes find it hard to maintain NPOV in the face of immense human suffering or because of their national/religious/political affiliations. However, BilledMammal's editing goes quite far with one-sided editing and attempts to defend it, and I'd call such edits as mentioned a blatant violation of NPOV and collegial spirit.

At the same time, I'm not sure that BilledMammal's editing or attitude warrants an outright block (I haven't checked their earlier editing history, though). However, a TBAN might help other editors to maintain article quality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in any of the relevant disputes and I do think that BilledMammal's conduct War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, including WP:STONEWALLING regarding the organ harvesting paragraph. I don't read their arguments there as particularly policy-based and I also read the consensus of the discussion as basically against them, even before their most recent revert.

I'm less convinced regarding Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, which seems to be a pretty ordinary content dispute. (I'm also not uninvolved with that, though, since I !voted over there before commenting here.)

Since the main dispute here is on an Israel/Palestine page, you may want to go to WP:AE first. WP:ANI, at least in my opinion, is often less useful for conduct issues around controversial topics than WP:AE by their nature as controversial and WP:ANI's nature as a very public board. Loki (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is @IOHANNVSVERVS: attempt to sidestep their inability to gain WP:CONSENSUS eg: [4], [5] and use ANI [6] to bludgeon their views into articles.

This type of statement in a CTopics area is disruptive: [7].

ATM, I've really only been watching the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but think a boomerang on WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area might be worth considering for IOHANNVSVERVS.  // Timothy :: talk  09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing diffs provided to support the claim here. I'm not involved in the topic, though I've dealt with some issues with BilledMammal in the past unrelated to this (and also seen them be really insightful in battleground situations too). I feel like I'd even-handedly pick up repeats of tendentious editing from them pretty easily if I saw it again.

Instead, when I go to look through Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, I'm not seeing anything stand out. If anything, at least on it's face, BilledMammal would be correct in removing text, asking for better sourcing, etc. in terms of WP:ONUS policy. It's up to those wanting to include the content to get consensus for it, and BM's comments at least seem even-handed from what I can gather. If there's any topic to WP:RAISE source quality right now and be cautious, this seems like one. If there really are WP:POV issues from BilledMammal, then that should be clearly articulated, though I imagine WP:AE is the better venue for that. ANI just isn't suited for contentious topics or having to sort through content disputes at that level. To be clear though, I think that would backfire on IOHANNVSVERVS right now if they went to AE.

Instead, I'm seeing editors like IOHANNVSVERVS lashing out at BilledMammal on the talk page in violation of WP:FOC with accusations of stonewalling, etc. despite BM trying to give some guidance on that there. This is a common problem in contentious topics where someone doesn't get traction for an edit and accuses another of stonewall, etc. as an attempt to win a content dispute. Coming here instead strikes me as battleground behavior when they simply could have started an RfC to strike at the core question of what would be WP:DUE inclusion of the reporting. Even if BM's behavior is an underlying issue here (not seeing it, but could be convinced with evidence too), IOHANNVSVERVS, seems to be showing more obvious problems right now. I wouldn't cast a full on support WP:!VOTE right now, but I agree with TimothyBlue above that a boomerang does seem like a reasonable discussion point for preventing disruption in the topic. KoA (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like a content dispute. If there's edit war issue take to the noticeboard. Frankly IOHANNVSVERVS's behavior here is more troubling. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this should be closed, and the matter taken to WP:AE. That is, if we want a constructive end to this dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved in the discussion at Talk:Pākehā_settlers not the other articles, that I have not seen. I am quite surprised to see BilledMammal reported for disruptive editing. He has an opinion on issues and makes his point quite clear. I have never seen what I would call disruption. What I have seen however is a few editors unable to counter his arguments and getting frustrated. In the Pakeha discussion a consensus is beginning to appear to change the word from Pakeha back to European, as BilledMammal suggests with a few editors not liking that. What is wrong with that? I note that similar discussions with the same editors have occurred on other NZ related articles about similar issues (in brief - promotion of the Maori language). I think this complaint is without merit regarding the Pakeha article, and probably the other articles too. Accusing someone of being disruptive because you don't agree with them is bad form. Incidentally, I was recently been accused of badgering Turnagra in the Pakeha discussion for giving an opinion which he did not like (and in IMO was unable to counter) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's got nothing to do with the content, which I'm not going to get into here. It's got to do with the manner in which BilledMammal conducts themselves in these discussions. I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth. Turnagra (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Who was wanting it to say Pakeha?

  and who wanted it to say European?

  I'm having trouble following the story.

  22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For some reason, my computer decided to change "reverted" to "ed", this is the second time its happened, I will try and figure out why and look for it in the future. I've had some other issues, might be time to reinstall everything. Sorry for the issue.  // Timothy :: talk  05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• In disagreements between BilledMammal and Turnagra I have watched both parties disagree at length. They (and I) have disagreed for maybe three years now(?), mostly on whether New Zealand place names should use an official dual-language name, or only the English portion of it. I think both users have valid points, though I typically side with BM. If there is problematic behaviour, it certainly involves both of them. In fact, as an ideological battleground, I would be inclined to say Turnagra is more at fault.
  With that background, it seems poor judgement for either of them to close the other’s RMs (T closing BM, April 2022; BM closing T), March 2023. And in recent months, BilledMammal has opened RMs on several NZ places, and Turnagra has responded with some less-than-professional opposition (Oppose this ridiculous crusade against dual names has gone on long enough Hinemoatū / Howard River; Oppose this is ridiculous Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora). Both editors left notes to tell the other off (User talk:BilledMammal#Your recent move requests and User talk:Turnagra#November 2023), and I almost went to say something to both of them, but felt I would have come off too involved for it to be helpful.
  In all though, I wouldn’t say that either editor is a “problem” in the larger context I’ve observed… but I also haven’t observed the Israel–Hamas stuff. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• In places where I've seen BilledMammal recently, I have to admit that they appear to be somewhat stubborn, sometimes to the point where they're brushing against WP:BATTLEGROUND. That said, I don't think their behaviour has progressed to the point where it can't be turned around. I think a friendly warning and a kind request for a cooler head when editing is basically all we can, and should, give out here. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban might be appropriate. Today they have (so far) removed about 20% of the page List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war without obtaining consensus. The only discussion on the talk page for the past two weeks has been me, disagreeing with them as politely as I can manage (but by I admit not always succeeding at remaining polite), and an anonymous IP agreeing with BilledMammal about one change that BilledMammal made before today. Irtapil (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much all I've removed is empty and near-empty columns; the amount of information in the article is virtually unchanged, but its readability is vastly improved. This isn't the place to discuss content, but on the talk page I've asked you to elaborate on what specific objections you have; I would welcome a response and I can try to understand and address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You should have considered helping fill the missing data instead of removing things.

  I am finding it extremely frustrating that you continually remove content without contributing.

  • I have been working on creating columns that best fit the data for a complicated and messy war.
  • Today you ignored the {{in use}} and deleted things while I was in the process of working on them.
  • You also deleted at least one column that was filled, with only two gaps.
  • Nobody agreed with you that any of the columns needed to be deleted. I disagreed with you; nobody else was consulted.

  Irtapil (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are very prolifically editing a topic that you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about.

  • you were wanting to remove "belligerents" columns from a table of military engagements.
  • you claimed "the Arabic Wiki has some issues with neutrality" despite, as far as i can tell, no knowledge of Arabic?

  Irtapil (talk) Irtapil (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The IP who agreed with the one prior change looks like a real person, not a sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.150.162.83 But BilledMammal obtained no consensus before any of the major overhaul today. They seem to have made a lot of changes to that page that, particularly deleting content, that zero people (or only one other user) agreed with. But again I'm reluctant to accuse too harshly because I've not looked at in systematically, and my perception could be biased by their hostility. Irtapil (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• BilledMammal ia also currently accusing me of a series of alleged violations of the WP:1RR on my talk page, for edits which are mostly not actually reverts, and which they seem to have no substantive objection to in most cases. I am unsure what their intention is, but it feels like harassment. Irtapil (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest this be closed as it's not going to go anywhere. I've argued against a few of BilledMammal's requested moves and don't see that anything they've done is worthy of censure. The closest to disruptive I've seen is (albeit polite) badgering of move closers when things haven't gone their way; [8] [9] and I notice that the more recent closes haven't attracted this attention therefore anything problematic has already stopped. I haven't followed the Gaza situation on WP and consequently have no comment to make on that other than to suggest the entire topic and all its related pages should be locked indefinitely with administrators only having edit access. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus - I think the issue warrants further investigation. BilledMammal is very active in the Israel Hamas war topic (an active real world conflict). This one editor seems to be having a disproportionate impact on the overall coverage of this topic on Wikipedia, despite being possibly not very knowledgeable and / or possibly quite personally biased, and visibly hostile to several other editors. Again, I've not looked systematically, but I am quite worried by the general impression I've got so far. Irtapil (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I avoid formulating a general opinion because it would require further investigation on my part, and I expect tons of partisanship and battleground behaviour on both sides in Israel–Hamas war-related articles and talk pages. I have just looked at BilledMammal's claims of 1RR violations against Irtapil mentioned above, and they seem very "weak" to say the least. Claiming that this edit is a revert of this 2-weeks-older edit looks rather spurious, same with the other claimed violations. Cavarrone 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  === Hostages and prisoners timeline === (Irtapil) → === Hostages timeline === (BilledMammal) → === prisoner exchanges timeline === (Irtapil)

  That one actually seems like one of the clearer examples of a revert to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that stretches the definition of a revert, and that's still only one, so doesn't break the 1RR.

  • But I have changed it back as you requested, I changed it back as soon as I understood what you wanted me to self revert.
  • I also re-added the word "hostages" to the cells in the column labelled "hostages", as you requested.
  • I also reintegrated your entire revised table under "Hostages timeline" into the current version, the version where I'm salvaging the deleted content, pending genuine consensus on what should be removed. I am still working on this, do not delete anything further while I am working on this, that would be a violation of 1RR.
  • Most editors would not have spent the time re-adding your additions you made during your deletion spree? they would have just done a roll back?

  If you want to make such major revisions (changing every section of a page, removing multiple columns of multiple tables, etc.), please do that in your user space, you can create a proposed alternative version and link it on the talk page to discuss. Or your can discuss the changes before you make them.

  Irtapil (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  and then after getting angry at me for changing "=== Hostages timeline ===" you said a section called "=== Hostages timeline ===" wasn't relevant to the page that you insisted it be included in. I don't know what you're goal is here? what are you trying to achieve? Irtapil (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also raised that particular edit on the talk page the day after it was made, and got no response. Admittedly I was a bit abrupt in my phrasing, but it was a strange edit that seemed to need some explanation. After 2 weeks of no response, I had only re-added one matching word. Irtapil (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the chorus that I've had many unpleasant interactions with Billed Mammal. Some are healthy debates you'd expect from dedicated people who have different visions of how to solve a problem. However, I do think BM has crossed the line on a few occasions, and their conduct does merit sanction. Probably the most egregious I witnessed was at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources a year ago. I submitted proposal 1 of that RFC, which proposed to modify the language of WP:NOR. BM, who was one of the loudest voices of opposition to that question, authored a watered down version, which became proposal 1a. That's fine. Prop 1 passed, prop 1a did not. However, as visible by examining the page history for WP:NOR, BM unilaterally imposed the language of failed prop 1a, by removing the very words that differed between the two proposals. If someone can unilaterally undo the outcome of an RFC and impose their proposal, what is even the point of having an RFC? That fact that BM did not face sanctions over that amazes me, as it goes to the heart of Wikipedia’s supposed community spirit and the policy of governing by consensus. Lastly, I’ll point out that despite BM’s dire predictions, the sky has not fallen in the months that have passed since prop1 modified the language at WP:NOR. Dave (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The change to NOR (which was not the same as Prop 1a) was done after extensive discussions on the talk page and with the endorsement of the closer, who said that it was in line with the community consensus. It certainly wasn't unilateral. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moabdave: You should strike this comment. You know exactly why I think you should do so, so I will not elaborate. However, you are very much welcome to explain to the rest of the community why I do not believe you have any moral standing to discuss BilledMammal or that RFC publicly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. Looked at the links and couldn't see any egregious behavioural problems. Obviously this is a fraught area and content disputes can shade into processology where there's a temptation to try and remove 'opponents' out the back door. I suggest this is closed and any future complaint about BilledMammal is raised at AE, with any clear-cut evidence concisely presented. Filers there should of course expect to have their own conduct under the spotlight too. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Kitten. Hi everyone. Shalom Aleichem. Salam Aleikum. I have a rule. I see walls of text anywhere and I flee. I’m breaking that rule a bit here. Not to support anyone - we seem to be discussing people’s reactions to hypothetical fairy tales about child soldiers and organ harvesting, when there are other real stories to be told, but to each his own. I’ll flee in a minute but since you’re all here I just wondered if anyone could use this article anywhere [10] it’s about a kitten, although perhaps not in the way you think. I think a good fair use argument for the wide angle picture of the kitten with Banksy’s caption could be made for an appropriate article. I don’t always agree with Banksy’s philosophies but he is without a doubt one of the most powerful artists in the world today, despite (because of?) his conciseness and the sometimes fleeting nature of his artwork. Now that I think of it, maybe there is something we, and especially I, could learn from that. Happy editing <he says fleeing...> Ayenaee (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Fmovies and COPYLINKS

Over at FMovies, QuantumZazzy and I have been having a bit of an edit war over whether the site should be linked. I know, I know, ANI isn't for content disputes. But I think this one is a little different because the link would seem to be a blatant violation of our policy on contributory copyright infringement, WP:COPYLINKS. QuantumZazzy has vowed via edit summary to edit war about this. So I am here to ask: is this a violation of COPYLINKS? If I am off base and QuantumZazzy is acting within policy, I'll back off. MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist the site, solves the problem. Then they simply can't add it back in. Seems like the site should be blacklisted anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And they've continued their edit warring after the warnings, as a result I've blocked them for 24 hours. I still think it should be blacklisted and then this problem won't happen again. Canterbury Tail talk 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that all but six of their edits are about this site, it merits a COI/UPE discussion. Star Mississippi 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Blacklisted. Please keep an eye, this typically runs into blacklist/block evasion. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Beetstra, Canterbury Tail, and MrOllie: I'm a bit concerned by your decisions here; in general the consensus is to include links to piracy sites on their articles. COPYLINKS says as much: In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a case where 'there are possibly copyright violations somewhere on the site', the whole site is copyright violations. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

COPYLINKS says we can include links to websites on our pages about those websites; there's no level of infringement where that suddenly becomes disallowed. The point is to prevent linking to copyright violations of works, not to prevent linking to piracy websites in our articles about those websites (a clearly relevant and acceptable link; we don't censor those). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(will continue engaging with you at Talk:FMovies#The purpose of keeping the link. to avoid splitting the discussion) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think the exception means exactly what it says, which is not nearly so broad as your interpretation. MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether it's included or not I don't really care, I was just stopping some disruptive continuous edit warring with no consensus to include it at that point. If we shouldn't include it, it should be blacklisted. Canterbury Tail talk 02:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Think the ideal here would be to whitelist a URL on the site to link to in the article (probably https://fmoviesz.to/home) and keep the site overall blacklisted. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, in response to Canterbury Tail, I absolutely understand the suspicion with how FMovies is really my only Wikipedia contribution, but the reality for that is because I don't really know much else to contribute, but I do find those websites interesting so I thought why not provide some knowledge for the first time if I can. That's when I decided to write about current affairs with FMovies as well as include the official URL. I also contributed information about the recent major change to the official URL. Now I for one don't care really that much, I just feel it's appropriate to provide the correct information, or if we can't do that then just take down the article entirely. And I have to correct Elli because linking to "𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗳𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘇.𝘁𝗼/𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲" does show copyrighted imagery & other content. It's just "𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗳𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀𝘇.𝘁𝗼" that is the landing page which shows nothing inappropriate or of any concern. QuantumZazzy (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also sadly it seems even the web archive link to show how the website had changed it's URL was also removed. Which is a shame because it's a blank page showing only an error message. Seeing as if we can't link directly to the fmovies.to website to prove that, the Wayback Machine web archive would have been the next best thing... QuantumZazzy (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with linking to the root is that by whitelisting that, you whitelist the entire site. Whereas by linking to a page like /home, you can only whitelist that page while continuing to block the rest of the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse behaviour User:73.27.57.206

This editor is being a bit abusive at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzalo Lira (5th nomination) Afd, failing WP:AGF scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have reverted the personal attack but it's been replied to. Anyway, we don't block people for calling somebody a dick once. If we did, a whole bunch of editors, including me, would be indeffed. I think it might be a good idea for you (and anyone else with strong opinions on Gonzalo Lira, which appears to be quite a few) to stay away from the AfD and let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I do note, however that Thegreatmuffinman's first edit was at the AfD, to say "I was in the other discussion." I smell sock puppetry somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Blablubbs (or any other checkuser who's around at the moment), I don't suppose you could spare a minute to check some of the "newer" editors on that AfD and see if there are any matches? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

CU has nothing useful to offer, sorry. If I had to guess, I'd say we're probably looking at off-wiki canvassing. I note w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Gonzalo Lira, which contains additional... oddities and is probably the "other discussion" being referred to. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A brief search (link to twitter mirror) suggests that the topic does have at least some traction on twitter/X, and also in some other places that I'm not going to link here. That doesn't mean that there can't also be socking by individual people who have been canvassed of course, but in my experience it's best in cases like these that closers just weight votes accordingly instead of trying to untangle precise connections. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Twixxer? Xitter? jp×g🗯️ 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

AdityaSty90

AdityaSty90 (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs; they have returned from the block to simply repeat the editing. A longer block is merited? GiantSnowman 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

These insults are the response to their first block, by the way...and they are still adding unsourced info to BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with GiantSnowman. Block them for longer (indefinite would make sense from my POV) as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and maybe revert/revdel their insult on the talk page. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In my defense... Oh, wait, sorry. Force of habit. Never mind. EEng 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you like some trout? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

They say trout is a dish best served cold. Or is that revenggggge? EEng 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption at Biblical inspiration

For the past couple of years an IP and account hopping editor (most recent account: MunsterCheese (talk · contribs)) has been warring to add a bunch of absurd OR to this article. They never respond to warnings or requests to explain their edits at the talk page. I don't think semi-protection will stop it, but ECP seems excessive for what has been a fairly low rate of disruption, so I'm not sure what the best way forward is. Any advice is appreciated. Squeakachu (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edits to Biblical inspiration by MunsterCheese. Do you have any diffs of the IP editors? PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a year. Semi-protection should stop these new accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. I think this is all of them. Squeakachu (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are perfectly well-sourced and accurate. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. Maybe after a year of semi-protection they will give up. PhilKnight (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that will do it. Thank you for the help. Squeakachu (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked MunsterCheese and whole bunch of other named accounts as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

SOAPBOXing, unsourced contributions

TheRebelliousFew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bandera, Ukraine Nazis, Western media lies and choose-what-you-like russian propaganda Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117183800-Melaneas-20231123232000 , Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117201300-Czello-20231024075600 , Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117183200-49.181.47.40-20231204190400 , User talk:Czello#c-TheRebelliousFew-20240117224400-Recent_revised_edit .

Other issues like unsourced contributions - see user talk page and contributions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Having seen this user argue with @Czello: on Czello's talk page, it would appear that this user's understanding of the rules of reliable sourcing and neutral viewpoints are completely out of order. On that talk page he claimed that established RS' like CNN were "biased", "fabricated events" and so on. We definitely have a violator of WP:NPOV here and I am not convinced TheRebeliousFew is here to add to the encyclopedia anything other than speculative propaganda without any reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia doesn't present opinions without sources and yet he wants his opinions published? We have a rule for that and it prohibits it. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The user was notified on 26 December that they were not permitted to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, but they proceeded to make one such edit on 17 January that was quickly reverted. In light of WP:GS/RUSUKR, I have placed the relevant page under WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You guys really love censoring information, don’t you? If you need a CNN article to tell you that CNN is biased, then how the hell can any of y’all say that you guys use “reliable sources”? Do you guys not hear the BS that comes out of y’all’s mouth? You used extremely biased sources, yet have the audacity to censor others who say otherwise? No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This user added the following text to the above article:

Ukraine has seen a far wider impact globally in misinformation and propaganda, especially in Western countries that promote their media or reporting, by either parroting the Ukrainian government, state media, or by creating news articles and stories sympathetic to Ukraine, which has led to a significant bias in reporting.

All unsourced, emphasis my own. After I reverted they then protested on my talk page that their edit was completely neutral.

I have to admire the audacity, really. — Czello ^(music) 09:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to admire YOUR audacity to censor something that is entirely factual and is something you can easily see with your own two eyes. You don’t need a CNN article to tell you this, and if you do, you’re simply blind as hell. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Asking for a source to back up what you're saying is very reasonable, and removing content that doesn't have a source is not "censorship".

Based on this comment and this user's edits and comments elsewhere, I can only conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello ^(music) 15:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, well, I guess you’ll have to deal with me for a while before somebody decides to do something. Not many people trust Wikipedia anymore, and for good reason. And it’s not just about having sources, I’ve seen people add sources that were, unfortunately, revised, and they were either right leaning or centered sources, but because it doesn’t fit your Leftist narrative, they were removed. Y’all have a much, much bigger problem than what you think, and it’s leading to the downfall of this site as a whole. Hell, it’s bad to the point Google says Wikipedia isn’t reliable. But, if y’all wanna stay on this burning ship, okay. I shall wait ‘till some Administrator takes action. TheRebelliousFew (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Right, I didn't want to keep you waiting, indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Um, Bbb, I would also recommend revoking the talk page access since when this user got blocked, they continue to show incivility and lash out at us, by calling mainly everyone a "Leftist" idiot. (I know I'm not an admin, but I'm a little nervous this user will continue poking out at us.) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Access got revoked, they also admitted to this being their third account. So, block evasion/sockpuppetry, on top of all the rest. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering, would that warrant a CU to check if there are more sleeper accounts? Don't necessarily think it's needed but asking just to be sure. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

CU would need a target to check against, they don't go fishing just to see who matches the account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies have been leading to the downfall of this site as a whole for decades now, apparently. Sure is one hell of a slow downfall. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If I had a dollar... --ARoseWolf 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean "If I had a dime", @ARoseWolf:. I think that would be enough! Addicted4517 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated edits with no references

User:Aniintrolligent continues to make edits without references despite multiple warnings and answering "ok" to level3 warning.

Also edit war on Reshmi Soman. BlueWren0123 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for continuing the same pattern of disruptive editing since the filing of this report. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks, screaming by IP

69.159.70.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – This IP has displayed incivil and accusatory conduct in all interactions with other editors on their talk page. Main examples include: Claiming the vast majority of all Wikipedia users know nothing/are stupid, Arguing and screaming at editors when told clearly why they were reverted/what they broke, Accusing a user of "stealing" that username from someone better known, Accusing me of "Not doing my research on the person" when I reverted their unsourced change that contradicted the existing source.

Specific incidences with me are as follows: IP got all bent out of shape when I reverted a syntax breaking error when they delinked Donald A. Stroh on Manton S. Eddy's article. They claim to be an expert at editing with images and their syntax on Wikipedia, but has never heard of WP:EIS, nor edited prior to this week from this IP. They also changed the birth place from London to British Hong Kong on Wendy Barrie, despite London being sourced by The Chicago Times and other sources of her era. They then screamed at me for the revert and claimed they knew her personally, here, which is a WP:COI, and accused me of "Not doing my research on the person" (see previous paragraph)

Now, Full disclosure, The Chicago Tribune source did not load for me, but the original birthplace of London was supported by another newspaper of the time, The Canberra Times, which I added to support to the original article version's London claim. IP provided no proof of their claim for British Hong Kong, and all claims of British Hong Kong that I've been able to find are all of the IMDB caliber, which is not a Reliable Source.

Since our first interaction, I've kept the talk page in my watchlist and have seen them continued their screaming on Jan 15th at @Macaddct1984:'s revert of an unsourced change, and accused them of stealing the username from someone else (this edit since reverted by @Untamed1910:), and has continues to argue on their talk page when reverted, and has continued to pointlessly delink every red link on articles when there's only one or two, nowhere near MOS:OVERLINK criteria for delinking red link. They claimed to have made thousands of edits, and claim never to have been reverted or questioned on any of their past thousands of edits, but their edits still appear to be beginner level, and assuming they've looked at the IP's talk pages of any other IPs they've used, there's no chance in hell they've gone thousands of edits without someone commenting somewhere.

While they have done some other "ok" C/E type edits in the past 24hr, their continued incivility far outweights any average-at-best edits. Other users with interactions on this IP pinged, and welcomed to share their thoughts. IP will be notified in a moment. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

IP notified per stated rules. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The IP's response on their talk page is unpromising. I agree that the copyediting is fine, but this is a collaborative project their conduct toward other users is unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yorowaggins — gaming of 500/30 requirement

In order to edit ARBPIA articles, user Yorowaggins made 500 trivial edits almost entirely consisting of adding and subtracting spaces (and the occasional parenthesis). See Special:Contributions/Yorowaggins. Requesting removal of EC status. Zero^talk 11:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by UnTixic (and possibly abusing multiple accounts)

UnTixic (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing as shown on talk page. Most notably (but not limited to) nominating articles for WP:PROD without a valid reason. Most commonly is stating article has no source when it clearly does. Here is an example just done today.

In addition I believe this user is abusing multiple accounts such as Wyndhan Han (talk · contribs) and PakisOne (talk · contribs). I previously reported it here but WP:CheckUser is inconclusive due to proxy usage. Makes it more suspicious. To summarise

• All 3 accounts were created only in 2023 with not many edits. Front page is also following the one line of text format
• All 3 have posting activities where they would made many edits on one day and nothing for a significant period
• Editing style is similar where they would make a set of supposedly legitimate edits (some certainly are not) and then abuse WP:PROD nomination

Given lack of response in talk pages, I don't see a reason user is going to change behavior for the better.

@The Banner: I am tagging you since you seem to have dealt with this user a bit. Looking for your input on this.

Examples

12 34 5 6 7 8 9

Edit: One more thing to consider is @Liz: has commented on Wyndhan Han's talk page that user has participated in WP:AFD despite only editing for 5 days. So what we are possibly looking at is some user engaging in WP:Sockpuppet for not just these 3 accounts but others that we have not identified yet. But again use of proxy makes this hard to confirm for sure.

- Imcdc Contact 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the idea that (s)he does not check the links it adds. Resulting in nonsense links. See for example here (a music style confused with a village), here (rescue mission confused with a program against sex offenders) and here (British peer confused with peer-to-peer) and here (a suburb of Milan, Italy, confused with an India tribe). I have severe doubt about the competence from this account. And this looks like plain vandalism. The Banner talk 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The bizarre Milan-related link to Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians is especially weird when the correct link, Barona (district of Milan), is so easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This tickled a memory of a few accounts I saw in 2022, like <this one>. They would mass edit for stretches of time, all visual edits, and just add content to multiple pages - we eventually figured it was machine translated edits (or just sources) taken from other language versions of pages.

These* edits* by UnTixic: <diffs>* are translating content from the German version of that page, some lines are exact matches to Google Translate output.

These edits by PakisOne: <diffs> are translating content from the Swedish version of the page, the citation is also taken from there.

This edit by Wyndhan Han: <diff> is a translated edit from the Swedish version of the page, translation is an 100% match to Google Translate output. The citations however are not from the Swedish version.

I'm not claiming it's the same person, and I haven't looked deeply into most edits, a lot of the behaviour mentioned so far was not something I noticed in those 2022 accounts, but it just reminded me, so I'm mentioning it. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:B8CB:B95D:1E39:A7B1 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC) (*edited 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC))

Edit ban 14.0.128.0/17 request

14.0.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Very active with LTA, long time continue disruptive report in user talk space and WP space long time ago, cross-wiki abuse and continued after last edit ban, admin blocked 14.0.128.0/18 only seven days is very not enough.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Soft-blocked for six months. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Constantly deleted content without discussion

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

---

Greater Palestine article is being attacked by some contributors to the encyclopedia whose political orientation is known. They do not attempt to develop the article at all and claim that its content is original research and that there is no such thing as Jordan being part of Palestine. They also do not resort to the discussion page about their concerns. I provided them with references and opinion articles, but they immediately opposed it on the grounds that it was conservative or pro-Israel. Examples [20], [21], [22]]--Sakiv (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that Sakiv has not notified any of the involved editors and I found this by watchlist. Unfortunately, Sakiv has a serious case of WP:OWN with respect to Greater Palestine and doesn't understand how to edit properly or collaboratively. In the first two cases, sources which did not support the text Sakiv attached them to were removed with an explanation that Sakiv did not attempt to refute. The third case is 5 months old. All the while he makes personal attacks: "You are clearly anti-Israel" is just the latest. Suggest article-wise block. Zero^talk 12:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning of this, you are making personal attacks on me. I just don't like it applies here. You are personalizing the issue and making it seem like a personal dispute between us. I did not notify you because it is not a dispute between us, but rather a dispute over content that is removed under the pretext that it does not fall within your ideology and thought. Israeli sources are fine to use in the Palestinian context. They also removed a source from Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the UK conservative party about this subject. Plus [23], [24]. Sakiv (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In any dispute at ANI, you are still required to notify the editors you are talking about. And, if it was only a "content dispute" as you claim, it shouldn't have been at ANI to begin with. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The article was nominated for deletion and the nom initially agreed to rename it. Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether you should notify editors involved or not. (Answer: you always should). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, what do you want now? Sakiv (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For you to notify (on their talk pages) the editors you mentioned in your ANI report, as you're supposed to do. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you care about your business instead? Sakiv (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv, are you going to notify the other editors you mentioned, now that you know that it is required by the prominent notice at the top of this page? Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the statements of the PLO top leaders like Ahmed Al-Shugairi, Salah Khalaf, and even the king in Jordan, and political parties such as the British Conservative Party, and research centers such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, but despite all that, they describe this concept or this term as a “Zionist” innovation. I can add more refs but it will take very much space. In August, it was agreed that the topic of the article was legitimate, but the problem lay in the naming.--Sakiv (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv, you are describing a content dispute and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. What, precisely, are you asking administrators to do here? Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the only thing for admins to do here is to consider whether Sakiv is the sort of editor who should be editing an area with as many problems as the Israeli-Arab conflict. Since it seems to me a topic ban is well in order under contentious topic restrictions. I have no idea what their behaviour in general is like, but their behaviour here at ANI in persistently refusing to give the required notification even after being asked to do so by two different editors, is atrocious. Indeed it wasn't even just ignoring requests to do so, they even told off an editor who asked them to do so as can seen above [25]. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of someone who can contribute productively to such a sensitive area.

In any case, notifications are probably moot now. While it sounds to me like Sakiv is referring to other editors, unless I've missed something they've only explicitly mentioned stuff done by Zero0000 and Onceinawhile. Zero0000 became aware independently so notification isn't necessary and I notified Onceinawhile myself. [26] (This is the main reason I'm commenting despite being on wikibreak, I'm avoiding ANI but when I happened to see this, I couldn't stand the persistent refusal to notify.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I see that a AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Palestine was recently closed as merge. I don't know what August discussion Sakiv refers to since there doesn't seem to be a previous AfD but it's likely the results of the most recent AfD override any previous consensus. If there's disagreement on that, the results of the AfD should be challenged properly and ANI isn't the venue for that. The question of what content belongs in the merge target should be discussed in the target talk page as the template says. So in so much as there is consensus it seems to be that topic is not worth of a stand alone article. This doesn't mean the concept is illegitimate/an invention/whatever, but it does suggest consensus is sort of against Sakiv. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv still hasn't notified the editor who made the third diff he/she brought. Zero^talk 10:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile did not remove any content recently! What do you want exactly? Sakiv (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a fit of pique along with the gratuitous "Did you read history?". Editor should cool off for a bit.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Examples of your good faith. "Nonsense", that is rubbish, I think you are just wasting editorial time with nonsense. Sakiv (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban per ARBIA. Cannot editor collaboratively in this area. Star Mississippi 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was not sure that this was the appropriate place, so I did not alert the users. If I alerted the users, this would be a content dispute, but it is not the case because the article was being attacked and content removed under false pretexts. Sakiv (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. My main concern with the editor opening this thread is that they have shown a lack of understanding the quality of sourcing required to build articles in sensitive topic areas, as shown frequently in the discussions at the article talk page.

As an aside, I do not understand what the editor means when they said in their opening comment "They also do not resort to the discussion page about their concerns" as the discussion throughout on the same talk page is very clear. Some examples of the comments from the editor at the same talk page - note that these comments are variously directed at four different editors:

• Who do you think you are? You are not in a position that allows you to evaluate the sources because you are part of the conflict.--Sakiv (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2019
• You have only one goal here which is to whitewash the Jordanian government and create a Jordanian identity. I know exactly why I am here and what is my duties. Again you cannot evaluate the sources I brought because you are part of the conflict. There must be an administrator to decide if they are acceptable! It was you who began attacking.--Sakiv (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2019
• Everything is becoming clear. You are trying to whitewash the Jordanian regime while criticizing Israel Sakiv (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2024
• You are clearly anti-Israel, and every person who says that Jordan is part of Palestine is considered part of the Likud Party in your view. Sakiv (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2024

Apart from the consistent unwillingness to assume good faith, the sentence "I know exactly why I am here and what is my duties." would benefit from an explanation. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

These sources are not acceptable in your opinion?

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/18/archives/jordan-breaks-off-tie-with-tunisia-bourguiba-blamed.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1946/08/10/archives/letters-to-the-times-dividing-greater-palestine-separation-of.html

https://www.palestine-studies.org/ar/node/35431

https://www.haaretz.com/2003-06-03/ty-article/people-and-politics-illegal-today-legal-tomorrow/0000017f-df1b-df9c-a17f-ff1b18e50000

https://books.google.no/books?id=TU6sCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=palestinian+irredentism+%22jordan%22&source=bl&ots=YBF1OCBbj1&sig=ACfU3U1oQKm-1-4qGKsYt4qXyZd7mE7SLw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisspXP8ueDAxVOPhAIHXa5CCE4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=palestinian%20irredentism%20%22jordan%22&f=false

In addition you falsely accused me of insulting Bedouins in Jordan which is assuming bad faith at best, [27]. While my comment did not utter a single negative word about them. In August/September, there was a general agreement to change the title, and you were among those who agreed. And now recently the article has been nominated for deletion. Sakiv (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sakiv's responses here are indicative of what working with Sakiv has been like. For example, Sakiv attached the second source just listed to the lead sentence about "Palestinian irredentism" but actually it is a 1946 letter from an American Zionist complaining about the imminent independence of Jordan (thereby removing it from the benefits of Jewish development) and says nothing at all about Palestinian opinion let alone irredentism. But Sakiv seems to not understand that sources have to support the text they are attached to, not just to contain some desired buzzwords. The fourth source is completely irrelevant to the page topic. All of this has been explained on the talk page, but Sakiv seems impervious to argument. A clear case of CIR in my opinion. Zero^talk 03:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have topic banned Sakiv from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is utterly laughable. I am the one who files the complaint and then I am the one who is punished.... Clearly something going on behind the scenes. Sakiv (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what's going on (and then going back) is called a boomerang. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 07:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

195.26.51.42

Vandalisms [28][29]. СлаваУкраїні 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, it's POV pushing (Donetsk is recognised as being in Ukraine but controlled by Russian forces). And one of the edits is 9 months old. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@PoisonHK You have failed to notify 195.26.51.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Please note that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and even though the first diff is not obviously vandalism, it may instead be POV pushing as Ritchie333 suggested. The second diff is from all the way back in May 2023, and is most certainly stale; including it in this report is not likely to help you get disciplinary action against the IP. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300 Sorry about that, this is my first time submitting an incident report. I've been noted about the definitions of misbehaviours. Thanks for the assistance. СлаваУкраїні 13:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@PoisonHK: Note, also, the requirements of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:CONTRAST, neither of which your current signature may meet. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:I'm tla and non-admin closures at AfD

• I'm tla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User I'm tla has recently taken an interest in AfD, participating in a rather astonishing 183 AfDs in a five-day period, including making non-admin closures. They have received several messages on their talk page and elsewhere criticizing their overly enthusiastic participation and the quality of their AfD closures and votes:

• January 14th: You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kiszka (2nd nomination) today. Please reverse your closure. You have too little experience to be closing AfDs. You even failed to mark it as a non-admin closure. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 15th: Hi. Typical of many new editors, you have a surplus of enthusiasm. Many people really catch on fire with editing and want to get involved in projects a little earlier than our community expects. We have learned in the past twenty years that over-eager new editors can accidentally cause problems because they haven't developed a long track record of level-headed editing... Chris Troutman (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 15th, response to a declined AfC permission request: Not done, again, because you do not meet the requirements. You did not meet the numerical requirements yesterday, and smashing through 500 article-space gnoming edits (so many of which are wrong or unnecessary I stopped looking) does not demonstrate that you understand the notability guidelines. Nor does voting in 161(!!) AFDs in 24 hours. At this point in time I simply don't trust that you have good intentions. Do not come back for a while. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• January 17th: Hello! Thank you for your contributions in nominating articles for deletion. I agree that many articles you nominated have only very poor sources and they can not demostrate notability. But I feel you may not have conducted a thorough WP:BEFORE search for additional sources as I saw that you nominated a series of articles in a very short interval... 94rain Talk 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

On January 17th I'm tla responded to another user's concern about their application for NPP permissions, stating that I would argue that, yes, while I did close several AfDs too early and tagging Draft articles, I don't think that's exactly related to the components of New Page Patrol (which seems to look at notability guidelines predominantly). I declined their NPP request today, and while looking at their contributions, I noticed that despite previously acknowledging that they have closed AfDs too early, they are continuing to make numerous premature closures, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alas_Pati:_Hutan_Mati, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malmö school stabbing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Mathilde of Schönburg-Waldenburg closed after 5 days, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Alice_of_Bourbon-Parma_(born_1849) closed after 6 days... at this point, it doesn't look like the advice they have received from numerous other editors and admins is sinking in, and I'm bringing this to ANI to see if there is a consensus to overturn their closures and/or restrict their participation in AfD. Spicy (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Installing WP:REDWARN after less than 30 edits and three days in? Reminds me of someone; that's gonna bug me. ——Serial 18:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems perfectly normal to me. They might have discovered it from page history or others' contribs. Based on their response below, I believe they had good intentions. 94rain ^Talk 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Many people advertise it in userboxes on their profiles. I certainly knew it existed very early. I didn't add early myself it because I had no particular interest in vandal-smashing, but many new editors are interested in that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello I will respond to a few of these.

1. Marking (non-admin closure) – I wasn't quite aware this existed, so I missed using it for the first few closures I made. After being told to use it I began using it.

2. Closing prematurely – I received a message from Liz who mentioned making sure there was strong consensus before closing prematurely. I understand that normally it should be 7 days but I didn't know it was so strongly enforced when there appeared to be good consensus, so I apologize.

3. I nominated a number of film festival-related articles for deletion in a row because a fast Google search brought up nothing that I believe allowed them to meet WP:BASIC. They were all in the same category of Film festivals in London.

Overall, I'm sorry for being enthusiastic my first few days back on Wikipedia. I will not close any more AfDs prematurely from now on. TLA (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@I'm tla are you not using the XFD closer gadget? Preferences-->Gadgets--->Maintenance. It does this automatically. Also, it makes it very difficult to close AfDs early without realizing it (it will stop you and ask for confirmation, as well as colour-coding the links). -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good advice but I also think the "don't close AfDs unless you're an admin" is even better advice. SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is information, not advice. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If there's consensus that I shouldn't close AfDs at all, I'm OK with that. I don't really mind if I'm not allowed to close AfDs, I just wanted to reduce the clear consensus discussions but it seems I've caused more trouble TLA (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi asilvering, yeah, several days ago I didn't have XFD closer, but now I have it. Thanks. TLA (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Good to hear. I see that you've been going through unreferenced article categories to find articles that need attention, which has led to nominating many articles for deletion. May I suggest trying something like CAT:AAWUS instead, and mostly limiting yourself to adding sources, rather than removing things (unless you come across statements that seem deeply unlikely or are provably false)? Similar work, but less impetus towards AFD. Since these are usually pretty stale you aren't as likely to need to give out talk page warnings, either. Then you're avoiding the kinds of actions that have raised concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't go through unreferenced article categories, I go through articles like film festival categories which have a lot of clearly non-notable subjects. Some of these don't even have sources. I'll check out CAT:AAWUS and see if I can add things. :) Thanks.

Also just submitted my first AfC today! TLA (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the assessments above that I'm tla needs to slow down and more carefully consider their actions. I commend their enthusiasm, but administrative tasks require experience as well to done effectively. Given their apparently sincere apology above, and that I see no evidence at present of bad faith, I don't know if further sanction is needed: but I suggest that every closure that was premature, and every closure in which consensus wasn't clear, be reversed as out-of-process. @I'm tla: As a sign of good faith and of understanding the concerns expressed here, I suggest you reverse these closures yourself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Vanamonde93, thank you for giving me a chance. I will do that accordingly and, in the future, be more aware of the rules regarding AfDs. TLA (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you're enthusiastic about helping out at AfD, @I'm tla, but I think it would be good for you to stop participating at AfD entirely for a while and focus on creating content. A good grasp of core content policies would be very helpful for you at AfD. One thing you might try your hand at is improving a stub article and getting it to DYK. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I second this good advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC).

Thanks for responding, I'm tla, and I'll third Voorts' advice. Spicy (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you voorts, Xxanthippe, and Spicy, I will try that out! TLA (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• This editor has raised several flags for me. I think they need not to be allowed to participate in any administrative-esque tasks. They're welcome to participate in AfDs at a much reduced rate but should focus on content rather than mostly incorrect warnings and tagging. CIR fits, even if they are truly new Star Mississippi 17:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, and this recent warning does not inspire confidence. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Rosguill, Liz was referring to the concerns raised before this noticeboard topic was created, but thank you for your concern for Wikipedia. TLA (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concerns. I won't be closing any AfDs in the near future (I was confused if it was strictly 7 days), will only participate a little bit. Thanks. TLA (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Freeholdman12 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

This user changes colors on Florida-related templates without consensus and with disregard to Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. These templates should be semi-protected. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, as it says at the top This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Please explain how this trivial content dispute meets that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

They changed the colors once on these templates. I reverted them. The user did it again, and I reverted them again. This is an accessibility issue, first and foremost. This user should have sought consensus before making changes to the templates. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, are you actually saying that you consider two edits that you disagree with to be an urgent incident and a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? Please explain why, addressing the meaning of the description of the purpose of this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So if I can't do it here, where should I report it? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r, you can simply engage with me. You brought the issue to my attention, and you referred to me to this page: MOS:COLOR. I used one of the links in this section, in fact this one to be precise:https://www.whocanuse.com/?bg=ff9100&fg=333333&fs=16&fw=, and it meets most of the accessibility requirements. Now, if you have any questions or concerns, I would rather you continue to engage with me 1-one-1 on this matter. I'm inclined to agree with @Cullen328 on this. Freeholdman12 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if there are accessibility issues, such reverts still cannot be exempted from the edit warring policy. What a classic example of Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. 94rain ^Talk 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent block evasion at Cliff Cash

Reported this on January 14th to no avail. Requesting reversion of edits and a user block again. Also indefinite page protection here, at Wiley Cash, and possibly List of comedians and List of people from North Carolina. Current protection at the central bio is clearly insufficient. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Another new sock: MaterialUserFan125 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And another: LeeMary12 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: would reversion and page protection be appropriate at User talk:Mehendri Solon? All the user's socks are gathering there with phony supportive dialogue. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ShaneSim76 and continuous overlinking

It feels somewhat petty to start an ANI discussion about continuous overlinking in plot sections, but ShaneSim76 (talk · contribs) hasn't shown WP:COMPETENCE: after several messages and warnings, they haven't communicated and continued their overlinking. Most of their edits have been reverted. I have posted some diffs of their most recent overlinking edits, this is what's been happening for over a year.

They have been asked to stop and have received several warnings.

• In May 2022 Adakiko and in July 2022 GoneIn60 left them messages about plot length (worth mentioning because it is also includes unnecessary overlinking (The Departed: spy, FBI, assault, battery (crime); Top Gun: California, United States Navy, Commander)
• In December 2022 Doniago left a message about overlinking
• In January 2023, Eagowl left another message
• I myself encountered them in March 2023, when they edited the article on Choo-Choo Charles, a video game. I left them a message, explaining why it's unnecessary and they responded. That was the last time they communicated
• In August 2023, Doniago left another message about overlinking
• In October 2023, Doniago once more
• I issued a warning in December 2023, with a personal message
• Finally, on 13 January 2024, Facu-el Millo issued a final warning because of their disruptive editing

This has not worked, because since that final warning they added links to:

• Love at First Sight (2023 film), linking to United States, London, engagement, statistics, etc.
• Avengers vs. X-Men, linking to coma, moon, lunar surface, tyrant, etc.
• The Snowman (2017 film), linking to police officer, illegitimate, corruption, plastic surgery, flirting, cottage, etc.
• Injustice (2021 film), linking to pregnancy, submarine, federal government of the United States, world peace, etc.

Perhaps it's a case of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, especially since they haven't communicated whatsoever since March 2023, but it's hard to continue to assume good faith when they received a final warning on their behaviour and they thought it was necessary to link to those very common words. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Not petty: the overlinking is disruptive enough already, and coupled with the number of comments and warnings, and the lack of communication, there's enough reason for a block. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

LDas12345 - POV editing and refusal to talk

LDas12345 has made, by my count, 159 edits since arriving at the start of December. 107 of these have been reverted by a slew of editors. User talk:LDas12345 shows an array of templates, and I placed a paragraph there asking them to please talk to us. I also have included that request in revert edsums, e.g. [30], [31]. So far they have never edited any talk page, nor their own talk page but today they again started making edits that have been continually reverted on multiple pages: [32], [33]. Although this is no doubt a new editor, whose edits are not obviously intended to be disruptive, the behaviour is, nevertheless disruptive. On this collaborative project, some kind of admin action would appear to be necessary to bring them to an appropriate discussion page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Their contributions are all tagged mobile edit, mobile web edit. This may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. NebY (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good point - although these are logged in edits, so according to that table, they should still be getting a notification, shouldn't they? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but mobiles throw up so many alerts of that sort that new editors may arrive already conditioned to ignore them. NebY (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

They editor has resumed disrupting honor killings and hasn't communicated. I'm going to block the user to force communication and stop the disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Once again, their insertion wasn't supported by the references already provided for that sentence, a particularly pernicious problem for Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Let's hope we can get a discussion going with them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war by User Arind7

User Arind7 is edit warring in multiple articles like Homosexuality in India, LGBT rights in India, Hinduism and LGBT topics, Marriage in Hinduism using some unreliable user-generated websites like TamilCulture.com. Even after multiple warnings 1 2 he continued the edit war. A block might be needed to stop the vandalism. Timovinga (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

3RR ? Timovinga (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This person is removing large amounts of text without valid reasons, even when I provide numerous sources (often five) from a variety of backgrounds including major news outlets and legal scholars (for example the sentence where I used Tamil Culture also has another five sources from a variety of outlets). He has been repeatedly removing text across numerous articles related to LGBTQ and India, and seemingly also in various articles related to casteism in India. I have stated that he can add alternative viewpoints if he wants, but he seems to be more concerned about removing text instead. Many of his removals have no provided substance as well.

The person above is engaged in vandalism and is targeting topics related to homosexuality and India. He needs to be banned from editing topics related to casteism, homosexuality and India.

A good example is his edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1197136466

I removed a duplicate paragraph further down which repeated the same information twice in the same section. He reverted it on the basis on bad source despite me adding no new information whatsoever. It's obvious he is engaging in conflict rather than actually trying to build the article.

Furthermore he is in particular targeting articles related to caste and homosexuality.

I have told him that the appropriate procedure is to mark sentences which he believes are poorly sources with the appropriate citation mark (and in all cases I have provided numerous citations, up to five of various backgrounds, to his claims) and discuss the removal on the talk pages. Considering it is only one person determine to remove said information, I am convinced that he is a vandal with homophobic and casteist intentions. Arind7 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You are still doing the edit war, I replied you here also, but I think you are not able to understand or maybe you are not reading the guidelines properly. Timovinga (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Both of you should stop reverting each other continually, and instead discuss it on the talk page. You could ideally ask for a Third opinion to resolve it. This is a very classic case of an edit war. It is not vandalism, and name-calling won't bring anything, but it is nonetheless disruptive to the encyclopedia. I'll revert to the last stable version and let both of you discuss it calmly. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Arind7 is using non reliable sources and some random websites as his citations. It is not even a discussion. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources. Despite multiple warning he continued the edit war with those poor sources. I tried my best to guide him, but seems like he is not understanding the guidelines. Timovinga (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss it here or here. It seems like you both start discussions on different talk pages and end up not responding to each other. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for 72 hours for edit-warring. I find it interesting that both editors are new, having created accounts within a few days of each other last month, and both edit the same controversial articles but adverse to each other. It's as if they came to Wikipedia to do battle. For a few days at least they'll have a forced break.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to bludgeon political soapboxing into the Chauvinism article

Johncdraper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chauvinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Back in early December last year, User:Johncdraper added Nigel Farage, a British politician, into the Chauvinism, article, as an 'example' of "...a modern-day British nationalist extreme enough to be considered a chauvinist, as evidenced, for instance, in a 40-page background check by his own bank...".[34] To justify this material Johncdraper has cited a few sources describing Farage as a Chavinist, and later an indirectly sourced and possibly misleading quotation (including ellipsis before the word in question, depriving it of context: "I fought fiercely for anarchy, CND doves and warmongering hawks, Christianity, atheists... chauvinism) used to support a claim that Farage describes himself thus. The Farage 'example' was removed by User:Hemiauchenia on the 11th January, on the grounds that The wording here is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX..., an opinion subsequently supported by multiple contributors in discussions both at Talk:Chauvinism and on WP:BLPN.[35] During the entire discussions, absolutely nobody but Johncdraper has argued for the inclusion of this 'example', and numerous experienced contributors have offered clear policy based arguments against inclusion (e.g NPOV, UNDUE, COATRACK, SOAPBOX, SYNTHESIS), but despite this, Johncdraper has persisted, arguing that this 'example' is justified by the sources cited, and failing to adequately address the policy concerns raised.

Having failed to win any support whatsoever in the initial thread on Talk:Chauvinism, or at WP:BLPN, Johncdraper has today adopted a new tactic, starting a second thread ostensibly asking for a further 'Example of a Person Espousing Chauvinism' [36]. My response to the initual suggestion, stating that I see no reason whatsoever why this article needs to include such 'examples'. You have already amply demonstrated why this is problematic then led to a frankly absurd attempt to justify the inclusion of Farage in the Chauvinism article on the basis that the Wikipedia article on Fascism includes Hitler. In the same post, Johncdraper goes on to assert that "I also note you still have not explained, with reference to anything, why you would like the Farrage example removed, except for the faint hint that you dislike him - not a reason to remove anyone from Wikipedia." Given this utter refusal to accept unanimous policy-based reasons, from multiple experienced contributors, why the 'example' should not be included, it seems to me that nothing productive can come out of this discussion - the material in question is quite obviously not going to be included - and that we should instead be considering whether this relentless attempt to WP:BLUDGEON blatant political soapboxing into an article on a general topic would justify some sort of sanction against Johncdraper, who is self-evidently attempting to shoehorn his own personal opinions into Wikipedia article content, in the face of multiple explanations as to why this is inappropriate.

At minimum, I would propose that a topic ban for Johncdraper on the subjects of Chavinism and/or Nigel Farage would be appropriate, though given the lack of awareness of and/or refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies demonstrated, there may be grounds for suggesting that the scope should be wider. I've not really looked into Johncdraper's editing history to see whether there is anything of a pattern and it would probably be best for those uninvolved with the initial dispute to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's not my fault that Nigel Farrage has himself stated that he has espoused chauvinism or that multiple independent and academic sources support him. As a peer-reviewed published author on nationalism, I would also add that the use of examples in academic sources such as encyclopedias is common. Also note that I am respecting basic etiquette by not edit-warring, nor am I engaging in a grumpy personal grudge. The proposer, on the other hand, seems to wish to shut down talk on a Talk page. Johncdraper (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It should perhaps be again be noted, just in case anyone missed it, that the (indirectly cited and truncated) quote that Johncdraper cites for evidence that Farage 'espoused chauvinism' also has Farage espousing "anarchy, CND doves and warmongering hawks, Christianity, atheists". The use of the source concerned in this manner is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The elided portion of the quote is ...Christianity, atheists, the pro- and anti-abortion (NOT pro-choice and pro-life) factions, feminism, chauvinism.... I think this kind of source misrepresentation is pretty harmful. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, having the full quote finally helped me find the original online. That puts the quote in an entirely different light. And yes, much worse, since Farage seems to be contrasting chauvinism with feminism, implying that he's referring to 'male chauvinism' rather than nationalism, and from the surrounding context (e.g "champion[ing] any damsel in distress amongst ideas against the dragons of prejudice"), this isn't Farage espousing chauvinism at all. It is Farage saying he 'championed' ideas he didn't necessarily agree with, as a counter to what he characterises as "doctrinaire liberalism"). The use of the source in the manner it had been was grossly improper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper's only edits since the first half of December have been to this article, before which they suddenly become much more sporadic. The way he's make such a point against Farage specifically leads me to believe he has an WP:AXE to grind against the politician. The text itself isn't worded in a neutral manner, either. I'm also concerned about the comment On that basis, I wouuld be removing the Hitler example from the Fascism page[37] which sounds like a threat to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually in favour of his methods and therefore something of a fan. So, no axe to grind there. What I want in that article is an example of the way the European Far Right is using chauvinism as the sharp edge of an exe, the weight of which is actually right-wing nationalism. Ax such, I am not edit-warring the remobval of Nigel Farrage - which I have accepted - but seeing a better example, from the English-language speaking world. Next, I am clearly not going to start disrupting nationalism-related pages. I think that's misreading the counter-ractual semantic weight of my comment - which is instead the following: "If I were AndytheGrump, I would not want the Hitler example, as it is unnecessary." However, I am not AndtheGrump, so I will not act like him. That is how the semantics of that statement work. Have a nice day. Johncdraper (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

an example of the way the European Far Right is using chauvinism as the sharp edge of an exe(sic)--this is not at all clear from your addition, which doesn't mention the European Far Right, nor is it clear that this would be in scope of the Chauvinism article, which also doesn't ever mention the European Far Right. This actually sounds exactly like soapboxing, so perhaps you might want to reconsider your stance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper, I think you need to follow the law of holes and stop digging. The above explanation did you exactly zero favors. Drop the entire topic and move on to some other area of editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Johncdraper is still at it. [38] (And no, my response wasn't particularly polite. I do however consider it consistent with Wikipedia policy, and with the sentiments expressed in this thread). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, since they're clearly not listening, I'd support the topic ban proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a block for extremely disruptive LTA

A while ago I made this post on ANI regarding a disruptive user who has been trolling Wikipedia since 2022-[39] which lead to one of their ranges being blocked for one year.

Unfortunately the same user is back with an 89* IP range now, going on a editing spree over the past few days. I used the IP range calculator that Wikipedia provides to see what range they're specifically on and got this-89.46.12.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). I was hoping this range could also be blocked for 6 months-1 year as well as something has to be done about this perennial troll. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you give examples of their edits? Secretlondon (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. inflating his religion's and language's numbers while decreasing others + same thing as well as making random changes to demographic fugres + here he is removing Ahmadis from Pakistan's census figures and inflating Sikhism's numbers + [40].

Also check the examples I provided in my previous ANI report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR

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

---

Seeking clarification re WP:ARBECR. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war.

Can it be confirmed that the intent of WP:ARBECR is to prevent the participation of non EC editors in internal project discussions and that said comments should not have been restored by editor @Anachronist:.

Talk page discussion.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier As this is not an incident, this question would be better asked in WP:AN or even WP:ARBITRATION but since it is here...

All editors are allowed to make {{Edit extended-protected}} requests that directly changes Mainspace. WikiProject Palestine and other non-Main spaces are not ECP protected, but should be if the goal is to prevent non ECP editors from participating. That said, the wording in WP:ARBECR should be clearer. I imagine in theory, anyone could submit a Draft through AfC, edit Wikipedia space etc.. so changing "Talk pages" to "Non Mainspace" would clarify that. But I am not on Arbitration. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a matter for discussing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, not ANI. Dragging it here seems premature at best, and an attempt to get an opponent in a debate sanctioned at worst. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take it there. And for the record, I am not seeking sanctions, merely clarification. Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, non-EC editors cannot participate at AFDs or other project discussions at all, and that's been the case since WP:ARBPIA4 several years ago. This issue was recently clarified at ARCA that was announced in last month's Admin newsletter and resulted in ECR's text being changed to further restrict non-EC editors from participating in project discussions. I don't see a problem with an ANI about an editor (even an admin) restoring a non-EC editor's comments to an AFD, although ARCA, AE, and AN (in the case of an admin) would be fine venues, too. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ARCA filed here if anyone would like to comment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Stanton Williams

I just came across PJaneB (talk · contribs) adding unreferenced content to several articles about Stanton Williams, an established architecture firm. The firm itself looks notable, but the article in question looked a very sorry state, so I've tidied up. Meanwhile, PJaneB kind of admits being a paid editor on this topic. I don't like coming down like a ton of bricks, but I think this needs a block. Anyone agree? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I added a WP:COI warning to their talk page and an IP editor acknowledged, and said they would declare in future. That was before the more recent string of COI edits. Concur with Ritchie. AntientNestor (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

PJaneB (talk · contribs) has left a note on my talk page requesting advice on how to proceed. I referred them to WP:COI.--AntientNestor (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass reinstatement of made up/incorrect information on French election articles

As some of you may have seen, there has been a bit of a social media storm about my removals of unsourced, inconsistent and made-up information from French election articles. A few had to be protected as a result of disruption after the initial storm on Twitter. Unfortunately today there has been a mass reinstatement of this stuff by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk · contribs)

A few highlights from these reverts:

• In this one they reinstate an infobox which has different figures to the results table, a results table which is completely different to the source used (the party names are different, the seat figures are different and there are no vote figures in the source), and one with a parliamentary diagram with a different number of seats to the results table. They also removed the addition of a full set of vote figures (including invalid votes and registered voters) from a reliable source.
• In this one unsourced vote figures are re-added to the article which appear to be back-calculated from the number of seats (and so are just made up). The parliamentary diagram reinstated to the article does not match the seat totals in the results table (although it has the same total, if you click through to the image page, the number of seats for parties are different to those in the table).
• Here and here they blindly reinstate a results table and infobox data with figures that do not match the figures in the prose (and in the first case, claim they are reverting vandalism).
• This revert reinstated a results table that is different to the source and in which the vote percentages are clearly back-calculated from the (unsourced) seat totals, and in turn, the vote figures have been back-calculated from the rounded percentages.
• This one restores an unreferenced version, removes the addition of invalid votes and registered voters, reinstates seat figures which are different to the sources used in the referenced version, and removes various fixes such as category sorting. This one is the same.

I asked the editor in question stop with the reverts shortly after they started this series of edits, and then to undo their edits, but while they have undone a couple of their errors on the 1893 article, they now seem to have got bored and moved onto other things, leaving it in a state where the infobox is inconsistent with the results table, and (more importantly) the results don't match the source. They seem to be expecting me to gain consensus for the corrections to each individual article, which is impractical given the scale of the problem here.

Some more eyes on this article series, which was an absolute mess and has been plagued by misinformation on both en.wiki and fr.wiki (where some of the stuff is being copied from), would be helpful. Number 57 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page with more details - arbitrary stripping of tens of articles to suit own style preferences. Another point - unsourced content repeatedly removed en masse without any discussion, request for sources, or tags. Was in engagement with user via my talk page, so interesting that it was raised as an incident. Article series really needs oversight for the heavy handed approach taken across several pages. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a style preference issue. In nearly all of these of these cases, the problem is that the information does not match the source, is patently made up or is internally inconsistent, and in several cases you removed references that had been added to articles to verify the information. The fact that you are fully aware that you have reinserted such nonsense into numerous articles and removed references and don't seem to care is not good. Number 57 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've stated numerous times I'm supportive of introducing sources as opposed to your undiscussed stripping of numerous pages across this site, to the scale of your disruption is such that there are instances as you have described mistakenly, but you are now mischaracterising the issue and your mission to mould every page to suit your style, and removing reams of information, as you realize there is zero consensus. More input is desperately needed due to your actions in many article series. I have engaged with you in good faith repeatedly so bizarre you're taking it like this, when you know your edits are not universally accepted here. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted sources (and more detailed results) being added to at least nine articles in the course of your spree of blind reverts (such as here). And you clearly have not engaged in good faith given your first set of edit summaries were "rv vandalism"[41][42][43] Number 57 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet again you deflect from the main issue : yourself and mass stripping of articles by yourself to suit your tastes and levelling articles of information with zero /consensus, and harassing other users trying to add sources. The sheer scale of this did result in references accidentally being removed as I said. The deflection of this is causing these replies to circle back. Much more oversight is needed over for your heavy handedness across many article series. You are well aware your actions have no consensus among editors. I have replied every time and attempted correct your deflections AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore the onus is on you to introduce the sources supporting the results. Having a stripped back article with correct information is preferable to having one that perpetuates errors. ITBF (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Take that point, though the scale of this is huge by @Number 57 with no consensus, tags or even attempts to discuss on talk pages. The main issue behind this is the users mass moulding of pages to suit his taste, which can be seen in replies to other users and the differences in revision. All this with zero consensus. Will try to engage in sourcing soon too if possible in the instance the user has highlighted. Oversight is desperately needed to his arbitrary changes as too many people have picked up on, yet others are tarred as socks or vandals by the user. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are discussions on many of the talk pages in that series, starting with Talk:1791 French legislative election, Talk:1792 French National Convention election. Number 57 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

and zero where you have an established consensus. Personal conviction is not consensus btw, your multiple arbitrary stripping of pages needs way more oversight. You refuse to engage simply reverting other user edits and resort to name calling people like socks. Although you are trying to deflect with isolated references, Im fully convinced you realize your actions have no consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see how doing verification work, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, requires consensus regardless of whether the pages are related, and it ending up with stripping the pages of unverified/unverifiable content. However, it might be courteous to have more descriptive edit summaries (rather than just "Format") or a link in the edit summaries to point to an explanation on a talk page for centralised discussion to occur, given that the work were done for a series of related pages.

On edit warring, the 1898 French legislative election article is the lightning conductor being the subject of two viral pieces of social media content, a Tweet and a YouTube video. I don't see N57 edit warring there; other editors were reverting to have his revision in to a point that it became a disruptive pattern. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

May I also suggest that, now it is either contentious or potentially disruptive to introduce changes to these articles, if the numbers you produce, after verifying against the sources, are different and/or displayed differently, discuss first on the talk page(s) per WP:BRD (noting that the ship has largely sailed passed Bold and Revert parts of the cycle). – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my edit summary wasn't great, but I never expected removing misinformation would be so controversial. And we are talking about 50 articles here – individual talk page discussions aren't practical (or are just ignored – I put a detailed explanation of the reason for removing the results table at Talk:1791 French legislative election and it didn't help). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at sources for the 1988 elections, I left a talk page message there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• The balance of evidence here suggests that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has not demonstrated due diligence in reverting. "Number57 was making too many edits" is not an adequate defense for their edits unless they can demonstrate that Number57's edits were equally or more reckless or edit warring, which is not self-evident. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  They have edit warred, reverting other users changes multiple times, instead calling them socks or blind - a cursory glance at edit summaries shows this. The user has wilfully invited and engaged in edit warring, as well as reckless, arbitrary stripping of multiple articles relating to French legislative elections. Did not say the number of edits was too high at any point but rather the amount of info removed without discussion, tags or warning. Has chosen to force through these very drastic strippings, shared with many other users AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've asserted that there's been edit warring by Number57, but on the pages linked in this discussion thus far I'm not really seeing it. The only exception is 1893 French legislative election, where it's pretty clear that the other editors participating were canvassed from Twitter judging by the accounts' editing histories (and where the edit war appears to have been ultimately resolved by another editor of the page backing Number57's perspective). Number57's edits by and large appear to be a valid application of building consensus through editing; do you have any diffs that provide evidence to the contrary? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a behavioral issue, or is it a content dispute? The talk pages on for the articles Number 57 has linked to don't have any discussion on them. If there is a need for a third opinion to resolve disagreements between two editors (Number 57 and AlbusWulfricDumbledore), consider posting to WP:3O. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Content was the reason for my reinstatements, the huge amount of content removed with zero discussion, which many users have taken issue with. Both in terms of wholescale removal (with no tags/discussion etc) and his infobox personal preferences. Not just in this article series but many others. Was discussing this with him on my talk page, when the user decided to bizarrely post this as a behavioural issue (have tried to correct references which he is trying to deflect with) (Considered his removals to be wilfully reckless at first glance at the very start). We both agree that more oversight is needed - in my opinion, to bring in much needed reviewing of his changes, which the user is aware there is no consensus on AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would class it as a behavioural issue on the basis that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has reinserted information they know to be incorrect (as well as removing sources from numerous articles). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but just looking at the first link that Number57 provides shows that AlbusWulfricDumbledore is inserting information that is (a) clearly wrong, because the totals don't add up correctly (2,220,181 + 126,231 = 1,975,144?), and (b) doesn't match the source (look at the number of seats). This is clearly disruptive and AWD needs to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are issues with totals which I'm trying to fix/some which other have already, but the issue behind my edits were to revert at first I saw to be reckless (at the very start), wholescale stripping of articles of information with zero discussion/tags (or even notice on many pages). Many others have brought this up on other pages too (in addition to his crusade to force through infobox format changes on many pages). Have stopped similar edits since he brought this up on my talk page, as I would prefer that like he has mentioned, more eyes on this article series and for WP:3O or something similar AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's the point - you don't change articles to insert incorrect information, you ensure the information is correct and matches the source and then you make the edit. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Although Black Kite's clearly correct in what he says, I want to add that the fact that Number 57 is right doesn't excuse edit-warring, and being a sysop doesn't excuse edit-warring. Being right doesn't bypass the need to build consensus for large-scale changes, and being a sysop doesn't bypass consensus either. What's needed here is a consensus in a central place where people interested in France gather, and I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm all for discussion, and there have been productive ones on a few talk pages. The issue is, how exactly does one go about gaining consensus for removing misinformation from dozens of pages (we are talking around 50 here) and reinstating the sourced figures? Listing them on a page-by-page basis with the proposed change?
  • My concern is also now that any discussion is at risk of being derailed by drive-by comments, given the traffic driven to these articles by the social media stuff and the fact that some editors (such as the one being reported here) simply don't care about veracity. There was a section on the 1898 talk page in which a few drive-by editors simply proposed reverting the edits despite it being pretty clear to everyone else engaging in the proper discussion that the previous info was wrong... Also, in the meantime, we have several dozen articles that are clearly wrong – is this a tolerable situation? Obviously I am biased, but I would want to see the correct versions (even if they are deemed "stripped out") restored while there was a discussion. It's worth noting that the edits to sort these out were made between February and May last year, and have only just been reverted. Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • How does one go about gaining consensus to change dozens of pages? Exactly as I said: through consensus in some central place that lots of people see. I suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Some people prefer RfC, or village pump. I certainly agree that we need to get this stuff right, and I think we should come to understand where these errors come from as well. But when you're proposing large-scale, sweeping changes to longstanding articles, best not to edit war.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
      • It just seems like a potentially time-intensive and potentially frustrating process to go through to do what should be a basic thing – correct the articles; I'm not sure a coherent discussion about differing edits on a set of over 50 articles is even possible – and I suspect it would just turn into a complete mess. The real issue here is that a load of knee jerk/blind reverts have come about as a result of a social media storm, and what happens if the process is affected by more drive-by comments? We end up being left with a load of clearly inaccurate information in articles. TBH it's a bit disappointing how relaxed editors seem to be about patently false information being added into articles; I would have thought the most urgent thing would be to remove it and then discuss what to do... As for how this came about, a lot of the issues seem to stem from a series of IP edits around 2016; for example on the 1877 article, the 2015 version matches the source; after the IP edits they don't. Number 57 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

        Consensus isn't necessarilyy convenient or easy, but it's a core pillar for Wikipedia's process. A discussion might pose that there's been disagreements on sources and what sources say for [the affected election pages] and ask what source is best to cite. That would at least centralize discussion around using particular sources.

        The desire for accurate information is not a bad one, but Wikipedia is about more than sheer accuracy. I think the essay WP:NORUSH is instructive in this case; while we shouldn't be complacent, we can still recognize that in the long run, building consensus is healthy for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just a further update on this, AWD is now adding sources to some of the results tables. The issue is that the sources they are adding do not support the numbers. For example, here they add a source to a results table that states that Clicy Club won 105 seats, Marisards 44 and Thermidorians 28. However, the source linked states is that Reactionaries won 182 seats, Republicans won 34 and candidates with "unclear opinions" won 44. This is one of the articles that I listed in the bullet points above where the information in the reinserted table did not match the prose (which does match the source). Here they add a source stating it "seems" to be where the numbers are from, but which appears to be inaccessible (I have tried opening it on a couple of devices and the data never loads). Number 57 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, was trying to help with the cases you highlighted, would be helped to be tagged so I can respond to your queries, the second source you mention is accessible via the Web Archive which is why I linked it to there with the archive date. Added the first source as it seems to be helpful as its one of the few that give numbers - but the table needs to be updated

  (PS - this whole process is one I was expecting editors to engage in vs stripping/levelling articles without consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you admit you are adding sources to articles that don't support the information in question? Number 57 13:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You found one example and are hanging onto it for dear life, ignoring the multiple other sources I've added. These discussions belong on talk pages, you recognize and can see sources can be found - so undiscussed mass deletions are not helpful or encouraged by almost anyone. These issues should be discussed via the normal channels rather than via an "incident" AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have flagged your one example too, as needing citations, as the numbers in the source aren't too clear either - but again, use the talk pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So far you have added sources to five articles. In three of them [44][45][46] the source doesn't load so can't be verified; in one of them[47] you added a source that gives different figures to the ones you are citing; in this one the revised figures you are adding leave the results table not adding up correctly. Number 57 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The archived links are attached which you can access - I am sure we can work together to find sources and flag uncited content, instead of wholescale deletions as you have continuously engaged in. Your two examples point back the one isolated example you’re clinging to (which I have flagged). The other figures correspond to citations in body of text - which you can access/find the books I have used - have included quotes where possible to help you. But again - use the talk pages! (Instead of deleting stuff en masse without tagging/consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point on both these issues: The web archive links work, but the section of the archived page that has the data does not load (so the data is inaccessible). In the 1815 article, you have a results table with a total of 629 seats, but seat figures of 500, 80 and 30-40, which add up to 610–620, not 629. Number 57 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It does for me, the flash section does not work, but it still provides seat counts. Am just going with the sources directly for the second part, the 500 is approximate which I will address. Why is it so hard to bring this up in the 1815 talk page? I'm confused. I'll welcome the challenge of sourcing this together with you AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are over 50 articles which you have blindly rolled back corrections to; having to have a talk page discussion on each one is a massive time sink after having already spent weeks checking sources and researching to try and correct the articles. For example, here you have just found a source to support the figures in the table. If you had bothered to read the edit summary of my edit to the article, you would have seen that the problem is that there are multiple sources with different seat figures, and 400 is not the most common of these.

What needs to happen is for you to undo the mess you have caused by self-reverting, and then go through the articles you have concerns about a lack of data in, rather than leaving 50+ articles in the state they are now. Number 57 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point in hand = the solution is not nuclear, even as an admin to blindly eliminate every piece of info and infobox you personally don't like/need sources for - not how this site works. You should always aim to tag/find sources and invite discussion before deleting. You have blindly stripped numerous sites in your crusade, without inviting any engagement of any sort, your edit on that page case in point. You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping - this is widely accepted. Not going to waste time with circular arguments here, I'll see you on talk pages, where this can be worked out. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally spent weeks researching and looking for sources when trying to clean up these articles. The problem for many of the earlier ones is that sources are highly inconsistent and there is no rationale for picking one over another. The source provided on the 1791 talk page states clearly that any attempting to assign seat totals to parties or groupings for that election is nonsensical. Even the article itself says this, but now stupidly contradicts itself by doing so because you have added an unsourced results table (with made up vote figures) back in. Number 57 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlbusWulfricDumbledore: With these pages' content contended, now is not the time to be persisting in editing them. I encourage you to slow down, let go of trying to make the pages be a certain way on a certain time table, and refrain from personalizing language like saying that user Number 57 is acting blindly or is on a crusade (certainly when you say that without providing diffs or evidence). That kind of personalizing language gets into the territory of uncivil aspersions, which 1) don't help; and 2) make this matter rise to being a behavioral incident.

Yes, this is something that apparently needs to be worked out on talk pages—crucially, before edits are made to the main space articles, including by yourself, AlbusWulfricDumbledore. There are options for this: start a thread on WikiProject France, or ask for a WP:3O, or use the Village Pump, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, tried to help address the specific points he highlighted, but will refrain from this series particularly until something is worked out. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But must add other users edits were reverted by the user without engagement - resulting in numerous sites being stripped, though will lay off this - as I am not the only one highlighting the issues brought about by this admin as advised AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification for reverting to a version that everyone agrees has incorrect and/or unsourced information? Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the articles were levelled completely of a lot of info, including the user’s formatting choices, without any real attempt to find sources, invite others to do so, to invite discussion or consensus, but as advised will not be adding to the situation, as I am not the only user highlighting these issues.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. While results tables and infobox details were removed from a few articles (where I was unable to find sources (or consistent sources) after doing research and consulting with other editors), in other cases you reverted changes to the results tables/infoboxes that brought them in line with sources, and in others you removed additional details or referencing that had been added. The issue is that you blindly reverted the changes across the entire election series rather than doing any diligence on what you were doing. Number 57 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite block of AlbusWulfricDumbledore would be appropriate since the user continues to knowingly introduce false and misleading content rapidly, including claims that do not match the given sources. There is no onus on any individual to replace false information with correct and referenced information when they come across it. On the other hand, there is an onus for information in an article to be verifiable. No information is better than misinformation.

When a person has the capacity to provide accurate summaries of these elections (which may not take the form of statistical tables if this would be anachronistic or misleading), they can see the full article history to see if it contains any useful sources, information or starting points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and it is clear from a number of the comments above that the editor does not understand the concept of WP:V or indeed reliable sourcing. So AlbusWulfricDumbledore, if you make a single further edit that introduces unsourced or incorrect data into mainspace, I will block you. You need to work on any articles you wish to improve in a sandbox or similar, and ensure that the information is correct, before publishing those edits. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, can their mass reinsertion of incorrect information be rolled back and this process started from the position of correct information (even if it is more basic)? Number 57 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially considering AWD's apparent insistence that "removal of content" is somehow worse than repeatedly introducing incorrect content. This smacks of the old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense we've moved away from. AWD appears to feel You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping overrides the fact that they're adding false information to the article, simply for the sake of... adding information. N57 has been providing good sourcing, and removing content that was poorly/incorrectly sourced, not just blindly stripping content as accused by AWD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding verifiably incorrect information and calling it's removal vandalism shows very poor judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Tite and IP editor claiming to be allowed to remove AfD tag

Andrew Tite is undergoing AfD. An IP editor, 99.192.32.253, keeps removing the AfD notice and the most recent time used the edit summary to claim "Spoke with Senior Wikipedia Administrator (Brenda) and was advised to remove notice and make specific updates via email. She has approved this update. Additional updates in future to further ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards"

This seems very unlikely to me but I thought I would bring it here in case my restoration of the AfD tag was incorrect. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the IP posted the email: "Brendan Conway" appears to represent a paid-editing group. " In case if you need assistance, let me know, I can link you with an internal certified Wikipedia editor from the Wikipedia community. he can provide you a professional assistance, also, he has been working in the Wikipedia community for the past 15 years, he can assist you in improve your page while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please note that each Wikipedia editor and moderator charges differently for their service, and as you know that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, so any earnings done by providing services to the relevant clients automatically go to the Wikipedia organization donations." Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The email apparently also said "It's clear that your intention is not to create an advertisement but to share a genuine and modest biography for the benefit of future generations." and that seems very unofficial to me. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

(nota bene for anyone who is seeing the name and wondering -- this is not the misog social media tweetfluencer guy, this is some other dude with a similar name.) jp×g🗯️ 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be someone pretending to be Brendanconway (and not the first time this has happened)... Number 57 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat at a loss for how this could be made more clear. It's obvious that this person got rolled by an impersonator, but...

Brendan's userpage has not one, not two, but three gigantic red notices with huge warning icons in them saying in paragraphs of bold text e.g. "I don't do paid editing or offer assistance when articles are up for deletion at AFD". Like what the hell additional measures could we possibly take? jp×g🗯️ 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If they still haven't worked out that his name is Brendan and not Brenda, then... I like the idea of being a "Senior Administrator" though. How does one attain that rank? Number 57 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to undergo a boss battle against Bishzilla. And win.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to become a "senior adminstrator", you need to pass an RfA and you need to live long enough to become a senior citizen. Age 65 should do it. I did both. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article to allow the AfD to run to closure. There was no issue with your restoration of the tag @ThaddeusSholto Star Mississippi 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Krishna.koundi

This editor has been repeatedly warned about disruptive behavior in general dating back a year ago. One of the issues this editor keeps exhibiting is a penchant for reordering cast lists on movies. This is never done with sources being provided. This behavior dates back at least to July 2023, wherein they attempted to force their preferred version of the cast order [48][49], for which they were warned.

Recently, they were engaging in similar behavior on various movies [50][51][52]. These attempts were reverted (and not just by me), and I cautioned this editor regarding the behavior [53] asking them to provide reliable, secondary sources. The editor responded that I needed to watch the movies to prove his edits were correct [54]. I responded noting that what mattered was what reliable, secondary sources said and noted that such movies in that area of the world often have cast lists reordered depending on what region they are being released for [55].

This editor chose to ignore this entreaty and continued the disruptive behavior without engaging in further discussion [56]. So, I placed two more warnings on their talk page [57][58]. The latter warning was placed after I reviewed their earlier warnings and edits and realized this problem had been going on for some time. The latter warning also clearly stated it was a final warning. 4 hours later, and the editor continues the same behavior [59], having not engaged in any further discussion nor have they provided any reliable, secondary sources to support their claims.

Thus, I am here. I am an administrator, but given that I have been trying to prevent this sort of damage to the project for many years, there's an outside chance someone might consider me involved. So, I am asking for another administrator's help here. I recommend at least a several day long block, and perhaps an indefinite block is warranted given the long term refusal to correct this behavior and their obvious willingness to continue the behavior despite ample warnings. If it is an indefinite block, then in my opinion it shouldn't be lifted until the editor agrees to stop this behavior. The editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. They edit regularly enough that it should impact their editing and lead to discussion and hopefully some understanding. No issue if subsequent discussion leads to an adjustment as I'm about to log off for the evening. Star Mississippi 03:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Shambuka

The lead sentence of Shambuka is disputed. One set of users is in favour of defining him "an interpolated character, which is not found in the original Valmiki Ramayana but in the later addition called "Uttara Kanda"" (option 1); another set is suggesting the removal of "interpolated character" considering various alternatives (option 2 was "a shudra ascetic mentioned in the Uttara Kanda Book of the Hindu epic Ramayana"). We have discussed multiple times on the talk, tried RFC (no consensus, "rewrite the lead sentence" with a non-binding suggestion - which was implemented, but reverted to option 1), DRN (as discussed with RFC closer). There seems to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (as also recorded by the DRN closer). Attempts to rewrite the lead have been reverted to option 1 (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling) (which has been the bone of contention for 4 years, Carleas (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) comment in Talk:Shambuka#Scholarly_take_on_"interpolation"). Disputes have arrived at ANI too: 1, 2, 3RR, sock-puppetry. The latest thread Talk:Shambuka#First_Sentence_Compromise is going no way in my opinion, requires third-party intervention. I agree that this is a Content dispute and cannot be completely addressed here, however request the following limited relief:

1. Request Admin intervention to temporarily revert to non-binding suggestion from RFC closer (which I believe is a neutral third-party suggestion) and fully protect the article appropriately till a consensus is reached (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing)
2. Advise on appropriate venues to resolve the content dispute since many steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have already been tried.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Suitable action on involved editors for edit-warring (as appropriate).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tag. To add further for clarity, the above said character 'Shambuka' is part of all versions of Uttara Kanda part, the part which is considered by some to be later addition to Ramayana book. That makes 'Uttara Kanda' part an interpolation if anything, and certainly not 'Shambuka' an interpolated character. Phule lulu (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Admins can do nothing to resolve your content dispute. RfC cannot be overturned only because it went against your wishes. Your concern is better addressed on WP:STICK which clearly states: "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end. You may have won the debate, you may have lost the debate, or you may have found yourself in a long, drawn-out draw. At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." Ratnahastin (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC clearly states in the lead that no consensus for "interpolated character" (status quo) either; both RFC editor notes that "rewrite the lead sentence" and the DRN states "The way forward that is most likely to be productive is to take the advice of the closer, and to rework the lede sentence in a way that reflects the complexity of the sources and the perspectives." However, all attempts to rewrite the lead sentence are been reverted for the disputed lead sentence ("interpolated character"), which been contested/ reverted for 4 years. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  When a RfC leads to no consensus then it is generally the case that the WP:QUO remains. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  The current version is not WP:QUO. This is the beginning of the edit war the original bold edit, as best I can tell. Carleas (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You can always take your case for temporary full protection to WP:RFPP. On anything else given that the result of the RfC was no consensus and that the article is not a BLP it's my understanding that it's WP policy that the WP:QUO should remain until such time as consensus for something emerges. I don't think it's really fair to throw around accusations of stonewalling when the RfC itself demonstrated that there was no consensus for change. On that basis I don't think you should be requesting an admin to impose a solution for which there is no consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"WP:QUO" is not a policy, so it would be interesting where "it's WP policy" comes from. I have now partially blocked Phule lulu to prevent further edit warring; Carleas and ArvindPalaskar had already been partially blocked when Phule lulu and Wareon (now warned) continued. To reduce the amount of disruption that went through semi-protection, I have now also extended-confirmed protected the article.

Fully protecting the article "till a consensus is reached" is clearly not an option as there had been an RfC and we're still at "no clear consensus", so full protection would have to be applied for an excessively long duration or even indefinitely. That won't happen.

Instead of fighting for a "status quo" and about which status is the "status quo", actual policy advice is to stop edit warring even if you believe you're right for whichever reason. The current partial blocks automatically expire after two weeks; if the same user(s) continue edit warring after expiration, there may be a need for longer or site-wide blocks, or topic bans if this is a behavioral pattern in the India/Pakistan/Afghanistan topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Several editors are WP:STONEWALLING, repeatedly reverting to their favored version with some version of a demand for consensus, but with no engagement in the conversation to generate consensus. See [60][61][62][63][64] just from the past few weeks, and Ratnahastin's comment above is typical of the discussion in talk. Other changes throughout the article are similarly rejected with no reason other than that they weren't pre-approved, again with no ensuing discussion.[65] The inline dispute tag has been removed repeatedly by the same editors, along with other uncontroversial edits.[66][67][68] These are recent, but the pattern continues since the beginning of the edit war (initial bold edit here).

This is about flagrant WP:BRNOD, lasting years, to preserve a favored version of the opening sentence. Though I recognize this isn't the venue for it and I don't think it's necessary for the current complaint, the pattern looks like WP:TAGTEAM, and at least one previously involved editor has been banned for WP:SOCK and had been accused with several accounts still involved in this edit war.[69]

Also, I don't know if this counts as a content point, but the current version seems laughably against WP:STYLE. I came to this dispute as a result of the referenced RfC, not knowing anything about Shambuka or the controversies around him, so I have the first-hand experience of trying to learn about the topic by reading the page and being bewildered by the first sentence. Even accepting the factual claim the editors are making, the current first sentence is not an effective way to present the information. If nothing else, it supports the allegation of stonewalling, because there's no other explanation for keeping an opening sentence like this in place.

Carleas (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandal IP

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

---

210.48.222.13 has racked up quite a few warnings on their talk page but has not resisted from the usual vandalism that has been engaged in since last year, removing things he 'does not like' and the similar from multiple articles. Also the edits at Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman are pretty egregious. A block at this point is a necessity. Gotitbro (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

RufaMoritz and Aspersions

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

---

User:RufaMoritz is casting aspersions against me after I cleaned up some of his unsourced edits at List of equipment of the Mongolian Armed Forces, such as these: [70] [71] [72]

Personal attack on my talk page

Claiming that I'm a vandal and spreading fake news

I've tried to explain that my edits weren't vandalism, but RufaMoritz refused to drop the stick, and doubled down on his claims that I'm a vandal, which it's funny given that after he attacked me in my talk page he made this edit to the List of equipment of the Mongolian Armed Forces.

Mr. Komori (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Next block will likely be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Drmies' redirection of Michael J. Fox Foundation

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

---

Can I ask someone more experienced than me to look into the circumstances of this edit [73]. I don't doubt Drmies has the right to make such an edit (and I have exercised my right to reverse it).

I am just struck by what an extreme over-reaction it seemed to be, in light of what are in Wikipedia terms, very common and long standing problems. It's incredibly easy to find articles here which rely heavily on primary sources and have a promotional tone. This one is clearly not even all that bad, compared to the average. It is easily fixed.

If all such articles were to be summarily redirected pending a do-over, that would surely be seen as extremely harmful to Wikipedia's integrity as a stable information source. Doing it one by one, is no less harmful.

This article has been edited 222 times by 132 editors. I think they all deserve to be treated with a bit more respect than this. Contrary to what was claimed, it does have "real" sources, including useful independent primary sources (Delaware State Department & Alzheimer's & Dementia), and secondary sources (Associated Press and Variety).

I see no reason why this article in its current state was deemed to be so problematic it needed to be removed from view. If there are valid reasons for such a thing, I will definitely not be donating to Wikipedia any longer. Doctor Maripol (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia aspires to stability, where stability means keeping bad content. Bon courage (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it aspires to the gradual improvement of content that is only moderately poor (compared to the mean) as opposed to drastic resets to the starting condition (no content), no? If this is not the case here, then please explain what was so bad about this article that it justified such extreme measures. Assuming you accept the sources are in fact, real (as in, the article is not a hoax). Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a content question; this noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". But there is, in general, no problem with a good faith WP:BLAR. There might, however, be something ANI worthy about an editor who first edit is this[74] and whose second is a report to ANI. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The content matter is resolved, assuming Drmies has no objection to the way I resolved the matter (return to the status quo ante). I came here precisely because I am concerned this act didn't show much good faith. It showed a potentially chronic disregard for other editor's work and the general principle of gradual improvement. I might have been persuaded differently had you been able to explain what was so wrong with this specific article that it warranted blowing up and starting again. But you haven't. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doctor Maripol, what you should have done is open up a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm sure Drmies would engage. You need to discuss it with them not raise it here. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure you are correct. I believe I am allowed to make one reversal of this edit, am I not? Whether it needs to then be discussed then depends on whether Drmies wants to discuss it, does it not? His extreme act does rather suggest his position is settled and unlikely to move. Unless or until he decides to move on that stated position, I have said about as much as I think he would need to know about my position in my explanation of the edit. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You can not buy articles with donations or threats of withholding donations; that's the whole point of running Wikipedia on donations. You won't believe me, but the article is really bad, and it was not unreasonable to ask it be restarted from scratch. You just created a new account to make the revert and then this report. But you were involved with that article before. You need to disclose your previous accounts. You also need to disclose your connection with the subject, per WP:COI. Then we can talk about what should happen next with the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no prior involvement or a conflict of interest. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean you just happened to notice that an article had been WP:BLAR'd 24 hours after the act (quite difficult to find, that), and made an account to revert? Bon courage (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't happen to notice it, no. I was alerted to it by someone flagging it on social media as an extreme act. I was sufficiently moved by it to register an account and reverse the edit, and note my concern here for wider input. I have that right, do I not? Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You do not. I think you've misunderstood "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" to mean "the encyclopedia anyone has the right to edit." Levivich (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You also neglected to notify @Drmies of this discussion, which you are required to do per the giant red notification at the top of this page. You also came straight here instead of attempting to discuss the matter with Drmies at the article's talk page or his own talk page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Apologies. Doctor Maripol (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll just wait until a CU has had a look at this brand-new account, with its cute name. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption by related accounts at Ethereal (musician)

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

---

• McBrotherman (talk · contribs)
• Climaxlord (talk · contribs)

Edit warring, adding poorly sourced content, apparent sockpuppeting. May require page protection/ user sanctions. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• We really should stop meeting like this. BTW nice name, Climaxlord--I'm all tingly. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • All the good names apparently taken. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Multiple people have tried to talk to Climaxlord about the issues of conflict of interest and promotional editing (including me) on their talkpage, and they seem to be just not getting it. EasyAsPai (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Echo1Charlie

Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs) was recently blocked from edit warring [[75]] one of thier first acts was to go back and do it again [[76]] when told that 3RR is not an upper limit, that they are still edit warring their response was this [[77]], I then told then I was not going to report them as [[78]] they replied with a clear threat they might edit war [[79]]. In addition, they are edit warring elsewhere as well [[80]] [[81]] adding a (what looks to me at any rate) to be a non sequitur rebutal.

This seems to be a case of (in this topic area) to be wp:Not behavior. No attempt to get consensus and a clear statement they do not care if they do not, they will revert anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: am I missing something, or what was your reason for removing the edit I made on 2019 Balakot airstrike article which you undid? As far as I remember, it had inline citations including Reuters, but you still removed it with an edit summary which I couldn't understand (I'm not a native speaker). I wish to know the reason before being banned from this platform. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. Once someone reverts your edit, you are invited to discuss the reasons for keeping it on the talk page, instead of reverting it back — even if you believe you are obviously in the right! If your edit is well-cited (Reuters is indeed a reliable source) and there still isn't consensus on the talk page, you are invited to ask on Wikipedia:Third opinion to have someone else uninvolved in the edit war take a look at it. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have started it with this, you are arguing with Reuters I think. Secretlondon (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I was saying that Pakistan can't block satellite imagery, thus this does not dispute the claim that " Open source satellite imagery has revealed that no targets of consequence were hit", So it seemed to address a claim, we did not make (we do not mention Reuters). Nor does this excuse or explain the threat to edit war if they think they are right. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it still seems unreasonable to me. What I was trying to add was right. They prevented Reuters and other journals and closed the site for 47 days. But it was removed with an edit summary (which I understand now reading his other comment here) that Pakistan can't block satellite. Let's assume they can't. But what does it have to do here @Slatersteven:? They blocked journalists, right? They closed the site for 1 and half months, right? @Slatersteven: With that edit you made removing the content, I felt I was being targeted. If I was knowingly vandalising that article as some Indians and Pakistanis occasionally do, I wouldn't have felt bad. But this! Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why you should have taken it to talk and not reverted if you did not understand my reason. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're confusing here. The consensus needed content is in 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, where I didn't make any edit after being blocked. Because I know its futile, on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army and you with wiki policy just like Thor with his hammer and on the other side me, with my broken English, little knowledge about wiki policies and a bunch of sources. What I can do? Nothing! It's much like the wind trying to move a paper with a paperweight!

But you removed my cited content on Balakot airstrike article saying that Pakistan can not block satellite, so I shouldn't add that they blocked Reuters?? Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army

Right, that's a personal attack. Given the history, I'd say a TBAN from Pakistan/India is the least we should do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I wish to extend that proposed ban to a lifetime ban.

PS: Don't take this as a personal attack or mocking. I'm simple done! That's it. Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, your English is certainly good enough for you to understand me when I say that, when an edit is disputed, you should discuss it on the talk page rather than reinstate it. This applies whether the edit is correct or incorrect. No "Pakistani admin" controls everything that goes into this encyclopedia. Of course, if you really want to be banned for life, you can simply stop editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Ratnahastin | Talk Page spam

Repeat spamming of 'Talk' pages, of editors with differing point of view. This may have threatening effect, on editors who are relatively new with no familiarity with regards to what is indeed 'a real concern' versus 'a harmless notice'.

Two long notices left on my Talk page on 6th of Jan 2024, with no specific reference to an Edit I made.

On 10th Jan, I responded to both the notices, asking for context and why they are leaving the notice only on my Talk page among many editors of overlapping topic(s). Also left a notice on their Talk page requesting not to repeat this and to be specific/meaningful in the notes they leave on others' Talk pages.

Not only did they remove/archive the notice I left on their Talk page within a day, with no response whatsoever, they also left a new notice with long verbiage on my Talk page on 11th Jan, while still not fully responding to questions I asked about their previous notices.

Note that the editor didn't follow through with similar due diligence for editors who share their POV and involved in editing of the same topic (Shambuka) in same time-frame. One example is ArvindPalaskar who made many edits and got banned for 2 weeks on 12th of Jan 2024. Interestingly, the same ArvindPalaskar, supported the case of Ratnahastin to remove the topic-ban on Ratnahastin on 'caste related articles' in Dec 2023.

I'm afraid the edits made by Ratnahastin 1 to the Shambuka story, and their stalling attempts 1 2 in RfC on the topic's Talk page or Admin noticeboard initiated by Redtigerxyz and Carleas, may go against the very confession they made in their topic ban appeal ("I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus."). Phule lulu (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I realize that these long messages might look threatening for new or unfamiliar editors. To be clear, they are not warnings and do not imply any concern about your editing, and the messages even say on the first line It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. (emphasis not mine). These notices are usual for people starting to edit contentious topics, as these topic carry more restrictions on editing due to their nature.

I see that both you and ArvindPalaskar had already got such messages in 2020, maybe Ratnahastin saw the previous notice on Arvind's page but not on yours?

(Also please warn other editors when you open a discussion on ANI. Not against you specifically but please there's a big red warning telling to do it.) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry there has been a delay in posting the warning on Talk page, as I was trying to understand how the template works and putting the links together. Phule lulu (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thank a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Invective in edit summary

On my watchlist, I noticed that User:Bon courage referred to another editor as a fuckdoodle in the edit summary. Even if it's their own talk page, I don't think that type of conduct ought to be tolerated. Maybe the ES could be rev-deleted? Nutez (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

On my watchlist, too, and when I saw it, I thought briefly about reporting here to ANI the IP whom BC was reverting. Saying that an editor is talking out of the wrong orifice seems worse to me than the edit summary reverting it. I don't think this complaint has much merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, two wrongs don't make a right, and I didn't read the reverted comment before now. I haven't read the full convo, I just don't like seeing that kind of verbiage on my watchlist. Nutez (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia has a solution to that. Take Bon Courage's talk page off your watchlist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. We are adults and humans. Sometimes buttons get pushed so much by frustrating and disruptive editors that the truth gets told plainly. Wikipedia is not censored. Sheesh! Just shut this down. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nutez, might I perhaps suggest that the intended purpose of a watchlist doesn't generally extend to looking for evidence to perpetuate an ongoing dispute with another contributor? [82] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute? That case was settled quite a while ago. How do you know I was looking for evidence and not simply checking my watchlist? Nutez (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact you kept that user's Talk page on your watchlist. Smacks of waiting for something you can report, in order to get someone sanctioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a shitty comment that made me shake my head, then I saw what they were reverting and shook my head again. Fucknoodle is not eligible for revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fuckdoodle is also not eligible for revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it would have been preferable to use the edit summary "rv trolling" or "rv troll", but this is not a game of "gotcha" and we do take context into account when applying our civililty rules. If you think the word "fuckdoodle" should be revdelled, why did you use it on a widely read noticeboard? —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me whether "fuckdoodle" is a description of the person or the content. Either way, while I understand the exasperation, it is best not to show it too openly as that is merely feeding the trolls what they want most, attention and drama. (Yes, I speak as one who has made the same mistake myself.) --DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen an account with 500 edits over 4 years [83] that has made this many civility reports to ANI: 1, 2, 3 (also against Bon Courage), 4, 5. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

While the comment was inappropriate, the nature of the edit makes my only reaction to this be: Don't feed the troll. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Levivich's five diffs above, summarised:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#SandyGeorgia's_inappropriate_edit_summaries - closed as inappropriate venue and with suggestions of a boomerang back at Nutez.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Personal_attack_at_Talk:Aaron_Maté - warning issued to the person complained about, no block issued
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#Personal_attack_against_article_subject_on_talk_page - "Nutez and Bon courage:, there's a rough consensus you both in particular should dial it down a little, grow a slightly thicker skin, and not try to get the other banned from the project". Reading the whole thread back, that's very generous on Nutez, who could have very easily been hit by a boomerang for both filing the report and their conduct therein.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Personal_attacks_at_Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party - editor blocked two weeks
• And now this one.

Things that concern me: the frequency of reporting to ANI relative to their total edit count, a strike rate below 40% for appropriate filings, and the fact that Nutez was explicitly warned to "not try to get [Bon courage] banned from the project" as a result of discussion #3. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Nutez, this is a really petty complaint. It's also a Streisand effect case. You don't like something, and your first concern is to get someone in trouble? Really??? Your action here just advertises the supposed offense and undercuts your supposed concern. Danes would say you are "walking in very small shoes." Next time, just move on and drop the "Hurrah! An excuse to get another editor in trouble." attitude. That's not a good look and certainly does not improve the atmosphere here. When you see something like that again, and we all do every day, if you think it will create more light than heat, then write a private email to the offending editor and civilly let them know you have heightened sensibilities for such language. Politely ask them to reconsider their language. Keep it a private matter. Don't advertise it. Your goal in life should be to stay far away from drama boards. Try to keep your name far away from the history of these pages. This crap just creates more heat than light. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel and Valjean: Ok, I agree this was dumb. Your points are quite persuasive. I retract the complaint and shall henceforth contribute more constructively to the project. Do you accept my amends? Nutez (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Driveby nannying of another user's talk page is about the least productive use of one's Wikipedia time that I can imagine. Esp. when the filer has done nothing the entire month of Jan 2024 but this, and has 50 edits in 2 years. No action on BC, warn OP about frivolity, move on. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:89.164.247.98

Legal threat at User talk:89.164.247.98 after repeatedly removing an entire section from Pluricentric language - the diff in question. I've advised that they retract the legal threat. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've doubled down, but have been blocked by User:ScottishFinnishRadish - unsure how to archive this, but it likely should be. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

They've tripled down after the block. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing in general. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

And TPA revoked after the rant in response to your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ip range 2601:3C2:8281:5C90:0:0:0:0/64

Can an admin add 2024 Arizona Wildcats football team to the block list for this IP range please due to the same behavior that to the other blocks which is IP address hopping and long-term edit warring. This person keeps adding a section for "coaching staff additions" when this is already covered in "coaching staff changes" section and each time it's under a new IP address in that range.--Rockchalk717 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior by Melroross/Melrorross on Flamenco page

User:Melroross has continuously and chronically shown disruptive editing behavior on the Flamenco page. He constantly edit wars the article to remove any reference of Romani people, going against the consensus that was established on the talk page through extensive discussion, including with administrators[84] (see ‘Consensus paragraph in lede’). Melroross refuses to use the talk page to seek a new consensus and just continues to edit war the article by deleting well-sourced information that they don’t personally agree with[85][86] (btw using a second account User:Melrorross to avoid edit warring consequences), adding disruptive citation needed tags on sourced content[87], replacing well sourced content from actual historiography with fringe undergraduate theses[88] and even going so far as to erase part of a quote in a citation from a well respected scholarly source because he did not agree with it[89]. I tried starting a talk page conversation myself and was only met with aspersions cast on me and unwillingness to discuss sources and reach consensus.

• I won't entertain this kind of narrative whereby Flamenco is attributed to the Roma people- which it isn't. It is Southern Spanish and I shall, with more time and passing this sort of watchdog censorship.. This was the first response I got when I started the discussion in the talk page. This demonstrates a clear unwillingness for discussion and analysis is sourced and instead just plain pov-pushing and detailing his plan of slowly edit warring the article for the past year without discussion, which he has done.

• sound very desperate to try and impose YOUR tunnel-vision viewpoints. Research and researchers can manipulate the truth if looking for or trying to discard specific data… Again more aspersions cast on me and clear soapbox mentality which preferences his own POV over academic sources which are “manipulated.”

This has been going on for over a year now, with this user switching between his two accounts and edit warring the page, despite me constantly asking and pleading with him to use the talk page in the discussion I already started. He instead accuses me of vandalism for my edits [90] and despite my numerous requests to him to use the talk page and discuss the sources, continues to do as he pleases. This is clear disruptive editing, Melroross changes sources to fit his own POV, erases sourced consensus content multiple times to replace it with fringe content without discussion, and admits himself that he will continue to do so until mentions of Romani people in the art forms origination are gone because to him that is ‘hearsay’ and my ‘deluded fantasy’[91], this POV-pushing and aspersions casted on me most stop, he is not here to improve the Flamenco page. TagaworShah (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)