Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize =800K
|maxarchivesize =800K
|counter = 1142
|counter = 1174
|algo = old(60h)
|algo = old(72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
Line 16: Line 15:
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
== Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by [[User:AnonMoos]] ==


The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of [[WP:TALKNO]] and [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"|failure to get the point]]. Issues began when this editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262360198 removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material]. They did it [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262561033 again] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263309462 again] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263500408 again].
== [[User:ToosieJoosie]] ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Indeffed by {{noping|Bbb23}} for {{tq|[[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|Disruptive editing]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], personal attacks}}. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Queen</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">of</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred">Hearts ❤️</span>]] (no relation) 20:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
}}


Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to [[User talk:إيان#c-AnonMoos-20241212005000-AnonMoos-20241211002100|my talk page]] to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262376005 started a discussion] on the talk page of the relevant article, the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262376005 edited my signature] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262471993 changed the heading of the discussion I started] according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to [[WP:TALKNO]], both [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262499410 in that discussion] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonMoos&diff=prev&oldid=1262499914 on their talk page], they [[User talk:إيان#c-AnonMoos-20241212005000-AnonMoos-20241211002100|responded on ''my'' talk page]] stating {{tq|ever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it|q=y}}, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262560496 again] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263308469 again] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263501112 again]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263525438 finally explained] that I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1263525119 sought a third opinion] and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263583161 changed it again anyway].
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:إيان|إيان]] ([[User talk:إيان#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/إيان|contribs]]) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


:The other user in this case is [[User:AnonMoos]]? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes the is indeed about [[User:AnonMoos]]. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating [[WP:TALKNO]] repeatedly even after I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263525438 explained] that I had [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1263525119 sought a third opinion] and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263583161 changed it again anyway]. [[User:إيان|إيان]] ([[User talk:إيان|talk]]) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a conduct issue. [[User:إيان|إيان]] ([[User talk:إيان|talk]]) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "{{tqi|Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant.}}" To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::&lrm;إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he does '''not''' in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The user breaks the rules and returns erroneous edits after correcting them in [[Afro Tech]], displaying disruptive behaviour. After I explained the reasons for these necessary corrections on [[User talk:ToosieJoosie]] and asked to return my corrections - they suggested to keep violating the rules and started getting personal, so I think it would be better to resolve the situation with the intervention of someone from the outside so as not to escalate the situation. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


:{{replyto|AnonMoos}} I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1262471809] [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263583161]? That is indeed a clear violation of [[WP:TPOC]] since the signature was perfectly valid per [[WP:NLS]]. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:As per written on your Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solidest
::[[User:AnonMoos]], this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:RE: <u>Article:Afro Tech , contributions and edits</u>
::: For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86&diff=prev&oldid=1262558628]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=1262083539]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Dictionary_of_Modern_Written_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1263583161]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:1. They are clearly two seperate words, and how the subgenres name is predominantly displayed as well as typed across a plethora of sources and platforms, not a stylization. (Your move also only suspiciously, took place after the pages views were increasing. After your move ,it's back to near 0). Again ,seems malicious and unecessary, not even by accident or genuinely wanting to improve.Thus, if the bots or more established admins haven't found a problem, I think you should disregard it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusion_music_genres ; "This category contains music genres that could be considered fusions of various historical genres; that is, they combine elements of different genres together." As per numerous sources and evidence , this is or will definitely be the case , in future, if not so, already. 3 None of the sources , source nothing , if you have time to read properly ,they all mention or highlight the topic/ article. Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
::::I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have actually just found that you are the last and only editor on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech page's contributions that created at least''' three '''duplicate , citation, instead of re-using, which I have to rescue and fix, now. I don't know what your problem is but please stop with the fixation and malisciousness.
:::::Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to [[WP:SEC]][[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solidest also displays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_ behaviour across , at '''least 3''' different accounts , all evidentially what seems like constantly only "tracking" my edits, almost daily since I started my user account, I am new and not perfect , still learning and honing my editing skills, this user's behaviour has been highly perturbing. Please assist and/or advise further. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::<strike>Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnonMoos/Archive3#A/O][[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</strike>
::And if not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, piggbacking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry, there are literal , sabotage edits in my first and only page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech , such as duplicate, citation source references and then later on my talk page accusing me of listing "fake sources". Removing text and edits as well as labeling them as "copy editing" and constant incorrect grammar edits, I would have to correct , after the user(s) block the "undo" function , forcing me to do manual "undos" when I am a new editor. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Wikipedia at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
:Looks like a content dispute and neither of you have engaged on the article's talk page. That's where this discussion needs to start. @[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]], unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry are inappropriate. If you feel there is a genuine concern and can back it up with diffs, go to [[WP:SPI]]. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::It could be proof that the user is infact maliscious , since he/ she is a more experienced and longstanding editor. He/ she would've known to do that, instead comes straight here which highlights the constant sabotage and tracking of my edits and page creation. Perhaps the user's aim is not only to discredit me however to entirely get my account deleted. As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page where the user , again started a discussion instead of the article's talk page. Let's hope it will be resolved civilly and not reach that far. I kindly, thank you. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::Wikipedia uses Unicode characters ([[UTF-8]] encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should '''not edit'''. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]], your path at Wikipedia will be much smoother and you'll be more successful at achieving your desired results if you focus your comments on content, not on editors. Your most [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ToosieJoosie&diff=prev&oldid=1184825697 recent] post to Solidest on your talk page takes a battlefield approach that simply escalates hostilities. I understand that [[:Afro Tech]] is a new article and it's the first article that you created so it's natural to feel possessive over it. However, you don't [[WP:OWN|own]] the article. Please, stop the accusations. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Wikipedia '''at all''' unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Wikipedia developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Wikipedia's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Wikipedia from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Some of the statements made such as sabotage duplicate citations, then later on accusing me of listing fake sources and incorrect grammar edits after my editing are not accusations & can be tracked. Any mistakes I have or may have made are obviously because I am a new(beginner) editor. On the other hand,clearly disruptive edits made by more experienced user(s)/ editor(s), is highly suspicious. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::...[[HTTPS]] was created in ''1994'', and became an official specification in '''2000''', not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Wikipedia with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web ''at all'', and the security hole that lets you access Wikipedia without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is ''not'' working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]]'s talk page as per [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]] and [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 23:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced ''within'' HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The page has already been reviewed twice by a user and a bot (user/s bot). Without any problems or highly concerning instances. I do feel as though @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]]'s behaviour is highly perturbing and accusations , exaggerated for alleged reasons mentioned prior to and perhaps others. @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] could we agree to disagree and you perhaps , fixate on something / someone else or create your own page(s),as what you're currently doing now is not only time as well as energy consuming but highly unecessary,too. As @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] mentioned it is a mere "content dispute", not such a big deal.
::::And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you ''don't know when it happens'', you shouldn't be editing. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] I have focused on the content , @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] wrote on my talk page and I was simply , reiterating the reply on his talk page too as he/ she had done on, mine. The page move wasn't necessary as there are title(s) of the genre displayed the same/ in a similar manner without any issues.The user keeps on bringing up disputes that he/ she can self-pacify via researching or actually reading the "fake sources" I have been accused of. The user's arguments are also a clear indication of not researching or having any actual knowledge in the topic however creating disputes just "for the sake" of it. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::This is probably a reference to when Wikipedia started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|ToosieJoosie}} please read [[WP:OWN]], a policy page you still don't seem to have read, because asking Solidest to stay off an article you created is not allowed. You're both at risk of getting blocked from editing that article entirely because neither of you has started a discussion at that article's talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "''As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page''" but in their first message here, Schazjmd told you this discussion ought to happen at [[Talk:Afro Tech]]. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since <strike>2011</strike>and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I never ever asked anyone to stay off an/any article, what I stipulated or meant rather could be interpreted as him/ her @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] please not warring on my talk page or disruptive edits, without clearly researching or clearly for "the sake of it" - on my edits. I had no issues whatsoever , not even starting any talks on the page's article or anyone's talk page, whereas there's / was clear evidence of disruptive edits/ vandalism. @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] mentioned it was supposed to be initiated on the article's talk page, because @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] only initiated a discussion directly on my talk page, that's where I had to respond. That's what I meant by "as advised". [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
<strike>:::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) </strike>
:::::@[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]] & @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]]
::::The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::RE: I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]]'s talk page as per [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]] and [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]] [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
::::: Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
: My edits are routine style corrections that I make on a regular basis within the music genre taskforce. I made the edits and gave reasons in the comments why wikipedia does it this way and not the other. ToosieJoosie started reverting and rolling everything back. I started the conversation on their personal page, not on the article's talk page, as I thought the issues of WP:MOS and sources placing were more about the user editing practice than the subject of this exact article (but I wasn't sure if that was right, and that's where I was wrong). I replied with more details about why it should be like that and provided links where it is written, they still disagreed and moved on to accusing me. This over-dramatisation over disagreeing with trivial edits is exactly what I was trying to avoid. If someone doesn't agree that wiki guidelines should be followed, I don't have the motivation to prove otherwise. Regarding the accusations of "fake sources" - my phrase was "false sources" and I further explained that I was talking about using the source where it doesn't support or match the sentence in which it was posted. That reference use was brought back to the same place. In the other place, I put {{tl|Not in source}}, which ToosieJoosie also removed for no reason without making any corrections. The problem really isn't so much with the article itself (which is why I didn't make any more edits there), but with ownership and disagreement with the wiki's guidelines, and instead of finding a solution, it went straight to accusations and personal attacks, and accusations of puppeteering here sound even more ridiculous. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
===None of this matters===
::I am no longer going to back and forth regarding this specific article or "my faults". I tried to only focus on the content and even now a user/ editor has removed relative emphasis information and shortned the lead for what appears no valid, reason.Which I will try to restore as I mentioned it is, relevant information. All of "these kinds" of edits were not taking place on the article , nor my edits elsewhere until "you"/ recently. Thank you everyone @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]], @[[User:City_of_Silver|CityofSilver]] and @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] for your feedback as well as encouragement, I look forward to being a positive and insightful editor , as well as to become as skilled as y'all one, day. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´- [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]], before you revert this other editor's changes, please try discussing your disagreement with their changes on the article talk page first. Don't get into an edit war. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 00:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. {{U|AnonMoos}} shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I ''was'' in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Please see [[Talk:Afro Tech]] ,
:::The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ADMINABUSE&redirect=no WP:ADMINABUSE]
::That was ''six years ago'', which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::** [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TOOLMISUSE&redirect=no WP:TOOLMISUSE]
:::As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MEATPUPPET&redirect=no WP:MEATPUPPET]
:::::And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::**** [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ADMINACCT&redirect=no WP:ADMINACCT]
::::::Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 11:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist [[User talk:AnonMoos]]. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okay, that's the second time you've accused someone of sockpuppetry or coordination ([[WP:MEATPUPPET]]). Either provide evidence at [[WP:SPI]] or you will likely receive a block. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::'''Why are you being biased and not referring to what clearly seems as disruptive / nonsensical/ unecessary edits highly suspiscious for a long standing , more experienced user , even in a discussion , couldn't back or explain? <code>You are not focusing on the content and behaviour.</code> Furthermore my life doesn't revolve around that article, I just highlighed it as the circumstances I was even "brought" to this page as a newcomer was exaggerated and unjustified when @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] didn't start any discussion on the said article's page and also wrote regarding the specific article on my user page.''' [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]. Even , @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] stipulated that the initial talk was supposed to be done on [[Talk:Afro Tech]] , not here, I also apologized for "fixing" the disruptive edits instead of engaging in tallking first , why am I now what seems like being constantly baited into edit wars or provoked?
:::::Heck, ''I'' am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I apologize for using those links, however I think [[Wikipedia:Civility]] should be used in fairness for all editors. Nowhere have I harassed or "bitten" anyone , instead it seems like the other way around.
::::::Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLOCKNO&redirect=no WP:BLOCKNO]
*The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::* "[[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]] on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
::::::** Experience or associated privileges shouldn't be misguidedly interpreted as a reason for default acquiescence from other members, and no Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies"
::::::** "How to avoid being a "[[Wikipedia:WikiVampire|biter]]"[[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers&action=edit&section=2 edit]] Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to:
::::::**# Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
::::::**# Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like ''terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.'').
::::::**# [[Wikipedia:Civility|Moderate your approach and wording]].
::::::**# Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
::::::**# [[Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful|Avoid sarcasm]] in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
::::::**# Strive to respond in a measured manner.
::::::**# Wait, i.e. calm down ''first''.
::::::**# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Be gracious]].
::::::**# [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus]].
::::::**# [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|Take responsibility for resolving conflicts]].
::::::**# [[Ethic of reciprocity|Reciprocate where necessary]].
::::::**# [[Active listening|Listen actively]].
::::::**# Avoid excessive [[Wikipedia:Glossary|Wikipedia jargon]]. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not [[Wikipedia:Abbreviations|wiki shorthand]].
::::::**# Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
::::::**# Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
::::::**# Don't [[Wikipedia:Tag bombing|fill the page with maintenance templates]] or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, [https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/07/18/building-community-inclusivity-stack-overflow/ even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended].
::::::**# Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion.
::::::**# Remember that [[Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed|it's okay to make mistakes]]—we're all only human. Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using [[Wikipedia:Welcome templates|these]] templates for welcoming, or the first two [[Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Warnings|here]] for warning. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia."
::::::[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::(Contd.) Besides @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]], I may have stipulated that out of annoyance for the said reasons above nor myself or the said user, at the time even engaged in any disruptive discussion or "edit war". I will accept and internalize @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] advice "stop with the accusations". Please let's just leave it at that, this is all not normal at all , highly toxic and time/ energy consuming. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|ToosieJoosie}} You said that Solidest is making edits that are "''highly suspicious''". The best place to address that concern is [[WP:SPI]] and if you want, I'll help you file a report once I know what evidence you have that Solidest is violating the [[WP:SOCK]] policy.
::::::::And I'll say it before anybody else does: please don't copy and paste large sections of text like this. A link to [[WP:BITE]] would have worked just fine. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]] in the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. RE: I am not going to repeat myself or back and forth. Please stop & don't [[WP:BITE]].Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:I am the IP editor who made prose edits at Afro Tech. I have few edits but am a lurker on this noticeboard (and others). I don’t have any particular attachments to the edits at this article, I understand it’s under construction and they were more to point out prose issues than completely solve the problem. However, ToosieJoosie accused me of vandalism because I am an IP editor while acknowledging in their edit summary (diff 1184978801 - sorry I am on mobile and in a rush) that they will take my changes into account (i.e. they are useful and not vandalism). I was a bit put off by this and would just like to say please don’t do that anymore ToosieJoosie. That isn’t what vandalism means on Wikipedia. You make a big deal of others biting you but seem to have no qualms biting me. That’s all. Happy editing, everybody. [[Special:Contributions/2001:1970:5E26:5A00:7DFE:FFF8:E754:89AE|2001:1970:5E26:5A00:7DFE:FFF8:E754:89AE]] ([[User talk:2001:1970:5E26:5A00:7DFE:FFF8:E754:89AE|talk]]) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response and opinon. Please see [[User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection]] @[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]], for mine (response) in referance to specifically you and your edits. As well as the summary description/ comment on only- specifically my edits as "ruff / clearing out prose fluff" etc. which included , blanking, if I recall correctly - I replaced the edits , in a manner taking your opinion edit into consideration to avoid [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BITE&redirect=no WP:BITE] ing your edit "as an IP" furthermore not to seem bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:OWN&redirect=no WP:OWN] as the author, whilst retaining the edit and source(s). especially <u>blanking</u> which happens to have a paragraph at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VAND&redirect=no WP:VAND], if I am not mistaken. ,directly after another user also on the exact same day referred to the lead cite etc. as "irrelevant when that's the standard music genre box parameter" etc and blanked.Please forgive me if I am wrong and used the incorrect, description. Again, I think this discussion or if other suggestions/ edit/ content disuputes should be initiated at the specific article's talk page [[Talk:Afro Tech]]. Please respect my wishes , RE:" ''I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 17:04, 14 November 2023''" . Thank you and likewise. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{ping|ToosieJoosie}} Does "''I'm not going to repeat myself''" mean you're not going to compile evidence for a report at SPI? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


* AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Wikipedia wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I never ever requested an investigation or said that I would anywhere for any user(s), as a newcomer I simply stipulated the phrases as into try and understand what was going on and out of being [[WP:BITE]].n, and annoyance, as per '''RE:''' n the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. Once again, Please stop & don't [[WP:BITE]].Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡ [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]] [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ping|ToosieJoosie}} I apologize if you feel badgered. I promise you, I'm doing my very best to keep you from getting blocked for breaking a rule that you, since you're a newcomer, might not fully know. You are ''not allowed'' to say or imply that Solidest is sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting if you're not going to request an investigation because that would be you violating the policy that says [[WP:NPA|personal attacks aren't allowed]]. As [[User:HandThatFeeds|The Hand That Feeds You]] said earlier, you have to "''provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block.''" <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 20:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]], thank you. Would @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] writing directing on my user page regarding a specific article and initially mentioning "I was engaging in an unhealthy manner" , as well as then furthermore "bringing" me here instead of again having not started a talk on the specififc article's talk page also warrant as , [[Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks aren't allowed]]?
::::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MEATPUPPET&redirect=no WP:MEATPUPPET] stipulated "The term ''meatpuppet'' may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." I was not aware that simply, stating it as a newcomer out of annoyance for and for all reasons above , results in getting blocked. Thank you for informing me, now I know. Again, not once have I harassed anyone , I further even reverted my post on his talk page in response to his on mine, which he never did nor directly apologized for. Lastly, this is resulting in mundane and unecessary back and forth as well as repetition of statements which I am trying to avoid. Again, please stop & don't [[WP:BITE]].Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´
::::[[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Alright, at this point I believe you need blocked for [[WP:DISRUPT]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Continuing to demand Solidest be punished while crying [[WP:BITE]] and posting extremely long copy/pastes of rules (which you clearly did not read, hence having to explain MEATPUPPET to you ''repeatedly'') is either intentionally disruptive, or indicates you [[WP:CIR|do not understand the rules well enough to contribute here]]. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::'''Support block'''. This editor's recent report at [[WP:RFPP]] is entirely beyond the pale; please see my message at [[User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection]] for more. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 21:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC) <small>Whoops, forgot to add "''and per [[User:HandThatFeeds]]''" because yeah, of course. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::::@[[User:City of Silver|City of Silver]], @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]], @[[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] & @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] please see my response ; [[User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection]] 🙏 [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing by [[User talk:185.146.112.192]] ==
::::::: What were we supposed to look at there? I don't consider the edits that were made by IP to be anything destructive and worth protecting, on the contrary I think they were an improvement to bring the article to a neutral look. And you requested page protection once again showing [[WP:OWN]]. In conversations, you continue to be aggressive to anyone who makes edits to articles after you and demand that literally any change be coordinated with you ([[Talk:Afro Tech]]). At the same time you do not perceive at all the point of the complaints addressed to you. On [[User talk:ToosieJoosie| your talk page]] Schazjmd explains to you again how to use and cite sources, after I pointed this out on the very same page before and asked you to return my correction (which you still haven't done). Instead, you are once again being accusatory starting with "why you are tracking my edits". Of course your edits will be tracked after this conversation, given that you refuse to correct your own mistakes, while reverting fixes of other people. Literally in every discussion you participate, you display an accusatory and aggressive attitude with throwing rules at other editors ([[User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection]]) right after it was pointed out by others above. And yet you are completely unwilling to understand the point of the complaints towards you as [[User talk:Fieryninja#Question from ToosieJoosie (01:31, 14 November 2023)|here]] you say that you shouldn't be on this ANI page at all, since the claims were explained to you not through the article's talk page, but through your personal talk page, adding "I have been experiencing , 'bias', 'mob justice' like baiting and provocations both in the thread at ANI as well as via 'tracking/ WP:HOUNDING' and constant "unwarranted" threats of being blocked".
::::::: All I see from my side is many editors trying to explain to you the basics of editing wikipedia articles and communication aspects ([[WP:BASICS]]), and getting aggression and accusations in return. While you respond kindly on this page, but keep accusing the very same people on another page. You've tagged me in one day in 5 of your posts saying that I'm being silent and not editing the [[Afro Tech]] anymore (and yet you keep accusing me in some of these posts). I honestly don't make edits to the article, just to limit communication with you that is not changing at all. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Hi Solidest. As per mentioned on [[User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection]] City of Silver appears to have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:HOUND&redirect=no WP:HOUND] ed, my edit and then further directly accused the notion being carried out solely because of your (@ Solidest's) "content dispute" - (which I stipulated on numerous times was never even supposed to be initially posted here but was supposed to have begun , first and initially [[Talk:Afro Tech]] along with the other initial discussion regarding the said article in hand which you also posted on my talk page instead of the article's talk page as well ). - I merely stipulated that was not the case and further highlighted, what was the case , which @[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] simply unprejudicly further reiterated not because of " [[WP:OWN]] ". Regarding, @ Schazjmd, I also stipulated that I appreciated his feedback and input whilst including "my reasoning" & opinion that I believe that he could've simply reverted, edit ( with a summary and descripting or dire case , written on the article's talk page instead , regarding the specific referencing as well - "If a sentence contains information that people might disagree on, or information that is not commonly known by most people, it likely needs a reference.".'''I am currently editing other and will begin working on other article , ideas, as well.''' Please be reassured, Solidest that I only referred to your silence not out of malisciosness however also to highlight limited communication, no longer engaging in warring or unpleasant exchanges such as here, currently, at ANI. However the matter still seemed to be ongoing , which I found strange. My intention was and is never to disrespect or undermine any editor or their edits, as stipulated numerous times I have never ever engaged in any form of harassment. Never in my wildest dream did I imagine , this to be ongoing like this and I am unfortunately slightly losing the enjoyment of editing due to all of this. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I will remind you that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AToosieJoosie&diff=1184825697&oldid=1184821425 you called] my detailed explanation of the three corrections you rolled back "highly toxic behaviours , which includes literal bullying and gaslighting" and "a habit of twisting words into your own version/interpretation for your own gain or benefit" and "fixation(obsession)" and "highly, demotivating and shocking, which is probably what you like/want". And then after my first response here, you wrote yesterday that you expect me to apologise for it. And later today in several places you said that you were inappropriately added to this page (due to the procedure, but ignoring the fact of the claim itself). And now after you asked to react at your protection request you're calling my further response strange. Well, there's really nothing more to add here. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you for your response , Solidest. To reiterate, the said discussion was never supposed to have been conducted on my talk page in the first place and that's where I stipulated my quoted opinions, frustration and annoyance but it was supposed to have been conducted on the specific ,article's talk page.
::::::::::You initially added in the title on my talk page ; "posting false sources" as well as sarcastic and conscending tones , such as "you probably don't have the experience" ( obviously, I am a newcomer?) , "and also your approach of accusing other wikipedians who correct your own mistakes of being malicious is not healthy behaviour either."
::::::::::All your edits were also conducted without talking neither elaborate or sometimes even no summary/ description or summary descriptions that were non-factual when the information was clearly stipulated or highlighted in the sources etc "., such as the page move, which I had stipulated coincided with another genre titled , in a simialr manner when you stipulated - "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate." i.e. [[Afro Tech]] / [[Hard NRG]]. ( even when I 'thanked' you, it was by accident and happened to be my first 'thank' and I didn't know how to "undo" the action - again, I am not perfect and still learning/ honing my skills)
::::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history
::::::::::I really do think this discussion was / is supposed to be taking place at [[Talk:Afro Tech]] and not here. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I really don't understand why you keep bringing up the this article here, when the tone and manner of your communication with other editors is the issue here. And you keep continuing to make claims against me for following standard wikipedia editorial practice, while adding made-up stuff that can be refuted with literally a couple of clicks (which I did in the post above). It seems to me more and more like you've come here just for trolling and provocation than for anything of substance, so I think I'm not going to continue this dialogue any further. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thank you for your prompt response, Solidest.Is it not the initial and highlighted reason why you "brought me here" / started this discussion and also wrote directly on my talk page? As per contribution logs and history, there is nothing that "I am making up".
::::::::::::[[User talk:ToosieJoosie]]
::::::::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history
::::::::::::"I never came here", you started this discussion here and on my talk page instead of initiating on, [[Talk:Afro Tech]]. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::*I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::This is looking block-worthy to me as well. One of the great weaknesses of [[WP:BITE]] is that it doesn't come with an equal corollary that in turn, newcomers have a responsibility to learn Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and to act civilly to other editors regardless of any real or imagined provocations. I am ''very'' unimpressed by ToosieJoosie ostensibly apologizing and taking swings at Solidest in the ''same damn paragraph,'' or by their apparent belief that BITE both authorizes newbies to attack experienced editors with impunity and immunizes them against following the rules. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 13:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::The corollary you're looking for is [[WP:PACT]], or in the narrower case of newcomers who won't learn our policies and social norms and insist that everyone else bend to the way they expect things to work instead, [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::While both of those ''imply'' what Ravenswing was lamenting the absence of, an essay stating their exact point—that new editors have a responsibility to acclimate themselves to the community’s norms, does not exist and, I agree, really should be written (CIR, which has often been used to justify both blocks and unblock denials, is explicitly aimed at users unaware of these norms, most often due to inadequate English-language skills) [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 17:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Ravenswing|Ivanvector|Daniel Case}} Okay, I just gave it a shot; see [[WP:BITEPACT]]. I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever tried this so if you want to give me notes, please feel free or if you'd rather just make any changes or improvements you think are necessary without running anything by me first, please feel free. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User:City of Silver|<span style="color:#BC49A6">City</span>]][[User talk:City of Silver|<span style="color:Green"> o</span><span style="color:Red">f </span>]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> 19:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh, there are several essays to that effect -- I wrote one myself a number of years back -- but what I was wishing for then and now is a ''guideline'', with equal force and validity as BITE. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
{{od}}
I think it's clear that my initial characterization of this as a content dispute was wrong, and I apologize to the participants for my error. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support Block''' - The entire discussion on ToosieJoosie's part was more digging their own grave than actually listening and learning. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/UnironicEditor|contribs]]) 06:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I see that [[User:ToosieJoosie]] has made liteally hundreds of edits about the trivial issue of the capitalisation of Afro Tech and Afro house, on [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase]], [[User talk:Fieryninja]], [[Talk:Afro house]], [[Talk:Styles of house music]], [[User talk:ToosieJoosie]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]], [[User talk:Daniel Case]], and [[Talk:Afro Tech]]. ToosieJoosie shows no sign of taking on board any of the advice given to them, and no sign of slowing down their campaign against the great wrong that was done by changing the capitalisation. I think adminsitrators should consider blocking this user, because endless pointless agitation degrades the wikipedia enviroment for all of us. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] ([[User talk:Tagishsimon|talk]]) 20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


The [[User talk:185.146.112.192]] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.
:Once again the same editor performed a page move request without warning me nor initiating a talk on the article's talk page which I did when I came across the banner @[[Talk:Afro house]] as well as listed sources, it is not my fault that both subgenres are spelled like that as they originate from the same country amongst other similar attributes - I also formally requested for a third editor;s opinion which I am still waiting for , please don't take and twist my seeking for guidance and suggestions as well as stipulating my opinions which we all have a right to @ [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice/ Assistance Request]] and twist it into something else and bring it here. I had also respectfully stipulated ''"I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 17:04, 14 November 2023".''
:I believe I have done nothing directly wrong or seriously harmful to yourself @[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] & @[[User:Solidest|Solidest]] to warrant for this, I have not even responded to Solidest's last response [[Talk:Afro house]] nor have I "successfully managed to even 'counter' the page moves requesting another or more page moves" which would result in a prolonged edit war as well as further disruptive edits via re-directs etc. for the page(s). Thank you. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


[[User:Moroike|Moroike]] ([[User talk:Moroike|talk]]) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not "seriously harmful", but at the same time on other pages you keep saying towards me that I was " 'threatening' to move the other Afro Tech once again". When I specifically warned you (as you asked) that I'm going to do it through [[WP:RM]] to reach consensus and get other people opinions just so it doesn't look biased or harmful to you. And also that standard fixes within the music genres project on new articles (renaming according to manual of style) is once again referred by you as WP:Following and "the editor clearly appears to be 'obsessing' on me / my edits". Which just goes to show that your behavior doesn't change. So I guess it's rather "moderately harmful" to me? Also looking at your recent (unfinished?) nomination on [[Talk:Afro house]] with exactly the same arguments that you made before and I have explained in detail and politely why they are wrong, and taking in account the same conversations you multiplied on various talk pages today, you still refuse to comprehend explanations of the rules and other editors arguments, it still appears to be empty words to you. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest|talk]]) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::This is the/ a 3rd party , opinion result:[[Talk:Afro house#c-HerrWaus-20231116203800-Solidest-20231116171100]]. Thank you for your response, I am referring to [[Afro house]] which was only published yesterday ,you did not warn or suggest a page move for , regarding [[Afro Tech]] the initial page mover I reverted, you also didn't warn for , only today you warned for which would be @ [[Afro Tech]] 2nd move/ move request and the first actual, warning - ever for both, in total 3 moves - and yes I do find it unfair that a page in the same genre [[Hard NRG]] that only you specifically contribute to for 3 years with a same/similar to title hasn't encountered these actions or issues. I interpreted it and felt as though it was threatening because as per previously stipulated before and previously you would never even warn before moving , so now it's even as per taunting etc. I have actually had enough of this and please have your way, you win. Move the pages 100 times more,- even if you see fit, this is unhealthy for my mental health and not what I thought or intended my editing experience would be like not even having or made edits , for more than 20 days, yet.I am even currently entirely demotivated and reluctant to create any other house/ subgenre music articles I intended and had ideas to create because it appears each time I do, it's specifically you commenting on my flaws/mistakes, shortcomings and trying to what seems like specifically only discred my edits, today I even appreciated and took 1 of suggestions into consideration and did a "clean up". However to reiterate I have really had enough, also I would please no longer like to continue in this or any other dialogues as into not constantly disturb other editors as well as creating a spectacle for 'watchers',(if, any). Thank you for everything and take care. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 21:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support block or TBAN''' TJ quotes policies and links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them. There is clearly a CIR issue, and one which needs addressing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Hi all -unfortunately once again,
*:I sincerely apologize to the editors constantly being notified because of "this thread" and what seems like isn't being moved on from as well as new/ different angles to re-open and/or continue it, each time.
*:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]I don't understand why you're bringing what is a clear content dispute ( please forgive/ correct me if I am wrong, here).
*:Please see ; [[Talk:Afro Tech]], as well as regional and local scenes listed in the same way, same genre /style of [[Hardbass]], [[Deep house]] & [[House music]] - also once again not encountering these kinds of discussion/ content dispute- in reference to specifically what AirshipJungleman29 is referring to, ; I was also not even bothered with the articles edits and moved onto other edits, you made a point to specifically respond ,once again after days - obviously I would get the continued thread , new message notifcation, and it was only between the two of us. I believe I have a right just like everyone else to dispute content. Of course, since this seems like an ongoing manner perhaps you should formally request a content dispute resolution. [[User:ToosieJoosie|ToosieJoosie]] ([[User talk:ToosieJoosie|talk]]) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*::This is a perfect example of {{u|ToosieJoosie}} "quoting links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them".
*::I have pointed out to TJ that [[Template:Infobox_music_genre#Parameters]] clearly states that the |regional_scenes and |local_scenes parameters of the infobox are explicitly for "Articles". TJ's response is classic [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], quoting three articles where they think this is not the case. They are correct at [[Hardbass]] and [[Deep house]], and I have removed the parameters from those infoboxes. At [[House music]], however, the infobox perfectly satisfies the parameter usage guide—each of the scenes linked are to specialized articles on localised variants of [[house music]]. <small>Now, perhaps ToosieJoosie wishes to bring up [[WP:BITE]]?</small> [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 23:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::No, they've [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|opened an arbitration request instead]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 23:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
'''Support block''' of user not prepared to edit in accordance with consensus. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC).
*Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::Wow! This was quick. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 05:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).
:Wow indeed. Gobsmacked passerby here: it really needed to happen, you guys, and I saw quite a few valiant attempts to prevent it. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}


:@[[User:Moroike|Moroike]]: It looks like you both are [[WP:edit warring|edit warring]] on [[Kichik Bazar Mosque]].<sup class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kichik_Bazar_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=1263977548][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kichik_Bazar_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=1263811310][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kichik_Bazar_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=1263809601][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kichik_Bazar_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=1263046131]</sup> That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the [[talk:Kichik Bazar Mosque|article talk page]] as to whether you should include the [[Talysh language]] name for the article in the lead/infobox. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:var(--color-base);">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Ngunalik]] ==
::MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{further|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User:Ngunalik}}
:::@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]]: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that {{u|Moroike}} isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Moroike&target=Moroike&dir=prev&offset=20241218200525 {{gender:Moroike|his|her|their}} last 50 contributions]</span> where {{gender:Moroike|he has|she has|they have}} mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:var(--color-base);">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
After discussion about [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] edits on [[Ateker peoples]], [[Kumam people]], and [[Lango people]]. She continued to add her old edits with an unreliable travel guide website despite being told that her edits are not credible by any scholars nor linguists. She continued for the past few days to add back her edits to these three articles. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 05:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of [[Azerbaijan]], [[Baku]]. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? [[User:Nuritae331|Nuritae331]] ([[User talk:Nuritae331|talk]]) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. [[User:Moroike|Moroike]] ([[User talk:Moroike|talk]]) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as [[User talk:Ibish Agayev]] in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. [[User:Moroike|Moroike]] ([[User talk:Moroike|talk]]) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus ==
*The user talk page is not very inspiring, we might need a block here. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 06:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
{{atop|There's nothing actionable in this content dispute, except perhaps trouting the original poster for failing to assume good faith and hounding friendly admins when they try to help. Longtime user [[User:Sxbbetyy]] (4.5 yrs, over 5K edits) has made several assertions based on their clear misunderstanding of social norms. In this discussion they've failed to notify the subject (they actually failed to use the subject's name in the OP), they've failed to bring any diffs, they failed to sign their post, and over and over they seem to have failed to assume good faith of their fellow editors. A number of editors including several admins have attempted to talk Sxbbetyy down. Nobody in this discussion seems to agree with Sxbbetyy on the merits, yet Sxbbetyy keeps circling back to their own personal interpretation of policy. The discussion at [[User_talk:Sergecross73#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|User talk:Sergecross73]], where Sxbbetyy refuses to listen to the admin they asked, gives another example of the problem. Sxbbetyy is reminded that creating a post on ANI puts all their own behaviors up for examination. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*This doesn't really agree with the diffs that I see:
** [[Special:Diff/1093629022]] &mdash; Added in ''June 2022'' sans source
** [[Special:Diff/1182488894]] &mdash; Challenged and removed in ''October 2023''
** [[Special:Diff/1183851706]] &mdash; Re-added in ''November 2023'' this time with an attempt at sourcing
** [[Special:Diff/1184878897]] &mdash; Removed again, now with the claim that the source is bad, in November 2023
*This seems to be the usual they-want-a-source-how-about-a-WWW-page-that-I-found-with-a-search-engine process. It's all-too-common, but what it is ''not'' is repeatedly adding edits with a travel guide. It has happened once in that article, over a period of a year and a half. I'm not sure that we should be leaping for administrator tools unless the ''next'' edits are edit warring, because ''this'' is actually very clearly an attempt to address sourcing concerns. It's just not enough.<p>And [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]], you are looking in the wrong place. Try [[Special:Diff/1183215993]] and [[Special:Diff/1183237408]]. Also see [[Special:Diff/1182501376]] where Cookiemonster1618 takes the tack of characterizing this as "vandalism" and then at [[Special:Diff/1182516056]] actually reports good faith but wrong attempts to provide a source for a challenged fact ''as vandalism'', rightly declined by [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]. If there's an editor that doesn't know how to interact with other editors around here, we might have to be looking more in the direction of Cookiemonster1618. And I should note that this was pointed out by [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]], [[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]], and [[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]] ''last time'' that this was here. This repeated heavy-handed call for administrator intervention when the ''right'' approach was exemplified by C.Fred last time around is not on. And [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] could have been less oblique [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/ABC#Academic Accelerator|about academic-accelerator]].</p><p>[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 08:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)</p>
**No, this is indeed not vandalism. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
**Yeah, I'm concerned this is being dragged back to ANI, again with an inaccurate description of the events in question. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] seems to be running to the admins when it's not really appropriate. Continued improper reporting may require more serious action. At the moment, a warning / [[WP:TROUT]]ing is probably sufficient.<p>That said, [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] has been a member here since 2011, so the lack of understanding around reliable sourcing is troubling, and might be a [[WP:CIR]] issue. Their edit history seems narrowly focused on Uganda & related pages. Not really a red flag, but maybe they need to expand their horizons a bit if they're still having trouble with sourcing after over a decade of small edits here and there. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 13:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)</p>
**Hi guys. This editor 1618 has an attitude of edit-waring and I have picked that up within other articles. The references I have added are references which are already in the articles, they simply back what other editors have already written in those articles. It is not only travel sites I have quoted. This editor 1618 deleted the sources then added his own edits in southern luo language, where today he/she has added Lango and Kumam as part of southern luo language, then referenced it as the reliable source - is this normal? He/she cannot give us independent so called reliable source any where stating that Lango language is a Luo language, other than an old ethnologue once quoted. The purpose of the new articles in Lango, Kumam, Ateker is that these are not Luo (Lwo) groups as it was once thought or presented by ethnologue and other linguists. Before, wikipedia had Lango and Kumam all under Luo (Lwo) article. Then other editors started new articles with evidence that these are a separate groups and they speak mixtures of languages of Luo dialects and Ateker dialects. I am simply building on these then the editor 1618 reverts it, accuses me and places Lango plus Kumam back under Luo group detatching the argument detailed in the pages of Ateker or Kumam on wikipedia. Please search these articles and you will see for yourself. Thanks ~~ [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***you have been told that your edits are not sourced with a reliable source and that you add information to these articles with either an unreliable source like a travel guide website or you add information that is not sourced. At this point you should just get blocked because it's ridiculous. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
**The reason ive brought it here because everytime i leave a warning on her talk page she talks back and when i report her to the adminstrators theres no action taken. This isnt her first time being involved in these kind of edits. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***@Cookiemonster1618 There is no point reasoning with someone like you. I leave that for other people to see who you are. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 16:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***So your problem is that someone ''communicates'' when approached on xyr talk page? That's absurd. The problem here appears to be ''you'', with heavy-handed approaches, which you've even continued above with that "you should just get blocked" stuff. [[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]] showed the right thing to do, which is to ''explain'', not threaten. You should be taking this approach. And I see that [[Special:Diff/1184877445]] is ''you'' adding things in this very topic area without sources. Do you want sauce for the goose to be sauce for the gander? No more heavy-handed threats, please, and practice what you preach. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***:Since when did i threaten her lol? Ive left her a warning before and we had a long reply comment section on why her edits are not credible to these articles and she kept threatening me saying that i should get blocked. Yet im the one who's thretening her? You saw the edits she added on those three articles yet your blaming me? Woww the administrators who saw the evidence yet they are blaming me and saying im threatening another user. All i can say is that you have seen the evidence for yourselves by her edits at [[Kumam people]], [[Ateker peoples]], and [[Kumam dialect]]. I rest my case here. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***::@Cookiemonster1618 could you please stop referring me to a "her" or "she" I do not intend to reason with you any further. Thanks~ [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***:::No need for you to reason anyways because i wasnt even talking to you. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 19:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***:For the record i did explain at the beginning when i brought this report 12 hours ago but apparently you seem to be focused on my replies to [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] and not the evidences that was shown by [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]]. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 18:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***:The source for that was Ethnologue which anyone who is subscribed can see, if you go to Ethnologue you will see the Language Classification under the Language itself with the Language family and its branches I added what Ethnologue says. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 18:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
***:btw for my edits at [[Special:Diff/1184877445]] they were originally there but [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] removed it along with [[Kumam dialect|Kumam]] on August 12 you can see the edit history yourself for evidence also most sources state this as well so my edit over there was not a problem. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed [[Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions|here]] is problematic, [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|this]] editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a [[WP:STONEWALLING]] tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sxbbetyy|contribs]]) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
*I'm somewhere between "let's all sit down for a cuppa and relax" and "let's put everybody in timeout" on this one. We have {{u|Cookiemonster1618}} making a report that features the concern, {{tq|[Ngunalik] continued for the past few days to add back [their] edits to these three articles.}} However, they have not provided any diffs to show where Ngunalik has done this. {{pb}} It would be very easy to take the approach of Ngunalik being innocent, except for the repeated comments along the lines of {{tq|I do not intend to reason with you any further.}} If the two editors were willing to discuss the matter on article talk pages, remain civil, and focus on content and policies, we wouldn't need to be here.{{pb}}Instead, if we use the analogy of two children, whenever one child makes any mistake, we have the other child immediately tatting to their parents (the admins) over every little things. Hence CM's latest report over the edits that are adding the same material but apparently trying new sources to support it.{{pb}}I'd like to see both Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik work ''together'' on this matter, because if there's administrative action to be taken, neither of you will be happy, because you'll ''both'' get sanctioned with an interaction ban and/or a topic ban. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Im more than happy to work together but if they continue to add back their edits to these articles with a travel guide website or not sourced than i will revert them other than that i dont hold any hard feelings or grudge against anyone on Wikipedia. Glad for the solution and im happy to offer what i can for the most peaceful solution to this problem. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::The editor appears to be {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}}, based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerfectSoundWhatever link] under the word "this" as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerfectSoundWhatever&diff=prev&oldid=1263841888 this notification]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@C.Fred my frustration comes because what I raise Cookiemonster1618 is not reading it. I keep saying I am not the one who started building these articles. All I am trying to do is tidy up what other editors have built in. I am adding references but I am not finished adding all the references. This editor first accused me of writing unconstructive sentence -which they could have corrected the grammer if that was the case. However, they are stuck on the ethnologue, 1618 has been arguing on other articles that if something is not on ethnologue then it has to be removed, 1618 always claims that other sources are not reliable. If you note, whatever I added are all referenced within the articles already by other editors e.g. on external link in the Kumam article. In addition there are other sources cited which which bring us to the same conclusion that Lango, Kumam, Teso, Ije and Karamoja belong to ethnic group called Ateker. The body of these articles support what I add simply for consistency. If I removed anything from Kumam or Lango I transferred them all under Ateker. This is because the body of the articles say these groups all belong under one Ateker. If you see what 1618 has done, has messed up all the three articles with no consistency. We cannot leave it like this, something has to be done immediately to tidy up all these articles. If 1618 is saying that Lango and Kumam are not ateker then what ethnic groups are they - and where are the evidence? It cannot just be one ethnologue citation. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 21:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The thing is none of your edits are not 'tidy up' of information you added back the information i reverted on [[Kumam dialect]] despite being told they were not sourced first than you added them back again with a travel guide website. Ethnologue is the main source that is used because it is a reliable source unlike a travel guide website. What part of that do you not understand?. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 21:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: [[WP:STATUSQUO]]). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.{{pb}}In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@Cookiemonster1618 that is why I did not want to repeat myself. This is not the only source, if that travel guide is unreliable does not it 1)contradict the body of the article?
::I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::2)What you have added now, where does it say that Langi or Kumam are originally Luo/Lwo and the language they speak are Luo/Lwo from origin?
:::The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus ([[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]]). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::These are all non Lwo groups but live neighbouring each other. You have now put the Lango as a Luo language which is a pure misinformation that has to be removed. Lango and Kumam have so many words which are not Lwo but derived from Teso language. Which brings us to what the articles are saying that they speak a mixture of Luo and Ateker languages. There are references already quated by other editors e.g references 8,9,10 but you are still not satisfied with these? These also mention that they are nilo-hamitic, they belong to one Ateker. So where do you fit your argument in the articles? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I am meant to say, What I added, does it contradict the body of the article?
:::::{{tq|1=the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content}}<br>Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.{{pb}}I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I remember it was not just one article, I remember citing monitor article as well although now deleted.
::::::Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Wikipedia stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
*::::Please answer the question, does my contribution what were written in those areticles or not? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "[[Proof by assertion]]" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
*:::::Your edits were not contributions because they were incorrect and also beacuse they were not support by any reliable academic research by linguists [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@Cookiemonster1618 you are evading to answere questions here. Ethnologue is editable and even says that there may be new information which is not reflected in their database.
:I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
*:::::I need you to give evidence because I do not want to waste time going over and over
:Myself and the editor had a content dispute at [[Team Seas]] ([[Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|1]]) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per [[WP:STATUSQUO]], I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a [[WP:3O|third opinion]], which was answered by {{ping|BerryForPerpetuity}}, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, {{ping|Sergecross73|Oshwah|Pbsouthwood}}. The [[User_talk:Sergecross73#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions|Sergecross73 discussion]] can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of [[WP:SYNTH|SYNTH]]". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on [[User_talk:Oshwah#Question_regarding_Wikipedia_policy|their talk page]], but {{ping|BusterD}} did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on [[User_talk:Pbsouthwood#Question_regarding_how_to_conduct_a_dispute|Pbsouthwood's talk page]] about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
*:::::1- Did you read the body of these articles or not, i.e. Ateker, Teso, Lango, Kumam etc.
:Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept [[WP:IDHT|that they may be wrong]], and [[WP:BLUDGEON]]s talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|<span style="letter-spacing:0.1em;">PerfectSoundWhatever</span>]] ([[User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever|t]]; [[Special:Contributions/PerfectSoundWhatever|c]]) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::2-Did it mention Nilo-Hamitic before or was it me who cited it?
::This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::3-Did you read the citations there stating that they were wrok of linguists e.g. Ozoique and some Ugandan journals?
:::Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. —&nbsp;[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="download;font-family:Noto Sans Mono, Verdana">BerryForPerpetuity</span>]] [[User talk:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="">(talk)</span>]] 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::4-What I have added does it contradict their statements or not?
*:::::5-Above all does my edits contradit what these articles are saying?
*:::::Langi or Lango and Kumam are not Luo/Lwo and the articles are not built to say that they are Luo/Lwo or that their languages are Luo/Lwo by origin.
*:::::If you want to build up a new artile to say that Kumam and Langi are Luo or that the language they speak is Luo/Lwo by origin then by all means start up a new article and bring up these sources you talk about. Also show us where ethnologue told you that these groups are originally Luo/Lwo. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::@[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] Where do you see the statement that Ethnologue is editable? Please provide a link that backs up this claim. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 00:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::https://www.ethnologue.com/updates-corrections/
*:::::::Updates and Corrections
*:::::::New editions of the Ethnologueare published annually. Although each edition contains thousands of updates and corrections, gaps in our knowledge persist and will never be completely filled. We aim for accuracy, but advancing knowledge from ongoing research and the continuously changing situations of the currently identified 7168 known living languages of the world inevitably lead to some inaccuracies and discrepancies. We welcome corrections and new information that will improve both the accuracy and the completeness of the data.
*:::::::Language additions or deletions. Requests for the addition of a previously unidentified language or for other modifications to the inventory of identified languages should be made directly to the ISO 639-3 Registrar since it is the editorial policy of Ethnologue to follow the ISO 639-3 standard when determining the inventory of languages to be listed. Go to the ISO 639-3 website at http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/ and click on “Submitting change requests” to find the change request form and the filing instructions.
*:::::::Corrections. If you believe any of the information about a language is in error, we welcome feedback and updated information. Please provide details about the sources of your information, including full bibliographic citations of published sources when applicable.
*:::::::The submitter of any correction can expect to receive an initial acknowledgment from the Managing Editor of the Ethnologue . Our staff will then seek to verify the proposed change before it is accepted. This process may take some time as it generally involves making enquiries of individuals who are resident in the country or region where the language is spoken. These persons may in turn make enquiries of others or consult published materials in order to perform the verification. While we make every effort to inform the submitter of the results of our research and verification, if you do not use the preferred method described below, we cannot guarantee that a report of the outcome will be sent in every case. Corrections, even after they are accepted and entered in our database, will only appear in our products when the next edition of the Ethnologue is released. However, if you use the Contribute form online, your feedback will be immediately available to readers on the web.
*:::::::The preferred method of submitting corrections and additions is to join our contributor program . With a contributor account you will be entitled to complimentary access to the website and will be able to use the Contribute form on the page for a language or country in order to propose corrections and additions. The advantage of giving feedback in this way is that it becomes part of the public record on the website. You will also be automatically notified of the editorial action.
*:::::::Alternatively, you may submit corrections and additions by means of the online contact form at:
*:::::::Contact us in the page footer
*:::::::Or submit corrections and additions by e-mail to:
*:::::::Ethnologue_Editor@sil.org
*:::::::Or by post to:
*:::::::Editor, Ethnologue
*:::::::SIL International
*:::::::7500 West Camp Wisdom Road
*:::::::Dallas, TX 75236-5629, USA [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 10:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::Ethnologue is just like wikipedia. They collect secondary data but there are primary research going on in the communities. Like what I posted before, researchers have gone among the Kumam people and the Lango people, interviews have been conducted for days. They studied their dances, their foods, interacted with the communities etc. How can we ignore this? This editor 1618 has been deleting so much work of editors all in the name of ethnologue, now ethnologue turns around says, we also have descrepencies in our data we cannot rule out errors in our data. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 11:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::@[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] The key point is that the contributions are ''suggestions'' to Ethnologue's editors, who make a decision based on secondary sources and their editorial review process. This is not a site that is directly editable by users like Wikipedia. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::That is not what I meant in terms of edition every day. I mean they get corrections or updates as well just like how we post updates in Wikipedia. Their eidtions are not daily of course but annually. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::Additionally, their comment about errors is that they welcome corrections. Compare that with sites that disclaim their data and say users should not rely upon it for accuracy. In short, this is why this discussion is at ANI: you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of [[WP:Reliable sources]]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::Thank you this is their main problem they are ignorant on understanding using reliable resources and also understanding these languages classification systems. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 12:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::This is why I am having a problem with 1618 in the language and manner their attacks. I have cited references in these articles apart from the travel guide, some of which I can see still available in these articles. My point is this, the same points i.e. argued about these ethnic groups are exactly in the references already cited within wikipedia. I keep saying I have other citations as well, the travel guide is not the only one. Some of those citations I have already posted them here and asked you the administrators to check. I did not get any response that the other citations are all unreliable. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::These citations are like how editors would say oral history states abcd...
*::::::::::::They are just additions to build up what editors have already written in those articles. I am not brining something new in here. If it was the first time that I am strting something different from what are already in the body of these articles then, you can say it is inconsistent with the work already cited. These groups may speak abit of Luo/Lwo here and there but that does not mean their ethnic language is Luo/Lwo. Just like saying if I learn to speak French because I live near the boarders of France that does not mean my ethnic language is French. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::I did not see the travel guide disclaim. Also with the Uganda travel guide their contents are connected with government data and contents that are didactic in Uganda's current education system. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Government data does not classify a language linguistic family and grouping that is done by linguists and academic research by scholars. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::This is unbelievable. Did you not read when they stated clearly that they use scholars? How can anything be taught in schools without varification from researchers? It is not only language we are talking here. It is the ethnic group. You keep bringing this issue about ethnologue grouping Langi or Kumam as a luo language. I asked you what ethnic group is Langi are they Luo/Lwo in your opinion? If so where is the evidence? Did ethnologue tell you that Langi and Kumam are originally Lwo? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Yes Ethnologue classifies Langi and Kumam as southern Luo languages because they are and also because this is what most linguists and linguisitic research say. You were already told this and you know yourself so instead of wasting my time and yours it is obvious that you are not aware of the linguistic family in which Lango and Kumam have been classified. I kindly ask you out of sincerity to do your research and see for yourself. Thank you. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 15:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::That is language and we have already stated that Lango and Kumam speak a MIXTURE of Luo/Lwo dialects because there are several Lwo dialects, in addition, they speak their original Ateker languages. Howeever I asked you aside from language, where did it state that Kumam and Langi are Luo/Lwo people? You deleted where I had stated that these two groups Kumam and Langi are Ateker and there was a citation - I still have lots of citation to back this statement. You deleted it and stated that Kumam and Langi are NOT Ateker but you did not cite anything. Where is the eveidence of this ethnicity? Leave aside the languge issue. Please quote the evidence of the ethnicity showing that they are not Ateker. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::You the administrators can see that this editor 1618 has not posted any evidence
*:::::::::::::::1) That Lango and Kumam are NOT Ateker peoples as they stated after deleting my citation.
*:::::::::::::::2) Nither have they been able to prove that Lango and Kumam are Luo/Lwo by ethnic group.
*:::::::::::::::If ethnologue put it that they speak Luo/Lwo - that is only because they borrowed words from the Luo/Lwo speaking communities, that does not mean Kumam language and Lango language are Luo/Lwo languages.
*:::::::::::::::For instance Kumam counting from 1-10:-
*:::::::::::::::Acel
*:::::::::::::::Aree
*:::::::::::::::Adek
*:::::::::::::::Ongon
*:::::::::::::::Kany
*:::::::::::::::Kanyapee
*:::::::::::::::Kanyauni
*:::::::::::::::Kanyongon
*:::::::::::::::Tomon
*:::::::::::::::Only Acel and Adek are borrowed words from Lwo/Luo the rest are Ateker -no Lwo/Luo speaker would be able to recognize it as their language. When Egnologue says they speak Luo that is only if the Kumam use Luo words to say certain things. That does not mean the Kumam language is a Luo language.
*:::::::::::::::The Lango in Uganda count 1-10 as Ocele
*:::::::::::::::Oryo,
*:::::::::::::::Odeke
*:::::::::::::::Ongon
*:::::::::::::::Ekany
*:::::::::::::::Ekanyape
*:::::::::::::::Ekanyare
*:::::::::::::::Ekanyauni
*:::::::::::::::Ekanyongon
*:::::::::::::::Tomon
*:::::::::::::::None of these is Luo/Lwo. So if they were to use their Lango language no Lwo/Luo speaker would claim that this is a Lwo word.
*:::::::::::::::Nowadays they use lots borrowed words from Lwo/Luo languages - does not make it a Lango language.
*:::::::::::::::
*:::::::::::::::So if ethnologue says they speak Luo/Lwo language, ONLY if these two ethnic groups used Lwo/Luo words to communicate. So if you group the counting above as a Luo/Lwo language a lot of Ateker speakers would say no. Many Lwo/Luo speakers would also recognize that this is not Luo/Lwo.
*:::::::::::::::1618 is gone online trying to type here and there to asert that Lango and Kumam should be placed under Luo/Lwo languages. The facts will speak for itself. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 19:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Ive already put my explanation earlier and also borrowed words doesnt determine a language's linguistic family just because Lango has some Ateker loanwords doesn't make it an Ateker language. Just like Persian has Arabic loanwords but it is Indo Iranian and not Semitic same thing with Lango despite these loanwords it is held by most linguists to be a southern luo language of the western nilotic group not an Ateker language of the eastern nilotic group. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 20:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I asked you you have been quiet for hours, give evidence that Lango and Kumam are not Ateker
*:::::::::::::::::There are also Lango in South Sudan - those ones including Karamojong did not borrow Lwo/Luo words so they did not lose a lot of their language.
*:::::::::::::::::Or
*:::::::::::::::::Show evidence that Lango and Kumam are Lwo/Luo
*:::::::::::::::::If you cannot show this evidence then why did you say Lango and Kumam are NOT Ateker? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 20:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::The reason why I said they are not because this is what most reliable sources and research says and linguists and Ethnologue mention. You know you search it yourself? That's what Google is for. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 20:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::I had already read this work which was superficial not a proper reasearch and you talk about brining unreliable source? The author said the history of Lango is conflicting- perphaps it was something they had read online and they could pick bits and pieces. Lots of research have been done on Langi for over hundread years - not one claim that Langi are Lwo/Luo. It shows that they encounter Luo/Lwo and they fought protracted wards. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::Highly doubt you read it given it was just released this year. Both sources mention that Lango is a southern luo language and related to Kumam and Acholi as well as Alur and other Southern Luo languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::Here are your resources that explain with evidence that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages.
*::::::::::::::::::https://nalrc.indiana.edu/doc/brochures/lango.pdf
https://www.canil.ca/canilewp/volume1/Swenson-101_145.pdf [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 20:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::Ethnologue and most sources say that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages of the Western Nilotic group if you don't know that there's tons of sources that point to this online. An easy google search will give your answers, being ignorant about a language group is not an excuse to add wrong information from a travel guide website. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::@Cookiemonster1618 If you cannot answer these questions above with evidence, I politely ask you to restore my edits, and leave me to add further citations. It is upto other editors to judge too whether my citations are irrelevant or not. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::I already answered your questions there were no articles you cited to back up your claims and you only added a travel guide website for your edits at [[Kumam dialect]], [[Kumam people]] and [[Ateker peoples]] which is not a reliable source and so they were reverted. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 23:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Both of you need to stop this bickering and let outside commentors weigh in. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::@[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]] Agreed, since this thread is turning into a prime example of shooting oneself in the foot. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
* Just an observation and not commenting on the merits of either position or the potential behavior issues of which there at least seems to be some concern, least of which is WP:IDHT, but @Ngunalik, if you "still have lots of citation to back this statement" then why cite a travel guide in the first place? Usually we cite to our best and most reliable sources first. I think I'm inclined to support C.Fred's idea for a "timeout" for both these editors. Give them time to cool down and try to figure out a path forward. This is going nowhere as it is and will wind up in longer sanctions for one or both if it continues I'm afraid. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 21:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:(Not an admin) - '''Comment''', I've been watching this thread and reading for about an hour, and I agree with both @[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]and @[[User:ARoseWolf|ARoseWolf]]. [[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]] 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


: Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis ''per se'', it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") ''unless'' there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks people you judge this. The link posted by 1618, does not mention at all that Lango is a Luo language, rather it says closely related to Luo. If linguists had considered it was a Luo language they would not use this word "closely related to Luo".
::That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Team_Seas&oldid=1260644327 latest version] that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Finally this editor failed to show that Lango or Kumam are not Ateker as they had stated in the wiki page. No evidence given todate.
:They also failed to show that Lango or Kumam are Lwo/Luo except keep talking about language which I have already explained language shift occured.
:Lango or Kumam are not Luo/Lwo, they suffered language shifts to Luo groups but still retain alot of Ateker words in their languages.
:There are lots of citations some are below
:https://nuganda.wordpress.com/tribes-of-northern-uganda/langi/
:https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/the-values-of-polygamy-among-the-langi-people-of-northern-uganda.pdf
:https://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/48469-nilotes-eastern-africa-eastern-nilotes-ateker-karimojong.html
:Thanks [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] Please explain why you think nuganda.wordpress.com even remotely resembles a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. Answer carefully, since the response to your answer, if it's not a good answer, may be a sitewide block for [[WP:CIR|inability to contribute in accordance with guidelines, including WP:RS]]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::Okay, a Wordpress blog is absolutely not a reliable source. The "walshmedicalmedia" link goes to a PDF by some "Global Institute For Research & Education" which... I can find no evidence of on the web. And the Worldhistory site also looks like someone's 1990s homepage. None of these qualify as reliable sources.
::At this point, [[WP:CIR]] comes into play. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::ok if that is not reliable than here are other sources http://people.umass.edu/scable/LING404-SP09/Materials/Handouts/Dholuo-Basics.pdf [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::You're seriously trying to use an unsourced class handout as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I already gave you 3 more sources beside that. You said the pdf for that was unreliable so i sent two more in which you havent checked out the last pdf i sent before i sent a citation from Glottolog proving my main points of my argument. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 17:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::The NALRC post is ''literally a brochure''. <s>The Swenson paper ''might'' be RS, I'll need to examine it more closely, but</s> the fact you brought a brochure here to pass off as an RS just proves to me you have no idea what our RS policy entails.
::::::More to the point, this is for ''behavioral issues'', continuing to argue content here is going to wind up with you being blocked for [[WP:DISRUPT]]ion. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::On further examination, the Swenson paper does not appear to be published in any kind of peer-reviewed journal that I've found, and CanIL does not appear to be an accredited university. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:: ''Sigh''...You aren't helping your case, @Ngunalik. I suggest you take time to read and consider why those sources you provided are considered unreliable and not fit to be a source for anything non-controversial on Wikipedia, much less controversial. Agreed with @HTF, WP:CIR seems to apply. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I have never quoted any of these on wikipedia. Some of these were brainstorm for what I said we should not ignore primary research going on in the Lango, Kumam areas especially recent ones which may not be in Ethnologue. Some of these are ongoing research like the first blog a researcher from Europe but bringing the same issues like what I had posted to you C.Fred e.g. another researcher also in the village of Kumam.
:::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJo4_Yq7WZo
:::The one that says world history, has a key reference from list of references which I checked it, Gulliver, P. H. The Central Nilo-Hamites. London: International African Institute, 1953.Shows that Langi Teso etc are grouped as Central Nilo-Hamites
:::Which I am trying to say there is nothing new from what it is already stated in the wikipedia pages that Lango, Teso, Kumam, Karamojong etc are Nilo-Hamites.
:::G.J.I.S.S.,Vol.3(4):48-52 that is a published article the work of scholars from Gulu University and from USA. 1 Senior Lecturer and Head of History Department in Gulu University-Northern Uganda and Fulbright Visiting Scholar, Millersville University of Pennsylvania-USA. 2High School History Teacher in Northern Uganda
:::What they stated is that although lango speak Lwo they are not Lwo - this is just to back the communication I was having with 1618, because 1618 said we needed work of scholars and linguists. In that case you need to advise me why that article is not reliable. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq| I said we should not ignore primary research}}
::::Stop, right there. We do '''not''' cite primary research on Wikipedia. Period. You really do not have enough of a grasp on our [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] policy to be editing these articles. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Are you talking to me or Ngunalik? If you are talking to me that last pdf I just sent is reliable and is the mainstream opinion held by most linguists and Ethnologue itself. Ethnologue bases it's language classification system on research done by linguistic scholars who have spent years studying these languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] The problem is, you didn't cite a scholarly publication; you cited a handout for a senior-level class. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 23:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Is this reliable for you?
:::::::https://scholar.archive.org/work/wmuqistixzeyhdy7y2loh6duti/access/wayback/https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29330/1/10731425.pdf [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 23:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The above article actually supprots everything I stated. The anthropologists grouped the Langi together with Tesi etc as Central para-nilotes which is the same as Central Nilo-hamites. At the time of their research they noticed that the Langi were copying Lwo Acoli linguistically and culturally. They noted that the Langi were not Lwo, and that the Central Lwo were Acoli, Alur Luo Kenya and Sudan etc. And that those Lwo groups did not consider Langi at all as Lwo. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 00:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::that's not what the source says it says that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages that have been influenced by Ateker languages. The source still mentions till today they are Southern Luo languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 00:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::What you are saying it is the opposite. You read it carefully Lango are placed together with Teso Kumam Koromojong as Para Nilotes or Plain Nilotes same as Nilo-Hamites. The Karamojong, Teso and Lango of Sudan did not have language shift to Luo/Lwo. However the Lango of Uganda and Kumam did have language shift to Luo/Lwo, they still have Ateker words. Upto now All the clans of Lango and Kumam are Ateker clans none of it in Lwo/Luo clans. To be a Lwo/Luo you have to be born in a Luo clan which goes back to thousands of years genology. How can we explain that ALL the clans of Lango and Kumam are not in Luo/Lwo instead they are ALL in Teso -Ateker. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 00:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not it is not. Neither in this source nor by the previous one i provided which the admin said was unreliable nor by Ethnologue. All these sources still classify Lango and Kumam as Southern Luo languages of the Western Nilotic group and that Lango is related to Kumam, Acholi, Alur and other Southern Luo languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 00:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::The same source i provides earlier which was considered not a scholarly source said that Lango is a Western Nilotic language of the Southern Luo branch along with the source i just sent and Ethnologue. Almost all these sources i provided cited that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages. Why dont you understand that already? Are you really here to prove your points or create more arguments and waste your time and ours? [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 00:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::After this comment I will have a rest as it is getting late. What I want to say is that you have misunderstood this topic. You have gone to and fro with your arguments. We stated in wikipeida that Lango and Kumam speak a mixture of Ateker and Luo. You deleted it. Then you have provided evidence which you now says supports that Lango or Kumam speak "Southern Luo languages that have been influenced by Ateker languages." So they do have mixture of languages. I think we will have to pick this up possibly tomorrow. It gives everybody a break. In the mean time you need to be asking about the clans because in Africa there is no way you can argue that you speak Luo and your clan (which is your ethnic group identity) is in Teso Ateker peoples. Thanks[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 01:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Are you blind? How many times do i have to tell you that your sources are not credible enough to support your claims and that they were reverted because they were not part of the article in the first place and that you changed the language classification and description for Lango and Kumam based on a travel guide website and an academic website with recent research that is ongoing with no mention of Lango being Ateker language in that academic website you brought up. Most of the sources i cited support my claims that Lango and Kumam are Southern Luo languages and not Ateker languages. I even brought you Glottolog which is considered highly reliable here in Wikipedia and you still claimed i reverted your edits even though they were not part of the original articles nor do you have credible sources to back up your claims. At this point this discussion should be over and the admin [[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]] will decide the final decision on this. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 01:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Here's another one
:::::::https://cms.arizona.edu/index.php/multilingual/article/download/98/145/395 [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 00:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::This also proves my point that there was language shift to Lwo/Luo language around 18th centuary. Other non-luo ethnic groups were adopting Lwo language (page 181) [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Admins have you reached a decision on this dispute? What is the final decision you have come to? Are my arguments or Ngunalik arguments satisfactory for you guys?. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 01:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have never cited primary research. All I said is that Ethnologue pointed out that there are lots of research going on, which would not be reflected in their database and we should not take it that they are ontop of everything with thousands of languages. They are open to corrections.. That is why I said current information can influence what Ethnologue has. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::We are not arguing the language, we had stated it already in Wikipedia that Lango and Kumam speak a mixture of Luo and Ateker. You even contradicted yourself by first deleting that statement in wikipedia page then in this administrators you stated "Ive already put my explanation earlier and also borrowed words doesnt determine a language's linguistic family just because Lango has some Ateker loanwords doesn't make it an Ateker language"
::::::Here you are admitting that Lango has loanwords from Ateker which is not reflected in the Ethnologue linguistic family. Ethnologue put a Luo language family that excludes the "Ateker loanwords." It that information was fed to Ethnologue they would have taken that there is a mixture of Ateker and Luo now in the speech that Kumam and Lango speaks due to language shift. Speaking a language does not at all make Lango or Kumam change their ethnicity to Lwo. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 22:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::So you understand than? Great this discussion is closed and im positive my case has won. Good day. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 23:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You got the whole thing twisted up, a language borrowing words from Ateker or Lango an Ateker borrowing words from Lwo. The linguisting family is Lwo only partaining to Lwo language not Ateker words. None of Lwo ethnic groups have borrwed Ateker words. That is why I said with mixtures of dialects we cannot say it is a Luo language either. You deleted these. There were citations to back this statements. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 23:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Even Glottolog states that Lango is a Western Nilotic language of the Southern Luo branch and has tons of sources to prove it. Here is one i retrieved from their website
:::::::::Driberg, Jack H. 1923. The Lango: A Nilotic Tribe of Uganda. London: T.~Fisher Unwin. 470pp. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 01:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I said that a language borrowing words from another language doesn't make it from the same language family as the former why are you lying and putting words in my mouth? You yourself said that Lango has Ateker words I said even if it did that doesn't make it an Ateker language I never even agreed to that in the first place. I clearly gave you your two evidence Ethnologue and Linguistic research which is the last pdf I sent. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 23:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Please read what you stated. You said the fact that Lango has loanwords - I did not put that words in your mouth. It means you know that Lango language and Kumam have mixtures of dialects. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 23:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::No what I said that loan words from Ateker doesn't make it an Ateker language and I gave the example of Persian. You clearly are here just to argue and cause drama, I don't have time for this but all I can say is that none of your sources are reliable and I provided you with the last pdf done by linguistic research that backs up my claim that Lango and Kumam are both Southern Luo languages and not Ateker languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 23:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::How can a language be spoken as Luo and not be Luo? That doesn't make sense at all. All earlier academic research by linguists who actually studied the language classified it as a Southern Luo language and not an Ateker language. If the realization that Lango and Kumam are Ateker languages Ethnologue and other linguists like J Leclerc would have announced it and changed the language classification of these two languages as did happen with the Kadu languages of Nilo Saharan for example when it was realized they are Nilo Saharan languages or the Nara language when it was reclassified as a Northern Eastern Sudanic language and not Eastern Sudanic like Nilotic languages. The thing is not all linguists agree that Kumam and lango are ateker languages and the most held mainstream opinion is that Lango and Kumam are Western Nilotic languages of the Southern Luo branch and closely related. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 22:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::we dont do primary sources. '''(not an admin, but commenting)''' [[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]] 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{nacc}} That's not true. At the risk of muddying the waters even further, [[Wikipedia:PRIMARY|primary sources]] ''can'' be used, but in limited circumstances. Secondary sources are still vastly preferred over primary. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 23:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thank you @Tenryuu I did not even know this. As I said I have not quoted primary research. Thanks [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 23:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
* Gods of chaos, this is ridiculous; more bytes have been expended in this thread than in the three articles in the OP combined. Given that neither of them seem inclined to give an inch, and that they'd otherwise continue this tennis match indefinitely, I propose an '''immediate interaction ban between Ngunalik and Cookiemonster1618.''' Either they have made their case or they have not, but it is high time they dropped the damn sticks and let some very patient admin sort it out. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*:(commenting, as a non-admin) I second what [[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] has suggested! a interaction ban between the two. Though, I believe a topic ban would also suffice. [[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]] 02:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*::Please no topic ban for me im begging. I have already finished with my points for this discussion but please don't do a topic ban because it is nor fair as admins haven't conducted any action on this dispute. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 04:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] {{tq|[P]lease don't do a topic ban because it is nor fair as admins haven't conducted any action on this dispute.}} The topic ban would be the action on the dispute. If your conduct in a topic is causing disruption to the project (which it is), then a topic ban is a reasonable remedy. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 11:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::: These editors have wasted enough of the community's and our admin's time. I agree with @C.Fred that a topic ban is a reasonable remedy, in fact, I dare say the best remedy for both editors. Neither seems to understand the concept of a reliable source for use, even in discussions, on Wikipedia. Whether it be a travel guide, blogs and self-published sources or primary sources used to "verify" contentious content, both show a complete lack of ability to edit in a constructive and collegial manner on this topic. Both are exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]] and [[WP:CIR]] behavior and a complete lack of understanding what this page is for, nay, what this encyclopedia is for. This is not a battleground of ideas where editors war against each other to get what they want. I think it's time they go find something else to edit and the community, with admin support, can help them do that. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 12:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*It seems that neither {{np|Cookiemonster1618}} nor {{np|Ngunalik}} understand what this board is for. It is not a place to resolve content disputes, as the two of them have done extensively further up in this thread; it is to examine issues of ''editor conduct''. The absence of [[wp:diff|diffs]], notwithstanding a link to a previous discussion, makes it hard for admins to examine exactly what responses are being considered inappropriate. For example, Cookiemonster1618 [[Special:Diff/1185175534|earlier up asking]] Ngunalik {{tq|[a]re [they] blind}} would essentially be a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], which is sanctionable.{{pb}}Assuming both parties leave unscathed, they'd do best to refrain from discussing the content here and saving it for another venue like the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]] (which, alas, will not intervene until the issue here is resolved, one way or another). In short, they should stick to what they find objectionable from each other ''in terms of behavioural conduct'' and provide linked diffs for admins to examine in this thread.{{pb}}For future reference, if edit warring is present that should go to the [[WP:AN3|edit warring noticeboard]], not here. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*:@Tenryuu good morning. If you see above in the thread, I did not want to engage in lenthy conversations with 1618 however C.Fred stated that we should discuss this through which is why I responded. Also I did not bring this here it was 1618 who brought it. Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the onlyone being attacked in here.
*:Right now there is a big confusion and inconsistencies in Lango language page vs Lango people’s page vs Ateker page.
*:The Lango language page as edited by 1618 is stating that Lango is a Luo languge; but the Lango people’s page is saying that this group belongs to Lango race aka Ateker strongly linked to Koromajong, Kumam Teso etc. They are also known as Nilo-Hamites. None of these is a Luo race or Lwo ethnic group.
*:We cannot say their language is Luo but their ethnicity is Ateker that is why the editor 1618 went and deleted Lango and Kumam from the Ateker people’s page citing no evidence to date.
*:Me and other editors had corrected all those confusion by stating that some past linguists had wrongly grouped Lango and Kumam languages under Luo language but it is not exclusively a Luo/Lwo language – There are citations already to back this up and it is still in Wikipedia on the Lango people's page e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856972
*:The above researchers had stated that this group Lango speak Luo but with elements of Hamitic (Ateker) which is their language. Many researchers are not calling Lango or Kumam a Luo language but use words such as closely related to Luo language because they borrowed Lwo words over the years due to close proximity e.g “Noonan (1992) discovered this same difficulty in determining the high vowels in his acoustic study of Lango, a closely related language to Luo.”
*:Even some of the links 1618 posted in this thread says the same phrase such as closely related to Luo instead of calling it a Luo language.
*:I leave this now for the administrators to deal with it. Thank you ~~ [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 10:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*::You {{tq|did not want to engage in lengthy conversations}} with the OP, yet you did it anyway and contributed to the walls of text above. Everything past {{tq|1=Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the onlyone {{sic}} being attacked in here}} was unnecessary for the purposes of examining ''editor conduct''.<br>What you two did makes it frustrating for admins to decide on a decision, and quite a few may elect to just skip over it for being [[Wikipedia:too long; didn't read|TL;DR]] material. Most editors at this venue (myself included) do not care about this particular subject; they care about the behaviour that involved parties exhibit, and which instances are considered objectionable to the site's policies. Basically, while the article that you're talking about may provide context, whoever has the more convincing arguments does not necessarily absolve them from any disciplinary action, and in the worst case may be seen as using them as distractions to take focus away from what this noticeboard is supposed to be doing.{{pb}}{{tq|1=however C.Fred stated that we should discuss this through which is why I responded}}<br>What [[Special:Diff/1184984398|C.Fred suggested]] was that {{tq|1=[he]'d like to see both Cookiemonster1618 and [you] work ''together''}} (emphasis in original), which does not mean bringing content disputes to this thread. Again, that is more appropriate for the article's talk page, or seeing how the disagreement's gotten to this point, the [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]].{{pb}}So far none of the involved parties have submitted '''[[WP:DIFF|diffs]]'''. If there is behaviour either side finds problematic, then it should be easy to find and show to others. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 15:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::I don't think either editor is [[WP:CIR|knowledgable enough]] about Wikipedia to provide diffs. Which is concerning and may need its own sanctions. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{outdent|3}}
*Both editors seem to be continuing their feud whilst this matter is still being discussed, In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luo_peoples&diff=1185659510&oldid=1173479669 this edit], earlier today, Cookiemonster1618 reverts Ngunalik's previous edit, and at [[User talk:Arjayay#Luo peoples]] Ngunalik tries to get a third party (me) to make the changes for him. I think something more than just an interaction ban is called for - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Continuing their feud where? Where did i argue with [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]]? Can you please show me where? I haven't even replied to this discussion since two days ago. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 13:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*:That wasn't even a feud lmao I was correcting a term that is incorrect and I had the right to. Since when was correcting words a violation of an interaction ban? [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] do you even know what the difference between an interaction ban and a topic ban? The admins didn't even send me a notification on my talk page of the topic ban and interaction ban. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*::[[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]], I suggest YOU read [[WP:IBAN]], which includes "Alice would not be allowed to:" "undo Bob's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" - this is exactly what you did - as stated in your edit summary "Reverted edits by Ngunalik " - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 13:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::I did so because it was not a correct word and is not appropriate so i had the right to and the interaction ban was not imposed at the time so I'm fine. [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] take a break. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 13:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


*I have some pretty serious [[WP:IDHT]] concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking ''me'' when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple [[WP:NOCONSENSUS|no consensus means no change]] outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Proposed remedy: two-way interaction ban between Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik ===
*:At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{atop
*::The discussion is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=1263241748#Regarding_a_case_of_WP:STONEWALLING_on_Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions right here], if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of [[sour grapes]] responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
| status =
| result = {{u|Ngunalik}} and {{u|Cookiemonster1618}} are now subject to an indefinite interaction ban, and are specifically warned against gaming the interaction ban to interfere with the other party's editing. This sanction can be appealed no sooner than six months from today. Discussion on the proposed topic ban remains open in the section below. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
}}


*I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]], it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not [[wp:agf|assume good faith]], it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: {{tq|"I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."}} It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. —&nbsp;[[User:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="download;font-family:Noto Sans Mono, Verdana">BerryForPerpetuity</span>]] [[User talk:BerryForPerpetuity|<span style="">(talk)</span>]] 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to ''talk circles indefinitely''. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
*:Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
*:The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.[[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
{{u|Ravenswing}} mentioned it above, but I'm going to break it out and formally propose it here:
:This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
: {{u|Cookiemonster1618}} and {{u|Ngunalik}} are indefinitely [[WP:IBAN|banned from interacting with each other]], subject to the [[WP:BANEX|usual exceptions]]. Based on how discussion at the administrators' noticedboard thread proceeded, it is in the project's best interest to sever interaction between the two, including—and especially—on articles where their edits to this point have created content disputes. Both editors are further warned that any edits after the sanction takes effect that give the impression they are using the sanction to disrupt or prevent the other from editing (i.e. "staking a claim") may draw additional sanctions. Either party may appeal after the sanction has been in place for six months, or six months after that individual editor's last unsuccessful appeal.
Thinking ahead to how it needs worded in the [[WP:Editing restrictions]] log if it is approved by the community. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. [[WP:ONUS]] is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: {{Tq|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Anything to get these two focused on editing something else. I hope they both will do a little more reading of Wikipedia content policy, with a focus on sourcing, and policy on how to interact with others when there is a conflict. It affectively accomplishes the goal of a topic ban by addressing the immediate disruptive behavior. I really hope this is the last we see of both on this board. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 12:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
:::I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|Here]] is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.}} <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this [[WP:IDHT]] insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: {{ping|Pbsouthwood}}, what say you? [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
:::::And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
:::::So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:IDHT|No matter how much you insist otherwise]], there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. [[WP:STICK|Drop the stick]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an [[User talk:Pbsouthwood#Question regarding how to conduct a dispute|admin told me otherwise]]. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other admin told you ''nothing'' about the removal of [[WP:SYNTH]], which is always appropriate. [[WP:STICK|Back away from the dead horse]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::# This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
:::::::::# The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
:::::::::# If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
:::::::::[[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:IDHT|Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong?]] [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but ''plausible'' content ''before'' removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor ''plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given''. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
:::::Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
:::::At the risk of being [[hoist with his own petard|hoist with my own petard]], I also refer readers to <s>[[WP:Don't be a dick]]</s> <u>(looks like that essay has been expunged, try [[Meta:Don't be a jerk]])</u>. &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter Southwood]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|<sup>(talk)</sup>]]: 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its ''compulsory'', and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, I've seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pbsouthwood&oldid=1264077885#Question_regarding_how_to_conduct_a_dispute that discussion], but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Team_Seas#Re:_the_ocean_pollution_additions PSW ''did'' engage in extensive discussion already.] You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Team_Seas&action=history you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation]. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
:::::::::::And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
:::::::::::Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have you considered starting an [[WP:RFC]]? The fact is that you made a [[WP:BOLD]] addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus ''for your addition''. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines ([[WP:ONUS]], [[WP:BRD]], [[WP:QUO]], etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed ''were'' on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That ''is'' a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually ''is'' such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to [[WP:SATISFY]] you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What? I never started an RfC. — [[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|<span style="letter-spacing:0.1em;">PerfectSoundWhatever</span>]] ([[User talk:PerfectSoundWhatever|t]]; [[Special:Contributions/PerfectSoundWhatever|c]]) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I just checked and on 12/9/24 at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Regarding a case of WP:STONEWALLING on Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions|Serge's talk page]] you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture|WP Internet Culture]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube|WP YouTube]] about 2 weeks ago."
::::Did that not actually happen? [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:RFC]] is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Wikipedia before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard [[WP:Civility]]. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[Ward_Cunningham#"Cunningham's_Law"|Cunningham's Law]], is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===Request for closure===
:'''Support''', i think that'll work! (non-admin voting) [[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]] 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]], which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{hat|This section is for discussion about the proposed interaction ban}}
:I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. {{u|PerfectSoundWhatever}} has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Why are you here if your not an admin? This is for admins to decide not you. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Anyone can comment here, as this is a community request. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{non-admin comment}} I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @[[User:PerfectSoundWhatever|PerfectSoundWhatever]] has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! [[User:RachelTensions|RachelTensions]] ([[User talk:RachelTensions|talk]]) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::well she was voicing an opinion when in my opinion it's not her place to be deciding when she isn't an admin. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 13:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "'''Avoid reverting during discussion'''", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the ''[[status quo ante bellum]]'' '''during a dispute discussion'''. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the [[Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes#For inline article placement|inline dispute tags]] are appropriate. For other pages, <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Under discussion inline|under discussion inline]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hi Cookiemonster1618, this discussion is around a [[WP:CBAN]], which states, (emphasis mine) {{tq|[T]he community may impose [..] [an] interaction ban via a consensus of '''editors''' who are not involved in the underlying dispute}} <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x[[User:0xDeadbeef|<span style="text-transform:uppercase;color:black">'''Deadbeef'''</span>]]</span>→∞ ([[User talk:0xDeadbeef|talk to me]]) 13:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Cookiemonster1618}}, the highest position anyone can hold in the community is "editor". Every other position on the project works in support of the work of the community editors. You do not 'advance' to any position on the project. An arbitrator does not outrank an admin does not outrank an extended confirmed editor does not outrank an editor. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::In what way is ''that'' your read of the consensus in the discussion above? [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
:::im just here to give feedback, and try and find a resolve. sorry. [[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]] 14:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. [[User:Sxbbetyy|Sxbbetyy]] ([[User talk:Sxbbetyy|talk]]) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You owe no one an apology. From one editor to another, thank you for offering positive feedback. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 14:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:@C.Fred I request you to consider whether my edits caused content disputes or it is just only this individual who is fighting me, yet everything I stated have already been written or mentioned in those pages by other editors. Also wikipedia stated that these pages have a lot of issues already they requested editors to help. Then only this editor 1618 who is attacking me using languages that is not appropriate on me. Even when I said I did not want to engage with this individual, I was asked to do so, therefore why am I being sanctioned? Clearly if anything it should have been this individual 1618, there is evidence that 1618 has been causing edit wars in other platforms NOT me, exactly the same problems, they delete edits from pages and what is causing the problem is all about ethnolouge. That if something is not in ethnologue then it should be deleted. Please check the problmes that this individual has caused as well and weigh it whether I should be dragged along. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::I also apologize to all of you especially those who have been following this since yesterday. It must have been very tiring. My sincere apologies. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version ''without the new content''. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::also, [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]], I was back reading, and found this: " <span style='color: darkgreen'>Everything I am being attacked for are already built up or were already built up by other editors not me alone, but I am the only one being attacked in here.</span>", your not the only one being 'attacked', nobody here is being attacked. this is a dispute between editors, if people were being attacked, it'd be more then one person. (also, sorry for the green text, idk how people get the dark-green text when quoting another user, or text from a page, so I just used <color span>) <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 14:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::about that, I checked out one of your recent edits that was revetered by [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]], [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]], and they have a point. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lango_people&oldid=1184878451 THIS] edit summery, they point out that blogs aren't reliable sources. they are correct, by reverting your edits. You may be doing the opposite, or something else is happening on another page, but this looks like 1618 was just reverting your poor sources. so while I take back my initial statement that a topic-ban should be the solution, I now believe that by seeing both of your edits, a simple 6-month interaction ban may suffice. <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you Babusjarlbpss2 and to all of you working on this issue. I have been extremely busy on other engagements so what I will try to do from now on is invite other editors to check the references whether they are reliable or not. I do not mind really if I post somethings and editors improve on it or add further citations. I also think it is not polite to delete peoples edits whilst we can give them opportunity to add further citations. Thanks once again [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] Yes, I do think your edits contributed heavily to the content dispute. You do bring up a point that you were initially unwilling to collaborate. In light of that, an interaction ban may not be the most appropriate sanction. Would you voluntarily accept a six-month topic ban from peoples and languages of east and northeast Africa, broadly construed, in place of the indefinite interaction ban? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::What point did I bring which I was initially unwilling to colloborate on? I did not bring this topic here, it was the other editor 1618. When I asked for evidenc upto now there is no evidence of a source pertaining to the ethnicity of Lango or Kumam. What I did not want to engage in was the bad language like calling me names e.g. "ignorant", "have no idea", "go and do more research etc". Then it was you who pointed out that this editor brought unreliable source as well. Another editor Uncle G said they found out that it was 1618 that is adding edits without sourcing them. All of these is in this thread. No it would not be fair to ban me from a topic. I accept indefinite ban of interacting with this individual. The disruption that this individual has done on the pages show that there is now no conistency. I only checked these pages to bring about consistency since the articles said they are the same group. [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 15:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Infact C.Fred and other editors said whatever I was being accused of by editor 1618 was unfounded - there was no evidence. You said this editor 1618 has done it before and most of you voted against. So what wrong have I done again? It was not only travel guide I had added, I had added monitor article and others which have now been deleted. The sort of attacks and language that this individual has used on me, most people would not accept this. Then I am the one that should get banned, where is justice in this? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 15:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::it was deleted because it was a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|poor source]], which is good! We wouldn't want an unreliable Wikipedia article, would we? <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 15:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::@Babysharksboss2 other sources were also deleted apart from the travel guide which is what I am saying. There were other sources I quoted too apart from travel guide. Thanks [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 16:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The other source was deleted because they were not credible sources that are used to justify your edits at Wikipedia. The source mentioned that Lango and Kumam have been influenced by Ateker languages and that there is ongoing research done to see if there is any connection between Lango and Kumam with the Ateker languages. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I'm not going to reply to [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] and let the admins and others handle this. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::my brother/sister/other in christ, [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]], you started this thread and report! I dont think you can just "nope out" and leave others to find a solution. [[File:Kilroy Was Here - Washington DC WWII Memorial.jpg|Killroy was here|left|140px]] <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 16:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not leaving out im just tired from replying to them and their lies about me. Also I'm not Christian and [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] has seen the last source i sent 7 hours ago but they are still continuing to deny these evidences presented i even sent a main citation from Glottolog and they did not accept it and said that non of these point to Lango and Kumam being southern luo languages. I honestly think they are just here to waste my time and there's and create more disputes and arguments that are not necessary for this thread. I have peovided all my evidences they asked for and yet they did not accept it particularly the last pdf and Glottolog and they did not accept it. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::i didn't mean the "my brother/sister/other in Christ" religiously, I just meant it as a term. <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Id appreciate it if that term isnt used because i dont want to cause more problems here in this thread and be accused of a phobia :) I have no problem with the name Jesus Christ in general but for the sake of being civil and not causing another problem just dont call me your brother. Thank you for understanding. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Good point, my apologies. I did not mean to offend or anything anyone. <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 16:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::1618 replaced my citations with https://minorityrights.org/country/uganda/ other editors have already pointed this before in summary that this source is not relable. Would you say it is reliable? [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 16:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::this isn't the place to ask if a link is reliable. Do we have enough votes (only two people voted, but the threads continued), to reach a decision? <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 16:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Also I'm a Male. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::@[[User:Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2]]: Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:NOTVOTE|doesn't operate on votes]]. It is determined by whether a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors has been established. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 16:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::thats what i meant (reffering to oppose, support, etc), but I know I could've worded it better. thanks. <span style='color:red'>[[User: Babysharkboss2|Babysharkboss2 was here!!]]</span> 16:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support:''' obviously, and I expect the interaction ban to apply here as well. Should this thread stagger on, neither should be replying to what the other might have to say. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 17:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. These editors may both benefit from taking the focus off one another, but based on the back and forth above, a restriction seems to be needed to accomplish this. &mdash;[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''&chi;'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Weak oppose'''. It's idealistic of me to hope that these two don't get sanctioned here and find an experienced editor over at the DRN willing to mediate. However, given how passionate both of them are, along with bystander observations of potential unreliable sourcing, I'd recommend a light temporary topic ban for the both of them if action is being taken. I am not sure that preventing the two of them from interacting with one another is going to alleviate disruptive editing in that area of the encyclopedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' as these two can't seem to leave each other alone, or resist the urge to argue article content here instead of sticking to the behavioral issues. I suspect a topic ban from articles related to Africa may be necessary for [[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]], but we can start here. Also [[WP:TROUT]] [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] for his very aggressive behavior in this dispute. Getting frustrated is one thing, but a lot of the language used is just antagonistic. Finally, both are risking [[WP:CIR]] blocks for their complete inability to understand our [[WP:RS]] requirements. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::Just so you know Ngunalik has since June been editing at [[Lango people]]. I brought Minority Rights source to add that the Lango are related to other Nilotic peoples and they removed Nilotic and added Nilo- Hamites without a source back than. This same pattern than changed and later they added related to Ateker peoples so my question is do they at least know if Lango are related to Nilo Hamites or Ateker peoples who are Eastern Nilotic peoples?. Also i havent cited that pdf you said was not reliable i just brought it and you said it was unreliable so i discarded it and than i brough 2 more pdf sources in which the last one you havent checked and than i cited an online reference from Glottolog proving that Lango is a Southern Luo language and you didnt see it also. So my question is how can you claim that i will be getting blocked for sending unreliable sources when i discarded that source and sent a new reliable one?. [[User:Cookiemonster1618|Cookiemonster1618]] ([[User talk:Cookiemonster1618|talk]]) 18:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Please don't use this section to argue content. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 21:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Cookiemonster, do you get that this is your ''thirty-fourth'' comment to this thread?? You said in the ''third'' comment that you rested your case. On the offchance you were unclear on the subject, we do not weigh ANI disputes by volume. Your complete unwillingness to drop the bloody stick already is what's running you towards an interaction ban, and I'd be entirely willing to support a topic ban on you at this point. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 04:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I thought hatting the back and forth between those two in this section would be a clue. I guess not a strong enough one. Is it possible to amend the IB proposal and add a topic ban? I'm beginning to think the IB won't stop the disruption entirely. An indefinite TB would be temporary (indefinite is not infinite) and allow them a chance to evaluate their own behavior throughout this discussion, acknowledge their own issues, and explain the corrective action they will take separate from the IB. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 11:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::That's what I was thinking. Other users, particularly {{np|HandThatFeeds}}, have noted that their citation of reliable sources is suspect. Even if both of them were forbidden from interacting with each other, how they're using sources would be problematic and out of scope of any interaction ban. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 15:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I have not been involved in this thread, but after reading it, I have a headache. the interaction ban would lead to less headaching. [[User:DrowssapSMM|<span style="color: #7f5c23">'''Drowssap'''</span><span style="color: #237f5c">'''''SMM'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:DrowssapSMM|<span style="color: #502059">''talk''</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/DrowssapSMM|''contributions'']]) 19:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:Support, very balanced and impartial. [[User:UnironicEditor|UnironicEditor]] ([[User talk:UnironicEditor|talk]]) 06:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*:that makes '''8''' supports, '''1''' weak oppose. I think this is enough to reach a consensus to close this, and either topic-ban and/or a interaction ban. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 16:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' the problem here seems to be Cookiemonster1618 and Cookiemonster1618 alone. This should perhaps be a [[WP:TROUT]]'ing or a one way interaction ban on Cookiemonster1618 at most. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 13:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits ==
=== Additional proposed remedy: topic ban from E/NE African peoples and languages ===
Given concerns raised above about sourcing, I also put forward an additional sanction separate from the above:
: {{u|Cookiemonster1618}} and {{u|Ngunalik}} [[WP:TBAN|banned from the topics]] of eastern and northeastern African peoples and languages, ''broadly construed'', to include all discussions at talk pages, user talk pages, and noticeboards, for three months. Violation of the ban will result in a sitewide [[WP:Blocking policy|block]] to the offending user for the longer of the remaining time of the ban or one month.
I agree with the community's concerns that this providers the users time and opportunity to get familiar with sourcing in areas where there are reliable sources that may be more readily found and prevent further disruption. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 03:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Strong support''', if the threads above are any indication. They should consider getting a mentor willing to help them discern what reliable sources are. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 03:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
: '''Support:''' Especially on Cookiemonster1618, whose [[WP:BLUDGEON|inability to sit down and stop arguing]] does not suggest they're capable of collaborative efforts. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 20:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' for both. This has been intractable, and I do not see either editor truly giving up in this area until they're forced to, even with the IBAN above. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' for both. I hope both users take this time to become familiar with what a reliable source is and how to use it properly. It also gives them a chance to evaluate their conduct throughout this and other talk page discussions which has been appalling. The bludgeoning of discussions has reached absurd levels. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 14:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:(Non-admin voting) '''STRONG support''', seeing what Ngunalik wrote on [[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]'s talk page, and what was said on here, I think it's justified. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 15:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for both, given discussions above and below. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 03:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Easy one. It's all heat and no light. A break from a topic in which it's so difficult for either to edit constructively would be helpful for the topic and frankly, for both of them as it lowers the chance of an INDEF. They couldn't even slight feign comity within the ANI discussion about the behaviors. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Module%3ABanner_shell&diff=1263133225&oldid=1256414148 this] change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in [[:Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters]]. After the "cleanup" by [[User:Tom.Reding]] (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.
===Request for interaction ban enforcement against Ngunalik ===
Can an uninvolved admin take a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&diff=prev&oldid=1185993498 this edit]? I think {{u|Ngunalik}} is in clear breach of their interaction ban as a result, but I'd like fresh eyes and voices involved. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 12:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


I tried to get him to stop at [[User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits]], to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hi everyone.
:If you want to discuss {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at [[Template talk:WikiProject banner shell]].
:Wikipedia states what I am allowed
:As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
::You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban
:::"{{tq|when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries}}": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "{{tq|no change in output or categories}}", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
:I raised my concern for clarification in C.Fred talk page, I am asking @C.Fred to link this to his full response for my query. Everything was already raised in this forum, there is nothing new. I was simply pointing where I said things and asked him to check if he can see it, because I think I have been misunderstood. Thanks[[User:Ngunalik|Ngunalik]] ([[User talk:Ngunalik|talk]]) 13:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::The only thing misunderstood is that you are no longer allowed to interact with or even '''discuss''' [[User:Cookiemonster1618]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHandThatFeeds&diff=1185942968&oldid=1182585731 I was willing to overlook the violation on my talk page the other day], but this new post to C.Fred's Talk is now the second time you've brought up Cookiemonster1618's edits, so ... &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 14:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::whats the punishment for breaking an interaction-ban? [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 16:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Depends on severity, anywhere from a warning to a temporary block to an indef. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did ''not'' have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I get that you want to defend yourself against a possible topic ban, Ngunalik, but with the interaction ban in place and your insistence that your woes are entirely Cookiemonster's fault, your best bet is to do the same thing I suggested to Cookiemonster that they do: sit down, stay quiet, let other editors discuss the merits, and accept their consensus. Your continuing [[WP:BLUDGEON|repetitive, argumentative posts]] is no more a better look than were Cookiemonster's. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 03:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:This was discussed in detail on [[Template talk:WikiProject banner shell]]. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the {{para|blp}} and {{para|living}} parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Uninvolved admin, as requested. I agree that the edit is an IBAN violation, although a bit close to the border. Defending oneself against a TBAN is legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, but Ngunalik's comments exceeded what was necessary for that defense. I would probably just warn for that, but then I noticed that, <em>after</em> C.Fred. started this subthread, Ngunalik [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Ngunalik&namespace=3&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=8&offset=202311202326 contacted six editors] to invite them to participate in [[Talk:Lango_people#Concensus_on_articles_Kumam,_Lango,_Ateker_peoples|this talkpage discussion]], itself filed after the IBAN was enacted (but a few hours before C.Fred started this subthread). That talkpage discussion concerns the categorization of Lango people as Nilotic versus Hamitic, and as related to the Ateker versus the Luo, two things that Ngunalik and Cookiemonster [[Special:PageHistory/Lango people|have edit-warred over]]. The talkpage post solicits the invited editors to restore Ngunalik's edits, i.e. to revert Cookiemonster. I don't see any way to view this other than as gaming the IBAN—asking others to make a revert that they cannot. Given the explicit warning against gaming at the time of the IBAN's enactment, plus the fact that they were already on notice about potential IBAN violations and still contacted editors to point them toward the talkpage discussion, I am blocking Ngunalik for 72 hours. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I think this is a reasoned and quite restrained response. Thank you, @Tamzin. I think this user is approaching WP:IDHT territory. Every editor that has had contact has tried to help them. These edits are a clear gaming of the IBAN. I can understand defending yourself but the other editor is also in the same position and subject to the same restrictions. They have to find a way to do so without mentioning each other. The TBAN proposal was not as a result of their interaction but specific edits and editorial behavior. When Ngunalik specifically brought up Cookiemonster in the discussion referenced as opposed to the edits made it crossed that line. And the editor was warned of that. {{diff|User talk:Arjayay|prev|1185697404|They were also warned about gaming by one of the users they wrote.}} Still they wanted to argue. I hope the 72 hour block will get their attention. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 15:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed {{ul|Cewbot}} would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Edits like these should ''always'' be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


* Is it just me or are talk pages like [[Template talk:WikiProject banner shell]] just perpetual [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] issues where a very small number of editors (frequently 5 or less) make major changes that affect thousands of articles, all without involving the broader community through, at minimum, places like [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)]]? [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Australian railroad IP ==
*{{ping|Fram|Tom.Reding|Kanashimi|Primefac}} I got AWB working again. If cewbot would take time for making the changes, and if this needs attention soon, then should I file a request for that particular bot task? —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 06:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The robot is in operation... [[User:Kanashimi|Kanashimi]] ([[User talk:Kanashimi|talk]]) 09:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::yay! —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 16:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
A series of IPs, of which {{userlinks|27.33.233.138}} seems to be the latest, has been involved in creating articles about preserved railroad locomotives for a year now. (The IPs jump around Australia every few days, but are [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=124.190.12.234&users=121.45.243.24&users=118.208.118.228&users=27.32.123.68&users=60.241.84.63&users=203.219.245.156&users=220.240.166.58&users=123.243.6.51&users=110.174.50.85&users=124.149.249.124&users=115.64.191.187&users=203.214.53.174&users=123.243.76.220&users=110.175.62.4&users=115.166.4.247&users=210.185.110.172&users=118.208.124.137&users=14.200.160.52&users=124.170.172.64&users=27.33.233.138&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki clearly the same person].)The drafts they submit through AfC are refbombed to get through review, but closer examination show that the refs don't actually satisfy the GNG. A typical example is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 5472|Southern Pacific 5472]]. In at least two situations ([[Southern Pacific 5623]] and [[ALCO Century 624]]), they've reverted merges done by AfD consensus. The IP's comments at AfD show they have no willingness to understand notability:
*[[Special:Diff/1184906202]]: {{tq|It’s obviously notable but very underrated}}
*[[Special:Diff/1184725146]]: {{tq|If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to delete the article}}
*[[Special:Diff/1184725208]] {{tq|Besides its completely new y'know}}
The notability refbombing plus writing style ({{tq|But a guy by the name of Dennis Mann had contacted OmniTRAX about a possible sale to sell the 4423 for its scrap value. An agreement was made, and Dennis Mann had wrote the check that was mailed to him...}} [[Southern Pacific 5472|here]]) are a CIR issue already, but now they've moved into increasingly disruptive editing. The most egregious involves [[Southern Pacific 4450]], which was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 4450|deleted at AfD]] in 2022. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=1183561240#Southern_Pacific_4450 took it to RfU], using two different IPs to fake support; the request was turned down. They then [[Special:Diff/1184085284|remove the old request]], [[Special:Diff/1182593821/1184085580|'''edit the old AfD close to appear as a soft delete''']], and [[Special:Diff/1184085498|resubmit claiming it was soft deleted]]. That's not just a competence issue; that's actively malicious.
{{collapse top|List of IPs}}
*{{userlinks|124.190.12.234}} November 12 - July 5
*{{userlinks|121.45.243.24}} August 18-19
*{{userlinks|118.208.118.228}} August 26-31
*{{userlinks|27.32.123.68}} September 1-8
*{{userlinks|60.241.84.63}} September 13-18
*{{userlinks|203.219.245.156}} September 19-20
*{{userlinks|220.240.166.58}} September 20-21
*{{userlinks|123.243.6.51}} September 21-26
*{{userlinks|110.174.50.85}} October 10-12
*{{userlinks|124.149.249.124}} October 12-14
*{{userlinks|115.64.191.187}} October 16-17
*{{userlinks|203.214.53.174}} October 19-20
*{{userlinks|123.243.76.220}} October 20-22
*{{userlinks|110.175.62.4}} October 23-29
*{{userlinks|115.166.4.247}} October 29-30
*{{userlinks|210.185.110.172}} October 31 - November 1
*{{userlinks|118.208.124.137}} October 28 - November 4
*{{userlinks|14.200.160.52}} November 3-4
*{{userlinks|124.170.172.64}} November 4-8
*{{userlinks|27.33.233.138}} November 9-13
{{collapse bottom}}
Courtesy pings: {{ping|Trainsandotherthings|Jay}}. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 07:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*As undeleter of Southern Pacific 4450, I'm at fault for failing to check the cumulative diff at the AfD. It would have shown how Delete was manipulated to Soft Delete. I would suggest re-deletion.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*:I can't fault you - that kind of dishonesty is not something I've seen in this topic area. It's why I'm looking for a block and/or ban on creating drafts for this IP user. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 20:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
*This explains how even though I declined it as a hard delete, it got undeleted. If Jay agrees I think that [[Southern Pacific 4450]] should be deleted due to fraudulent request. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 08:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


== [[User:Augmented Seventh]] ==
:Since this was first posted, the same editor has now engaged in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Southern_Pacific_Class_P-8&diff=prev&oldid=1185138861 obvious sockpuppetry] at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific Class P-8]], pretending to be two different users which coincidentally both locate to Australia and have a strong interest in creating articles about Southern Pacific locomotives. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::I lack the time at present (check back with me in the next day) to provide diffs but I have noticed casual, unusual attempts to sock by this IP on their own drafts, but brushed them off as nothing more than eccentricities. However, following the behavior on the AfD, I think there is no doubt that this editor is a properly [[WP:DE|disruptive editor]] (albeit a very unsophisticated one). ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 04:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:I've tagged 4450 with a CSD G4. Lets see if it gets contested. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 07:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:: I've deleted it as an obvious G4. There also appears to be a [[Southern Pacific 4451]]... [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Tagged. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::::That 4451 really was a soft delete though. If a good-faith editor requests undeletion it could be returned. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::: That's fine, as long as it's not returned to mainspace in its current state. To be honest, I would be surprised if anyone could claim notability for that particular random diesel loco. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::The long and short of it is that it isn't notable, not even close, but certain railfans ([[foamer]]s, if you will) are obsessive about their favorite railroads and think everything must have an article just because they personally like it. I've spent more time than I like to admit cleaning up after this sort of thing on this website. To a casual observer, many of these articles might appear to meet GNG (and frustratingly, at least one AfC reviewer has defended their acceptance of these subpar articles). You have to look more closely and see the REFBOMBing with insignificant mentions and unreliable self-published sources to realize many of these subjects are non-notable. As there has been no action taken against this manipulative and obsessive IP editor, who in my opinion has gone well past the point a long-term block would be justified, the cleanup effort will have to continue even as they add more and more fuel to the fire. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
{{collapse top|List of articles created by IPs}}
*[[ACE 3000]]
*[[Southern Pacific 7457]]
*[[Grand Trunk Western 5632]]
*[[Chicago and North Western 7009]]
*[[Union Pacific 3967]]
*[[Australian National CB class railcar]]
*[[GER 552 Class]]
*[[Portland and Western 1501]]
*[[EMD SD7R]]
*[[Nickel Plate Road 757]]
*[[East Broad Top 16]]
*[[Norfolk and Western 2050]]
*[[EMD SD40R]]
*[[Southern Pacific class GS-7]]
*[[EMD GP9E and GP9R]]
*[[EMD SD45u]]
*[[Southern Pacific class GS-8]]
*[[EMD SD45T-2R]]
*[[GE U25BE]]
*[[Southern Pacific Class P-8]]
{{collapse bottom}}
:It is worth noting some of these are fine, such as [[Nickel Plate Road 757]], which was created as a 2 sentence stub by the IP before being substantially fleshed out with proper sourcing by [[User:611fan2001]], an editor in good standing (and who's work I can personally attest to the quality of). Most, however, should be reviewed for notability and likely need to be merged, redirected, or deleted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


::I've already put [[GE U25BE]] and [[EMD SD45T-2R]], which are mere rebuilds of [[GE U25B]] and [[EMD SD45T-2]] respectively, up for AfD after the IP removed my PRODs. [[Southern Pacific Class P-8]] is already up at AfD. There are some others I missed that are already up at AfD. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


[[User:Augmented Seventh]] is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
===Block proposal===
:You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with [[WP:CAT]] and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to formally propose that the current IP {{userlinks|220.235.238.29}} and any future IPs be blocked, and that any drafts they create be deleted. It's clear from this discussion that the person does not understand notability enough to produce useful articles, is not able to communicate usefully, and has engaged multiple times in deceptive behavior. That's a net negative to the community, and only a block will stop the behavior. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::And you are now '''required''' to cite how your edits meet [[WP:CAT]]; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – the editor is persistently behaving improperly, failing to respond to many concerns, attempting to disrupt and [[WP:GAME|game]] article creation/deletion processes, and there seems to be little to no improvement in behaviour at all. A waste of other editors' time. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
* '''Support''' per the nomination and [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 05:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
*'''Support''' per the nomination and per my previous comments in this thread. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
*'''Support''' per nom. I'm not a train guy but, as an outsider, I am seeing no basis for notability in many of the REFBOMBs drafts the IP puts forward. Their socking and GAMING is too much for me to think this is all accidental. Many of the IP's drafts are getting approved to articles despite clear deficiencies (perhaps a lamentable side-effect of the ongoing and very successful AfC drive). ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Augmented Seventh|Augmented Seventh]] ([[User talk:Augmented Seventh|talk]]) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*I disagree. I checked out {{On AFD|Southern Pacific Class P-8}}. The book citations are genuine, and support the content based upon them. And checking the list of IP addresses and articles I find {{article|Norfolk and Western 2050}}, written based upon museum and magazine doco by a different IP address whose only apparent sin is to ''also be in Australia''. Australia, well known rather big place. This is an egregious overreach, that tars any future Australian without an account who writes drafts about railways. And [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 4450]] was a consensus of 2 people, with a third only "leaning", about an article written in 2006 by ''none'' of these IP addresses. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] that speedy was wrong. Look at the contents. The 2023 article isn't the same article being re-posted, and there are more sources in the rewrite and clearly doesn't match the "sourced only to one dude's self published railfan site" in the 2022 discussion. And not knowing that Lulu is a vanity press, which wasn't even cited by the original author of the draft, is something that [[Special:Diff/1181035420|clearly AFC reviewers are guilty of]], too. So should we be banning our AFC reviewers, too, in this massive attempt to associate a whole bunch of articles and IP addresses and accounts with 1 bad actor? [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
**@[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]]: While the geolocation of the IP jumps around, the behavioral pattern is very distinct, which makes me confident it is a single person. They focus on a very narrow subset of locomotives, continue editing drafts/articles after switching IPs, and often respond to themselves to fake consensus; the [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=124.190.12.234&users=121.45.243.24&users=118.208.118.228&users=27.32.123.68&users=60.241.84.63&users=203.219.245.156&users=220.240.166.58&users=123.243.6.51&users=110.174.50.85&users=124.149.249.124&users=115.64.191.187&users=203.214.53.174&users=123.243.76.220&users=110.175.62.4&users=115.166.4.247&users=210.185.110.172&users=118.208.124.137&users=14.200.160.52&users=124.170.172.64&users=27.33.233.138&users=220.235.238.29&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki editor interaction] is particularly telling. (115.64.191.187, which you mentioned above, has more than a dozen overlaps with the other IPs.) The drafts are refbombed to pass AFC, often with errors that indicates they don't actually have access to the source and are simply copying the citation from elsewhere. They have other behavioral tells that are obviously different from legitimate new editors (not revealing them here, but feel free to email me.) I am quite sure that any actual new editor editing railroad articles from an Australian IP would not be mistaken for this person. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
***Then you are going to have to address my concern about the egregious overreach of "any future IPs" under this heading of "[[#Australian railroad IP|Australian]]", which you have failed to do. That's licence to block a whole country. And you should be reaching out to the AFC reviewers who let things based upon Lulu books pass AFC, as the problem ''there'' is that the poor sourcing actually ''got'' a pass when it should have been raising red flags. I did. Given [[Special:Diff/1185987251]] then [[Special:Diff/1186025564]] you should add your voice. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
***:You're criticizing a proposal that no one's making. What anyone's talking about is [[WP:DUCK]]: dubious notability, ref-bombing, fixation on American locomotives of a certain era, geolocates to Australia. I don't think that translates to a {{tq|licence to block a whole country}}. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Editors should not blindly revert. They should be '''required''' to understand the guideleines. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
***::Perhaps @[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]]'s concern is that when an IP address is identified that what is being proposed is that the IP address be indeffed and that would result in undue collateral damage? Rather I think this proposal is that this specific IP user who is clearly identifiable per [[WP:DUCK]] be blocked. Given the IP user changes IP address every couple of weeks, there's no reason for example that 30 day blocks couldn't be used each time an IP address is identified? [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 22:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
**This is a rather absurd comment. This is a highly specific pattern of behavior and extremely narrow topic area within the area of trains (specifically an obsession with Southern Pacific) which makes it incredibly obvious these IPs are the same editor. Making nonsensical slippery-slope fallacies is unhelpful. Had you looked at the IPs, you would see they locate to Sydney and Melbourne exclusively, and had you fully examined the evidence or asked us, you would have noticed a clear and distinct pattern of behavior which makes it quite obvious we are dealing with a single individual. I am extremely disappointed you ignore all the obvious misconduct by this editor, from maliciously editing a closed AfD discussion, to sockpuppetry, to copyright violations [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Portland_and_Western_1801&diff=prev&oldid=1185601693], to misrepresentation of sources. Regarding your last point, a number of these AfC accepts were inexplicable and reflect very poorly on the reviewers in question. Above all, you are clearly rushing to scream "injustice!" without anywhere near a full understanding of the facts. I have been dealing with this specific editor for several months. Nobody here has associated this editor with a registered account, so please strike that false claim. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
***One the contrary, I observed, as I said, one bad actor. But in addition, this is a quite pointed observation that you two bringing up the primary example of this as {{On AFD|Southern Pacific 4450}} above and making it how it is ignoring a consensus of 2 people &mdash; maliciously, as you've characterized it repeatedly now &mdash; is proven to be wrong. That article was created and edited by {{user|Insomniac186}} in March 2006, and ''that'' was what you nominated for deletion, not something associated with these IP addresses. I've apparently looked into this better than you have, although at the time of your deletion nomination you should have seen its edit history too. This "malicious" ignoring of a 2 person consensus seems to be because ''you'' were 1 of the 2 people. And you aren't proposing blocking even just Sydney and Melbourne, which again is rather a lot of editors, but as clearly stated "any future IP" addresses used by an "[[#Australian railroad IP|Australian]]". [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
***:I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all agree that the original article wasn't written by the IP. What the IP did do was change the content of the AfD to make it look like a soft delete, then turn around and request undeletion, a bad faith act if there ever was one. The text between the two versions is not substantially different. Yes, he added a bunch of sources. Given the addition of a ''Diesel Era'' article missing the author, the title, and the full page numbers, I'm deeply skeptical. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
***:Do you have so little understanding of how IP addresses work that you are incapable of understanding the same editor may at different times use different IP addresses, and IP addresses are routinely reassigned by internet providers? Are you also incapable of understanding that behavioral tells and editing overlaps can be used to conclusively prove different IP addresses are being used by the same individual? I suggest you stop now before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. I don't know why you're going on about things from 2006, I have never suggested the author from back then is related to the current situation in any way. I nominated that for deletion on the grounds of failing GNG, and it was deleted. The IP then falsely edited the AfD after the fact to instead say "soft delete" and tricked an admin into restoring the old article. That's all ok by you?
***:And if we're supposedly looking into things, there were two delete voters in that discussion ''in addition'' to myself, the nominator, for a total of three. Please at least get the basic facts right if you're going to keep arguing with me. You are continuing to make a strawman argument based upon your belief that blocking a few specific IP ranges used by this editor is akin to blocking an entire country. Nobody is proposing to block the entire country of Australia, or entire cities in Australia. Seeing an administrator with this little understanding of IP ranges, or how to handle disruptive editors using IP addresses to edit, is very concerning and makes me question your fitness for the role. Instead of trying to argue with everyone here, maybe consider we're making a valid argument, and it is you that has created a false idea in your mind of what is proposed here.
***:I also find it appalling that you think I'm supporting a block because I'm somehow upset that an article I nominated for deletion was recreated, rather than because this editor has broken policy in numerous ways. I suppose we can add [[WP:AGF]] to the list of things you don't understand. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
* 118.208.124.137 (and any other IPs who are the same person) should be severely warned for changing the close statement, and their future edits should be monitored.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I know I'm a bit late to the party but this is clear disruption. Making articles about preserved U-boats because "it was the first to have the Kodachrome livery" is not only extremely lame but also quite disruptive, especially continuing to do so after being told to stop. I do agree that some of the articles that have been created are on notable subjects but their quality is nothing to push forward that idea. [[User:Cutlass|<span style="color: maroon">Cutlass</span>]][[User talk:Cutlass|<sup><span style="color: blue">Ciera</span></sup>]] 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I beg {{ping|Uncle G}}'s pardon but I have to disagree. These articles give the ''appearance'' of being sourced, but they aren't. Take [[EMD SD45T-2R]], now at AfD: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMD SD45T-2R]]. Pre-deletion version: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EMD_SD45T-2R&oldid=1185367094]. Three books, including Jeff Wilson's 2017 ''Guide to North American Diesel Locomotives'', which is a recent source from a reputable publisher. Cites an article in ''Diesel Era'' that appears to focus on the base model (EMD SD45T-2) and its derivatives. The first warning sign is that the article says ''nothing'' about how this rebuild differs from the base model, and I mean nothing. The second warning sign is that the [http://espee.railfan.net/spsd45t-2r.html linked railfan page] mentions three of the sources: both Shine books, and the ''Diesel Era'' article. Those sources are also used on the [[EMD SD45T-2]] article, as is Wilson. Wilson says nothing about the rebuilds except that some of them exist. The ''Diesel Era'' article devotes a page to the rebuilds, and it makes it clear that the changes were external and cosmetic. Not nearly enough difference to justify a separate article. It's clear that the IP editor doesn't have access to any of these references. I don't have access to the Shine books but I can't accept them on faith as sources without someone else endorsing their quality and what's in them. Are some of the topics notable? Probably. {{On AFD|Southern Pacific Class P-8}}, in particular, is, but may need to be written by someone else. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
** And yet the exact page numbers cited in {{On AFD|Southern Pacific Class P-8}} turned out to be right when I pulled them up and checked them. Maybe the railfan magazine is doing the heavy lifting with reading the sources. But neither of the magazine articles hyperlinked from [[Southern Pacific Class P-8]] actually have any mentions of books at all. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
**:The main thread of my comment has to do with the [[EMD SD45T-2R]]. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the sources for the [[Southern Pacific Class P-8]]. Inasmuch as the sources were obviously copied from [[Southern Pacific 2467]] or [[Southern Pacific 2472]], I hope that they're accurate. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''support''' per nom--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.
== Deletion of [[Birotron]] ==
*{{pagelinks|Birotron}}


Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.
I've previously worked on this article, and wanted to revisit today, only to be dismayed that a bunch of IPs (probably the same person) are exhibiting severe [[WP:OWN]]ership issues on it, reverting just about any improvement I or any other editor made. I also discovered that what the IPs want to revert to appears to be a copyvio, so I've taken the rather drastic decision to delete the entire article per [[WP:G12]] and re-appropriate the title as a redirect (as I believe there are enough reliable sources to mention this instrument somewhere on Wikipedia).


I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.
Admins can see the deleted history of the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Birotron here]. In particular, as well as plenty of edit summaries that are basically "stop editing my article", [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Birotron&timestamp=20230802223839&diff=prev this one] (again, admins only, sorry) appears to be [[WP:OUTING|outing]] an editor. And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Birotron&timestamp=20141217060700&diff=prev this] is a flat out [[WP:BLP]] violation.


WP could be sooo much better. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm conceding the fact I might be wrong about the copyvio (it's possible it's actually a reverse copyvio), in which case I'll apologise and reverse the deletion. However, in any case, I think this is worth having a discussion about. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


:I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:After looking at the history of the article I think I need mind bleach. The user in the second diff is open about his real name, so that's not an issue, but the amount of belligerent ownership is staggering. There's nothing there which would be of much use for a trying to recreate it, a ''blank'' page is it anything far more helpful, so even if it doesn't meet any particular policy [[WP:IAR|who cares]]? [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
::GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: Holy completely unsourced collection of fancruft, Batman! Ironically, it almost certainly ''is'' notable, but looking at the history I'd suggest that any article that makes it into mainspace be semi-protected ... for ever. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have rewritten the article using some of the book sources I have. In doing so, I spotted an interview with someone who I'm certain is the cause of the unreferenced fancruft that was there. Without wishing to fall foul of the outing policy myself, they self-describe as an expert on the Birotron, owning one of the few models that were actually made, and self-identify as being from the same geographic area as where their IPs locate to. I'm beginning to think this is simply a subject expert who's just never been advised on what Wikipedia policy actually is. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". [[Special:Contributions/43.249.196.179|43.249.196.179]] ([[User talk:43.249.196.179|talk]]) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No. You brought this here. The [[WP:ONUS]] is on ''you'' to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also {{tqq|How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone"}} - because that's exactly what you said. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at [[WT:CAT]]. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at [[WP:VPP]]. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at [[WP:CFD]]. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When a content dispute involves several pages it is often <small>though not always</small> best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate [[WP:DR]] when that happens. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their [[:Special:Diff/1264067311|removal]] of [[:Category:Corruption]] from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I haven't checked for copyright violations, but the rewrite from the ground up seems fair, although there are a few early revisions from 2004&ndash;2007 that were untainted by any of this that it seems a shame to lose.
There are some pointers to music magazines in the history, although with bare URLs that have likely link-rotted by now.
There does seem to be some coverage of this in 20th century music magazines.
<p></p>
If you want crazy edit histories, though, the edit history of [[Talk:Marvin Winans]] takes some beating.
<p></p>
[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 19:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


== User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2 ==
:That... just wow. What the hell? Who does that? [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|ZanderAlbatraz1145}}
::Eh, what flavors of crazy ''haven't'' we seen on Wikipedia at one point or another? [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 23:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173#User%3AZanderAlbatraz1145_Civility_and_Content they were previously reported for].
:I've restored the early history that is known to be copyvio free. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


Instances such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Shawn_Levy%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1260044972 ordering IP editors to stop editing articles], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Shawn_Levy%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1260223142 hostilely chastising them], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes:_Back_in_Action&diff=prev&oldid=1262356900 making personal attacks in edit summary] on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=John_Requa&diff=prev&oldid=1262356999 several occasions], etc. Users such as {{Ping|Waxworker}} and {{Ping|Jon698}} can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.
The previously mentioned IP was back yesterday trying to revert to the previously deleted version. {{u|Discospinster}} reverted them twice and left them a warning not to add copyvios. I've also had a word. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


On December 10, I noticed on the article [[Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects]] page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luca_Guadagnino%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1262520434 bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior]. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZanderAlbatraz1145&diff=prev&oldid=1262571084 "bite me"]. I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luca_Guadagnino%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1263986420 asking it not to be reverted]. Zander [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luca_Guadagnino%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=next&oldid=1263986420 reverted anyway], and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&diff=prev&oldid=1263998369 add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to], and now that I am putting said comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Ayer%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1264170406 behind collapsable tables for being offtopic], Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&diff=prev&oldid=1264170016 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Ayer%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1264173874 this].
I'm reasonably sure this was reverse infringement (or, at best, not copied from the site mentioned in the G12 summary - I haven't looked for this content elsewhere). The earliest wayback archive of the page is from [https://web.archive.org/web/20221003080649/http://www.synth-db.com/synths/Birotron/B90/B90.php October last year], and our version of what's there was built up piecemeal over many edits a long time ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Birotron&timestamp=20100322052145&diff=prev representative example]). —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 09:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*I'm really confused. Why is this not at DRV? Are we reviewing deletion decisions here now? Is there anything AN/I isn't for?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|<span style="font-family:Rockwell; color:red"><i>Rusted AutoParts</i></span>]] 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
== User Earl Andrew - Conflict of Interest and Disruptive Editing Violations ==
:I've given them a warning for canvassing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Film_Creator&diff=prev&oldid=1264656300] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2K_LMG&diff=prev&oldid=1264628239] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nils2088&diff=prev&oldid=1264610927] - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luca_Guadagnino%27s_unrealized_projects&diff=prev&oldid=1264447877 And more personal attacks here] - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== SPA [[User:Tikitorch2]] back at it on [[Martin Kulldorff]] ==


Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA [[User:Tikitorch2]], who's been POV pushing on the [[Martin Kulldorff]] article since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1229259082 June]. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1264229807 back] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Martin_Kulldorff&diff=prev&oldid=1264233480 at it]. They've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1226201490 been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19], and have received an [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1230873032 edit-warring] warning--to which they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tikitorch2&diff=prev&oldid=1231212724 less than receptive]. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:[[User:Michael.C.Wright]]? [[Special:Contributions/173.22.12.194|173.22.12.194]] ([[User talk:173.22.12.194|talk]]) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
On 13 November 2023 I edited [[Ekos Research Associates]] to clean up unsourced content that violates WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Promotional, WP:Logos, and WP:COI.
::{{duck}}. I'm sending this [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael.C.Wright|to SPI]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Michael.C.Wright&diff=prev&oldid=1264414907 SPI says unrelated], so might just be generic disruption. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
:For my two attempted contributions to Wikipedia, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:PRIMARY|Primary sources]] are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used {{tqq|to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible}} because that is [[WP:OR|original research]]. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Wikipedia policy is [https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/us/white-nationalists-tiki-torch-march-trnd/index.html not] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65307774 an accident]. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. [[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2|talk]]) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if it was a personal attack, making one ''back'' isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Tikitorch2]], your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== [[User talk:International Space Station0]] ==
User [[User:Earl Andrew |Earl Andrew]] ("EA") has disruptively undone my edit in various forms 5 times in the ~48 hours since.
{{atop|result=Just officially closing this discussion as the account involved has been globally blocked. If an editor has Spore on your Watchlist and you see this occurring again, contact your local administrator. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless ([[Wikipedia:Gaming the system]] to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized [[Spore (2008 video game)]] by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. [[User:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;color:#7C0A02">jolielover♥</b>]][[User talk:Jolielover|<b style="font-family:helvetica;border:transparent;padding:0 9px;background:linear-gradient(#8B0000,black);color:#ff8c8c;border-radius:6px">talk</b>]] 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It's a [[WP:DUCK]], and I just reported to AIV. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
EA's direct edits of the article are in violation of [[WP:COI]], as they [[Talk:Ekos Research Associates|are in conflict as a self-identified employee of Ekos Research Associates]] and they have been warned multiple times over weeks to propose edits on the article talk page, not make them directly. EA continued to repeatedly undo my edit, at various points claiming my edit was vandalism or otherwise not providing any evidence or explanation. EA has been unwilling to meet my requests to constructively discuss the edit in the talk page. EA has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page.


::Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57|2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57]] ([[User talk:2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57#top|talk]]) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Given the persistent displays of bad faith, a level 2 warning for disruptive editing was noted on EA's talk page at 23:08, 15 November 2023. EA continued the behaviour with 2 disruptive edits since that warning.
:::There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. [[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talk]]) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*This account has been globally blocked as an LTA so it shouldn't be an issue. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:At what point is it appropriate to selectively delete their hundreds of edits of nonsense from the page history?
*:Or is that just something that isn't done? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|2804:F1...A7:86CC]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80D2:8401:3D8F:4ED6:BEA7:86CC|talk]]) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you are talking [[WP:SELDEL]], there is rarely a good reason for it's use at present. If instead you mean [[WP:REVDEL]] see [[WP:CRD]] and [[WP:REVDELREQUEST]]. [[Special:Contributions/184.152.68.190|184.152.68.190]] ([[User talk:184.152.68.190|talk]]) 05:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've gone ahead and revdel'd the lot of them, as cut-and-pasting from other articles without proper attribution is copyvio and thus RD1able. Selective deletion (making the edits go away from the history) is probably not going to happen, if it's even technically possible for an article with almost *9500* revisions (I know [[WP:STOCKS|I'm not going to try]]!). - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Disruptive editor on [[When the Pawn...]] ==
EA is a longstanding, substantial Wikipedia contributor but seems shockingly unable to maintain perspective when it comes to Ekos, which they acknowledged employs them as a senior employee. Weeks of numerous warnings for COI and disruptive editing do not seem to matter. Could a block be necessary?


User [[User:Longislandtea]] has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing [[alternative pop]] simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1261417313] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1264047125] I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&diff=prev&oldid=1264493922] I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Longislandtea&diff=prev&oldid=1264440351] [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I am happy explain further if needed. Thank you.


:User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
[[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Longislandtea}} I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read [[Template:Infobox album]] it states — {{xt|genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included.}} The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sources need to be '''legitimate''' and''' relevant'''. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Wikipedia's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources {{lw|Acceptable sources}}.
::::''Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.''
::::A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
::::''Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Wikipedia. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.''
::::Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
::::Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:NOTVAND]]. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I strike. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <nowiki><s>Comment</s></nowiki> which will make it look like this <s>Comment</s>. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<s> please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand.</s> [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Longislandtea}} How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic ''does not'' call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Wikipedia. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
:::::https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
:::::Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Schazjmd}} I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. {{ping|The Bushranger}} you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]], you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. [[User:Pillowdelight|Pillowdelight]] ([[User talk:Pillowdelight|talk]]) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Irrelevant sources and unnecessary changes to genre list on {{pagelinks|When the Pawn...}} ===
:That page history is a gong show; I've protected the article for a day so that this can be discussed in more detail. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:This is kind of a confusing thread to me. Clearly, there is a disagreement between yourself and Earl here. I am not sure what you mean by referring to [[WP:LOGOS]]; nothing there says that we shouldn't have logos in company articles. We typically do; [[Google]], [[General Motors]], even small random companies like [[Gadzoox]] and [[Intuitive Surgical]]. We even have logos for companies that are sussy or outright illegal ([[FTX]], [[Stratton Oakmont]], [[Enron]], [[Halliburton]], [[Blackwater (company)]] etc). I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that merely having a company's logo in an article constitutes a conflict of interest. Likewise, I am unaware of anything we have about cities or photos of buildings in infoboxes. What policy or guideline is this based on? You may have a point with the street address, but "one of the six things I kept removing actually needed to be removed" is not a great justification for edit-warring.
:Nobody has particularly covered themselves with ''[[kleos|κλέος]]'' in this affair, though. I would not call myself a world-class expert on [[WP:COI]] but my understanding is that this kind of thing is discouraged (especially if it's contentious). {{ping|Earl Andrew}} Aren't people with active COIs supposed to make edit requests instead of editing the employer's article directly? Why not do this? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for the considered feedback jpxg. WP:Logos states: ''"Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. '''Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar''' or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons."'' Ekos Research Associates' logo is not reasonably familiar to the general public, unlike the major companies you listed. An employee of the company being the one to select and add the logo, as Earl Andrew is, adds further to the likelihood that the purpose of its inclusion is for advertisement/promotional reason. The infobox images show up on blurbs when the company's name is run through google search, for instance.
::The conflict of interest issue is a separate rationale. [[WP:COI]] sets out that users with identified conflicts of interest, as Earl Andrew is, should refrain from directly editing. Ultimately all of the content I removed had no source, other than a self-confessed employee of Ekos adding it. That is an issue with both the [[Ekos Research Associates]] page and with Ekos boss [[Frank Graves]]' pages--lack of verifiable sources. I have worked to trim that unverified content and add new content that meets WP:verifiability. [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 07:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


On October 22 2024, {{lu|Pillowdelight}} changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too.
:[[WP:COIADVICE]] makes an allowance for uncontroversial edits, which the business address and logo surely are? [[Special:Diff/1185319514]] doesn't seem worth an edit war, and multiple editors have objected on the talk page to treating Earl Andrew's edit as controversial. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers:
::On this note, I am also not sure what Balancingakt means by "unsourced". The stuff they are removing is obviously sourced: the company's website is linked ''right there'' in the infobox. You can [https://ekos.com/ go there and see what their logo is], and their street address is at the bottom of the page. I don't think we need specific inline references for this, it's just common sense. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023
::Yes, [[WP:COIADVICE]] allows for uncontroversial edits. But these are specifically outlined to be limited to (quoting):
::''(1) remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,''
::''(2) remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,''
::''(3) fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,''
::''(4) repair broken links,''
::''(5) remove their own COI edits, and''
::''(6) add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.''
::'''If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. '''
::@[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] could you explain how adding the business address and logo fit into this definition? [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:Balancingakt's edits look fairly ridiculous to me. Deleting the lead sentence of the article claiming COI [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=next&oldid=1185049497]? Deleting a bunch of infobox parameters claiming COI [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=1185319514]? How on earth was this rewrite remoteley acceptable [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=1184881758]? It turned the article into little more than an attack page. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Some of Balancingakt's edits to [[Frank Graves (pollster)]] look to be equally terrible. They seem to have absolutely no understanding of sourcing policy or when it is acceptable to use primary sources - it is perfectly acceptable to use someone's CV/web profile to source their educational qualifications, year of birth or full name! The following Earl Andrew around, reverting completely acceptable edits made years ago while screaming policies that they clearly haven't read frankly looks like a harassment/hounding campaign. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Umm, yeah&nbsp;... {{U|Balancingakt}}, what was going on in these two edits that I just reverted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mullaghmore,_Tullyhunco&diff=prev&oldid=1184882759 to Mullaghmore, Tullyhunco] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kirklees_College&diff=prev&oldid=1184882814 Kirklees College], both removing a reference that included an Archive.org archive URL, with edit summary {{tq|Removed dead link. No archive available.}}? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 05:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I went back further in their edit history and there are a very large number of these edits (removing formatted citations simply because they happen to include a URL which is no longer active). I've reverted these too. I don't think this is being done in bad faith, as Bal has less than 200 edits. But I do think that there needs to be some clear guidance somewhere -- I don't know which page it should be on -- because I have seen many new editors laboring under the idea that a {{tl|dead link}} tag means "the book/magazine/etc has retroactively ceased to exist so please remove the entire citation". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 06:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::One of my recent projects here has been to work through identified dead links through Wikipedia's [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_External_links external links project]]. My apologies if I made an error or two. Generally I believe you will find those contributions are solid. [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 06:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Balancingakt}}, thanks for responding. However, as {{U|JPxG}} says, removing such citations is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the website changed its archiving system and the citation can be found at a more recent URL, for example. Also, you haven't really answered my question: why did you remove the citations [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mullaghmore,_Tullyhunco&diff=prev&oldid=1184882759 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kirklees_College&diff=prev&oldid=1184882814 here] when it ''included an archive link''? You are probably using a different editing interface from me. Can't you see the archive.org URLs in those two references? JPxG, I've looked at your last three reverts and they were all indeed marked as dead links. The two I highlighted weren't simply marked that way. There was an archived URL right there in the reference! (And I don't want to completely distract from the issue of the edits at [[Ekos Research Associates]].) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 06:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I did not intend to remove dead link citations that include an archive link. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_External_links| external links project] provides a way to access random pages with dead link flags. To help that effort, I locate pages with dead links and try to solve the issue through adding an archive link or identifying that a citation is needed. Either I overlooked the archive link in error or my editing interface did not display it. My apologies. Feel free to review my other edits. [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 07:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I appreciate 86.23.109.101's detailed review but I am concerned their arguments here are turning uncivil and not assuming good faith. Any of the edits I made to [[Ekos Research Associates]] and [[Frank Graves]] were to either remove unsourced, promotional content, content added by a self-professed employee of Ekos and Frank Graves or to add content from reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policy. Where is the attack?


https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021
:::I have not been following Earl Andrew around harassing him and to suggest otherwise is again uncivil and in bad faith. I am sensitive to [[WP:HOUNDING]] and I have been careful not to engage in broad, punitive investigation of Earl Andrew's entire Wikipedia history. I am trying to work with him to understand and resolve only the specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages). Earl Andrew has elected not to meet my constructive outreach in resolving things. I have put in hours of work editing, researching and adding to these articles to improve their previous conflicted, unsourced, and frankly promotional state in line with Wikipedia policy.[[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 07:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I am concerned that this topic has turned into an unfocused assessment of the sprawling, unrelated Wikipedia edit history of myself and Earl Andrew, starting to approach [[WP:WITCHHUNT]] instead of discussing the topic at hand: '''whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to [[Ekos Research Associates]] are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term.'''
::::
::::The facts are:
::::(1)Earl Andrew has self-declared that he is a senior employee of Ekos and has been identified and warned that [[WP:COI]] directs him not to make direct edits to the article.
::::(2)I made recent edits to the page to remove information that was [[WP:RS|unsourced]], [[WP:PROMO|promotional in nature]], in violation of [[WP:Logos|logo policy]], and/or added by Earl Andrew while he was [[WP:COI|in conflict as an employee of the subject]]. In other words: with rationale drawing from multiple clear Wikipedia policy violations.
::::(3) In violation of [[WP:COI]] Earl Andrew continued to make direct edits, reverting/rolling back my edit or re-adding the content that I edited out in line with policy. He made false claims of vandalism and/or provided no edit rationale for doing so. He was warned that this persistent unconstructive behaviour could constitute [[WP:Disruptive Editing|disruptive editing]] and politely requested to discuss in the talk page (which his [[WP:COI]] status requires of him anyway) but continued the disruptive, warring behaviour.
::::'''Refocusing on the original core of this topic: Weeks of numerous outreach, advisory, and warnings for COI and disruptive editing of [[Ekos Research Associates]] do not seem to matter to Earl Andrew. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows [[WP:COI]] and other Wikipedia policy on the [[Ekos Research Associates]] article?''' [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{U|Balancingakt}}, I see some assumption of bad faith on your part. Scroll up and you will see editors pushing back against your representation of a HQ address, for example, as unsourced when it's there in the linked company home page. There is some [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] latitude for primary sources, and one thing that links your two types of edits, removing material at [[Ekos Research Associates]] and removing dead links, is that you do not appear to be looking for sources yourself. Per [[WP:PRESERVE]], that's the best thing to do. If you think the location of a company's headquarters should be referenced, for example, first look in the article text to see whether it already is, and if not, look for a reference in the business press. On logos, [[WP:LOGOS]] seems to me to need a bit of attention; it appears to contradict itself, saying in the intro: {{tq|The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity.}} but below, the Advertising section that you refer to: {{tq|Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALogos&diff=prev&oldid=2112696 Both were added at the same time in 2004].) I believe the intro represents what we actually do: articles on companies as a rule have the logo at the top (usually in an infobox), and those that are too complex to be copyright-free form a significant category of fair use uploads here on en.wiki. But you've come across something that really does seem to be contradictory. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 09:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate your thoughtful explanation on primary sourcing and logos Yngvadottir. My concern still remains that Earl Andrew should not be making any direct edits to the [[Ekos Research Associates]] article as per [[WP:COI]], as he is a senior employee of the firm. I made an edit, which albeit has some room for debate. Earl Andrew disruptively reverted that edit repeatedly and disurptively, instead of discussing it on the talk page, which [[WP:COI]] binds him to do. I am trying to build a better article. I cannot do so if a conflicted contributor makes edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, refuses to discuss, and does not heed my polite personal outreach or even warnings. I am here for help if you can provide it.
::::::'''Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the [[Ekos Research Associates]] article?''' [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 10:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


Thank you. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but Balancingakt [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekos Research Associates|nominated Ekos Research Associates for deletion]], which closed as "keep". I also note that Earl Andrew commented at the AfD, but refrained from expressing an explicit view or from directly improving the article specifically because of a conflict of interest. My take from that is that Earl Andrew is ''well aware'' of what COI is, and hence no action is required.
:Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
:::Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. [[User:Longislandtea|Longislandtea]] ([[User talk:Longislandtea|talk]]) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is ''very'' highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article ==
I endorse the IP's view that [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=1184881758 this edit] by Balancingakt was problematic. The source was not a specific criticism of EKOS, indeed it simply mentioned general polling accuracy figures in a neutral manner without comment, so to paint it as criticism of EKOS is simply adding [[WP:OR|original research]] and not writing to a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. Just because something is in a reliable source, doesn't mean it should be added to an article - other policies have to be considered as well. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


:@[[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]] Thank you for joining. Yes, I nominated the article for deletion because as the record shows it had zero reliable sources for any of its information and was almost entirely built by Earl Andrew, who self-declared as an employee of the company itself. That nomination was in line with [[WP:AfD]] and helped improve the article greatly.
:Ritchie333's information is incomplete: Earl Andrew did engage in direct edits and had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive, dishonest and inappropriate. Earl Andrew has continued to deny violate the direction of WP:COI. Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page, which I can elaborate on but ANI demands brevity.
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=1184881758|The edit Ritchie referenced] remains a verifiable conclusion from a reliable source, which I directly quoted in the citation. The quote explicitly acknowledges that Ekos did not meet the accuracy standard of the top 5 polling firms. Does Ritchie333 read the quote differently? If Ritchie's objection is article-scale balance, I am working on incrementally building out the reliable sources. It takes time but longer-term balance will come, ''if there is balance to be found in reliable sources''. You don't delete an entry because it provides a distinct and well-evidenced assesment of the subject's work. Happy to discuss.
:I am concerned this topic keeps losing focus on the specific topic at hand: '''whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article?''' [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::"{{xt|As I say, Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page.}}" [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Earl%20Andrew/0/Ekos%20Research%20Associates Pull the other one, it's got bells on]. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::The topic is whether the repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Why are you engaging in ad hominem attacks in the range of [[WP:WITCHHUNT]] instead of discussing evidence related to the specific topic at hand? Does how many/what nature of edits each user has made determine whether someone violated Wikipedia policy? [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 09:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::Balancingakt, you appear to be mistaken in some way. What do you mean, Earl Andrew {{tq|had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive and inappropriate}}? Their only edits to the AfD that I can see are [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEkos_Research_Associates&diff=1179960920&oldid=1179951117 these 2 edits noting COI and suggesting sources] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=next&oldid=1180999928 this follow-up statement that they've listed sources]. Those edits don't remove any text, and as Ritchie333 says, they admit the COI. What are you referring to that was "disruptive and inappropriate"? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 09:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=11784240600| 15:47, 3 October 2023 Ekos article edit here] where Earl Andrew removed reference to his COI in my AfD request. Apologies if I I may not be diff referencing correctly. If there is a better way, please let me know. [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 10:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::You're putting pipes in URL links (links with single []) (<sm>and you also appear to have an extra 0</sm>). Rather than fix your diff link above, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ekos_Research_Associates&diff=prev&oldid=1178424060 here's] the edit at the time and date you refer to. That's Earl Andrew removing parts of your PROD rationale (you PRODded the article on October 3, Earl Andrew made his edit to the rationale, you reverted him and {{U|Kvng}} removed the PROD all on the same day, then you started the AfD on October 6). I tend to agree with Earl Andrew, that was an unnecessarily over-the-top and personalized PROD rationale that lost nothing by being shortened. Reporting editors at this noticeboard are scrutinized too, so that we can figure out how best to solve the problem. Tone it down and be precise and you'll get a better hearing. Do you accept that the article was kept after discussion at AfD? and that Earl Andrew responded to the AfD by suggesting several useful sources (I see you used at least one of them in seeking to improve the article)? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thank you @[[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]]. Too often Wikipedia degenerates into combat, where if you are the more reserved advocate, your side loses. Your civil explanation is rare and greatly appreciated. I note that your finding means that Earl Andrew disruptively edited my PROD rationale, changing my words to remove reference to his COI, a disruptive and bad faith action to take.
:::::I fully accept that [[Ekos Research Associates]] was kept after AfD discussion, as that discussion identified reliable sources that otherwise were otherwise completely lacking nor easily identifiable in my corrective research due to Ekos' huge search engine volume of self-produced, promoted polls that were a work product of the company/article subject. The articles for Ekos and [[Frank Graves]] were both largely filled with zero-citation, corporate-sourced, extremely promotional content and 100% met the requirements for deletion.
:::::Per my user page I am focused on a project to bring improved rigor and evidence to Wikipedia's representations of the bias of major media outlets in Canada (including polling firms like Ekos). My intention is to have greater evidence-based discussion to be able to hold all media outlets to public account. I believe in Wikipedia and what good information can do for the public. I want this article to be better and will work do make it so if the employees of the company and its owner will allow it to.
:::::'''I need your help to ensure Wikpedia users and policy dictate how that article is improved, not conflicted employees of Ekos. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article?'''
:::::I will take care of the rest. [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 10:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


At the top of the thread, Balancingakt wrote "{{xt|Could a block be necessary?}}" It seems one could. Balancingakt, this is a warning that if you continue to harass Earl Andrew in this manner, there will be a block. You have said enough on this subject matter and need to let consensus play out. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on [[Gilman School]], with both {{user13|Counterfeit_Purses}} breaking 3RR [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264335078&oldid=1264275478&variant=en 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264367781&oldid=1264367208&variant=en 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264373554&oldid=1264371338&variant=en 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264389183&oldid=1264374274&variant=en 4] and {{user13|Statistical_Infighting}} being right at 3 Reverts
:Should I not ensure full, correct information is provided for other ANI Wikipedians, @[[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333]]?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264367208&oldid=1264335078&variant=en 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264371338&oldid=1264367781&variant=en 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1264374274&oldid=1264373554&variant=en 3].
:How am I harassing Earl Andrew? I have tried extensively to work with him to understand and resolve only the narrow, specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages)? I have tried to constructively resolve this with Earl but Earl continues to violate [[WP:COI]] in making direct edits to his employers page, refuses to talk about his COI, and does not heed my polite outreach including warnings of clear violations provided.
:'''Are you here to threaten me or can you please help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article?''' [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 10:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::For the record, you are not being "threatened". You are being warned that your behavior is violating Wikipedia policies and can result in sanctions against you. You've repeatedly been told that Earl Andrew has ''not'' violated COI, but you stubbornly insist he has, which can be construed as [[WP:HOUND]]ing.
::Also, cut it out with the bold. It's not helpful and comes across as shouting.
::I'll get right to the point: ''why'' are you so focused on editing articles about Ekos Research Associates and its employees? &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 11:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1262146200&oldid=1262140139&variant=en here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1262200340&oldid=1262196980&variant=en here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1263604483&oldid=1263523982&variant=en again] on the 17th, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=1263871919&oldid=1263846949&variant=en 18th], and then being at the above today.
I have blocked Balancingakt from editing this noticeboard for 24 hours. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


:Could you please explain why? [[User:Balancingakt|Balancingakt]] ([[User talk:Balancingakt|talk]]) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]])
*E/C applied. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::As a non-admin and uninvolved user who had the misfortune of reading this entire exchange, I'll try to explain what just happened to you. After coming across something you believed to be an issue, you reported it here (which is fine), but were told that it did not rise to a level requiring administrative action. Instead of accepting that answer, you [[WP:IDHT|kept insisting]] without moving an inch, repeating the same points, the same accusations, even the same bolding of text. [[WP:1AM|Many users]] tried to explain to you that your assessment of the situation was not correct, and that you should [[WP:STICK|let the matter go]]. [[WP:BLUDGEON|You didn't]].
::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, please be aware that the [[Luigi Mangione]] article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a ''really bad idea''. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::There comes a point when even well-meant (assuming good faith here) "wikipolicing" becomes a pain in the arse to the people who ''actually'' have to deal with complaints, as their time (the most valuable resource around these parts is time, for both admins and regular users) is wasted for no good reason, not to mention the disruption potentially caused by the flurry of complaints itself. It is at this point that the blocks come out, and you are lucky that you only got a partial block from a noticeboard for 24 hours. Use this newfound time to do something useful and move on from this discussion. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 12:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that [[WP:NOTNEWS]] applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Counterfeit Purses}}, in my view, [[WP:NOTNEWS]] is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins {{tpq|In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.}} I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilman_School&diff=prev&oldid=1264670666 removed] Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|We don't include all notable alumni in these lists}} Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, [[Q.E.D.]] - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See [[:Category:Lists of people by school affiliation]]. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Wikipedia is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add [[:Category:Gilman School alumni]] (in this case). [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Vandal encounter ==
Hello everyone, I figure I should probably weigh in my two cents on the matter, considering this involves me! Bal has been a continuous thorn in my side the last few months, and I have certainly felt harassed by them . It's nice to see that others agree with that, because I wasn't sure if my feelings were justified or not. In my 20 years as an editor, I've never had an ongoing dispute quite of this nature. At first I assumed good faith on their part, but as you can see they seem to have one-track mind, that I am a tainted editor who has poisoned this site with COI edits. At no point did they actually cite any particular edit I made that was an actual conflict of interest. From the beginning, I have been very transparent about everything, about my work history and how it aligns with my edits to the EKOS Research article. But that hasn't been enough to satisfy them, much to my great frustration. At a certain point I decided to refrain my engaging with them, as I did not believe anything productive could be achieved through our discussions, and to benefit my mental health. I am glad to see others weigh in on this, as it both justifies my feelings and also lets Bal know that their way of handling disputes with other editors is not constructive. Thank you, everyone. -- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 15:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


[[Special:Contributions/93.183.144.197|This IP]] seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.
:{{u|Earl Andrew}} I'm pretty sure I've said before that the COI policies were never designed to prevent subject experts from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or to prevent subjects of BLPs ensuring the articles are factually accurate and verifiable. Indeed, in its current state [[Ekos Research Associates]] doesn't look like a particularly good article, and I'd go as far as to say that you should be allowed to improve it per [[WP:IAR]]. I realise that's a bit of a minority view, and you're probably best to err on the side of the caution.
:Incidentally, it's not just you - I have no idea what Balancingakt's problem is with Frank Graves, but they also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiffles1&diff=prev&oldid=1167052219 went after] {{u|Jiffles1}} (who ignored them). [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Suguru_Geto&diff=prev&oldid=1264675573 <nowiki>[1]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yuta_Okkotsu&diff=prev&oldid=1264676458 <nowiki>[2]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ryomen_Sukuna&diff=prev&oldid=1264675923 <nowiki>[3]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ryomen_Sukuna&diff=prev&oldid=1264675923 <nowiki>[4]</nowiki>]
::Personally, it feels wrong for me to improve the EKOS article, outside of reverting vandalism, of course. I did feel that Bal's removal of the logo/picture/address was vandalism, though, as they left the article in a worse state than before, so I had no problem reverting their edits. In fact, it had the added bonus of them bringing this dispute to the attention of more rationale actors.
::I did notice they went after Jiffles1 before me. While this is speculation on my part, I feel like Bal may have personal views that have led to them scrutinizing EKOS and Frank Graves more than anything else. I will admit that my boss has made controversial statements before that has angered people with more conservative view points, and this may be the cause of Bal's ... focus. The irony here is that Bal hides behind their username (which is completely their right of course), whereas I have been nothing but transparent about who I am, who I work for any my experience. Meanwhile, I am left to speculate what Bal's whole deal is.-- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 16:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's clear that nothing productive is coming out of this and either there should be no action taken or some combination of a one-way interaction ban preventing Balancingakt from interacting with Earl Andrew and a topicban for Balancingakt for all pages and people related to Ekos, broadly construed. While the discussion started out mostly reasonable, Balancingakt has made constant accusations, assumption of bad faith, put words in editors' mouths (see the exchange with Yngvadottir above), continually demand that people talk about only the subject and possibly infractions that *they* want to talk about, to practically demanding action with their own copypasta, and [[WP:OWN]] ("I will take care of the rest"). Ritchie333 has given enough escalating warnings that Balancingakt can hardly claim they weren't warned. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 09:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


:{{not done}} - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would very much appreciate a one-way interaction ban between Bal and myself, considering I have no intention of interacting with them.-- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
===Comment About Shouting===
:::You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I see that Balancingakt found a way of '''SHOUTING''' that is not quite as blatant as the use of all upper case but is nonetheless obviously shouting, and did call for some action, which was taken. I remember once a few years ago that an editor used markup to increase the size of his words to maybe 24 points, which was even more disruptive than the user of all upper case because it took up space for the rest of the screen. As to the specific case in point, any form of deliberately repeated emphasis is shouting and is disruptive. Thirty years ago, some posters didn't know better than to use all upper case. It isn't thirty years ago. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


== User:Glenn103 ==
:They've not edited since the 16th, so I suppose we'll have to see if they continue the shouting whenever they come back. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Glenn103}} has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Help:IPA/Russian&diff=prev&oldid=1263981250][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Moksha_language&diff=prev&oldid=1264140663][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1002_(number)&diff=prev&oldid=1264633009] <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm now coming round to the idea that Balancingakt is simply a troll, and having had their appeal against the short block from ANI declined twice, have probably decided that the game's up, they can't needle Earl Andrew anymore, and have probably abandoned the account and have got another one to troll with instead. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 09:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: [[Draft:Yery with tilde]]). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: [[Draft:Tse with caron]] & [[Tse with caron]]). Immediate action may be needed. [[User:Est. 2021|Est. 2021]] ([[User talk:Est. 2021|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Est. 2021|contribs]]) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::While this is possible, they have gone for long periods without editing before, so I'm not holding out hope quite just yet.-- [[User:Earl Andrew|Earl Andrew]] - [[User talk:Earl Andrew|talk]] 14:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>[[User:CanonNi]]<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]])</span> 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) [[User:Oddwood|Oddwood]] ([[User talk:Oddwood|talk]]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
== Harassment and non-objectivity by user scope_creep ==
:I mean you might have a point, but wow. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80DD:5501:947B:8E40:2657:88CF|2804:F1...57:88CF]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80DD:5501:947B:8E40:2657:88CF|talk]]) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Scope creep}}
Similar behavior to {{checkuser|PickleMan500}} and other socks puppeted by {{checkuser|Abrown1019}}, which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been [[WP:G5]]'d, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. <small>Since these socks have been banned ([[WP:3X]]), I haven't notified them of this discussion.</small> [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Stravensky}}


== North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion ==
This is regarding the user @[[User:Scope creep|Scope creep]] and their actions in systematically nominating to delete any article I have submitted. Today he said he would start an incident report against me for lying and personal attack, so I am starting this conversation to bring attention to what has occurred.


The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.
On my talk page you can see that user scope_creep intends to take me to noticeboards for lying and no personal attacks for me saying I think he is personally attacking me, so I would like to make a notice of him now as well. This is an obvious move of projection for him to claim personal attack.


'''Key Points:'''
From what I can see, scope_creep is obsessed with deleting articles written by me and is more concerned with “winning” and feeling important than being objective, being humble, or having the ability to change his mind. A few weeks ago when he nominated some of my articles I wrote for deletion I did not assume his actions were motivated by personal and petty reasons. Now that he has selected a new batch of articles I wrote years ago to nominate for deletion, I have to at least call this out so hopefully other admins will take notice and look into his actions. If me calling this out and asking for review is lying or a personal attack by me instead somehow, then so be it. The [[Lane Bess]] deletion debate page makes this obsession clear, as most people would not make it such a hill to die on. I say he’s the first parent-child pair to go into space together, you say being the first doesn’t make you notable (most people on the planet would disagree with this, but his opinion appears to be that he is always right and cannot be swayed like an objective person would be). On several of the debate pages he clearly began looking through references AFTER nominating the page for deletion on the grounds of weak references. Several of the articles I had written over the years have already vanished due to no debate and his actions, so now I am calling out the bad faith and listing what anyone can clearly see in the public debate pages, and his response is to instead label me as a liar. It is sad that this can be the case. On Lane Bess debate page he said that something was a primary source, so still didn’t work, but the rules on primary sources are clear and I quoted them back on the debate page (which is now over and the page was not deleted). On [[Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement]] he says two articles are passing mentions, which makes me think he didn’t read either of them as they are not passing mentions. I understand the confident approach of his works, but being confident and wrong and motivated by petty vendetta simply because the article was submitted by me makes no sense. The articles I have submitted could be improved, but he has consistently chosen a path to instead delete every one of them he can, and his motivations do not seem driven by objectivity, but instead by a personal attack against me. This is my opinion based on the above listed reasons and the public debate pages everyone can see.


# '''Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:'''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lane_Bess#Lane_Bess
#* The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
#* The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
#* The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
# '''Ongoing Disruption:'''
#* Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
#* This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
# '''Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:'''
#* Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
#* Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
# '''Impact on the Community:'''
#* The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
#* These actions disregard Wikipedia's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.


'''Request for Administrative Action:'''
I look forward to a thorough review. [[User:Stravensky|Stravensky]] ([[User talk:Stravensky|talk]]) 16:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*Just a few statistics for Stravensky: they have 529 edits, 371 live and 158 deleted, since they first started editing on October 11, 2017. They have created 44 pages, of which 24 have been deleted. Other users besides Scope creep have nominated their articles for deletion.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:
:This was covered at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201#User Stravensky]], where scope_creep analysed some of their created articles and gave opinions of them. I note that they didn't consider all of them should be deleted, and mentioned that some such as [[Candi Carter]] were actually okay. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I was planning to bring the editor Stravensky to Ani, when I came from work, for the comments made at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Lochmus]] and others. A review of the articles were done at coin [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201#User Stravensky]] by editor [[User:Jfire]]. I was an uninvolved editor and took that review list and sent the ones that were indicated as being unsuitable to Afd, which I think is about 13 so far, and they have all been deleted apart from one with three others at Afd. There is a long history of promotional editing, sometimes to the extreme. Only today one was sent to draft for that reason by another editor. Several other editors have sent stuff to Afd before the coin notice even appeared. At the beginning the editor was really helpful but has changed their attitude for some reason just recently Stravensky has started making dodgy comments that are unacceptable. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The Lane Bess AFD mentioned above has now been taken to DRV.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Lane_Bess] [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


# Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
*'''Comment''' I have had half an eye on the OP for [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stravensky&diff=prev&oldid=893905870 a few years] and while there is nothing definitive, some of their editing habits certainly seem to be consistent with undisclosed paid editing (I'm [[WP:BEANS|deliberately not going into details]]) and as evidenced from the COIN thread, several other editors agree. The fact that so many articles that they have created have been deleted at AFD further reinforces that. As to the topic of this thread though, although both OP and scope_creep have accused each other of [[WP:NPA]], I can't see any diffs to back up the assertion from either of them. OP's argument seems to be more centred around [[WP:HOUNDING]] but given the number of articles deleted, scope_creep's actions seem legitimate. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
# Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
*:this editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Sutton_(broadcaster)&curid=75326149&diff=1185345839&oldid=1185345801 crossed my radar] when they accused @[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] of an out of process nomination. I'm not familiar with this editor's history with Scope, who didn't nominate this article, but I've never had reason to question Scope or CNM's noms even if it didn't close in the way they nominated. Given the raised issues here, it seems a limit to draft space might be helpful. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
# Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.
:::I honestly had to look up the COIN report to refresh my memory as I didn't remember any of this. I am open for a Trout anytime or any sanctions based on bad noms, although every one I do is on a good faith assessment so I appreciate your kind words about previous noms. I will say that based on a review of this user's article creation with 20/32 being deleted (not including those currently at AfD), I would support limiting their article creation to draft space until which time they show an understanding of notability guidelines and promotional tone. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::That sounds like a sensible approach. Presumably with the requirement to submit via AFC too? [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 21:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think that sounds ideal. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think the suggestion above with the requirement to '''submit via AFC''' is a good solution to this problem. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b>&nbsp;//&nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&nbsp;::&nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&nbsp;</b></span> 21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::If the [[WP:FAKEREF|fake referencing]] I've found so far at {{la|Lane Bess}} is anything to go by (see history) and added [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lane_Bess&diff=prev&oldid=1059181163 here], this would in fact be too soft a sanction. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Using those sources is definitely misleading and also brings up COI issues if someone knows the years yet it is not in the source provided. I see this with DOB on biographies sometimes. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::The style is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lane_Bess&oldid=1058148750 write whatever you want] and then randomly sprinkle some URLs that are vaguely connected. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 00:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::In that case, it is a clear sign of a connection to the subject of the article and would support stricter sanctions. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:It should probably be noted that the user's talk page consists of, most recently, twelve consecutive AfD notices from scope_creep. The most recent three were made on 12 November, but prior to that, they are all from October 17. I don't know about all of you, but whenever I've written an article that was nominated for deletion, it was a somewhat stressful process (and this was as someone with thousands of edits, multiple GAs, etc). It's hard to imagine the mental fortitude necessary to get nine AfD notifications on the same day from the same person and not get at least a little bit pissed off. I don't mean to imply that any of these nominations were bad, or that they shouldn't have been made, but I think that we should try to have a little bit of understanding for people in this situation, and perhaps the "bedside manner" is a bit lacking. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
::I'm sure that having an article one created nominated for deletion may be stressful, but in this instance I have no sympathy for an editor who is obviously an undisclosed paid editor and who keeps writing articles that the community deletes '''and''' denies that they are an UPE. I also think that a ban restricting them to article space is too lenient. I have therefore blocked the editor for UPE. We'll see what the user does in response to the block. In the meantime, if there is a consensus that my block was too harsh, I am willing to unblock.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Based on the information supplied by SmartSE above, I would wholeheartedly support the block. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:JPxG|JPxG]] - I can't speak on [[User:Stravensky|Stravensky]] but I had a similar situation happen to me. I took it the same exact way Stravensky did and I think anyone would. There's also much larger issues on this site that play roles in this type of stuff like post-Lugnuts notability rules that are not enforced on every single article, wikilawyering, users tracking other users and people in general being unfriendly and unhelpful to newer/less experienced users. I also do not think the new interpretation of wikipedia where we only want some topics heavily covered by the media and not everything is a message that has really been shared with the general public successfully.[[User:KatoKungLee|KatoKungLee]] ([[User talk:KatoKungLee|talk]]) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I stumbled into this rabbit hole after a Wikilink in an article I watch was removed after said article, created by {{u|Stravensky}}, was deleted. I've never interacted with either of these users before, or even seen them around for that matter. Even if {{u|Scope creep}} is nominating these articles out of spite, which I very much doubt, that doesn't change the fact the articles are typically poorly cited and lacking in notability, and deserved to be nominated for deletion by ''someone''. This of course does not mean all of them need to be or will end up being deleted, but they all look like fair candidates for a deletion discussion to me. Stravensky's articles already had a high rate of deletion. If your articles already had a high rate of deletion, and someone nominates several for deletion at once, that only indicates that you need to stop writing poorly sources articles about subjects of questionable notability. If action should be taken against someone, that person should be Stravensky. I will note it reflects badly on both these editors to accuse each-other of personal attacks, yet provide no diffs to support these claims. [[User:Damien Linnane|Damien Linnane]] ([[User talk:Damien Linnane|talk]]) 02:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I think that the original block was a reasonable response even if I would have argued for something more solid before taking that measure. IMO the editor's description of the situation at their talk page seems sincere and credible. IMO continuation of the block at this point on the UPE rationale as described would be based on an unusually broad interpretation/ application of UPE, even more so for a boomerang on what seems like a since3re post. Suggest something mild like going through AFC, subject to renewal if there are any issues. Also suggest requesting Scope Creep to mostly let other folks handle any issues with this editor at least for a while. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Wikipedia's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia.
:I would agree. I concur with several editors above that if I'd had nine of my articles AfDed by the same guy on the same day, I'd be royally pissed ... but is that action ''sanctionable?'' I can think of one occasion where I ''did'' file a bunch of AfDs on the same editor within a day or two: the massive Maltese nobility mess of fifteen years ago, where the editor in question (indeffed for his troubles, in the end) created a couple dozen articles of spurious provenance, sourced only to his self-published website and to a few other sites that proved fictional, and in some of those articles claimed titles of nobility for himself and his family members. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 02:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus.
[[User:Rc2barrington|Rc2barrington]] ([[User talk:Rc2barrington|talk]]) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at [[WP:AN]] rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was going to post it at [[WP:AN]] but it said: "'''This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of''' ''general administrator interest.''
::If your post is about a '''specific problem you have''' (a '''dispute''', user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators' noticeboard for incidents]]''' (ANI) instead. Thank you."
::I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute [[User:Rc2barrington|Rc2barrington]] ([[User talk:Rc2barrington|talk]]) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC [[User:Rc2barrington|Rc2barrington]] ([[User talk:Rc2barrington|talk]]) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
:::::::At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
:::::::There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1264330258#LLM/chatbot_comments_in_discussions] for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
:::::::You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. [[User:Rc2barrington|Rc2barrington]] ([[User talk:Rc2barrington|talk]]) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than ''your'' words. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Rc2barrington's user page says {{tq|This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring}}, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant ''majority'' of readers). It really is that simple. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Using edit summaries for a campaign ==
== Concern About a New Contributor ==
{{atop|Suspected editor was indeed a sock. Unnecessary drama created by all-too zealous reporting--let this be the end of it. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|Kriji Sehamati}}


Dear Wikipedians,
* {{ip user|1.145.73.131}}
seems to be using their edit summaries to promote some kind of campaign about blocking policy. Not a good idea? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @[[User:Kriji Sehamati|Kriji Sehamati]], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
:They're also adding the same text to their signature.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monosodium_glutamate&diff=prev&oldid=1185543982] Interesting, can't say I've seen that before. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::Sigh. Again. It's clear disruption, blocked. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 12:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::What does the disruption consist of? [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 13:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::During my time editing Wikipedia, my IP address has been subject to a range block 3 times to my knowledge. I am not convinced that the ‘remedy’ was proportionate to the problem. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 13:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Allowing campaign messages to be added to edit summaries is a recipe for disaster. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Edit summaries are to be used for well, summarizing an edit. Using the field for a "campaign" to complain about the way range blocks are used is disruptive, or for any "peaceful protest" for that matter as the IP stated is disruptive. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::It is not what edit summaries are for, but I do not see how anyone is inconvenienced. I find a lack of edit summaries to be far more inconvenient. Is there some other way to complain about the overuse of range blocks? [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I barely use edit summaries at all, as long as they aren't lying about what they did in their edits they've given as much useful info in them as I have. Anyhow I've seen that IP before and don't remember them being disruptive at any time. [[User:Mach61|Mach61]] ([[User talk:Mach61|talk]]) 13:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Editing summaries are for concise explanations of edits, not for campaigns to change practices or specific sanctions. This is just disruption of the encyclopedia to make a point, and their complaint can be pursued through normal resolution channels without clogging up edit summaries with complaints, '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 13:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Just to be clear, I don't think either you or the IP should be blocked for edit summaries that are obnoxious, but not offensive. Take that as a compliment. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::What is the appropriate channel for a general complaint that range blocks are overused? And that IPs are generally treated like dirt? [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 13:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::: Your best bet would be [[WP:VPP]]. But in many cases there is little alternative to a rangeblock where a vandal is hopping across an IP range, especially if their vandalism is offensive or related to BLPs. Anyone who is inconvenienced by an anon-only rangeblock always has the option of creating an account, of course. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you. But range blocks do not always allow you to open an account – the first range block, which I experienced as an IP, prevented the creation of an account, and the estimated delay for a special request for an account was, as far as I remember, at least 3 months. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::: That depends on the rangeblock - it is possible to rangeblock IPs and leave account creation open. Perhaps that is one thing that might help in many cases. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Is there any chance that policy would be changed so that all range blocks leave account creation open? [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It is normal practice already. Account creation is blocked when there is evidence of account abuse or serial sockpuppetry, usually with checkuser participation. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 17:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::In July this year, my IP address/range (I have a dynamic IP address) was covered by a very large range block which also blocked account creation, and which was set at 2 years. See [[User talk:Yamaguchi先生]] - heading 2A02:C7C:0:0:0:0:0:0/30 This was eventually lifted by another admin, after comments by myself and others. ({{u| Yamaguchi先生}} does not appear to have been active since July). I suspect that the range of the block covered everyone in the UK who uses my internet provider. So if it is normal practice to allow account creation, perhaps this should be re-emphasised somewhere? [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 18:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I think that's true for "hardblocking" (blocking edits by logged-in users). I'm not sure it's true of blocking account creation, which is a second setting. I sometimes leave account creation open on my rangeblocks, but not usually, and I have gotten the perception I'm in the minority for doing it at all. Maybe someone wants to run the numbers. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 18:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Why? Again, edit summaries can only be harmful insofar as they are intentional misrepresentations; I don't think the copypasta is having a large physical presence on-screen, because summaries are already truncated when displayed in page histories and the like. Bad block. [[User:Mach61|Mach61]] ([[User talk:Mach61|talk]]) 18:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:If they start using AWB to make a bunch of minor edits ''for the purpose'' of spreading this message, that's one thing, but a handful of good faith edits with advocacy appended? Meh. Don't know that I agree with a block here. Smarter would be to write an essay and link to it wit ha smaller number of characters, though. We have a long-term admin who goes out of their way to append something like "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" to every single edit summary since FRAMBAN, and nobody has taken issue with it -- hundreds or thousands of edits vs. five in this case. Is it because it's shorter? Because this is only an offense a newbie can commit? Or because it depends on the kind of activism/commentary being done. (I'm not objecting to either one, to be clear). &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 14:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::+1. Blocking was an overreaction. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Seems like a death sentence for the crime of shoplifting. If this block is sustained, also block the Admin mentioned above for his "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" edit summary. Equal treatment under the law. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 15:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::The edit summaries are a minimal disruption to the encyclopedia so I prefer escalating consequences. I see the editor was advised on their talk page, and then swiftly blocked before any discussion. {{tq|Okay, I have opened WP:ANI#Using edit summaries for a campaign about this. Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)}} The block followed 14 minutes later with this timestamp {{tq|RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)}} I appreciate all that the admins do to protect content and content creators. I do not really see this block as protecting content. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 15:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Err, the "discussion" was the IP saying they weren't going to stop doing this. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I certainly do not see that they said they won't. Verbatum they said: {{tq|So please fix the <s>policy</s> policy & practices. I have tried other routes with no success. You call it "abuse". I call it a peaceful protest.}} You cut off discussion and filed this report and then they were swiftly blocked. So it looks more like the start of a discussion and then an escalation by you and a block before this ANI discussion could begin. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 15:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Not really, especially when combined with their resumption of adding the summary to edits after this. "So fix it" is an ultimatum. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::('''non-admin comment'''), {{tq|Equal treatment under the law.}}/{{tq|Seems like a death sentence for the crime of shoplifting}}, they banned for less then 2 days, that's not really a 'death sentence', it's a minor inconvenience, the IP can just come back in a few days, and apologies or something. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
*It's annoying but are the edits bad? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::A 31 hour block is not a "death sentence." '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 17:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree with Acroterion (and inappropriate use of edit summaries is a big problem). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::So you would favor blocking the admin who always puts "This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF" in his edits? Equal treatment for equal crimes should be the policy -- whether a person is an Administrator or an IP. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 19:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Who does that? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 19:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Neither an admin nor a "he", but I assume Smallchief is referring to [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Disruptive_edit_summaries Previous discussion] about that signature. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::thats interesting, especially that it shows it was brought up on two other separate occasions. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 20:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yup, that's me (former admin, desysopped for an unrelated cause many years ago). I received an AN/I template linking to this discussion as the so-far only edit by {{U|My Kingdom for a hearse}}. The IP's edit summary notes are longer, and more polemical than mine, which I endeavour to keep within the bounds of [[WP:NOPOLEMIC]] or [[WP:USER]] or wherever the applicable policy is encoded. (I also fit in my disclaimer at the end of my edit summaries, which tend to be long because of my editing pattern, so as I said at the previous AN/I, if anything I believe the meat and potatoes of my edit summaries is more of an imposition on watchlist readers than the disclaimer.){{pb}}I'm glad this block is being discussed, since there is disagreement over it, but I won't weigh in on the merits except for reiterating that that edit note is a bit long. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 21:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Just to be clear, I don't think either you or the IP should be blocked for obnoxious and irritating edit summaries. Take that as a compliment of sorts. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]]) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I would place's Yngvadottir's ''signature'' (not an edit summary) in the same category as references to death penalties and crimes - a bit over the top, but not sanctionable. ''Edit summaries'' are for explanations of edits, not for polemics. This is a tempest in a teapot. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 22:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::if I had a nickel for every time this has happened, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's strange it's happened twice. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 15:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support block, do <u>not</u> support hyperbolic complaints about the block'''. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
*Seems like overkill and a bad block. I think an apology is in order. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:*{{small|Of '''''course''''' you do. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)}}
::{{tq|I think an apology is in order.}} AN '''APOLOGY'''?????? really? It's not so far fetched, and there's little need to apologize for. by now, the user is almost unblocked! [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 16:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*For what it's worth, this block seems like a textbook example of a punitive block to me. Those edit summaries, while obnoxious, aren't actually all that harmful, and even if I were to agree that they were disruptive, the IP should get a fair chance to respond to the ANI case and/or cut it out with the edit summaries before getting hit with a block, no matter the lenght.{{Non-admin comment}} ----[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 10:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*:I'd argue that ''chronically'' misusing edit summaries to make a [[WP:POINT]] is disruptive enough to earn a block. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::I'd say you'd still have to issue a warning first, and not one that is followed by a block in ten minutes. If this were a named user we would not be so eager to block, I don't think. It'd take a short discussion here at least before that block would be handed out. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 09:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
== Anon reinserting OR into an article ==


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.


Thankyou! [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
An anon keeps reinserting OR into [[voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants]]. They clearly don't know a lot about the subject and they do not cite any sources (which is why I now twice removed the discussion from the talk page, it's a waste of time for everyone).


:"Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kriji_Sehamati&diff=prev&oldid=1264790552 response] has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
This editor either has a dynamic IP address or perhaps travels a lot. The most recent IP address is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.96.28.222 this one]. The previous ones are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.96.27.251], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.96.147.57] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/146.96.29.104]. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:Perhaps if you supplied [[H:DIFF|evidence]] of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor ''and'' are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
:By the way [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264791861] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CFA&diff=prev&oldid=1264797025] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BusterD&diff=prev&oldid=1264800353] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_shell&diff=prev&oldid=1264795926] is forum shopping. Stop that. [[Special:Contributions/81.2.123.64|81.2.123.64]] ([[User talk:81.2.123.64|talk]]) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:(ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S-Aura&diff=prev&oldid=1264790638 possible UPE] template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am concerned that [[User:Kriji_Sehamati]]’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Wikipedia’s guidelines.
::She seems to lack understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NPOL]]. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264804018 here] but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
:::Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. [[Special:Contributions/81.2.123.64|81.2.123.64]] ([[User talk:81.2.123.64|talk]]) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
:::: • [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Bharti_Sharma&diff=prev&oldid=1264779159]
:::: • [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Viveka_Nand_Sharan_Tripathi&diff=prev&oldid=1264779589]
:::: • [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Bharti_Sharma&diff=prev&oldid=1264779218]
:::: • [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rudraneil_Sengupta&diff=prev&oldid=1264793972]
::::and many more
::::Thankyou! [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence ''at all'' that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. [[Special:Contributions/81.2.123.64|81.2.123.64]] ([[User talk:81.2.123.64|talk]]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please provide evidence of this. [[Special:Contributions/81.2.123.64|81.2.123.64]] ([[User talk:81.2.123.64|talk]]) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Please check! [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S-Aura&diff=prev&oldid=1264793976] [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under [[WP:NPOL]], a valid criterion according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Wikipedia and is dismissing my concerns. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
:{{ping|Kriji Sehamati}} hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits ''are'' problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Wikipedia policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It seems that she is not new to Wikipedia and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against [[User:Kriji Sehamati]]. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Wikipedia. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1264969237 created a second thread] about this exact issue on this same board, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1264969583 was reverted] by another editor. This is intentional disruption. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Dear @[[User:BusterD|BusterD]],
*:::::It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
*:::::Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Dear @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]],
*:::::::I am not engaged in paid activities on Wikipedia, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia vs. ANI case. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. [[WP:NLT|Seriously.]] That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Okay! [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of [[WP:NLT]] and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::Dear @[[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]],
*:::::::::I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::The page of Justice [[Subramonium Prasad]], who had conducted over the Wikipedia vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::<del>State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Wikipedia with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again".</del> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Good call, I'll retract the above. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::No, that is not what I am implying. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been [[WP:patrolled|patrolled]] does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::You can't both criticize someone for {{tq|lack[ing] understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:NPOL]]}}, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Wikipedia page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
*:::In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD ''process'' but not ''criteria'' that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to [[WP:drop the stick|drop the stick]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Kriji Sehamati‬]] is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Wikipedia’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura, how did you make the determination {{tq|User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia}}? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of [[WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS]]. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Wikipedia article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">[[User:CFA|<span style=color:#00c>C</span>]] <span style=color:red>F</span> [[User talk:CFA|<span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span>]]</span> 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking.[https://ha.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kriji_Sehamati] [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link.[https://ha.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musamman:Contributions/Kriji_Sehamati] [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. [[User:S-Aura|<b style="color: #004d5c; text-shadow: 5px 3px 8px;font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒮-</b>]][[User talk:S-Aura|<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶</b>]] 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support BOOMERANG''' - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors|VESTED]] mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Darkwarriorblake making aspersions ==
:I had a look there and all of the IP addresses used to repeatedly make the disruptive edits seem to be part of the range [[Special:Contributions/146.96.28.222/16|'''146.96.0.0/16''']]. So if an admin were to stop the anonymous editor from editing the article, then the two possible actions that could be taken would be to either partially block the /16 range from the affected article(s), or semi-protect the page for at least a month. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 10:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
{{atop|result=The OP says they don't care any more which I'm reading as a withdrawal and the other party says they won't be responding again so I'm closing this discussion. My only comment is that both editors in this dispute should have brought this to the article talk page to talk this disagreement out. I don't know if the differences would be resolved but this is what we advise editors to do when their edits are reverted. Now I just have to get that scene in the movie out of my mind. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::Has a serious attempt at [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] been made? I have semi-protected for a month due to the edit warring, but the talk page has no recent edits and other articles are involved. Please get input from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics]]. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There used to be extensive discussion on the talk page between the IP editor and other editors concerning the edit as recent as 9 hours ago, but the entire discussion has been removed by Sol505000 under the reason "WP:NOTAFORUM": see the page history of [[Special:PageHistory/Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants|Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants]]. Also for convenience, [[Special:PermaLink/1185649731#Two symbols; only one explained|permalink to last talk page revision]] before the discussion was deleted. —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 12:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
----
::::Thank you, [[User:AP 499D25|AP 499D25]]. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]], I don't think a participant in a talk page discussion unilaterally blanking it is appropriate. See [[WP:TPO]]; these comments were not "gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material". I have reverted your blanking. [[User:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:red;">Fences</span>]]<span style="background-color:white; color:#808080;">&amp;</span>[[User talk:Fences and windows|<span style="background-color:white; color:black;">Windows</span>]] 14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.
:::::I'd like to comment that Sol505000 has never raised any question about the denti-alveolar/alveolar difference until the day he did his last revert. Previously, I had undid Nardog's revert twice because he didn't read the discussion at all - had he read it I would never undid his edits, but that past problem had been resolved before Sol505000's coming. Nardog did have some problem with the source of most added Chinese examples that is not inline, but that's a Wikipedia template technical problem, which I compromised by adding inline citations in a <code><nowiki><!-- --></nowiki></code> way. As I was adding inline citation and double checking reliability of every example, Sol505000 came and revert my edit in the name of "full rv edit warrior", forcing me to do my last corrections with an undid function and immediately did a self-revert. Since Sol505090's questioning of the phonemic independence of "acoustically rhotic" sound (a convenient ad hoc name I used in analogy of [[rhotic vowel]] which Sol505000 strongly disliked for being "phonetic"), I have never done any insertion of "rhotic alveolar" in the article, nor did I list the source to actively put that idea in the talk page (because I wanted to double-check some sources, etc. before preparing a persuative point with not just [[WP:USEPRIMARY|academic primary sources]] but also secondary ones that Sol505000 has to accept). It would take another week to see if everyone accepts that point for me to add it to the article. So there's no need for semi-protection if issues listed in the discussion page are concerned, however, I am going to push the inclusion of those examples unless anyone actively questions the citations supporting their inclusion (Nardog did, for lack of inline citation, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Voiced_alveolar_and_postalveolar_approximants&diff=1184059920&oldid=1182063573 added inline ones] and he was okay with that, case closed), which is not the case. I don't think that has any violation against any Wikipedia policy (except for being verbose<ref>My comments after Sol505000's coming was not very useful to build a point but simply to figure out a common foundation for future discussion, because from his word I couldn't even figure out if he was questioning the term or the phonemic status or both. And admittedly at the point right before Sol505000 came I was hoping to make things easy by persuading Nardog personally instead of going through a formal Wikipedia process.</ref>) because you can't say "No you cannot add that and I'm not going to tell you why you just can't". When Sol505000 did the last revert due to "denti-alveolar approximant",<ref>His point makes some sense, because in an approximant your tongue doesn't touch the articulation point, so "denti-alveolar approximant" should sound very awkward. But he probably didn't know that some Sinologists have already used diacritics to indicate a prealveolar approximant.</ref> not only did he report that as "reinserting OR" albeit nobody had ever questioned that before in previous discussion, but he also reverted the inclusion of those examples with which he appeared to have no problem (to simply remove denti-alveolar from my edit, instead of a full revert, was easy). To me that's somewhat disruptive. --[[Special:Contributions/146.96.25.55|146.96.25.55]] ([[User talk:146.96.25.55|talk]]) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I would like some experts in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics]] to resolute the dispute. Sol505000 doesn't seem to be familiar with Sino-Loloish phonology. I would hope a linguist who speak Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo to comment there. Both Sol505000 and Nardog have a false claim that the English /ɹ/ could never be "alveolar" in the way that [[:File:Alveolar approximant.ogg]] was articulated. Such claim is in contrary with most English phonology descriptions (most reliable sources) and in contrary with most Wikipedia articles as well. There is an elephant in the room, and it seems most linguists in the Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo circle are aware of it but nobody wants to touch it. If a linguist inside the circle can join the discussion I believe it will be solved well. [[Special:Contributions/146.96.25.55|146.96.25.55]] ([[User talk:146.96.25.55|talk]]) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::This page is not for resolving the editing disagreement. It's about the fact you kept forcing the content into the article against consensus. Just take it to the Talk page, follow [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] steps, and accept the outcome. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 15:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


''[[Trading Places]]'' is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.
{{reflist}}


The article states that [[G. Gordon Liddy]] demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. [https://www.indiewire.com/2013/06/trading-places-more-than-7-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-film-but-we-wont-bet-a-dollar-on-it-97192/ The citation] for this claim is a [[listicle]] on [[Indiewire]], which contains the sentence
== User:Eurohunter and GA ==
: ''Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSr6REupQx0 becomes a gorilla’s mate].''
Reportedly ''by whom'' is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.


The content dispute began when I changed it like this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264790966 diff]) with the comment ''Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs'':
Back in August during a GA backlog drive @[[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] started a large number of [[Wikipedia:Good article review|WP:GA reviews]] and then abandoned them. That by itself is only somewhat annoying; reviews get abandoned all the time and nobody is an indentured servant. The problem is that multiple people have been asking them for months to complete the reviews, or at least state that they're unable complete them, so a new reviewer can be appointed. They have steadfastly ignored all these requests. It's inconceivable to me that they're not aware of the requests; they've been pinged many times, requests have been placed directly on their talk page (for example: [[Special:Diff/1183801017]]), and they are still actively editing. At this point, what they're doing has passed the point of being annoying and is into abusive and disruptive territory. They're deliberately holding up an important process and just giving the finger to everybody who is trying to get things moving again.
{{text diff|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.|Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.}}


This was reverted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264798478 diff]) by {{u|Darkwarriorblake}} with the comment ''not what the source says''.
Some of the stalled reviews:


After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264815900 diff])
* [[Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1]]
* [[Talk:Elle Leonard/GA1]]
* [[Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1]]
* [[Talk:Heart Wants What It Wants/GA1]]
* [[Talk:Besitos/GA1]]
* [[Talk:Las Reinas del Pueblo/GA1]]


{{text diff|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...|...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...}}
I'm involved at this point, so I'm bringing this here. I think the right response would be to [[WP:TBAN]] them from the processes which rely on peer reviews, i.e. DYK, GA, and FA, in order to prevent this type of abuse from recurring, but I'll let ANI figure that out. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:{{re|RoySmith}} I noticed all the reviews, but I was focused on other areas. Some of them been unanswered by nominator and I have been waiting. I'm going to check the reviews now. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 17:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:: {{re|RoySmith}} I just answered for all mentioned reviews. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:::The reviews are mostly about citation formatting and archives, and at times vague ("there is a problem" without specifying). These do not form part of the [[Wikipedia:GA criteria|GA criteria]]. I would be in favour of a topic ban on review processes unless Eurohunter clearly states they understand they should communicate better ''and'' they can explain what they should review on. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 13:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::: {{re|Femke}} "they should communicate better" - I'm surprised now. I tried my best to do detailed reviews and fix minor fixes myself - I have been listing everything in review, and also I was explaining all the questions and issues as much as possible. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]]: if you list everything, you will review more strictly than the GA criteria call for. This explains some of the friction you've had with various nominators. Can you explain to me you understand what you should not review on? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::: {{re|Femke}} I don't force higher criteria, but what is the point to stick with GA criteria if you can easily make it above without additional effort? Ultimately we '''agreed''', and the article was '''improved'''. I know GA criteria are lower than FA criteria and I not demand it. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Let's take a specific example, the review of "the heart wants what it wants". You did ask for links in citations to other WP articles, and for archives to be added. This is (boring?) work not required by the GA criteria. This can put people off nominating.
:::::::In the future, if you want to mention "extras", please let the nominator know it's optional, and not required for the review to pass. Can you confirm you understand these are optional and should not hold up a review? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: {{re|Femke}} It's actually good idea. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 18:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry to be a pain here, but what does "it" refer to? Mentioning what is optional? Or requiring archives and links? Can you explain in your own words what you should not demand in a GA review? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:Is a TBAN really necessary to just assign the reviews to somebody else? Why can't somebody just say "okay, if Eurohunter doesn't want to finish these, we will assign them to someone else unless he does it in the next ___? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::It should also go without saying, but I may as well say it anyway: {{ping|Eurohunter}} It's a massive pain in the ass if you leave review processes hanging for months. I mean, I've done it before too, it happens to everyone, and there's no shame in just saying "yeah whatever someone else can take over" -- I'd really strongly recommend you do this so that everyone isn't standing around with their thumbs up their pockets waiting for you to respond. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 04:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::On a process note, a couple of abandoned reviews were put directly back into the GAN list in mid-October, and others identified at the time (including 4 of the 6 RoySmith lists) that were not closed were shifted to second opinion status in October, so they have effectively already been assigned to others. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


My accompanying comment was ''(a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim''
I have to echo [[User:JPxG|JPxG]] here. Reaching for topic bans when a volunteer is unable to do a particular task is not something I've seen in ''any'' of our other processes. And [[Special:Diff/1176325422]] shows that actually someone ''did'' offer to take over the work, back in September. As [[User:JPxG|JPxG]] says, why not ''let that happen''? [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 06:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*The issue here is not failing to complete the reviews. The issue is digging in their heels and refusing to respond to literally months of queries (as far back as 30 August) from multiple people asking for status updates. All they had to do is say, "Sorry, I won't be able to finish this", but they kept refusing to do that. I only managed to get a response when I dragged them to ANI. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*: {{re|RoySmith}} It sounds like you can't do mistake, never. I had hope to finish them later but it turned out to be different. {{re|RoySmith}} {{re|JPxG}} I didn't know that I has to pass the process to someone else in formal way - I thought someone could take it just if they want to. If anyone is interested, you can continue these reviews. [[User:Eurohunter|Eurohunter]] ([[User talk:Eurohunter|talk]]) 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*While the word "ban" sounds a little strong, let's be clear - the GA process is not part of the core, basic permissions of being a Wikipedia editor. And bad reviews are worse than no reviews, so there need to be some way to tell people doing bad reviews to stop. I haven't surveyed all of Eurohunter's work, so I hope I was just unlucky, but taking a look at some of these examples, these are not good reviews. With comments like "There is error in reference 3 and 31", it's nitpicking citation nonsense that isn't important and might not even be an accurate nitpick anyway ( whether to use "work" or "website" as the parameter type stuff - I'm pretty sure it all goes to the same variable at the end of the day for output). I don't doubt that Eurohunter is engaging with good faith here, but at some point, if an editor is doing something in good faith but poorly, they need to be told to improve or stop. Eurohunter, if you want to cleanup citation stuff for articles up for GA, that's fantastic, but just go do it then as a normal editor. That isn't really the core purpose of a GA review. And if you can't get to a review in time, that's fine, but don't say "someone else can continue these reviews" and make it other people's problem. Proactively withdraw and procedurally end the review yourself, maybe with an apology for wasting the nominator's time. This is something ''you'' can do directly. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*I would agree with JPxG and Uncle G (as I usually do) if this were just about tardiness. But these are <em>really</em> bad GA reviews. Looking at [[Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1]], we start off with an argument about whether to call the band, which is from England, an "English band". Eurohunter spent three months, on and off, pushing their personal stylistic opinion that "British" is the correct term. The issue isn't just that they called this out, but how confident they were in their objective correctness. ({{slink|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#cite_note-1}}, while about bios, can be generalized as the correct answer here: "it depends".) Confident incorrectness becomes a recurring theme in this GA review, because next up we have a nine-comment back-and-forth over whether it's correct to summarize a review in the present tense. It is, and I would expect anyone who writes English at a professional level to know this. (I was taught this in 8th grade when learning to write essays.) I gather that English may not be Eurohunter's first language, which is all well and good, but I don't know, I'm reasonably fluent in French, and I can't imagine ever going over to frwiki and asserting with such certainty that a particular stylistic matter is incorrect.{{pb}}[[Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1]] is similarly unpleasant to read. We have Lazman321's repeated attempts to get a clear answer as to what it is Eurohunter wants him to say about the next and previous album. The underlying point there is reasonable if a bit pedantic—I'd say it's right on the line of what I wrote [[WP:Content that could reasonably be challenged]] to discuss—but the communication issues displayed are, like everything else, unfair to the nominator. (This was also an issue with Kwyet Kinks—resolved faster, but still a communication problem.) There's then a lengthy kerfluffle about the verifiability of [https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nzjqm/im_daniel_lopatin_pka_oneohtrix_point_never_ama/], which should have been resolved when Lazman said {{tqq| The two sources used next to reference 28 confirm its legitimacy}}, but was prolonged, to a hair-pulling degree, by Eurohunter's insistence that Lazman convey this the exact way Eurohunter wanted, for no reason beyond personal preference.{{pb}}That's just 2 GA reviews. I'm not saying Eurohunter necessarily needs to be TBANned, but the apology above for tardiness falls <em>far</em> short. Eurohunter needs to stop demanding that other editors meet their personal stylistic preferences at GAN, needs to work on communicating their concerns clearly and in plain English, and needs to listen to GA nominators' explanation of their decisions, especially when those explanations may come from a place of greater familiarity either with the norms of the topic area or with professional-caliber English writing. If Eurohunter can commit to all of that, then I think we can tentatively be done here. If they cannot, this should probably be a TBAN. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 01:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*:I've had issues more related to general communication with Eurohunter too. I've always assumed it's a combination of a language barrier and a general sense of combativeness? I've fielded questions at [[WP:ALBUMS]]/[[WP:SONGS]] for many years, but over time I've slowed down on fielding his questions. They always start off as open ended questions, but then it always feels like he's badgering you because he didn't like your answer. Or they just get tense for no reason. I'm trying to dig up some examples from over the years. Conversations like [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 64#Studio album vs compilation album| this conversation]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#How_to_describe_sound/music? this conversation] come to mind. I don't really know if anything is actionable here, I'm just saying...I can certainly understand the sense of frustration editor's feel with their interactions with him at least. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 02:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264817145 diff]) with the comment ''Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per [[WP:BRD]]. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.''
== More disruptive behavior from SurferSquall ==


This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of [[WP:casting aspersions|casting aspersions]]. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.


There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264818889], my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: ''a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself''.
[[User:SurferSquall]] has continued their disruptive behavior on their talk page after being blocked in October (see the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#Disruptive editing by SurferSquall|the previous ANI discussion]]). It started again several days ago with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurferSquall&diff=prev&oldid=1185418119 this edit], which makes it clear that they learned nothing from their block. Then they [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurferSquall&diff=prev&oldid=1185418509 continued to spout the same worn out points] that "the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false" (for anyone not familiar with this case, SurferSquall has been going to extreme lengths in an attempt to get [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 399#Planespotters.net|Planespotters.net]] to be recognized as reliable, despite overwhealming consensus that it is not). When asked once again to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], they [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SurferSquall&diff=next&oldid=1185426173 responded] with "Neither you nor any admin have the right to “shut me up” over advocating for a perfectly usable source." It is clear that SurferSquall has refused to [[WP:IDHT|get the point]], and that they never will. Given their current and previous behavior, I stand by my statements in the previous ANI discussion that I do not believe that another temporary block or a topic ban will be enough to stop their disruption, and therefore I propose an indefinite block. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 19:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trading_Places&diff=prev&oldid=1264820050 diff]) with the comment '' How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so [[WP:STATUSQUO]] and [[WP:BRD]] apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including [[WP:EDITWARRING]]''
:An indefinite block over a source. How lovely. Someday you’ll actually take a look at the source yourself, I hope. Every time I attempted to discuss the reasons that it is a valid source, somebody, usually @[[User:SteelPillow|SteelPillow]], became harsh and defeatist; Again I state there is no reason for you guys to hate this one source despite abundant proof it is reliable. The “consensus” on this is a perfect example of public opinion not aligning with pure fact, and that’s a difficult thing for me to deal with when you all are so violently against this source. I should not have to beg on my knees for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable, and to take a detailed enough look at the site itself. Yet you will not. I have proved wrong every single accusation against Planespotters being unreliable, yet it has gotten nowhere. At rush of being labeled as a retard again, it continues to be baffling. I still ask one single person to actually look at it. Consensus, especially if flawed, always has the ability to change; and it is wholly unfair for me to be blocked over attempting to do so, and it is wholly unfair for you to expect me not to be frustrated that the “consensus” is indeed wrong. It is wrong. That is fact. It can be proven so. It has been proven so! [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Darkwarriorblake&page=Trading+Places&server=enwiki&max= reverting changes to for years] (is this [[WP:ownership|ownership]]? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the [[Trading Places#Critical reassessment|critical reassessment]] section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even [https://www.google.com/search?q=trading+places+gorilla+rape search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape"].
::Curiously enough, people who have already looked into the issue appear to have come to a conclusion regarding 'facts' that differs from yours. Or does 'looking into' only count if they then agree with you? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::Bringing your battleground behavior to ANI is not going to help you. No one has ever labeled you a "retard" in the first place, so we can add false accusations of personal attacks to the long list of disruptive behavior. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I blocked {{u|SurferSquall}} for one week on October 22, 2023. Since that block expired, all that they have done is comment on their own talk page in support of the reliability of Planespotters, and then comment here at ANI. I have a lot of criticisms and concerns about the editor's behavior over time, but I see nothing justifying an additional block since the October 22 block expired. Perhaps drawing in uninvolved editors at [[WP:RSN]] to evaluate the source in question might be the next appropriate course of action. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Already been discussed. See the WP:RSN thread linked at [[WP:PLANESPOTTERS]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Agree broadly with {{u|Cullen328}}, though we did the (un)reliability to death years ago and are fed up with revisiting it. The guy may be incorrigible, but they are free to state their beliefs on their own talk page, just as long as they do not bring them back into wider circulation. I still think that a topic ban, on both articles and talk pages, would help keep things that way. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 14:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::That makes the most sense to me. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], This would be great, if they truly were independent non-biased editors. It seems a rapidfire of misconceptions and ill-reached conclusions are part of what led to many of you believing this is an unreliable source. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{u|SurferSquall}}, consensus is clearly and unequivocally against you on this matter, and consensus is the foundation of this project. I spoke up in your defense three days ago, but if you show disregard and contempt for consensus in other places, then there will be significant consequences. I highly recommend that you drop this subject. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable}} What proof? You insist there is proof and then refuse to show it to us (and no, the website itself is NOT proof) [[User:Octopusplushie|<span style="color:#d000ff">For five more minutes...</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Octopusplushie|<span style="color:#FF0000">it's just a single vice</span>]]</sup> 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::See the fifty million other discussions that have already taken place on this. It’s been discussed, and I’ve refuted the majority of it. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:They're only posting on their talk page, if no one engages then there's not a problem. If you find it troubling and engage on their talk page then that's really on you. As long as they restrict the complaining about Planespotters.net not being used to their own talk page, with no one engaging, there is no issue. It takes two to argue and if no one responds and everyone ignores it they're just shouting into the wind and not bothering anyone. So I'd recommend removing their talk page from your watchlist and moving along. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 23:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::My talk page is of little importance here, though, it’s the ability to use it as a citation on articles without it being removed that’s a problem. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Well, [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]], that's something you'll have to live with. It is not accepted, and for now that's the end of it. You can claim you refuted all the counter arguments, but you're alone in that opinion. If you want to continue arguing on your own talk page for its reliability, that's fine, but if you start pinging other editors to join you in that mess, that's step one towards a block, another block, for disruption, and it may be the only step necessary. [[User:ZLEA]], you will need to drop it too. Look away from that talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Except it isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Give me a single argument against it being used as a source, and I’ll refute it for you! You ignoring my statements does not amount yo my incompetence in any way. If you’re admitting that you haven’t even read what I’ve said, well, go away then, you have nothing important to add. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps I did jump the gun by bringing the up behavior here a bit early. That said, I would encourage SurferSquall to bring Planespotters.net to [[WP:RSN]]. The sooner we can put all this behind us, the better. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 03:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*SurferSquall is reading "retard" for "incompetent", and is the same sort of hyperbole as "beg on my knees" above; several people have actually talked about incompetence. [[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]] makes a good point. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 06:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*:While it is uncommon, it is indeed possible for the majority to be incorrect on an issue. All of the points about it being an unreliable source can and have been refuted, either by myself or other editors (in earlier discussions). You are calling me incompetent without first inspecting what the issue even arose from. [[User:SurferSquall|SurferSquall]] ([[User talk:SurferSquall|talk]]) 02:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*::Even if the majority is wrong, on Wikipedia you still have to respect that consensus rules the project. All of us have ended up on the losing side of an argument at some point, and we were all fully convinced we were the one who was correct. Consider this a test of your ability to peacefully work with others - by dropping this issue and moving on to some other way to help the encyclopedia along. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] at all. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== 500/30 EC gaming? ==
:Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
:*I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
:*The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
:*When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]].
:*The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
:*The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Wikipedia, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
:*I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not ''really'' be something you can fling ownership at.
:*Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
:*Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.{{pb}}Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3AIndiewire&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 1000s of articles]—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.{{pb}}Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with ''one revert'' each, and ended on the talk page. --[[User:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]''[[User talk:Serial_Number_54129|<sup><span style="color:#7a0427;">A New Face in Hell</span></sup>]] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' [would] be a significant addition" - [https://youtube.com/watch?v=BSamMtzO_NU?t=907 here's an interview] with John Landis, the director. {{talk quote|One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. ''[Laughs]''}}
*:Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it. &nbsp;— [[User:Hex|'''<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Hex|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


===Followup===
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Elie_goodman&target=Elie+goodman&offset=&limit=500 contributions] of [[User:Elie goodman]] show a trail of 500 edits since 20 October, including the addition of a bunch of [[IUCN]] profile data to animal pages before, hey presto, voting in three ARBPIA discussions once past 500 edits. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 21:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.


While we're on the subject, [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1264137355 our article on Liddy] recites that {{tq|Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars.}} I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a [https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/5434d44b-a7ec-4bec-a639-2c60680889d3 drinking problem], and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]]
:CU-indeffed by Firefly. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Firefly|Firefly]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/GidiD&target=GidiD&offset=&limit=500 Ditto this user?] But on the theme of geography instead? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::I object to this [[WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT]] (you should read this policy). I'd like to note that [[WP:PGAME]] is "Making unconstructive edits to raise your user access level," while both of the users above are clearly making constructive edits. Making 500 good edits as a "proof of being a constructive editor" prior to making good faith contributions in controversial topics is not gaming the system.
::What we are seeing here is a case of [[WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers]], after not liking how they !voted for the first time. This goes against [[WP:AGF]] and the ethos that we are trying to build here. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::CU-indef would mean that there is technical evidence establishing that the account was a sockpuppet, rather than being blocked based on the merits of the report here. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm replying to the second report. To strengthen my position, note that the example given in the policy is a user making "dummy" edits or "unconstructive edits in a sandbox." The policy doesn't say anything about making [[WP:WikiGnome]] style edits. These are a great way to learn and this is actually a common advice given in Wikimedia beginner editing courses . I remember how badly I was treated when I started editing Wikipedia, and it makes me personally very frustrated when new editors (as well as old ones) are being driven away.
::::I'd like to note also that CU is often a subjective tool based on identifying edit styles that has a '''significant''' potential for human error, and if we, as a group, overuse this tool we are bound to lose good future editors. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think you are confused: see [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]]. [[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, what am I confused about? The fact there is a potential for error? Based on following some SPI cases in the past then it is clear that yes, it is often highly subjective. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::What makes you think that there is an error? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think you've followed the link or understood the difference between "a generic sock-puppet investigation" and "the use of the CheckUser tool". --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::If you are not sure you know what you are talking about, the best move is to stop. GAMING of editing restrictions is prohibited. Abusing multiple accounts is prohibited. That you find the editors who engage in such activities to be advantageous to your editing goals does not change that they remain prohibited and may be sanctioned accordingly. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::::::Let me be more clear as I said too many things at once- sorry for that. I'm making three points:
::::::::#The interpretation of 'gaming the system' is a misreading of the policy - for the reasons that I explained.
::::::::#@[[User:Firefly|Firefly]]'s verdict for the first account was 'Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) technically and well enough connected behaviorally.' This reads as a subjective call, not a as rock-solid case.
::::::::#I feel we are driving away potentially good newbies who have not done anything wrong, and I find this very sad for the future of our community.
::::::::[[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Your view on what is a misreading of policy is just your view, and one not shared by either other editors or admins enforcing the ArbCom sanctions. You are welcome to seek ArbCom clarification on if admins may revoke EC permission if they feel that it was gained through gaming. I expect that not to end in the result youre hoping for, but I been surprised on the internet before so YMMV. Your view on whether or not the evidence used by a CU to block an editor is sufficient is both ill-informed and not relevant because a. you dont know what the evidence is and b. you dont get a vote on if the evidence meets some threshold you would like to impose. As far as driving editors away, revoking EC only restricts access to CT topics, and only a couple of them at that. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other articles that an editor can edit to gain the experience required to meaningfully participate in more contentious areas. If an editor is only here to say edit-war over the [[Israel]] lead though, yes removing EC may drive them away. Whether or not that is a sad thing is, again, personal feeling. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 23:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::A bit less dismissive attitude could make this conversation far more productive and maybe even enjoyable. Let's try that, shall we? I have the right to voice my opinion. [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[WP:PGAME]] should be updated to reflect community consensus and current practice that making a large number of trivial but not unconstructive edits only to hop directly into ECP topic areas without actually engaging sufficiently to learn applicable practice, constitutes GAMING. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps, and I'd be happy to join an RFC for such a suggested policy change.
::::::::::::However, the majority of the contributions of the user in question were not trivial, and as they gained more experience, their contributions have, in my assessment, become more substantial.
::::::::::::Are these trivial edits?
::::::::::::
::::::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hyalinobatrachium_fragile&diff=1185280616&oldid=1055482457] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Majorcan_midwife_toad&diff=1185266362&oldid=1175502045][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Globonautes&diff=1185265686&oldid=1173392229] [[User:Marokwitz|Marokwitz]] ([[User talk:Marokwitz|talk]]) 06:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Just to sidestep all of this: I can't speak for Firefly, the admin who was pinged originally, but I don't personally see a case to revoke EC from GidiD. There is some PGAME-type behavior, but also a lot of substantive edits, and 14 days passed between them getting AC and getting EC. Overall it's not ideal but not something I'd revoke over. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::The edits don't have to be trivial or unconstructive given that an experienced sock would know exactly what to do to avoid detection. We can't possibly guess what genius scheme they'll come up with next or list all the possible scenarios in the [[WP:GAME]] guideline. What we can do, however, is make sure that we don't ignore the alarm bells, and if a CU confirms our suspicion, then for all intents and purposes, the matter should be considered closed. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

== Ban request [[user: Red Rose 13]] for chronic bias and bad motive ==
{{atop|1=Bluesky whiteclouds blocked. Just don't seem to get it. It's been explained enough. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 09:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)}}
*{{pagelinks|Kriyananda}}
*{{userlinks|Red Rose 13}}

I've observed that the [[user:Red Rose 13]] has an agenda to slander [[Kriyananda]]'s reputation as much as possible under Wikipedia's policy. They have been doing this since Dec 2011. They have two main agenda 1. discredit Swami Kriyananda as a spiritual authority along with his discipleship towards Yogananda, and 2. misrepresent the two major lawsuits against Kriyananda through one-sided statements. These claims are exemplified by their:

a. strong preference to mention the subject's [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1152581125&oldid=1152306123&title=Kriyananda birth name] everywhere in the article, and not their monastic name. SRF (org that fought Kriyananda) also used the same tactic in their public and court letters.

b. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1162559826&oldid=1162487483&title=Kriyananda excessive addition] of "non-primary source required" tags in the article. But completely overlooks the same requirement on a [[Paramahansa Yogananda|similar page]] of which they are watcher and editor. In that page, the subject's autobiography (a primary source) has been heavily cited.

c. intentional toning-down of the relationship between Kriyananda and Yogananda - [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=1152574525&oldid=1152573542 diff_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=prev&oldid=1065541776 diff_2]

d. preference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=1126670287&oldid=1126635477 retain biased representation] of the lawsuits, while not giving any effort to make them neutral and disinterested.

e. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=1185805521&oldid=1185734641 blatant opposition] against using "Swami" Kriyananda as the subject's name, even when provided with [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriyananda/Archive_3#Requested_move_17_July_2022| reasonable arguments]].

f. Disruptive edit warring and dramatization ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=next&oldid=1185114981 diff_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=1185828784&oldid=1185814801 diff_2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kriyananda&diff=prev&oldid=1183741403 diff_3]) Even I am guilty of edit warring, but not like this.

g. Their [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Red+Rose+13&page=Kriyananda&server=enwiki&max= page edit history] dates back from 2011 until now, and same behaviour is observed ''again and again''.


They let the article stay biased for months (even years) without any self-effort to make them neutral. If at last, anyone takes the lead, they give their maximum effort to slow or bully them by citing Wiki Policies in their favor. The other person loses heart and gives up. Then, the article is slowly edited back to its biased and negative state. I am afraid, they have a strong and not so good motive to keep doing this for 12 years. It's sad and also amusing that they have been successful at it for this long without any liable actions.
[[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

:I don't think we generally ban people for 'citing Wikipedia policies'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 16:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Sounds like you should try [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::It's not going to stop them, multiple discussions on the talk page has yielded same outcome. The request is to prevent them from making chronic edit disruptions on the article. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 17:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Bluesky whiteclouds, do you have any interest in editing Wikipedia articles not related to Kriyananda? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::With only two mainspace edits ''other'' than to the Kriyananda article -- and both those other articles ''mention'' him -- that would appear to be a big fat No. Bluesky whiteclouds is demonstrably a SPA with their own apparent bias. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 00:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, @[[User:JayBeeEll|JayBeeEll]], why not. My present focus is on improving that article, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
:::::@[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]], you may look at my edits to see if I have adhered to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CONPOL&redirect=no WP:CONPOL] or not. With my limited edit history, I will obviously seem to be a SPA. Do I have bias to present Kriyananda as a saviour or someone innocent? I strongly disagree. Again, please check [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Bluesky+whiteclouds&page=Kriyananda&server=enwiki&max= my edits on the page].
:::::@[[User:Red Rose 13|Red Rose 13]] on the other hand hasn't followed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV&redirect=no WP:NPOV] policy, that too for a long time and even after multiple attempts of correcting them. I am happy to have them collaborate with me, but they have to stop being biased against Kriyananda. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 08:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq| why not}} Well, that's what I'm wondering: apparently you created your account in 2016, but you didn't make any edits until last year; then you made about 40 edits, all of them about this one person, and went away for a year; and three weeks ago you came back and have made another 40 edits, all about this one person. To me, that doesn't sound like you're very interested in improving the encyclopedia, it sounds like you have a bee in your bonnet about one extremely narrow point. An important part of working in a collaborative project is knowing that you can't always have your way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::That's only part of the problem, and I meant "selective citing of Wiki policies to gain unfair advantage over other editors". They strongly satisfy the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|"Not here to build an encyclopedia"]] blocking criterion among others. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 17:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a rather strong claim to make about someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2011, and has made 5,939 edits in total to 133 different articles. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Red_Rose_13] The evidence you have presented above certainly doesn't appear to support it. And regarding 'bias', I suggest you read [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], since as it makes entirely clear, we measure neutrality against what published independent sources have to say on a subject, and not against some imaginary absolute standard of neutrality - meaning that we can't assess 'bias' here without a lot more evidence to go on. Actual evidence that sources aren't being accurately represented, not just vague claims of 'bias'. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::'''Clarification''': I am not asking a site wide ban for them, but their bad intent on the page is apparent with my evidence provided above. Yes, let me provide more evidence to this to help everyone ascertain this better. Please give me some time to collect them. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 08:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::No, their 'bad intent' isn't at all evident from your evidence above. Instead, all you have shown is that Red Rose 13 has made edits that you personally disagree with. And frankly, looking at the discussion on Talk:Kriyananda, I'd have to suggest that your disagreements seem mostly to be based around misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy, quite possibly motivated by your own personal opinions/bias regarding the subject matter. Presenting further 'evidence' on the same questionable premises seems unlikely to get you very far, and your apparent unwillingness to do what PhilKnight suggested above, which is to treat this as the content dispute it appears to be and to use dispute resolution procedures instead may end up rebounding on you. We tend not to show endless tolerance to new accounts which are unwilling to listen to advice, and who's first reaction to not being able to get their way is to call for sanctions. Take the time to figure out how this place works first, and leave collecting 'evidence' for such a time as you understand what would actually be needed. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I can't see that anything Red Rose 13 has done qualifies for a block, but I suggest you read [[MOS:HONOUR]] and take note of {{tq|Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources}} from [[WP:RS]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]»'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°</small> 19:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, you lost me when you used the fact that they displayed a preference for secondary sources in an article, rather than primary sources. So you expect them to do the opposite of Wikipedia policy when it suites you is the basic premise of your argument. Can a admin please close this. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 08:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::That's putting words in my mouth! If it's not clearly conveyed already, I meant, they selectively pick up one-sided narrative from the secondary sources they are citing, even if that same source has atleast some good points in favor of Kriyananda/Ananda.
::# From their [https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/jury-copyrights-violated-by-church/article_ff8834e4-4078-500b-9d83-62b50d4c18be.html main source] for copyright lawsuit, they took "jurors agreed that Yogananda wanted SRF to maintain his copyrights", but didn't mention that "Ananda lawyer claimed that they were sued for $6 million but had to pay only $29,000". Moreover, they claim to have researched the lawsuit already. If they have done so, they would definitely have known that SRF lost their trademark validity and most of their copyright claims. We have reliable sources for them, and I was able to find them on the internet (and have now even used them to make that section of the article neutral)
::# For sexual harrassment lawsuit, they have cited [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_11.ANANDA.html #1], [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_27.ANANDA1.html #2], [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/cover/1996_Feb_28.COVER28.html #3] but only took the facts which maligns Kriyananda's image ("the jury gave 'guilty' verdict", "asked him and church to pay $1.8M to the woman", "several women testified against him"). They overlooked Ananda's takes on the verdict that it had [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_11.ANANDA.html many outright fabrications]", or that this lawsuit was to tarnish Ananda/Kriyananda's image and use that to win copyright lawsuit ([https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_27.ANANDA1.html This is about religious freedom, not sexual harassment], [https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/jury-copyrights-violated-by-church/article_ff8834e4-4078-500b-9d83-62b50d4c18be.html smear campaign]). These are still not good. Other article from the same newspaper ([https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_27.ANANDA.html #4]) have direct statements from Kriyananda on the verdict, but they haven't cited them. I am sure they would have found them if they had tried.
::# For the third legal case, in Italy, a simple exact search attempt on [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22non+luogo+a+procedere+perch%C3%A9+il+fatto+non+sussiste%22+ananda&sca_esv=584025106&source=hp&ei=dopbZd2MEciSoASnwryIAg&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZVuYhnK8mBjq8Zzh-JhA59L8pC9ALeoC&ved=0ahUKEwjdn43sgNOCAxVICYgKHSchDyEQ4dUDCAo&uact=5&oq=%22non+luogo+a+procedere+perch%C3%A9+il+fatto+non+sussiste%22+ananda&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6Ijwibm9uIGx1b2dvIGEgcHJvY2VkZXJlIHBlcmNow6kgaWwgZmF0dG8gbm9uIHN1c3Npc3RlIiBhbmFuZGEyBRAhGKABSOAIUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAd0BoAHdAaoBAzItMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAQ&sclient=gws-wiz google] to find a secondary source gives a reliable source ([https://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/nel-cuore-di-ananda-a-17-anni-dallincubo-8ff2b29b this one is the best]). Yet, they have marked the court ruling as "non-primary source needed". Okay, maybe they didn't get time to do the research. Then why put that tag, when it was already tagged with "citation needed".
::The article needs a neutral POV, and we have a duty to ensure that it happens. I am currently working on the sexual harrassment lawsuit and the italy case, and will use the above sources to correct the one-sided narrative.
::Now, it is up to the admins of this site, to decide if these proofs mandate an article edit ban on Red Rose 13 or not.
::P.S.: Reading wikipedia policies have made me realize that it has the sanest policiy articles ever written. It inspires one deeply, as to how everyone got together despite differences and made something wonderful. Thanks to all who gave their best. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:::1/. Uses of [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources should not self serving to the subject. Lawyers can claim all kinds of things, but are there independent secondary sources to back up those claims?
:::2/. This is how the article should be constructed, independent secondary sources are always preferable to primary ones. If you have those use them to support new content, otherwise as others have said try reading [[WP:MANDY]].
:::3/. If a reference to a primary source already exist then {{tl|citation needed}} is the incorrect tag, Red Rose 13 was correct in using {{tl|primary source inline}}.
:::The editors replying here are trying to help you. [[WP:Assume good faith]] about that RexRose 13 editting, and think of using the other option for [[WP:Dispute resolution]]. -- LCU '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]»'' °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°</small> 20:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::<nowiki>Thank you. Respective answers to your points 1) Neither me nor Red Rose 13 have depended on lawyer statements, but only on jury ruling document (yes, primary source, but reliable, and only cited for objective details not interpretations) and news reporting on those judgements. What Red Rose 13 hasn't done is represent them fairly, or has shown preference to show that SRF was righteous and Ananda was guilty of charges. 2) Answered to HandThatFeeds's comment as to why WP:MANDY isn't applicable in this case. 3) Agreed, i was meaning to say, they should try to find the citations first, rather than using {{</nowiki>[[Template:Primary source inline|primary source inline]]<nowiki>}}. Let me highlight again, they are aware that Paramahansa Yogananda page has </nowiki>[[Paramahansa Yogananda#cite note-autob2-3|multiple primary citations]], but there is no single attempt by them to tag that page. If one cannot make it better, one shouldn't make it worse.
::::Many of the editors here have replied with counter-allegations (fair enough) and block requests without addressing my request. If one provides diffs that Red Rose 13 has contributed towards making the article neutral, it will disprove my arguments much faster and effectively. I am thankful to those who have genuinely tried to help me.
::::I have assumed good faith with them, when we first started discussing the article last year, and even now (you may read our past [[Talk:Kriyananda|talk page]] discussions to ascertain that). Until it was apparent to me that they had a hidden motive.
::::Now, [[Talk:Kriyananda#Outward Accomplishments section|one more person]] out of the blue has come to the article proposing to [[Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over|WP:TNT]] the accomplishment section of the article. I think it's not required, because it's fixable, and I will assume good faith with them. The section does need renaming and addition of reliable sources, and deletion of ones we cannot find a source for [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 06:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*I moved to block [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds]] as an [[WP:SPA]] who clearly is only here to promote this one person. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 17:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Hi. I don't think that I have violated the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks|common rationales for blocking]], nor have I given improper weight ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DUE&redirect=no WP:DUE]) to Kriyananda's side of arguments to promote him. My sole motive is to make the article neutral while following [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CONPOL&redirect=no WP:CONPOL], and my edits reflect that. You may show evidence to prove otherwise. [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*::You misunderstand what NPOV means: it does not mean we give both sides equal weight. It means we show the facts, which in this case are that Ananda lost the sexual harassment lawsuit. We don't need to put in Ananada's "takes" on the verdict, because of course he disagrees ([[WP:MANDY]]).
*::You aren't simply striving for neutrality, you're trying to [[WP:ADVOCACY|advocate]]. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*::It's in the common rationales under [[WP:NOTHERE]]: "Narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing". —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::Dear @[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] and @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]], in this case, obscuring or discrediting the allegations against Kriyananda through primary sources can be considered promoting him. Rather, my attempt is to represent the article in a disinterested tone, not of one which has been influenced by the language style of anti-Ananda websites one finds on the internet. Wikipedia is a neutral site, not anti nor pro.
*:::[[WP:MANDY]] is <u>not a Wiki-policy</u>, but nevertheless it's a good point. The reason it is still valid to mention Kriyananda/Ananda's perception of the lawsuit is because the jury wasn't exposed to the facts properly. Ananda wasn't allowed to question the witnesses ([https://web.archive.org/web/20080223081329/http://www.sfweekly.com/1999-03-10/news/sex-and-the-singular-swami/3 reported here]) to check the truth behind the allegations of sexual misconduct. Leaving a huge possibility that the women were lying under oath. If they were infact lying, then Ananda's side of arguments cannot be dismissed. That's one reason Ananda has been [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1998_Feb_11.ANANDA.html reported] to have stated "we have been silent...but now...(we can) speak freely", and "There were many outright fabrications". Can we prove the truth of the allegations? No. We cannot dismiss them either, they are of grave nature. Hence, both sides need to be represented enough to let the readers decide what to make of it. Exactly articulated by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV&redirect=no WP:NPOV's] '''page in a nutshell.''' [[User:Bluesky whiteclouds|Bluesky whiteclouds]] ([[User talk:Bluesky whiteclouds|talk]]) 06:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}


== User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on [[Radio Skid Row]] page ==
== User:Starbakgalaktika ==
Write only, vandalism.--[[User:Island92|Island92]] ([[User talk:Island92|talk]]) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
:We need diffs for this accusation. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::Clarification: incidents happened in [[UEFA Euro 2024 qualifying]] and [[UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying]]. Firstly he tried to omit Serbia's record in the qualifying table [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2024_qualifying&diff=prev&oldid=1185899129], then to give that record to Slovenia [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2024_qualifying&diff=prev&oldid=1186092402] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2000_qualifying&diff=prev&oldid=1186099180]. It is against the consensus in football articles: USSR's record only transferred to Russia, Yugoslavia to Serbia, Czechoslovakia to Czech. At least after Island92's warning in talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starbakgalaktika&diff=prev&oldid=1186099925], he stopped, although his behaviour there is not very cooperative. {{re|Island92}} you need to inform him about the ANI discussion. This time I did it for you :) [[User:Centaur271188|Centaur271188]] ([[User talk:Centaur271188|talk]]) 23:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


== [[User:Fcom1212]] ==
{{atop|1= Fcom1212 indeffed blocked (Disruptive editing, advertising/spam and copyright violations) --[[User:Lenticel|<span style="color: teal; font-weight: bold">Lenticel</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Lenticel|<span style="color: green; font-weight: bold">talk</span>]])</sup> 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)}}


[[User talk:Stationmanagerskidrow|User:Stationmanagerskidrow]] is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at [[Radio Skid Row|their station]]. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. [[User:Pyramids09|Pyramids09]] ([[User talk:Pyramids09|talk]]) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:User is now editing using [[User talk:159.196.168.116|User:159.196.168.116]] [[User:Pyramids09|Pyramids09]] ([[User talk:Pyramids09|talk]]) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{usercheck|Fcom1212}}


This user has started to create rapid and clear cut copyvios and they are not stopping. Even after several G12 notices on their talk page. Can an admin please go through their deleted and live contribs and see if this warrants a block for copyvios and disruptive editing, I think it does. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Seawolf35|Seawolf35]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[User talk:Seawolf35|'''''T''''']]--[[Special:Contributions|'''''C''''']]</sup> 00:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was [[WP:LOUTSOCK]]ing as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.196.168.116 this IP], and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Got indeffed by [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] as I was typing the post. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Seawolf35|Seawolf35]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[User talk:Seawolf35|'''''T''''']]--[[Special:Contributions|'''''C''''']]</sup> 00:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::[[WP:USERNAME]] and [[WP:COI]] message added [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stationmanagerskidrow&oldid=1264949407 here]. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly [[WP:INVOLVED]] by seeing what I can do about the [[Radio Skid Row]] article. [[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== RaeesAbbas22 ==
== Insults ==




I'd like to report an incident related to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Randa_Kassis_and_connected_pages|this discussion]]. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARanda_Kassis&diff=1264865290&oldid=1264744287 suggests that I may need psychiatric help]. Please also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Movement_of_the_Pluralistic_Society&diff=prev&oldid=1264648623 this comment]. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos|talk]]) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] ? It would also be nice to remind them about [[Wikipedia:Civility]] and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos|talk]]) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots ==
*{{Noping|Nlkyair012}}
This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264753743][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264822120][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264822576][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264917344] They are a single purpose account for glorifying the [[Kamaria Ahir]] caste using unreliable [[WP:RAJ]] era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and [[WP:SEALIONING]] generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as [[WP:RSN]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Proposed_Resolution:] and [[WP:DRN]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Ratnahastin] and including here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Dispute_Over_Edits_and_Use_of_British_Raj_Sources], accusing me of vandalism.


Despite my repeated requests [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&oldid=1264794306#Discussion_on_Source_Removal_and_Edits][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&oldid=1264889226#Discussion_on_Source_Removal_and_Edits] and even a final warning[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264947964] to them (including a request by {{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264968568]) they are still continuing to do it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264974815][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264977111] Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just [[Hallucination (AI)|hallucinations]] that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about [[WP:GSCASTE]] and [[WP:ARBIPA]], I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]]) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
User RaeesAbbas22 has been disruptively editing the [[Battle of Ramkani]] page by changing sourced information in the infobox, as well as violating 3RR. Despite attempts to get them to converse on the talk page, they still edited the page until they finally joined the talk page most recently. Here are his edits:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1185879430]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1185908156]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1185986941]
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1186004001]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1186031920]
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1186124600]

The page was previously protected from an IP user for doing the exact same thing. The aforementioned IP user also disruptively edited the talk page by changing what I said into whatever they wanted to say as shown in these reversions below. I believe this Ip user is the same individual.

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1185907611]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184768520]
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184769234]
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184769428]
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184769530]
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184769805]
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1184769838]
8. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ramkani&diff=prev&oldid=1185907611]

For former edits on the main page itself by the IP user, you can see on the page itself since the revisions list seems excessive to add. To conclude, I believe this user RaeesAbbas22 is the same Ip user that has been disruptively editing the page (and talk page when trying to discuss).

ANI added to their talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaeesAbbas22&diff=prev&oldid=1186127156] [[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]] ([[User talk:Noorullah21|talk]]) 02:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:[[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]], I don't know if they were that IP editor, but no one has even informed them that [[WP:3RR]] exists, so they cannot be sanctioned for that, even if the edit they keep reinserting on its face seems subpar (i.e. sourced content replaced with unsourced). Next time, please use <nowiki>{{uw-3rr}}</nowiki> to inform them of this. I've also alerted them about the [[WP:ARBIPA]] [[WP:CTOP]]. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:El C|El C]] I did inform them about edit warring on their talk page in this: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RaeesAbbas22&oldid=1186126498], but they removed it (alongside the ANI notice) here: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1186137654] on their talk page.
::I’m not sure if this would also show them being involved as the former IP user but they added this on my talk page (in a topic that the IP user opened) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1186315507] [[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]] ([[User talk:Noorullah21|talk]]) 15:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::''Sigh'', mobile diffs — the colours are so jarring, it took me a while to realize I've already seen that warning. Anyway, [[WP:3RR]] was not linked anywhere in that message, that's the issue. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:El C|El C]] I see, okay. What do you think I should do next? On the talk page, the user seems adamant on believing he is correct (while replacing sourced content with unsourced content). [[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]] ([[User talk:Noorullah21|talk]]) 15:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Report back here, or feel free to notify me personally on my talk page, if they ignore the warning by continuing to edit war. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:El C|El C]] Well I personally cannot revert the page because that would drive me into an edit war and possibly at fault for 3RR. I’m trying to discuss on the talk page, but I’m unsure if that will work. [[User:Noorullah21|Noorullah]] ([[User talk:Noorullah21|talk]]) 17:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, you definitely ''can'' restore the original sourced content that was replaced by the unsourced one, Noorullah. I would not deem it edit warring on your part, but if they revert you after the warning I issued then, again, please report back. In this instance, the [[WP:ONUS]] (and the [[WP:RS]] / [[WP:CITE]] maxim) is on them, not you. Regards, [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

== Extended confirmed gaming ==

{{userlinks|LionelCristiano}}

User seemingly gamed the system to obtain extended confirmed status. Endless effortless sandbox edits. I can mention the numbers, but [[WP:BEANS]] and all. User came to my attention because they [[:User talk:Alexis Jazz#Hi|posted on my talk page]], an act they probably regret now.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700546771373:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
:I'm sorry, please forgive me, I really want to make changes to this Wikipedia. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::I promise to be very careful from now on. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Please don't take away my rights. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Pls forgive me. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:I've yanked extended-confirmed; those edits [[Special:Diff/1186145496|weren't]] [[Special:Diff/1186145478|even]] [[Special:Diff/1186145471|pretending]] to legitimacy. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::Pls give me a chance I won't do anything like this again. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::How can I get it again please help. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Will I be able to get it back again? :( [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Ask at [[WP:Requests for permissions]] after you've made another 500 productive, substantive edits, and be happy you escaped a block. Editing your sandbox or changing the dates in [[Turkey]] so they contradict their cited source (or saying essentially the same thing seven times in a row here!) aren't it. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 06:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Are all my changes reset now ? Do I need to start over ? Isn't it possible for the last 260 edits I made to be considered invalid ? [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::This is not fair. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Everyone deserves a 2nd chance. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::And you will likely have the opportunity for a second chance; it will simply require a lot of productive editing. Cryptic let you know where you can ask for permission after doing so. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::It's very difficult to make 500 changes from scratch. I wish my last 260 changes were canceled. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::[[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]], you seem to have the wrong idea about what has been done. You can still edit the vast majority of our articles. Extended confirmed status is only needed in a very few extremely contentious areas. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Now do I have to make 500 changes from scratch for this ? [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 07:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:┌───────────────────────────┘<br/>[[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]], if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch. {{smiley|;)}}<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700551486852:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt">— <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 07:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
::I'm new here so I don't know, sorry. [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::You're fine, man. We've all done some stupid stuff as newcomers. Just read up on some important policies, don't do this kind of thing in the future, and you'll be fine. I appreciate you want to help Wikipedia, it's a nice thing to do. [[User:Dialmayo|Dialmayo]] ([[User_talk:Dialmayo|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dialmayo|Contribs]]) she/her 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::LionelCristiano, almost anything you need ECP to do directly, you can still request (usually by making an [[WP:edit request|edit request]]): the point of that is that another editor gets to see your request and determine if it is appropriate. Why does that not satisfy you? [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Being new is exactly the point. The reason for the 500-edit rule isn't to be mean to newcomers. It's to ensure that new editors have the experience to do certain tasks properly ''before'' gaining the permissions to do so. This is not a race, and we don't hand out [[WP:BARNSTARS|prizes]] for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::::{{tq|This is not a race, and we don't hand out prizes for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line.}}, couldn't have said it better myself. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: black">Shine on you</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Crazy Diamond</span>]]) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq|LionelCristiano, if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch}} You can do that? damn. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 13:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*Lionel - you just right now reverted an appropriate deletion of tagged, non-RS supported text. Gave no edit summary. Restored it without RS refs, in spite of wp:burden. As pointed out here[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LionelCristiano&diff=prev&oldid=1186289084]. Which you then deleted (fine in itself) - showing you read it - but you didn't fix the problem you created as requested and self-revert. All of this brings into question your assertions that you are a well meaning, non-gaming, "I promise to be really careful," simply well-intentioned newbie. This is not good editing. What are you doing?[[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16|2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16|talk]]) 04:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*:👍🏿 [[User:LionelCristiano|LionelCristiano]] ([[User talk:LionelCristiano|talk]]) 06:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

== [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] reported by [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ==

{{moved from|[[WP:AIV]]|2=[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)}}

* {{Vandal|Zenomonoz}} Sorry for my poor English! I told the user a lot of times to keep off of my talkingpage. He edits again and again. I am really helpless with him and the conflict is not tiny. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2023/11/19#Benutzer:Zenomonoz_(erl.) banned him from the deWP infinit]. After this he made a deletion request for one of the articles I contributed for the enWP. After that he now is about to delete a lot in other articles I contributed. For my opinion it is nothing than revenge what is the motive. That he sometimes is full of hatred is to be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&diff=prev&oldid=868729623 on an old edit], he deleted himself two minutes later. Because of him I cleared my user- and talkpage and will never have any contribution in the enWP. For my opinion his repeated edits on my talkpage are a reason to ask admins for help as for me it is a kind of vandalism. I am really scared about what happened since yesterday in deWP. If I am wrong here, I beg you pardon, I am at the age between 70 and 80, and not used to the rules in enWP. It is the first time I ask for administrator intervention. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 07:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:This is an inappropriate report. I have not vandalised anything ('''edit: '''Andrea014 initially posted this on a vandalism noticeboard, so the response refers to vandalism). You appear to misunderstand guidelines.
*:* You are referring to off-topic 6 year old mistakes (socking, rude comment) which I did when I was a teenager and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&oldid=1169026296#Unblock_request was unblocked for] after I apologised and worked hard to repair via the [[WP:STANDARDOFFER]].
*:* You are incorrectly assuming you [[WP:OWN]] articles, and complaining because I edited "your" articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_W._Staudinger&diff=prev&oldid=1186003172 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_W._Staudinger&diff=prev&oldid=1186136838 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rainer_Krause&diff=prev&oldid=1186135907 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freie_Berliner_Kunstausstellung&diff=prev&oldid=1186135832 here]
*:*Here is the alleged vandalism:
*:**I have added citation needed templates to your uncited work: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rainer_Krause&diff=prev&oldid=1186133876 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ivanova&diff=prev&oldid=1186144204 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ivanova&diff=prev&oldid=1186144254 here].
*:**I have nominated one of your promotional articles [[Christian W. Staudinger|for deletion at AFD]] after it [[:de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._April_2019#Christian_W._Staudinger_(gelöscht)|was deleted]] on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism.
*:**The edit history of the pages that you claim I am vandalising are here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freie_Berliner_Kunstausstellung&action=history here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rainer_Krause&action=history here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ivanova&action=history here]. None of the edits constitute vandalism.
*:**On enWP, all claims must be verified through secondary independent sources per [[WP:VER]].
*:*[[WP:FOLLOWING]] states {{tq|Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles}}. My edits are simply improving some of the articles you have contributed to. I checked your work after seeing the poor quality of the article I nominated for AFD.
*:*Note to the reviewing admin: Andrea014 also appears to be [[WP:CANVASSING]]. On deWP she said I was [https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Andrea014&diff=prev&oldid=239291825 ruining her articles] on English Wikipedia (written in Deutsch), which caused a German editor to come over and incorrectly [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freie_Berliner_Kunstausstellung&diff=prev&oldid=1186004423 revert me] for removing one of her uncited paragraphs.
*:*Also, regarding my block on German Wiki: I accidentally attributed a homophobic comment as originating from Andrea014, but it actually was left by another user. I [https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Pädophilie&diff=prev&oldid=239260643 struck this comment immediately] when I realised the mistake, but I was blocked for the misattribution anyway. German WP has its own standards, thats fine. This occurred after Andrea spent days defending a misleading claim that ''50% of pedophiles are homosexual'' (which is unsupported by [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Profiling_Violent_Crimes/dzAy2Uf5b30C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=freund+homosexual+pedophiles+11:1&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover research] – 11:1 is 8%) but it's irrelevant here. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:*:What you write about deWP is wrong! As everybody can see who is able to read german. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 08:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:*:Just clarifying? You deleted my comment! Here it is:
*:*:I write on my German takpage just for the records, as a case like this I had never before in my 9 years of writing in Wikipedia. The conflict with you startet on 1. November and ended with your block in deWP. Ended? No! Now you continue in enWP. What other people do is not my responsibility! Your kind of interacting is too aggressive and your editing on my talkpage in enWP is harassment, as I told you to keep off. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 08:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:*::Andrea, there was not a "conflict" since the 1 of Nov. There was a large discussion[[:de:Diskussion:Pädophilie#%22Prävalenz_und_sexuelle_Orientierung%22| (link)]] involving another user about content on a page. That is normal, and it's also on a different Wiki. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:*:::This discussion was not "normal"! [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 09:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:*:6 years ago you have been teenager? So you are maximum 24 years old. This is fine, but in German WP you behaved as you could be a man with expertise and lifeexperiance. I told you there about my experiance but you had nothing else to do as to ridicule me. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 08:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:It seems Andrea014 may have a [[WP:COI]]. She uploaded a number of photos that were taken by Diana Ivanova as the author: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haus_mit_Fahrrad_in_Bela_Rechka.jpg] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einwohnerin_in_Bela_Rechka.JPG] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einwohnerin_mit_Ziegen_in_Bela_Rechka.JPG]. Might be why she thinks it's a problem I adjusted the [[Diana Ivanova]] article by adding "citation needed" tags. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::{{u|Zenomonoz}}, would you mind voluntarily behaving in the way an [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] might else have to work? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::{{u|ToBeFree}} Yes. I was about to suggest something like that. Do I need to also voluntarily refrain from touching the [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Andrea014 list] of articles that Andrea created? Or just no interactions as outlined in the interaction ban page? (e.g. talk page, edit undos, etc). I am happy to voluntarily enact an interaction ban for the sake of resolving this quickly. Cheers. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 09:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::The best would be not touching my (only) 6 articles. For these you are not neutral!
*::::And that I should have an COI by uploading photos is funny! I asked a lot of people for giving fotos. But as I said in deWP you should have one it is important for you to give back. This - but only this - is no problem for me. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I asked ToBeFree because [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] states {{tq|"the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other"}}. Content that can't be verified in a secondary source can be removed or tagged with {{Citation needed}}, which is what I did. But let's wait and see what ToBeFree decides. Cheers. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::This is, what you did? [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Diana_Ivanova&action=history This] tells another story! [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 09:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::I can't make an authoritative decision in this regard; bans are imposed by community consensus. My idea does include not editing the few English articles {{u|Andrea014}} has created or substantively edited, as the main problem currently appears to be you following her around while blocked on a different wiki for reasons related to your interactions with the same person. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::Understood. ('''edit:''' striking as I misread ''ToBeFree'', I will volunteer to not edit Andrea's articles. See my comment below) <s>It's probably easier if I voluntarily stick to the standard interaction ban rules, given the edits of the articles themselves were not ban worthy. I'm just leave the articles she created alone for a while, I'll probably lose interest.</s> Not great that she seems to have suggested that an unrelated user on German wiki should weigh in on this ANI [https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Andrea014&diff=prev&oldid=239325818], which the user rebuffed [https://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Andrea014&diff=prev&oldid=239325844], but my translation is a bit rough. It may cool things down if you are able to clarify to Andrea what the voluntary interaction ban means, and that my edits on the articles themselves were about verifiability (perhaps this will be much clearer in German)? Thanks, this is a good resolution. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 10:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::For a while? You never will be neutral for these 6 articles. [[User:Andrea014|Andrea014]] ([[User talk:Andrea014|talk]]) 10:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::My bad, {{u|ToBeFree}}, I misunderstood your comment so ignore my above response. I thought you meant it did not include not editing the articles, but you actually wrote: {{tq|”My idea DOES include not editing the few English articles”}}. Easy to misread. I can agree to this. I will not edit the articles so the ANI can be resolved. Cheers. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|have nominated one of your promotional articles for deletion at AFD after it was deleted on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism.}} sounds to me like [[WP:COI|Conflict-of-Intrest/promo editing]]. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|Shoot to thrill]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Play to Kill</span>]]) 13:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::::No, that characterization is strange. The most relevant policy seems to be the one against [[WP:harassment|harassment]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, {{u|Zenomonoz}} and {{u|Andrea014}}, can you stop your bickering? If I see either of you quarrelling in this thread again, I will block you for 24 hours from editing this noticeboard. (Können Sie hier aufhören zu streiten, sonst gibt es eine Benutzersperrung.) [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

== Long term disruption by 81.100.97.187 at the Sarah Stirk article ==


{{IPvandal|81.100.97.187}} persists in adding unreferenced content, in particular an unreferenced date of birth to {{la|Sarah Stirk}}. This is despite a three month block followed by a one year block.

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1029107702 23:17, June 17, 2021], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1029118428 01:07, June 18, 2021], unreferenced claim about her personal life
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1029121382 01:34, June 18, 2021], unreferenced claim about her personal life
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1029417029 21:04, June 19, 2021], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1030276099 23:21, June 24, 2021], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1030336215 09:09, June 25, 2021], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1175771040 09:29, September 17, 2023], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1175772201 09:43, September 17, 2023], unreferenced DOB for her son
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1180731958 13:37, October 18, 2023], unreferenced claim
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1183798863 15:45, November 6, 2023], unreferenced claim
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1185788824 00:50, November 19, 2023], unreferenced DOB
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=118578989100:58, November 19, 2023], various unreferenced claims including unreferenced DOB for her son

Their disruption isn't limited to that article either, they are also problematic at {{la|Jo Wilson (presenter)}} and {{la|Isabel Webster}}. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:Blocked for 2 years. Talk about failing to get the point. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

== Why was this prematurely archived? Let it run ==
{{archive top|I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to be about, and no one else around here seems to either, so there's no point in leaving it open. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 05:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)}}
On 9 November there was an election for Mayor of Hackney. On the declaration the following day, a casual vacancy for councillor arose in the ward the new Mayor had represented. By law the Council must call a by-election the same day but it has done nothing. It is legally impossible for this by-election to happen in 2023 but [[Cazenove (ward)]] says it will. If the Council doesn't call the election how do we handle that? [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:What does this have to do with Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::Compare the last by-election. Tom Dewey resigned as councillor on 16 May 2022 and the election took place on 7 July. [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't understand. Neither user appears to have edited that article. What specific bad behaviour from Devonian Wombat or Kleinerziegler are you alleging on [[Cazenove (ward)]]? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::If you are just asking about a specific (empty) subheading on that article, if you think it is inappropriate, why not just remove it? I don't see what that has to do with the two editors in question or with admins generally. Or if you are uncertain, you can bring it up on the article's talk page. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::If the Council doesn't call the election, and an editor alleges misconduct, is (s)he going to be blocked as Kleinerziegler was? (Don't answer immediately - let's see what (if anything) the Council does this week). [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 12:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Editors should not allege misconduct. See [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NLT]]. Instead, editors should include what reliable sources ([[WP:RS]]) say. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Am I the only one thinking this IP is either Kleinerziegler block evading or someone trolling? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::The allegation by 86.23 is that Kleinerziegler said Deviant Wombat was committing "electoral fraud" (in quotation marks). Can we have the diff of where Kleinerziegler wrote those words? [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::OK, I found it (21:33, 18 November). [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 13:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I just discovered this website [http://news.hackney.gov.uk]. It says "Caroline has been a Labour ward councillor in Cazenove since 2018." It doesn't say she is no longer a councillor and a by-election is urgently needed. In fact, two weeks on I can only find this [http://www.onlondon.co.uk/hackney-and-its-mayoral-by-election-promises-and-problems], which says:

{{blockquote|Woodley's victory means she can no longer be a councillor. The outcome of the by-election that will take place in Cazenove ward as a result will provide a further gauge of support for Labour and the Greens, perhaps influenced by the stance of candidates and their parties on the Israel-Gaza war.}}

Yamla says we can only accuse the Council of "electoral fraud" if a reliable source raises the matter first. Maybe someone who has a Twitter/X account could message @DaveHill, a Hackney resident for forty years, for comment we could use. He is extremely reliable [http://open.spotify.com/episode/0j733AO6fIHvdI9q6KdLJI]. Alternatively, Holly Lewis is at @we_made_that along with Mark David Flynn and Eva Avdolous, all extremely reliable, and Holly is on LinkedIn where you can view her credentials [http://uk.linkedin.com/in/holly-lewis-a721a9148], and see also [http://www.nla.london/news/five-minutes-with-holly-lewis]. The other two are also on LinkedIn [http://uk.linkedin.com/in/eveavdoulos] [http://uk.linkedin.com/in/markdavidflynn]. [[Special:Contributions/80.43.77.79|80.43.77.79]] ([[User talk:80.43.77.79|talk]]) 17:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

:None of those would be reliable sources. The only administrative action that would be necessary here appears to be with an IP editor who does not understand sourcing policy? —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:(Looks further) Original thread was "Election tampering and bias by user:Devonian_Wombat", closed noted as "OP has been blocked, and nothing else in this thread requires action by ANI.", archived [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1186055101 here]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 17:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:Pinging {{re|Tamzin}}, who did the initial block, to see if the scent of [[WP:Sock puppetry|socks]] is in the air. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 17:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::I still can't tell if this is supposed to be related to the "Election tampering" accusation I blocked over, or if this is a rant connected only by the theme of alleged electoral fraud. (Note that the allegations jump just a wee bit from Australia to the UK.) It seems likely that IPs 31 and 80 are the same person, but using multiple IPs is not sockpuppetry. I do think that if IP 31/80 can't explain what outstanding matter there is for an administrator to address, they should be directed away from this noticeboard. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 17:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::Part of me thinks this IP is trolling. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{atop|Whatever this is, it does not belong here. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)}}
This close occurred overnight. It would be helpful if closers could give advance notice during daylight hours in the OP's time zone of their intentions. More evidence of Holly's reliability is at [http://www.building.co.uk/5-minutes-with-/5-minutes-with-holly-lewis-at-we-made-that/5115000.article]. In the previously linked discussion with Holly she discusses the importance of by-elections. For confirmation that she is at the Twitter address given see the retweet 8 November 2023. The radio this morning was running a government ad "Remember - no vote, no voice." The Electoral Commission gives explicit instructions to Returning Officers on what to do when a council seat falls vacant [http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-returning-officers-administering-local-government-elections-england/casual-vacancies-and-elections]. The facts are these: upon a casual vacancy arising the Council must immediately call a by-election and the poll must take place not more than 35 days (excluding weekends and public holidays) after the call. Thus the 2022 by-election was on Thursday, 7 July, 37 days after Tom resigned. As the weeks after Caroline vacated her seat roll into months and the Council refuses to call a by-election my question is this: how much of this undisputed fact can editors insert into [[London Borough of Hackney]] without risking a block for accusing the Council of "electoral fraud"? [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 11:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:dude, no one has any idea what you're talking about. [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|<span style="color:orange">d</span>]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for commenting. The procedure is set out in the [[Local Government Act 1972]]. No legal qualifications are needed to understand its provisions. For example, [http://www.blaby.gov.uk/your-council/news-and-awards/news/by-elections-called-for-district-and-county] gives the election date Thursday, 21 December 2023. Notices of the vacancies were published this month [http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Notice-of-vacancy-in-the-Office-of-Councillor-Blaby-and-Glen-Parva-Electoral-Division.pdf], [http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-11/Notice-of-Election-of-a-County-Councillor-Blaby-and-Glen-Parva.pdf]. The councillor resigned 32 days before the election date. This page [http://www.hackney.gov.uk/mayoral-by-election] gives the timetable for the Mayoral Election. The notice of casual vacancy was published on Monday, 25 September 2023, three days after the resignation, 34 days before the poll. Caroline Woodley vacated her seat on Friday, 10 November 2023. '''Far from publishing a Notice of Casual Vacancy, the Council is maintaining that she is still a Councillor and no by-election is necessary! This is "electoral fraud".''' If you still don't understand come back and I'll break it down for you. [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 16:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::You're in the wrong place. Nothing you are posting here has any obvious relevance to Wikipedia or this board. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::The very relevant issue is that if editors post the ''sourced facts'' above without any allegation that the Council is engaging in "election fraud" will they risk being blocked because the reader will likely ''infer'' that the Council is engaging in "election fraud"? [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes. Don't accuse people of crimes. Don't even hint at it. If you come up with better sourcing that is directly on point, raise it at [[WP:BLPN]] or something. But don't post again based on what you've got so far. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}} If you go around accusing others of electoral fraud, then yes, there's a chance you'll be blocked. I would also argue that you don't have the sourced facts to add anything about electoral fraud to [[London Borough of Hackney]]. As the council is a small, recognizable group, [[WP:BLPGROUP]] ''likely'' applies here. Negative or controversial claims must be sourced to reliable, secondary sources—preferably ''multiple'' sources. Everything provided so far has been a primary source, along with some [[WP:OR|original research]] based on the law and public records. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::So how about we say:
::::::{{blockquote|In its report of the Mayoral Election on 9 November the council says only that "Caroline has been a Labour ward councillor in Cazenove since 2018" without mentioning that she is no longer a councillor.[cite source already in the article]. No Notice of Casual Vacancy for her seat has been published. A new councillor will normally be elected within 35 working days of the seat falling vacant.}} <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67#top|talk]]) 17:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
:::::::What's the rush? We're an encyclopedia, [[WP:NOTNEWS|not the news]]—and there's [[WP:NODEADLINE|no deadline]]. Most content should be based on reliable, secondary sources, and we should always let those sources guide us. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 17:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

:: If it is "an undisputed fact" you can find a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] for it and discuss it on [[Talk:London Borough of Hackney|the article talk page]]. Continuing to argue a [[Wikipedia:No original research|carefully constructed point]] on an unrelated noticeboard will get you nowhere. [[User:Daveosaurus|Daveosaurus]] ([[User talk:Daveosaurus|talk]]) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

::: Why wait for a "reliable secondary source" to point out that no Notice of Casual Vacancy has been published? It's not on the website. [[Special:Contributions/31.55.242.67|31.55.242.67]] ([[User talk:31.55.242.67|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{abot}}

== Apparent WP:NOTHERE gaming for WP:ECP ==


:Hello @Ratnahastin,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MrGreen1163&target=MrGreen1163&offset=20231121000655 See this gaming] for WP:ECP.
:To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
:I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Wikipedia standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
:As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
:I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
:In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Wikipedia as a resource. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B9_%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AB%E0%A4%B0#c-Nlkyair012-20241124101500-Kindly_put_protection_on_Kamaria_page your usual (non-AI) writing style], although GPTzero said this is human input. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]]) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses [[Butlerian Jihad|which are better at detecting LLM outputs]] than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Man you still wanna do this? @[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]] also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264925552][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamaria_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1264974815] and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]]) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I think this is getting to the [[WP:NOTHERE]] point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This ain't getting anywhere <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are [[WP:NOTHERE|not here for building an encyclopaedia]] but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - [[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] ([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]]) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. <span style="font-family:Georgia,serif; color:#FF4500; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Nlkyair012|<span style="color:#FFD700;">Nlky</span><span style="color:#FF4500;">air</span><span style="color:#FFD700;">012</span>]]</span> 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that's better. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's. ==
He is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Desert_Hawk&diff=prev&oldid=1186098445][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_NATO_attack_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=1185107669] '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 18:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JrStudios The Wikipedian|JrStudios The Wikipedian]] ([[User talk:JrStudios The Wikipedian#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JrStudios The Wikipedian|contribs]]) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Holy userpage batman! I edit my userpage a bunch, but OMG! Yeah, this is pretty open and shut. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: black">Shine on you</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Crazy Diamond</span>]]) 18:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:HOWEVER!! looking at their talk page,you failed to tell them that they're being discussed here on the ANI. [[User:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: red">Babysharkboss2 was here!!</span>]] ([[User talk:Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: black">Shine on you</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Babysharkboss2|<span style="color: orange">Crazy Diamond</span>]]) 18:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::I had. I was on my way to notify the user by the time you typed the above message. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a shame that non-mainspace edits count towards the edit counts for the various protections etc. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:The gaming's already been dealt with - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MrGreen1163&target=MrGreen1163 rights log], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrGreen1163&oldid=1186115444 usertalk before blanking], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#User:MrGreen1163|discussion at WP:PERM]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 19:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


:Courtesy link [[Frisch's]]. [[User:Knitsey|<span style="color:DarkMagenta">Knitsey</span>]] ([[User talk:Knitsey|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Yann]] ==
:<del>This sounds a '''lot''' like the same edit warrer I dealt with on [[Redbox]], down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person.</del> I've asked RFPP to intervene. [[:User:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. [[:User:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== [[User:Nadeem asghar khan]] inaccurate edit summaries ==
Yann, a well-respected Wikipedia editor, has been adding YouTube clips with Israeli subtitles to Disney Channel sitcom pages such as ''[[Bunk'd]]'', ''[[Raven's Home]]'', and ''[[Secrets of Sulphur Springs]]'' (both English and French versions). Yann argues these clips visually represent the shows for newcomers. However, I am concerned about these additions, as they provide little new information and could be irrelevant to most readers. I am suggesting a review by administrators, a discussion with Yann, and alternative suggestions to not only improve the articles, but also suit both sides. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BrickMaster02|contribs]]) 21:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
:@[[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]]: {{nacc}} As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you ''must'' notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —[[User:Tenryuu|<span style="color:#556B2F">Tenryuu&nbsp;🐲</span>]]&nbsp;(&nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&nbsp;) 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:(non-admin comment) [[WP:YTCOPYRIGHT]] may be a problem, and a serious one. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 21:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Note:''' {{Diff|label=AIV report|oldid=1186241061}} by BrickMaster02. [[User:Charcoal feather|Charcoal feather]] ([[User talk:Charcoal feather|talk]]) 21:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]], nothing we like more than hunting for diffs and userlinks!<ul><li>{{Userlinks|Yann}}</li><li>[[:Special:Diff/1186171449/prev|Bunk'd (Diff ~1186171449)]]</li><li>[[:Special:Diff/1186224476/prev|Raven's Home (Diff ~1186224476)]]</li><li>[[:Special:Diff/1186221613/prev|Secrets of Sulphur Springs (Diff ~1186221613)]]</li></ul>Files that were added:<ul><li>[[:c:File:קיקיוואקה- המחנה החדש - קן לציפור - Bunk'd- Learning the Ropes.webm]]</li><li>[[:c:File:הבית של רייבן -חופשה באירופה - Raven's Home.webm]]</li><li>[[:c:File:הסודות של סאלפר ספרינגס - תחרות כשרונות - Secrets of Sulphur Springs.webm]]</li></ul>@[[User:Yann|Yann]], why are these videos so tiny? 256×144 when the original is 1080p.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>These videos were shared by https://www.youtube.com/@DisneyChannelIsrael which is verified on YouTube. Some obvious possible outcomes for this discussion:<ul><li>Commons decides the license is unintentional/accidental and deletes the files. (have they already discussed DisneyChannelIsrael?)</li><li>English Wikipedia decides the license is unintentional/accidental and disallows using these files.</li><li>Commons blurs the subtitles or crops the video so they're no longer part of the picture. (and hopefully imports the 1080p version in the process..)</li><li>We say "meh" and just allow this.</li></ul>But the comment BrickMaster02 made on AIV that these clips "do not add anything new to the articles" is obviously false. They add a lot: they portray the kind of humor, visual style, show various actors, their voice, and help to identify the actual show: if you've watched the clip, you may recognize the show when it happens to be on.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700603282981:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
::Okay, but I personally don't really see a need for that, as no other articles for these shows feature clips that give a visualization. And yes, I know that claim is not really allowed on this site, but that's what I was leaning towards. [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02|talk]]) 22:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:If we have an article on a TV show and manage to get an episode of that TV show on Commons, then yes of course we should include it. It's... the subject. Anyone can nominate them for deletion on Commons if they want to, but that's purely a Commons issue and not one that needs to be discussed here. Likewise, I see no reason not to upload the higher resolution versions, but that's also something that can be handled on Commons. Characterizing adding videos of a TV program to articles about that TV program as ''vandalism'' is the only thing inappropriate here. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 22:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
::I will admit labeling them as "vandalism" was another huge mistake on my part, and I really should've cooperated better, instead of what I did. [[User:BrickMaster02|BrickMaster02]] ([[User talk:BrickMaster02|talk]]) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ping|BrickMaster02}} At the very least, I expect an apology.
:::I maintain that these short extracts are valuable to the articles. If removed, I would like to a valid reason. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


:@[[User:Yann|Yann]], I'm afraid this is accidental. For the [[live action]] series (all three examples that were given here are live action) an argument could be made that Disney wants people to [[meme]] the crap out of them and live action footage doesn't lend itself too well to the creation of a new work that could compete with the original. But animated series like [[The Ghost and Molly McGee]] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qIkV4vc7bU] and [[Hamster & Gretel]] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HKh3i3K47A] are also Creative Commons, so anyone could reuse the characters seen in those clips, print them on t-shirts, make their own spin-off series or webcomic, etc.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>While one might argue that trademarks could also protect those characters, that's a [https://creativecommons.org/faq/#could-i-use-a-cc-license-to-share-my-logo-or-trademark risky idea]. (and would Disney trademark every minor supporting character?) I'd argue that Disney shouldn't worry about the copyright expiration of [[Steamboat Willie]] because that Mickey Mouse looks outdated anyway. But the <i>current</i> versions of characters being freely licensed? No, I don't think so.<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700651610903:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 11:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
:[[:c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Disney Channel Canada"|In a similar case]] Wikimedia France reached out to Ubisoft. Ping @[[User:Shai-WMIL|Shai-WMIL]] and @[[User:Ruti-WMIL|Ruti-WMIL]]: any chance [[Wikimedia Israel]] could reach out to https://www.disney.co.il/ ?<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Discussion on Commons: [[:c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CC-BY license on YouTube videos by Disney Channel Israel]].<span id="Alexis_Jazz:1700653239120:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> — <span style="color:#e08020">Alexis Jazz</span> ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]] or ping me) 11:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
::There have been several discussions on Commons about free license by big companies. Some files were deleted, but [[c:COM:UDR|current discussions]] (also [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#CC-BY_license_on_YouTube_videos_by_Disney_Channel_Israel], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#https://www.flickr.com/people/landrovermena/_on_COM:QFI_list]) lean towards undeletion. Please come to Commons if you want to discuss this.
::It is significant that Disney Channel Israel only released short extracts in small resolution. IMO this is a good marketing strategy. People interested will go to Disney Channel to watch the whole series. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. [[User:Spike &#39;em|Spike &#39;em]] ([[User talk:Spike &#39;em|talk]]) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== User:Hezarfen ==


== [[Lil Dicky]] Semi-Protection ==


[[Lil Dicky]] was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? [[Special:Contributions/174.93.89.27|174.93.89.27]] ([[User talk:174.93.89.27|talk]]) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I had notified [[User:Hezarfen]] of the [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan|extended confirmed restrictions]] for articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan after they made a number of contentious edits in those related articles. Hezarfen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hezarfen&diff=next&oldid=1186098990 reverted my notice] and then proceeded to revert all of their edits back.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_universities_in_Artsakh&diff=prev&oldid=1186209911][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:States_with_limited_recognition&diff=prev&oldid=1186209803][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_European_capitals_by_region&diff=prev&oldid=1186209835][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Khankendi_City_Stadium&diff=prev&oldid=1186210919] --[[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


:Ask at [[WP:RFPP]] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]]: As a point of order, [[WP:GS/AA]] was amended a few months ago to be somewhat narrower than the old scope, but the edits about Artsakh clearly fall into the new scope of {{tq|Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving [[Armenia]], [[Azerbaijan]], or both}}. You warned them fair and square and linked them to the GS page, and they continued, so I've blocked 72 hours, which hopefully will get the point across. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 02:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


== Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions ==
== Possible [[WP:ULTRA|ultra]]? ==
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit and does not require administrative intervention.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Dear admin,
[[User:Max Kleinehelleforth]] has created non-[[WP:GNG|notable articles]] related to the ''[[Super Mario]]'' [[video game]] franchise and series, such as [[Super Mario Wiki|this article on the ''Super Mario'' fan wiki]], [[MarioWiki (german)|the German version of the wiki (now deleted)]], [[New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U]] (which is now a redirect to ''[[New Super Luigi U]]''), and [[Special:Diff/1186190874|removing a redirect]] to write about ''New Super Mario Bros U. Deluxe'' (again, a partially non-notable topic that could not have its own article). I even warned them two times on their talk page, but they kept on with their disruptive editing.<span id="Davest3r08:1700661279653:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Davest3r08|<span style="color:#964B00">Davest3r08</span> <span style="color:hotpink">></span><span style="color:purple">:</span><span style="color:blue">)</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Davest3r08|<span style="color:black">t</span><span style="color:purple">a</span><span style="color:gray">l</span><span style="color:yellow">k</span>]])</sup> 13:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.
:They also [[Special:Diff/1186205320|reverted my edit that restored the ''New Super Mario Bros U. Deluxe'' redirect]].<span id="Davest3r08:1700661727967:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Incidents" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Davest3r08|<span style="color:#964B00">Davest3r08</span> <span style="color:hotpink">></span><span style="color:purple">:</span><span style="color:blue">)</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Davest3r08|<span style="color:black">t</span><span style="color:purple">a</span><span style="color:gray">l</span><span style="color:yellow">k</span>]])</sup> 14:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
:One person's "ultra" is another person's "subject matter expert who got slightly over-enthusiastic". Looking at their edit history, they're not exactly a single-purpose account and I'm sure they'll learn their lesson when they see their hard work being deleted on notability grounds. We've all been there. I don't see a need for admin action unless they become really disruptive. Thanks for raising your concerns though, always the right thing to do. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.
== Elissa Slotkin ==


Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed.
This isn't a specific issue as much as a request for additional administrative eyes on the ongoing discussion at [[Talk:Elissa Slotkin]]. I recently began adding or standardizing the mention of [[FiveThirtyEight]]'s scorecard of how closely members of the US House vote with President Biden across relevant articles -- it seemed that some articles included this info, others did not, and it seemed like something where consistency would be positive for the encyclopedia. I did so at the Slotkin article but seem to have walked into a minefield with two editors who seem to battle with every other editor in the talk page (one of the editors is apparently a new account for a prior editor who was banned from Wikipedia after editing this article).
Hazar [[User:Hazar Sam|HS]] ([[User talk:Hazar Sam|talk]]) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Hazar Sam|Hazar Sam]], whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80BB:6C01:8532:F8A0:9726:F77C|2804:F1...26:F77C]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80BB:6C01:8532:F8A0:9726:F77C|talk]]) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, [[WP:LLM|we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Disruptive behavior from IP ==
Interestingly, whenever these two editors get into a disagreement with another editor, an IP editor seems to appear to argue their point more aggressively (just today, one (who has already previously been warned on this article) abrasively commented that I would have seen something "if you were not blind" and wrote "I just know you are lying" which is quite uncalled for.
For the past month, {{ip|24.206.65.142}} has been attempting to add misleading information to [[Boeing 777]], specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1258868570], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1258853929], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1260891932], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1260953040], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1260953657], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1260960321], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1260962761], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1261151700], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1261205871], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1261316920], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1261343624]). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1264704763], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=prev&oldid=1264990653]), including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.206.65.142#c-24.206.65.142-20241224183700-ZLEA-20241224182600 baseless claims] that {{u|Fnlayson}} is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on [[User talk:24.206.65.142|their talk page]] to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; {{ip|24.206.75.140}} and {{ip|24.206.65.150}}. 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
This article is already subject to additional page protections, and from other talk page discussions, it seems a number of editors have been blocked as a result of edits to this article. There's also apparently a social media campaign to recruit editors to push an agenda at this article.


:"777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that [[User:Fnlayson]] was okay with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=1264706005&oldid=1264704763][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Boeing_777&diff=1264990653&oldid=1264910697]. I feel that [[User:ZLEA]] is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. [[Special:Contributions/24.206.65.142|24.206.65.142]] ([[User talk:24.206.65.142|talk]]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about this article (or the subject) so plan to disengage but thought appropriate to raise the issues for wider awareness from others on this website. [[User:Thmymerc|Thmymerc]] ([[User talk:Thmymerc|talk]]) 17:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. [[User talk:24.206.75.140#Welcome|They have been told before by Fnlayson]] not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - [[User:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">T</span>]]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>[[Special:Contributions/ZLEA|<span style="color:#6B8E23">C</span>]]</sup> 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF"[https://www.jumbolino-model.com/en/boeing-777-200lrf-turkish-cargo/][https://www.atlasairworldwide.com/boeing-fleet/777-200lrf/], including GE Capital Aviation [https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/gecas-announces-delivery-new-boeing-777-200lrf-lan-cargo](the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News [https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/06/boeings-freighter-dominance-threatened/] (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). [[Special:Contributions/24.206.65.142|24.206.65.142]] ([[User talk:24.206.65.142|talk]]) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Relevant range is {{rangevandal|24.206.64.0/20}}, in case somebody needs it. [[:User:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: hotpink; text-decoration: inherit;">wizzito</span>]] &#124; [[:User talk:Wizzito|<span class="tmpl-colored-link {{#if:|mw-no-invert|}}" style="color: navyc; text-decoration: inherit;">say hello!</span>]] 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:04, 24 December 2024

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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


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

    Disruptive editing and WP:TALKNO by User:AnonMoos

    [edit]

    The main issue with this editor at the moment is disruptive editing based on continuous abuse of WP:TALKNO and failure to get the point. Issues began when this editor removed 5000+ bytes of sourced material. They did it again and again and again.

    Instead of starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, the user came to my talk page to let me know of their opinion of my contributions. When I started a discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, the user edited my signature and changed the heading of the discussion I started according to their POV. When I let them know that this was highly inappropriate according to WP:TALKNO, both in that discussion and on their talk page, they responded on my talk page stating ever since the stupid Wikipedia Dec. 2019 encryption protocol upgrade, to able to edit or view Wikipedia at all from my home computer, I have to use an indirect method which involves a non-fully-Unicode-compliant tool. I couldn't even really see your signature that way, and so didn't know to try to avoid changing it, which I had never heard of. In any case, they kept reverting the content supported by the reliable source, they also kept attempting to apply their POV to the discussion heading again and again and again. I finally explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, and they went ahead and changed it again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by إيان (talkcontribs) 15:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The other user in this case is User:AnonMoos? This looks like a content dispute over whether the article is on the English version of a German-Arabic dictionary or the dictionary itself. Secretlondon (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes the is indeed about User:AnonMoos. I see the content dispute as stemming from the fundamental conduct issue, which has manifested itself most egregiously with insisting on violating WP:TALKNO repeatedly even after I explained that I had sought a third opinion and that they should refrain from changing the heading again in order to preserve the integrity of the link, after which they went ahead and changed it again anyway. إيان (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The heading dispute is between a date heading, and a descriptive heading? that's not really reformulating your entry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a conduct issue. إيان (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what conduct issue? TALKNO doesn't forbid changing headings. In fact the wider guideline makes it clear it's perfectly acceptable "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant." To be blunt, if you don't want editors changing the headings of sections you start, don't use such terrible headings. I definitely recommend you stay away from ANI since changing headings is quite common here. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I missed the signature issue. That's far more concerning unfortunately lost IMO partly because you concentrated on silly stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ‎إيان: I suggest you stop messing around with the section heading since it's a distraction which could easily lead to you being blocked. But if AnonMoos changes your signature again, report it and only that without silliness about section headings, mentioning that they've been warned about it before if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote a long and detailed explanation on his user talk page as to why the date-only header is basically useless in that context, but he's still for some peculiar reason fanatically determined to keep changing it back. Frankly, I've basically run out of good-faith reasons that make any sense -- except of course, his apparently unshakable belief that he has certain talk-page "rights", which according to Wikipedia guidelines he does not in fact have (outside of his own personal user talk page)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AnonMoos: I don't see a problem with changing the heading but why on earth did you change their signature multiple times [1] [2]? That is indeed a clear violation of WP:TPOC since the signature was perfectly valid per WP:NLS. In fact your change was far worse since it changed a perfectly valid signature which would take other editors to the contributor's talk page and user page into an invalid one which lead no where. If you're using some sort of plugin which does that, it's your responsibility to manage it better so it doesn't do that ever again especially if you're going to edit talk pages where it might be common. If you're doing that intentionally, I suggest you cut it out or expect to be indeffed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AnonMoos, this is not good to see. Don't rewrite or reformat other editor's signatures. There is no reason to be doing this unless you are trying to provoke the other editor. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, AnonMoos stated earlier that the changing of the signature was a unintentional technical issue, due to his use of some "non-standard tool" in accessing the internet [3]. This seems plausible, as similar apparently unintentional changes to non-Ascii character data have happened in edits of his before (e.g. [4]). But if he knew of this issue, it's rather disappointing he let it happen again some days later [5]. Equally disappointing is the extremely aggressive rhetoric and acerbic tone with which he has been escalating this essentially harmless, good-faith content dispute from the beginning. Fut.Perf. 10:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just can't fathom what tool they're using to get around the HTTPS requirement to edit Wikipedia securely. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be impossible as it's required to even access the site in the first place according to WP:SECLakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at his talk page it's been going back to at least 2011[6]LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I do not deliberately set out to modify signatures, and when it happens, I am not usually aware of doing so. As I've already explained before in several places, since the December 2019 encryption protocol upgrade (NOT 2011!), the only way I can edit (or view) Wikipedia at all from home is by an indirect method which is not fully Unicode-compliant. To change this, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection, which would permanently disconnect my older computer, which I still use almost every day.
    Meanwhile, this thread has been set up so I can't add a comment to it from home without affecting Unicode characters, so I was unable to reply here for 36 hours or so. If I'm silent in the future, it will be for the same reason. AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia uses Unicode characters (UTF-8 encoding). Anyone who cannot edit without corrupting such characters should not edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, -- I was using them perfectly fine until December 2019, and still use them perfectly fine on public WiFi, but in December 2019 a requirement was imposed that you can't access Wikipedia at all unless you can handle encryption algorithms and protocols that weren't introduced until the mid-2010s. I have a 2012 web browser on my home computer that handles UTF-8 just fine, but 2012 simply wasn't good enough for the Wikipedia developers -- you had to have software that was almost up to date as of 2019, or you would be abruptly totally cut off. If you can drag up the relevant archive of Village Pump Technical, I and others complained at the time, but our concerns were not listened to or considered in any way. The basic attitude of the developers was that if you weren't running almost up-to-date software, then screw you, and if your computer is not capable of running almost up-to-date software, then double screw you! The change was announced for January 2020, but was actually implemented in mid-December 2019, apparently because they were so eager and anxious to start excluding people. It wasn't one of Wikipedia's finer moments. Since that time, I have had to use an indirect method to access Wikipedia from my home computer, and I don't feel particularly guilty about it (other people's obnoxious behaviors in 2019 have done away with most of the guilt I might feel)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...HTTPS was created in 1994, and became an official specification in 2000, not "mid-2010s". I'm not sure what 2012 web browser you're using, but if it's not able to handle HTTPS not being able to access Wikipedia with it is the least of your browsing concerns, given that 85-95% of the World Wide Web defaults to it now. Also I hate to think of how many security holes your ancient computer has. I'm going to be honest: with a brower setup that old it isn't safe for you to be on the web at all, and the security hole that lets you access Wikipedia without using a secure connection should be fixed, because that is not working as intended and is - as mentioned - a security hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You unfortunately don't know what you're talking about. New ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL METHODS have been introduced within HTTPS from time to time. I was using HTTPS perfectly happily until December 2019, when the developers arbitrarily ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And even leaving that aside, as Johnuniq mentions - if you can't edit without corrupting Unicode characters, and by your own admission you don't know when it happens, you shouldn't be editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably a reference to when Wikipedia started requiring TLS 1.2 (because earlier versions were deprecated). Anyone who was/is still on Windows XP at that point couldn't connect any more. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about when the update happening, I'm talking about how you have known about this issue, and have been getting complainants about it since 2011and are still not taking any steps to do anything about it. What kind of internet connection would not support your PC? What on earth are you even using? Dial-Up? Because that still is supported by even Windows 10. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    :::Also, how did you see me saying "this has happened since 2011" as me saying that the update happened in 2011? Can you clarify. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 03:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    The problem didn't start in 2011, and I have no idea what you're referring to when you mention 2011. The problem started in December 2019 when the developers arbitrarily imposed new ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I was extremely tired when I wrote both above. I have striken the date parts. Rest of my comments still stand. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    None of this matters

    [edit]

    I don't care what tool this guy uses or what his excuse is. If he can't edit without screwing up people's sigs, then he must not edit. AnonMoos shouls consider himself on notice now that if one of his edits messes stuff up one more time, he'll be blocked until he can give assurance that he's come into the 21st century. EEng 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's nice -- and also totally inaccurate. I was in the 21st century, and using 2012 tools, up until December 2019, when the developers pitchforked me backwards by arbitrarily imposing HTTPS ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS which my home computer hardware is not able to run. Notice that I had no problem complying with character-set handling -- the problem is with arbitrary ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM AND PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS. AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The century imagery is irrelevant. You have been warned. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was six years ago, which is IMO about 3-4 years too long to keep using it as an excuse. Technology changes over time, so whatever this non-standard thing you think you need to do to edit here, it may be time to make a choice. Zaathras (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, to fix the problem, I would have to get a completely different type of Internet connection which would permanently disconnect my old computer, which I still use almost every single day. I would basically have to change my workflow and overall habits/methods of working because of an arbitrary decision by Wikipedia developers about encryption protocol updates. Anyway, when editing through public WiFi, I'm 100% Unicode compliant, and by exercising a little prudence, I can also avoid most problems when working from home. If I was constantly mangling Unicode right and left, there would have been a chorus of complaints long before now. But occasionally I can't anticipate a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to say for the third time: you're out of chances. "Occassionally" is too often. Once more is too often. And if and when that happens, your attitude of entitlement displayed here will pretty much ensure an indefinite block. EEng 03:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Think it's time to draft up a formal proposal at this point? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's necessary. The key isn't formally deciding the criterion for blocking (because that's obvious to everyone) but rather detecting the next incident. Best way to do that for everyone gathered here to watchlist User talk:AnonMoos. Sooner or later, futher trouble will show up there. EEng 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have DSL or even DialUp. That still works with modern machines. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, I am on DSL (and have been since, if I recall right, 2008). I have no idea what sort of ancient Internet connection AnonMoos is claiming to be using, but it's clearly one that was already obsolete before this change he's still up in arms about six years later was made. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention it would STILL be supported these days. It's literally right there when you click wifi/network settings in Windows 10. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The response by AnonMoos to feedback about this problem is bizarre. I don't really care what the excuse or the history behind it. If you are unwilling to edit Wikipedia using tools that work in 2024 then you should stop editing. The behavior is completely unnecessary and it seems like you don't understand the disruption. Nemov (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • AnonMoos hasn't really explained in any detail what their technical limitations are. They don't have to, but we can't really give advice otherwise. If as others have suggested their computer can't negotiate TLS 1.2, I'm surprised that they're able to use any websites at all from that computer. Requiring TLS 1.2 is not controversial; Wikipedia wasn't doing anything unusual in dropping TLS 1.0/1.1 around that time. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User talk:185.146.112.192

    [edit]

    The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page.

    Moroike (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Moroike: It looks like you both are edit warring on Kichik Bazar Mosque.[7][8][9][10] That's not particularly helpful, so you should try to have a discussion on the article talk page as to whether you should include the Talysh language name for the article in the lead/infobox. –MJLTalk 20:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL why and how did you pick out that one article over the many this IP has made recent changes to? The IP has been making disputed edits for months and has been reverted by a number of editors, not just Moroike. CMD (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CMD: I am not suggesting that the IP editor isn't being disruptive, but my point is that Moroike isn't making the situation better (using the example of that one article). You can see this by looking at their last 50 contributions where they have mostly just reverted this editor without using a summary. –MJLTalk 18:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edits were removed a total of 13 times on the page regarding the capital city of Azerbaijan, Baku. You can't let him continue engaging in further edit wars with other users besides Moroike, can you? Nuritae331 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this IP user won't stop and is stonewalling, either he/should be temporarily blocked, or all the pages he is POV pushing without sources, should be semi-protected, so that only registered users can edit them. Moroike (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After he/she was blocked for 24 hours, this IP created an account as User talk:Ibish Agayev in order to evade the block and has resumed his/her POV pushing. Moroike (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User engaged in edit warring to remove disputed content prior to consensus

    [edit]

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


    Title is pretty self explanatory. Rather than engage in the consensus building process to determine if the disputed content discussed here is problematic, this editor has instead immediately reverted the disputed content. They have been informed of the relevant policies prohibiting this behavior and how it should normally be handled (tagging the content as disputed while the discussion is ongoing) but have elected to instead engage in edit warring to keep the disputed content removed prior to any consensus on the matter. Also important to note that they wish to have the content removed entirely, but have stated that they no longer intend to participate in the consensus building discussion. So this appears to be a WP:STONEWALLING tactic to accomplish their goal of removing the content immediately without a consensus. Seeking admin help to halt this behavior and restore the content with the correct tagging.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxbbetyy (talkcontribs) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It would help if you named the editor and signed your name to figure out what you are talking about; a noticeboard only works if you give us notice about the subject and what is happening. Nate (chatter) 23:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor appears to be PerfectSoundWhatever, based on the link under the word "this" as well as this notification. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apology, this is my very first time making such a post. The other pages o have spoken on seemed to have signed themselves automatically. Will remember this going forward. And yes, that was the user, posted this using my phone so I didn't want to mis-spell their name, just linked instead. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) IMO the best practice is that in the event of a content dispute, the article should be reverted to the status quo of how the article's content appeared before the dispute started, until such a time that consensus is established to re-add it (see: WP:STATUSQUO). It seems like the beginning of the content that is in dispute was added on 18 August 2024, the dispute began a few weeks later on 23 September 2024 and has been ongoing ever since.
    In this case, since the article existed in a relatively steady state for several months (or even years?) previous to the disputed material being added, I think it'd be wise to leave the disputed content out of the article until the discussion comes to a close. RachelTensions (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been seeing this opinion from a few editors and even one admin on how to interpret this article. However, the first few sentences in that section do outright state to avoid reverting the disputed content prior to a consensus. And prior to opening this report, I asked several admins on the topic and got a response that reverting the disputed content immediately is incorrect per WP:STATUSQUO as it bypasses the consensus building process. I was advised that the content should instead be tagged as disputed rather than be outright removed. The offending user was made aware of the relevant policies but has nonetheless engaging in edit warring to keep it reverted, hence this report. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The status quo of an article constitutes implicit consensus (WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS). The person trying to include disputed content in an article despite it not being status quo is the one that could be construed as attempting to bypass the consensus building process, not the person trying to maintain status quo until discussion takes place. RachelTensions (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, and at no point was the definition of what constitutes the status quo ever in contention. In fact, if you review the edit history of the article you can see that the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content, and then continued to revert it as others tried to restore it (both before and after the consensus discussion began). Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the disputed content was the status quo via implicit consensus at the time PSW chose to first outright revert the content
    Not really, I personally wouldn't define "been there a few weeks" as status quo.
    I think maybe the other replies to this thread provide pretty good reasoning to take a step back and say "hey maybe I'm the one in the wrong here" instead of talking in circles RachelTensions (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the number of contributions since the edit where it has gone unchanged is a more useful metric, especially on low traffic pages such as this one. Regardless, per the policy you cite, there seems to be no official Wikipedia stance on what exact criteria are needed for a contribution to be considered the current status quo, beyond it having been unchallenged in subsequent contributions (which is the case here).
    As for the rest of your comment, there seems to be a high amount of band wagoning and "Proof by assertion" going on in the rest of this. Or people trying to use this report as an extension of the dispute discussion on the article's talk page. Hopefully more actual admins to chime in on the topic as I don't actually want to waste my time talking in circles.
    On that note thanks for actually taking the time and baseline minimal effort to engage in a discussion where you actually support your point and don't just devolve into repeating the same talking points over and over. It's a nice change of pace. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the editor being discussed here. I'll provide a summary of events since the initial statement by Sxbbetyy is misleading.
    Myself and the editor had a content dispute at Team Seas (1) and following circular discussion, I stopped engaging since I felt I had laid out my points. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I maintained the state of the article to before the dispute. I requested for a third opinion, which was answered by @BerryForPerpetuity:, who agreed the statement should be removed, albeit for a different reason than mine. I took this 2-1 as rough consensus. I also posted the dispute on two WikiProjects, and have received no response so far. Sxbbetyy reached out to three admins about the matter, @Sergecross73, Oshwah, and Pbsouthwood:. The Sergecross73 discussion can be summarized as Sergecross believing that I haven't engaged in misconduct, and that I have presented a "plausible, good-faith interpretation of SYNTH". Sxbbetyy then accused Sergecross73 of not acting in good faith. Oshwah did not respond to the post on their talk page, but @BusterD: did, essentially agreeing that the sourcing does not back up the claim in the content dispute. Sxbbetyy received help on Pbsouthwood's talk page about responding to a content dispute. And now we're here.
    Throughout these interactions, Sxbbetyy has demonstrated a failure to assume good faith, refuses to accept that they may be wrong, and WP:BLUDGEONs talk pages, refusing to let the other editor have the last word. Frankly, this is a massive waste of editor time: it should have been a brief talk page discussion then an RfC. Apologies for all the pings. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This summarization in itself leaves out critical context, (such as berry's concern being alleviated and them no longer expressing a desire to remove the content), the specifics of why that conversation with Serge ended the way it did despite my repeated attempts to engage with them in good faith, and the entire discussion with pbsouthwood (who quite definitively explained that the behavior PSW was engaged in was not correct). So I urge all involved to go read those topics to get the correct context through your own eyes and then discuss any concerns from what you see here. That being the case, it seems pretty clear cut imo. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, in no way did I express that I didn't want the content to be removed. I did not receive a notification for your reply, and I wouldn't have engaged either way. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would leave that material out of the article. Whilst it may not exactly be synthesis per se, it is certainly editorialising ("the removal of that amount of marine debris is of negligible consequence...") unless there is an actual source that says this by making a link between between the two statistics (the amount of waste removed by Team Seas and the rate at which waste is entering the ecosystem). And even then, I would say that such an edit would need to say something like "However, ARandomNewspaper pointed out that ...". Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is actually no longer the content that is being disputed. If you look at the latest version that got reverted on the article you can see the current version. I had made edits to it precisely because of valid WP:NPOV concerns brought to my attention by PSW. However, their dispute with the content remains with the claim that is is synthesis rather than any other concern. Which they have been thus far unable to obtain a consensus on. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have some pretty serious WP:IDHT concerns about the topic starter here. They came to me for help (no idea how/why me, I have no connection to this dispute) and I repeatedly told them I didn't see any misconduct, and then they started attacking me when I refused to agree with them. And now this. This is a very simple content dispute, with a very simple no consensus means no change outcome. I've told them this. It's a disappointing time sink on a rather trivial content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At no point was he "attacked". I defended myself after he became hostile with me (as anyone can read in our convo, I stated multiple times that I would leave and did not want to be a burden if they didn't want to engage with this, but he made no such objections and continued). Eventually he just became outright hostile and refused to explain their points any further, devolving the conversation into them repeating themselves over and over, its all there to read on his talk page. As for why I contacted him, I wanted to ensure I chose impartially so I just randomly looked at the currently active admins at the time and he was the first one I found. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion is right here, if anyone wants to look. The "attack" I'm referring to you is your accusation that I responded to you in bad faith. I was not involved in the dispute, have no stance on it, and had no pre-conceived notions about either of you - what in the world would my motivations be for "bad faith responses"? It doesn't make any sense. You simply didn't get the response you wanted, and proceeded to badger me on it. Did I get vaguely irritated when I volunteered my time to review and comment on a dispute I had no stance or interest in, only to get all sorts of sour grapes responses on it? Yeah, sure, but who wouldn't? Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm here from my input at the 3rd opinion request. This is nothing more than a trivial content dispute, I see no reason for this to be at ANI. I somewhat agree with the claim of synthesis, it becomes more susceptible to incorrect information, and from my analysis it seemed like the claim in the disputed content was completely wrong. Two different sources, from two different time periods. My $0.02: The claim of stonewalling is ridiculous, there was ample good-faith discussion based on existing policy and guidelines. This editor does not assume good faith, it appears that he claims that editors disagreeing are acting in bad faith. From him to administrator Sergecross73: "I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith." It seems that he roots his argument based on the editor who removed it rather than the content itself. Very unfortunate waste of time. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. It's not "stonewalling" that's happening here. PerfectSoundWhatever has discussed at-length at the talk page. They're simply not willing to talk circles indefinitely. And we don't require that of editors. I've urged Sxbbetyy to, rather that spin their wheels arguing with the same person endlessly in a stalemate, to try to get other participants to take part. But they've refused, and instead decided to move their arguing to ANI instead. As I noted to them in one of my last comments to them, if they spent half as much effort in consensus-building as they did complaining and arguing, they could have built a consensus by now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading any of what I wrote in this dispute shows clearly that is not the case. Also, the quoted sentence is completely taken out of context.
      Here is what was said in the mesaage before that they left out, "Not really the logical conclusion one draws from reading any of what I wrote here, where I asked multiple times for you to explain your reasoning in your replies (instead your response was to repeat yourself without offering further explanation), but if that is what you want to take away from this that's fine by me. I'm not wasting time engaging with you if you aren't going to speak with me in good faith."
      The message as a whole was replying to was a passive aggressive insult that didn't progress that conversation, hence the response as it was clearly not an example of engagement in good faith.Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it looks like the participants in the dispute on the Team Seas article are acting as if this report is an extension of that dispute discussion.
    This is a report of edit warring to revert disputed content prior to a consensus being reached (there was no consensus prior to the reversion and there still is no consensus, as admitted by PSW themselves in that very dispute and In their latest revert message, no idea why now in this report they are trying to claim that there is suddenly consensus for removal).
    This is not a report on the dispute itself, just to make that very clear since those involved are responding as if it is. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've still got this backward. You need to show a consensus to keep your content in the article, as everyone else has been telling you. WP:ONUS is directly on point, and I'll quote it here: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have tried to inform them of this many times and many ways. I do not know why they cannot wrap their head around the concept. Conceptually, it would be very problematic if we were required to retain every disputed content until consensus ruled it out. It wouldn't be workable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is arguing WP:ONUS here...not in the dispute and not here in this report. The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed.
    I was directly advised by admin Pbsouthwood that the removal of disputed content BEFORE any consensus has been reached is not allowed (save for specific situations, none of which apply to the disputed content) as this bypasses the consensus building process. Here is the talk page where I was advised this. This is echoed with the wording in WP:STONEWALLING and WP:STATUSQUO. Here is the direct quote from the latter, "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, [under discussion] is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that the content is being removed prior to there being a consensus on if it should be removed. <--- No. This is your problem. What you are saying here is incorrect. Policies say the opposite of this. You are not going to get support at ANI. In fact, the longer you keep going with this WP:IDHT insistence that community practice is actually the opposite of what policies plainly say it is, the more likely it is you're going to find yourself blocked for disruption. Pbsouthwood didn't tell you this either (what he wrote doesn't match what you've been doing), and your initial question did not properly represent the situation at hand. But we can invite him here to see if he actually supports what you're doing here: @Pbsouthwood:, what say you? MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire comment serves absolutely zero purpose whatsoever. You're parroting what others have already said with no supporting evidence. Along with throwing in an oddly included threat that is completely nonsensical and wholly unwarranted.
    And while I could point out the myriad of ways your claim about what Pbsouthwood said was inaccurate, that would pretty much involve reposting his reply, which is a waste since anyone can already go to his talk page and read it themselves.
    So at this point, if you need that admin to come here and tell you what they already said themselves, more power to you. Would save us all a ton of time to get an authoritative answer on this, especially with another admin holding the opposite view point, in spite of the specific policy wording. Sxbbetyy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how much you insist otherwise, there does not need to be an established consensus for the removal of content. Drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one insisting otherwise...this report only exists because an admin told me otherwise. And as I've posted in my previous replies, the wording in the policies clearly support that. Makes me question how many have actually bothered to really read these policies... Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other admin told you nothing about the removal of WP:SYNTH, which is always appropriate. Back away from the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This report is not an extension of the dispute discussion for that article, if you want to involve yourself in that discussion, do so there, do not hijack this report.
    2. The disputed content is plainly not WP:SYNTH as I explain on the talk page in great length, with nobody thus far having provided valid examples as to how it is.
    3. If you are going to make the claim that any WP:SYNTH concerns warrant immediate reversion without consensus, please feel free to share the quote in the relevant policy that says this. I have not found any such wording and instead found that what is present matches up with what PBsouthwood informed me.
    Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, how many people need to tell you you're wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I say that my advice was given without a specific context, and without prejudice. I maintain that it is more collegial and polite to discuss a removal of unsourced but plausible content before removing it, as it can often avoid disputes of this kind, but it is not forbidden to arbitrarily delete content that an editor plausibly considers inappropriate provided the relevant reason is given. It is always the responsibility of the person advocating inclusion to provide a reference when challenged, regardless of the process of challenge.
    Some forms of synthesis are acceptable. If a conclusion is logically inevitable based on undisputed factual premises, or is a simple mathematical calculation, we routinely accept claims that may not be specifically stated in a source, but we may require the logic to be explained, as it may not be obvious to the reader.
    At the risk of being hoist with my own petard, I also refer readers to WP:Don't be a dick (looks like that essay has been expunged, try Meta:Don't be a jerk). · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think many of us used to the mess editors adding unsourced content can create would strongly oppose leaving in unsourced content just because it's plausible. The standard should instead be at a minimum that you believe the claim made is most likely correct and sourceable not simply that it's plausible. Although ultimately such discussions are a little silly anyway. If editors would just add sources rather than leaving it for someone else because they're claiming it's unlikely to be challenged or whatever, there would be a need for others to decide whether to query or remove unsourced content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was suggesting tagging with citation needed while you wait a reasonable time for a response, but as we know some of us do not have the patience and just revert. It in not unheard of to know something, but not have a source handy at the time. What is obvious to one may be totally obscure to others. This is acceptable within policy and guidelines. You could start a RfC to have the guidelines changed, but I suspect it would not get through as being a bit bitey. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what you say is true, that's absolutely an acceptable approach. But that's not really the problem at hand here. The bigger issue is that Sxbbetyy appears to be believe that the alternative approach - reverting per STATUSQUO or NOCONSENSUS - is somehow misconduct, and that's simply not true. They're not arguing about if your approach is valid, they're arguing that its compulsory, and they're attempting to report a user for not following your possible approach, which is completely meritless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not put words in my mouth. The only reason this report exists is because Peter Southwood advised that this was how I should proceed if the editor participating in this no-consensus reverting continued to do so and was unreceptive to further discussion. (Both are true by admission of PSW themselves). Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen that discussion, but you presented the situation to them entirely in hypotheticals that lacks crucial context. You frame PSW as unwilling to engage in discussion but omit the fact that PSW did engage in extensive discussion already. You accuse PSW of edit warring to keep their information in the article, but omit the fact that you're equally guilty of edit warring, as you're responsible for every single counter-revert in the situation. I would think the near-unanimous rejection of this ANI report would indicate that this was not, in fact, a good thing to report. Best case scenario, this is archived with no action, but I'd be shocked if it didn't result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you are attempting to present the entire discussion on that talk page as some sort of proof that PSW was willing to engage in further discussion to halt the behavior this report is about. At no point whatsoever did PSW ever indicate anything like that; if they did this report wouldn't exist as the discussions on your talk page or Peter Southwood's page would have never needed to happen. Not to mention if you take the time to actually read the discussion, you see that most of it is on the specifics of the validity of the WP:SYNTH claim made by PSW, eventually culminating in PSW actually asserting that they will not stop change their position on this and then outright refusing to engage any further.
    And now you accuse me of edit warring by citing the entire recent edit history of the page...this isn't fooling anyone who actually bothers to read any of the revert messages and examine the timeline of when they occurred (talk about omitting "crucial context").
    Beyond just slandering my character, I don't really see what these kind of spurious claims accomplish. It wastes everyone's time, makes yourself look biased and hostile, and adds nothing to the conversation. Keep things civil please, I really shouldn't have to tell you of all people that basic expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait...are you seriously trying to suggest that, even though you were the only one who reverted him every single time, he was edit warring and you weren't? Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to continue to twist words and make false claims immediately after being asked to keep things civil, maybe it would be best for all involved if you just moved on from this conversation. Sad that even has to be stated at this point, it should be a given. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another IDHT response where you try to baselessly chastize me rather than address anything anyone is saying to you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What a choice to post this exact type reply to my last message... not to mention the sheer absurdity of it. To claim that I've never addressed anyone's points in my replies is so easily and visibly wrong (literally this entire topic is full of my detailed replies to people's concerns, including this very reply) that it's almost insulting to the rest of the people participating in this or to anyone who even chooses to read that message. It's as if you think nobody can see the rest of this discussion (or even the comments directly above it). Sxbbetyy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to respond and my apology for any inconvenience it may have caused. Ive tried to keep it as civil as possible, but there seems to be a very hostile air in this discussion by those with the dissenting opinion. As for how this situation is to be resolved, would it be appropriate to restore the currently disputed content with the appropriate tags (as it is sourced and was the statusquo on the page at the time of reversion)? Or is there something further that must be done here? I'm generally unfamiliar with how ANIs actually function. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered starting an WP:RFC? The fact is that you made a WP:BOLD addition to the article; someone else objected to it, which means you now ought to seek consensus for your addition. As numerous people have told you, none of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:QUO, etc) would allow you to make a recent addition the "default" the way you want, but more generally - the problem is that you're trying to dig through policy for something that will make your preferred version the default, allowing you to have it in the article without having to demonstrate consensus for it even in the face of challenges. Even if the policies and guidelines I listed were on your side this would still be a bad way to approach it. You have a conflict, your goal should be to resolve it by making consensus as clear as possible - figuring out what the crux of the dispute is and then, if you can't reach a compromise, holding an RFC to see where consensus lies. Also, I have to point out that just by a quick nose count of people who have weighed in on talk, I'm seeing a dispute that is now three-to-one against you. That is a consensus - not a massive one, maybe an RFC will pull in a bunch of people that say something else, but it doesn't make sense for you to keep demanding a consensus to remove something you added when there actually is such a consensus on talk. You've disagreed with their arguments but they're not obliged to WP:SATISFY you; ultimately if you think your arguments are so strong and theirs are so weak, the only real option for you at this point is to start an RFC and hope that you can demonstrate that there. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned earlier in the discussion, this report is not an extension of the dispute on that article, nor is that what this report is about. Also, a RFC was already started for the topic about a week or so ago by PSW, but that occurred after he reverted the status quo, disputed content with discussion (repeatedly). As for the rest of your comment, Peter Southwood, an admin, has addressed what is the actual expectation. Sxbbetyy (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I never started an RfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked and on 12/9/24 at Serge's talk page you said the following, "Thanks – just wanted to mention I requested comments from WP Internet Culture and WP YouTube about 2 weeks ago."
    Did that not actually happen? Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFC is a specific process. Asking questions on a couple of Wikiprojects is not an RFC. MrOllie (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fundamentally not what an RFC is. This is getting ridiculous... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost like this is the very first time I've ever been involved in this kind of issue on Wikipedia before...seriously these kind of replies come off as rude and don't actually say anything meaningful or helpful. Ever since our conversation on your talk page you have made next to no real effort to engage in good faith and I find that highly disappointing to be coming from an admin. And my apology if I offended you at all at some point or if you have just "lost your patience" with me, but I don't see how that gives you the green flag to suddenly disregard WP:Civility. I certainly haven't, in spite of being on the receiving end of this. Sxbbetyy (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't said anything uncivil, I just keep calling you out when you say something incorrect. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cunningham's Law, is a powerful force, I find it difficult to resist myself. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

    [edit]

    Despite its large size, the consensus here is quite clear. There's no misconduct here, just standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is perfectly acceptable. Not a single person has suggested taking any action towards PerfectSoundWhatver. Outside of a a potential IDHT BOOMERANG, there's nothing left to be done here. Can someone close this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I second that. If there has been any edit-warring by any party that should be dealt with in the normal way. PerfectSoundWhatever has certainly done nothing wrong, and the OP will get blocked if they don't start listening to people pretty quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And even that's probably unlikely, as most of the "edit warring" was singular reverts with days or weeks in between. It's far from a 3RR situation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't think this conversation is going anywhere fast, other than seemingly coming to the conclusion that @PerfectSoundWhatever has done nothing wrong, which seems to be the opposite of what this ANI post was about. There's no edit warring here, and even if there was, it wouldn't be dealt with at this venue. Shut it down! RachelTensions (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way whatsoever is this editor's decision to revert the disputed content during the discussion "standard following of procedures of WP:STATUSQUO"? The literal first words that appear at that link are in bold and say, "Avoid reverting during discussion", followed by a detailed explanation of the actual proper procedure. And to make it very clear what it says, here is the literal first paragraph verbatim: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. For an article, many of the inline dispute tags are appropriate. For other pages, {{under discussion inline}} is good. Leave the status quo and the tag in place until the discussion concludes." Sxbbetyy (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is that your read of the consensus in the discussion above? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what world do you logically come to that conclusion from a message that consist of almost entirely the word for word quote of the procedures described in WP:STATUSQUO, that directly counters the claim you just made? Are you saying it is "against consensus" simply because it presents a viewpoint you don't like and don't want to address? I don't see another reason why you would again twist my words, to the point of lunacy. And this is, once again, despite the fact that all of what has been said is literally within view.
    Also, regarding the consensus. Out of everyone that has actually joined the discussion and all the messages sent (~90% of which are either from myself or you Serge), there have been only three people who have actually said anything in support of your interpretation of this. The rest either did not discuss the topic, did not express an opinion, or were Peter Southwood who supported the interpretation of WP:STATUSQUO as stated on its page. Seems like you're just trying to rush a end to the conversation to get the conclusion you want. Sxbbetyy (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying there has been no consensus for anything you're arguing here. Not a single person has supported action against PSW. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The status quo ante bellum that shouldn't be reverted from is the version without the new content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits

    [edit]

    Can we please dp something about editors who make unnecessary changes to widely-used modules, and then need to change 400,000 talk pages to get the same result we had before the change? Thanks to this change from last week, which removed the parameter "living" from the bannershell, we now have more than 400,000 pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. After the "cleanup" by User:Tom.Reding (and perhaps others), we will have the exact same result as we had last week, no new functionality, no new categories, no improvement at all, but a lot of flooded watchlists.

    I tried to get him to stop at User talk:Tom.Reding#Cosmetic edits, to no avail. This isn't the first time, as you can see from that discussion. Fram (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to discuss {{WikiProject banner shell}}, you should do so at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell.
    As for the size of the category, I have no plans to empty it, and was only going to update a few hundred more categories and templates.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You made nearly 2000 of such edits in the last few hours, and when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries. I have no way to know how many more you planned now or in future runs. Starting a discussion at the module would hardly stop you. Fram (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "when asked to stop pointed me to a category with 400,000 entries": incorrect. Since you wrongly thought I was making cosmetic edits, i.e. "no change in output or categories", the category was to inform you that they are not cosmetic.
    Regarding a BRFA for the bulk of the category, that's looking more likely since the category appears to be neglected.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary removing a synonym and then making thousands of edits to remove the hidden cat created by that unnecessary change is not really any better than making cosmetic edits, the end result is that nothing has changed for the affected pages at all. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unnecessary. The Lua code is very complex and removing the need the support various settings makes the code both easier to read and maintain. As always, editors that don't want to see these edits can hide these by hiding the tag "talk banner shell conversion". Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn´t look as if the specific code to have these synonyms was very complicated though, the argument that in some cases two synonyms were used on one page with conflicting values was more convincing. And the edits I complained about did not have that tag, so no, even if people knew about hiding that tag, it wouldn't have helped here at all. Fram (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed in detail on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Ideally these edits would be done by an approved bot so they do not appear on people's watchlists. The main benefit is to merge the |blp= and |living= parameters. When both are in use, we find they often get conflicting values because one gets updated and the other does not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it more logical to first have a bot cleanup the unwanted parameter, then remove it from the template, and only then start populating the cat with the somehow remaining or since added instances? In any case, this is a typical bot task and shouldn't be done with massive AWB runs. Fram (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, probably. But we have this mechanism already set up and I assumed Cewbot would deal with these as part of its normal activities. Happy to look at other options - maybe discuss on template talk? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what this is about, but if the OP is correct, it is totally absurd to edit 400,000 talk pages for a tweak. Discussing at a template talk page monitored by those focused on the template would simply hide the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like these should always be bots, so they can be filtered from watchlists. There are numerous other editors who have recently engaged in the mass additional of categories to articles which I had to ask them to stop as my watchlist was flooded. GiantSnowman 13:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, the category has grown to over 800,000 pages. Perhaps next time an RfC to determine whether creating such a large cleanup task is warranted, would be better? Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Augmented Seventh is making wholesale reverts of my edits in contravention to guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You're removing demographic categories and templates by blanking them out; irreligion still deals with religion no matter your argument. That's definitely not compliant with WP:CAT and clearly vandalism. There's no action to take here except that you need to stop removing these categories and templates. Nate (chatter) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are now required to cite how your edits meet WP:CAT; spamming it in edit summaries is not discussion. Nate (chatter) 19:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While doing routine vandal patrol, I came across what seemed to be a hasty and massive removal of content, being done in a very directed and personal manner.
    After looking at the persistent removal, and communicating, I restored the well-drawn categories.
    Hopefully, this is easily resolved.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    43*, do not continue to revert these category removals without discussing them first. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    THere is nothing to discuss. The guidelines are clear. What needs to be done is editors need to be familiar with the cat guidelines. We don't discuss whether the sky is blue do we? 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    THey are not well drawn, it was not hasty, it was not massive, and it was not "personal". It was directed because they all had the same issue. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should not blindly revert. They should be required to understand the guideleines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave up editing because there were too many problems that the wiki communtity is not sorting out. One of them is treating anon editors as second class wikicitizens.

    Another problem is "this is how it is so we are going to leave it like this for years and years" and this is at the expense of the quality of WP.

    I can't remember the specific category guideline for the edits I did but is the undoing editors need to look it up. Categorisation is something that a lot of editor do not understand. Go and put a notice on WikkiProoject Categorisation and you will fing that there is support for my edits.

    WP could be sooo much better. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" is an indication you should be trying to do better instead of telling us we should do the same. If you're not willing to actually explain why guidelines vindicate your changes, then being right sometimes isn't enough if you want to make things better. Communication is the process, not something ancillary to it. Remsense ‥  02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GO and read the guidelines. It does not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion is required when other editors ask you questions in good faith in order to resolve present disputes and prevent future ones. Remsense ‥  02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind this is WP and not social media. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone". 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You brought this here. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain how the guidelines justify your edits, not to say "go look it up". Also How do you get the impression that "I don't remember what policy says but I'm right so leave me alone" - because that's exactly what you said. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unreasonable in many cases to link to a very specific passage of a guideline and expect an editor to understand its meaning as regards a pertinent dispute, but you can't just fail to clearly articulate your argument while also insisting it's vindicated somewhere within the full text of a guideline. Remsense ‥  02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute. Bold edits were reverted; next step is discussion, probably at WT:CAT. If there is dispute over interpretation of the guideline you can consider leaving a pointer at WP:VPP. If there are any categories that shouldn't be used at all that can be discussed at WP:CFD. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content dispute could have been discussed on any of the talk pages. Yet it was brought here first. Conyo14 (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a content dispute involves several pages it is often though not always best to centralize discussion. Misunderstanding ANIs purpose and bringing content disputes here is a common and understandable error; best just to point people at appropriate WP:DR when that happens. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not overly impressed by 43's comments above. But do wish to note that their removal of Category:Corruption from at least one BLP appears to have been correct. The subsequent reversion of that removal is misfortune. Rotary Engine talk 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZanderAlbatraz1145 Civility and Content #2

    [edit]

    This user has engaged in a lengthy display of disruption. Namely through incessant incivility I have noticed they were previously reported for.

    Instances such as ordering IP editors to stop editing articles, hostilely chastising them, making personal attacks in edit summary on several occasions, etc. Users such as @Waxworker: and @Jon698: can speak to their experiences, I'll outline mine.

    On December 10, I noticed on the article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects page several additions were made that didn't adhere to the article's purpose. Zander restored these with an introductory summary rife with bad faith assertions about my intelligence and asserting they'd engage in edit war behavior. For the most part there was an attempt to discuss the issue we had, but ultimately did not see eye to eye. I asserted I'd be escalating the issue to garner more substantive dialogue around it, Zander's response includes a needless "bite me". I made some attempts at engaging the topic at the article's talk page, in addition to WikiProject Film, it was over a week that saw no input. I would go on to state that (at the time) in two days, I would restore the page to it's status quo. I would do so, asking it not to be reverted. Zander reverted anyway, and after another terse interaction, I moved to nominate the article for deletion, finding with the conflicting views of what Unrealized meant, it was too open ended and led to these lists being essentially trivia. Since then, Zander has elected to take an antagonistic approach towards me, making swipes they openly admit add nothing to the discussion threads they're added to, and now that I am putting said comments behind collapsable tables for being offtopic, Zander is now doing the editing equivalent of mockingly repeating me, with edits such as this and this.

    This editor displays no interest in conducting themselves cordially or cooperatively on this website. Rusted AutoParts 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a warning for canvassing: [11] [12] [13] - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And more personal attacks here - The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they appear to be continuing editing while ignoring here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, all, I'd like some assistance with the SPA User:Tikitorch2, who's been POV pushing on the Martin Kulldorff article since June. A quick view of their extremely short edit history shows that their sole focus is on pushing a vaccine-denialist POV on that and similar COVID-related topics. Started out on the talk page and BLPN, but now they've graduated to edit-warring on the article itself; they were active in June, made a single related edit in October, but now they appear to be back at it. They've already been notified about the CTOP status of COVID-19, and have received an edit-warring warning--to which they were less than receptive. Would appreciate a more permanent resolution, either a COVID-19 topic ban or just an indef considering their SPA status, so they don't just go back into hibernation and then turn up again like a bad penny. (And yeah, given this context, I don't love the implications of the username "Tikitorch2", either.) Thanks, Writ Keeper  05:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael.C.Wright? 173.22.12.194 (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Looks like a duck to me. I'm sending this to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI says unrelated, so might just be generic disruption. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you implying with regard to my username? My edit history has been limited to trying to correct two red flags that stood out so much that I followed the citations when I was searching these scientists who were in the news for censorship. It has been enlightening learning how wikipedia selectively chooses secondary sources but discourages the use of primary sources to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible.
    For my two attempted contributions to Wikipedia, the two red flags were pretty dramatic to prompt me to check out the citations--Sunetra Gupta's article implied more than 1 in 1000 people in England died from Covid in spring 2020 in an effort to discredit her, which was trivially easy to google as untrue. I corrected that without really changing the overall narrative. The article for Martin Kulldorff...I would probably not have spent time looking at the sources or realized how unscientific Kulldorff's critics were had there not been such superfluous "Wikivoice" editorializing and synthesizing suggesting Kulldorff lied in an essay to the public. Tikitorch2 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources are not to be used for anything but simple facts about a subject. They absolutely are not to be used to help discriminate which secondary sources are credible because that is original research. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said. Maybe I am the sock puppeteer! Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am implying is that such a username in the context of an account pushing COVID-denialist rhetoric that flies in the face of the sources and Wikipedia policy is not an accident. Anyway, this editor continues to be a drain of editor time and attention. Writ Keeper  14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah an absurd, convoluted, and contrived personal attack. Assuming anyone but you knew tiki torches were present at a political event where someone was killed, why would I choose my username based on that? Tikitorches provide light, warmth, and keep the mosquitos away. I guess its not surprising an editor named writ keeper attacks the editor rather than effectively debating the subject of the edit. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it was a personal attack, making one back isn't going to fly here. Knock it off. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tikitorch2, your edits are being examined at ANI. This is not a pleasant experience, I'll admit. So, it's best for you not to dig yourself into a hole. I know the instinct is to defend yourself but it doesn't help your situation to come out swinging. It's probably to your benefit to address any concerns that have been raised and say no more than that. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user made 500 edits to their user page which were all completely useless (Wikipedia:Gaming the system to inflate their edit count) and then once receiving extended-confirmed permissions vandalized Spore (2008 video game) by copypasting another article. Their user page shows them editing and counting to 500. jolielover♥talk 04:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a WP:DUCK, and I just reported to AIV. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to put up some kind of filter to alert for this? Something that…say…catches when more than 25 edits are made in a single space (user space for example) or something that would trip if the edits added less than 5 characters consistently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B32F:11B9:7980:86CC:720C:8B57 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a filter for this. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=International+Space+Station0&offset=20241222044736, "New account unusual activity" covers exactly this. win8x (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor on When the Pawn...

    [edit]

    User User:Longislandtea has repeatedly removed reliably sourced refs to the genres infobox by removing alternative pop simply because they don't believe it to be correct as the ref is "new" and that the artist isn't that genre. [14] [15] I had sent them two warnings now and also explained that's not how this works, so they decided to add more genres with refs that don't even mention the genres they included. [16] I do not believe this editor is going to cooperate. [17] Pillowdelight (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pillowdelight changed the genre list of When the Pawn... which originally had been a variation of certain genres: Art pop, jazz rock, art rock, alternative rock, jazz pop, chamber pop, all of which are somewhat accurate and agreed upon by various editors of this page over many years. It was changed to just Alt pop, a genre that is used to describe the newer sounds of pop in the early 2010s with Lorde, Sky Ferreira and Lana del rey. It is not a genre that fits the album hence it has never before user:Pillowdelight been described as such beyond what her poor source says, a Fiona Apple revisit (that is not even about When the pawn.. specifically) from a new, small and virtually unheard of web magazine. Sources such as Rateyourmusic, allmusic and Pitchfork are far more accurate and robust and that's why this album has never been described as alt pop. That genre did not exist at the time of the release of the album. The source needs to be accurate, it is not. It's not an album review, it is a fluff article about Fiona Apple by a small web magazine. It's not even about When the pawn... specifically, it makes no sense. I think the other editors agree, it is inaccurate.
    Allmusic and pitchfork are far better sources. I have added both as sources. I didn't change the genre list, I simply changed it back to the genre list that had stood there the longest before user:Pillowdelight changed it a few months ago for the first time, having never touched this page before yet complaining about other editors. Longislandtea (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Longislandtea: I removed the genres because they're unsourced, which I stated in many edit summaries you keep reverting, as well as on your talk page. It doesn't matter that just because you believe a source another user added calling the album alternative pop is incorrect and unreliable because it's "new, small and virtually unheard of" is a ridiculously excuse. Read Template:Infobox album it states — genres must be stated and referenced in the body of the article; personal opinions or original research must not be included. The sources you have added specifically from Pitchfork don't state the genres you've listed. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources need to be legitimate and relevant. Your source is not relevant and it is disputed. Pitchfork is added because they describe the album as an alternative album several times in the review and the genre category is ROCK. What is alternative and rock? Alternative rock. That is how the album was marketed. You can't cherrypick a single article to make a case for a genre that the album absolutely is not in. I will remove the Pitchfork source, that's fine. There's numerous ones including from Allmusic that clearly state that it is an alternative rock album. The album was even added to Wikipedia's page for alt rock albums ages ago. This is very uncontroversial. Just having alternative rock is also lacking; jazz fusion, art pop (the album is already added on the wikipedia page for art pop albums) and art rock are accurate too and have been there for ages but alas! Let's get rid of it all to only serve your opinion. Numerous albums have unsourced genres might I add, but the vast of amount of editors agree to it because they know these accurately describe the album, these are the scenes that the album and artist comes from and sourcing for genres can often times be lacking. In that case, rather than trying to look for BAD sources, it's better to agree with the consensus. In our case, we do have sources. Rateyourmusic has been used as a source for adding art pop, alternative rock, jazz pop, fusion, art rock and chamber pop as genres before. Longislandtea (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the page for what is considered acceptable sources Wikipedia:Acceptable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
    Relevance. Sources must be relevant--there must be some reason for the reader to care about what the author has to say. For example, the opinion of a random individual on the presidency of George W. Bush, as published in a letter to the editor of a major newspaper, is not relevant; and thus should not be included--even though it is published, traceable to its author, and given in a reputable publication. Relevance can be imputed several ways--through explicit personal knowledge, through subject-matter authority, through general notability of the author, through demonstrable correlation with the opinion(s) of a large group of people, etc.
    A large group of people, the editors of When the Pawn...'s page throughout the years, thousands of people on music reviewing sites and numerous music journalists from legitimate publications do not agree with what this one article you cherrypicked states.
    Note that this policy is the minimum standard for inclusion as a reference in Wikipedia. Sources may meet this standard and still not be authoritative, reliable, accurate, free from bias, or undisputed. Sources which meet this minimum standard but which fail to meet stricter standards may be used, but should be used with caution. In particular, such sources should be explicitly attributed to their author(s) or publisher(s) in an article's prose (rather than being presented as fact with the author only given in the notes), and disputes considering the source's veracity should be described.
    Meaning you can't just add any genre because some random source says it when it goes against larger and more reliable sources as well as it is controversial.
    Thank you and please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTVAND. Note that accusing editors of vandalism when they are not, in fact, vandalising can be considered a personal attack, so I'd suggest you strike that comment. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I strike. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't actually strike any comments. To do so, do this <s>Comment</s> which will make it look like this Comment. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please stop vandalizing pages on topics of music you do not understand. Longislandtea (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Longislandtea: How is the source considered not relevant and where was this dispute? AllMusic does not call the album alternative rock at all within its article. Rate Your Music is also not a source it's user generated which is against Wikipedia. I really wish an admin would comment on this because this is getting absolutely nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another source describing it as an alternative rock and jazz fusion album
    https://www.the-solute.com/the-solute-record-club-fiona-apple-when-the-pawn/
    Alt pop is not accurate. If you're so adamant about alt pop, please argue why. It is completely inaccurate and you have one singular source over music journalists and music sites. Allmusic does categorize it as alternative rock, Pitchfork has categorized it as rock since 1999 of its release. There was NO Alt-pop at the time. It still isn't. These are different genres. Art pop is not Alt pop. You edited the page one time in October 2024 only to get rid of the genre list that editors agreed upon to add Alt pop which makes no sense whatsoever. Longislandtea (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added a new source to the genre list. If you have any problems with the new source, tell me. But it's much more accurate this way. It's still sad to see the whole genre list that was originally there, so much more descriptive and fitting, hacked away but oh well. Longislandtea (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pitchfork's categorizations mean basically nothing. They have ten categories, one of which is "Pop/R&B", and another of which is "Global". By the way, you should just stop caring about this, because sources misclassify genres of music chronically and everywhere you look. Take your passion to RateYourMusic. Zanahary 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page (which neither editor has used). Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: I'm awaiting for an admin to respond. This conversation is getting nowhere hence the reason why I brought it here in the first place. I've tried to explain to the user on their talk page along with this entire thread and it's getting nowhere. @The Bushranger: you left a comment but could you please share your opinion on the dispute? Or possibly ping an admin who's familiar with music if this isn't your area of familiarity? Pillowdelight (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no reason to bring this conversation here. I talked to you directly but go no real reply or any arguments despite adding sources and explaining why it's not an Alt pop album. I've explained to you well enough. Please stop trying to get admins to ban me simply because I (and other editors) recognize that the genre list that you got rid of was far more fitting. There's a new genre list now with sources but it is not Alt-pop. The album was already added to the wikipedia album pages for Alternative rock and art pop. I'm familiar with these genres and Fiona Apple specifically to know that it's accurate hence why the genre list has been that way for years. If you're adamant about sources, there is a source. Accusing me of not sourcing should be considered a false accusation at this point. Not all sources are equal either and I've tried explaining that to you. Longislandtea (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pillowdelight, you were given good advice which is to have this discussion on the article talk page which neither editor has posted at yet. This is a content dispute. If no action has been taken yet by an administrator, it's likely because they don't agree with your statement that action needs to be taken. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, will do. Thank you Liz. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    On October 22 2024, User:Pillowdelight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) changed the genre list that has stood in place for years and has been a variation of the same variety of genres: Art pop, art rock, jazz, alternative rock, jazz rock, chamber pop and jazz pop. Across the biggest music sites, this is what the album is described as. The user changed it to Alt pop using a single irrelevant and unreliable source. The album is not described as such anywhere else. The user is going against the general consensus. Sources have now been added to the genre list and I don't feel as though that would mean I'm breaking any rules. The user is threatening to get another editor banned because they're uncooperative with how us other editors feel the genre list should look like. It's an album that has been categorized as rock by Pitchfork at the time of its release and was added to rock charts when released too. Here's how the genre list has looked over a long period of time, without much controversy from editors not readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1178937091 from 2023

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=When_the_Pawn...&oldid=1049316366 from 2021

    Thank you. Longislandtea (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do people have to argue about what genre music is rather than just listening to it, and hopefully enjoying it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The genre list was fine and accurate and uncontroversial until this user decided to remove the entire thing. It's important that the genre list is accurate. People find albums through genres. There's other reasons as well. Longislandtea (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is neither here nor there, but I thought albums are generally sorted in alphabetical order by band name or the musician's last name.
    Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or my information is incomplete. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to explain the important of listing genres accurately. If you go to a record store then yes, albums are listed in alphabetical order. But they're still put in categories of genres. Longislandtea (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were going to list musical genres "accurately," we wouldn't bother at all. Except in very broad strokes ("rock," "punk," "Baroque," etc), so many of these horribly subjective "genres" are made up by bored media writers and bands that hate the notion of being The Same As Everyone Else. Get ten people to listen to ten different tracks of heavy metal, and you won't get as many as a third of them agreeing on any of them on the doom/grudge/dark/death/Goth/Viking/sludge/*-grind/*-core/etc etc etc spectrum. Beyond that, arguing whether any given artist is "that genre" is very highly subjective. (Hell, I've sung Baroque, classical, folk, rock, ethnic, shape note, so many genres I can't readily count.) Ravenswing 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple users breaking 3RR on Gilman School article

    [edit]

    Two users are actively engaged in an ongoing edit war on Gilman School, with both Counterfeit_Purses (talk · contribs · logs · block log) breaking 3RR 1, 2, 3, 4 and Statistical_Infighting (talk · contribs · logs · block log) being right at 3 Reverts 1, 2, 3.

    This seems to go back to December 9th, with the first editor (Counterfeit) removing it here and here, again on the 17th, 18th, and then being at the above today.

    Awshort (talk)

    Counterfeit Purses, please be aware that the Luigi Mangione article was kept in a recent Articles for Deletion debate, so the consensus of the community is that he is notable. Edit warring to keep his name off the alumni list is a really bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 No problem, I've already given up. I would argue that WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but there's no sense in pushing against the tide. If you're content to have the lede section of Gilman School include "prominent graduates including "alleged murderer Luigi Mangione", I guess that's fine. It seems to be an unusual thing to include and an obvious case of undue weight given to something that is in the news at the moment. Perhaps someone should start a Wikiproject to add famous murderers to the ledes of other schools? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Counterfeit Purses, in my view, WP:NOTNEWS is among our most misunderstood policy documents. It begins In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. I believe that Mangione is notable, the evolving article is acceptable, and his name belongs in the alumni list. Many, many "bad people" are listed as alumni in countless school articles, and it is not at all unusual. The only unusual thing here is that the lead of this particular school article lists alumni, and so I have removed them from the lead. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad that misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS is so common because I am going to continue to misunderstand it. I see that Liz removed Luigi Mangione from the lede before you removed the rest of the list. Acknowledging again that I have given up hope that Mangione will be removed from this article, let me ask you what you think the purpose of these alumni lists is? Including Mangione is an editorial decision. We don't include all notable alumni in these lists, so why should we include Mangione, and why now? It's too soon to know if he will have lasting relevance. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't include all notable alumni in these lists Why not? If someone is Wikinotable and went to a Wikinotable school, then they belong in the "Notable alumni" section of that school's page, Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger I'm not saying "we shouldn't", I'm saying "we don't". We don't include every notable alumnus in these lists, nor should we because it would lead to long, unhelpful lists stuck in the middle of articles about the schools. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an alumni list bloats an article, it can be split out. See Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (Oops, signing) Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course that's always an option, but what I am saying is that it isn't desirable to have every alumnus listed in an article for a school. Ideally, it would be a selection of alumni who have made significant achievements in their field. Otherwise, it's just trivia. Am I wrong? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. You're making a value judgment that some alumni (with articles, else they most definitely should not be included) are more notable than others. That is WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's called editorial judgment. Just like deciding not to include every known fact about something in an article. At some point, it is just trivia. Wikipedia is not a database. That info would probably be welcome over on Wikidata, which is a database. Alternatively, someone could just add Category:Gilman School alumni (in this case). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And a new user, who doesn't understand categories and has no idea Wikidata exists, is relying on the list on the page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal encounter

    [edit]

    This IP seems to be a vandal who seems to be ready to start an edit war. I have reverted their disruptive edits, and they have begun to add them back.

    diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]

    I would have put this at AIV, but I have no clue how to edit source. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done - Not an admin - I hate to be that person but unfortunately you've not sufficiently warned them, They've only received one warning and their edits aren't gross vandalism so this would only be declined by an admin anyway, If they continue I'll report them to AIV, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Thank you! This has been noted for the future. Thank you, again! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Glenn103

    [edit]

    Glenn103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass creating unsourced stubs about Cyrillic letters, most of which have been draftified. They've also disruptively edited in the past, such as: [18][19][20] '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of these pages don't even make any sense (eg.: Draft:Yery with tilde). The user also ignores any notice about his articles being moved to draftspace by simply recreating duplicates of them (eg.: Draft:Tse with caron & Tse with caron). Immediate action may be needed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given a uw-create4im with directions to come here, let's see what happens. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've continued editing, this time adding infoboxes to the articles, so I don't think the warning worked... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 08:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them from article space and page moves, and will leave note on talk page to come here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, this almost feels like trolling. Their basic procedure seems to be: pick a random Cyrillic letter. Combine it with a random diacritic. Write a short stub on the combination, saying effectively "this letter combination is not used anywhere." The occasional historical mentions ("this combination was used in such-and-such obscure Siberian language") are completely unsourced, of course. (Everything is unsourced.) Oddwood (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me for detracting from the report, but this was your 4th edit, your last edit was in January 2016... how have you found yourself here of all places?
    I mean you might have a point, but wow. – 2804:F1...57:88CF (::/32) (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar behavior to PickleMan500 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) and other socks puppeted by Abrown1019 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki), which also made tons of drafts on Cyrillic characters that cited few sources (and none with in-depth coverage). Most drafts have been WP:G5'd, of course, so only those with admin perms can verify the deleted contribs. Since these socks have been banned (WP:3X), I haven't notified them of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    North Korean involvement in Russian-Ukraine war discussion

    [edit]

    The inclusion of North Korea as a belligerent in the infobox for the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" article has been a point of extensive and protracted discussion since September. A formal Request for Comment (RfC) on this matter ran for several weeks and was closed with a clear consensus to include North Korea as a combatant based on reliable sources and expert analysis. However, despite the closure, the discussion has continued unabated across multiple threads, with certain editors repeatedly rehashing resolved points and questioning the validity of reliable sources, leading to significant disruption.

    Key Points:

    1. Prolonged Discussions and RfC Closure:
      • The RfC on North Korea's inclusion was conducted thoroughly, with a wide range of arguments presented by both sides.
      • The closing administrator, S Marshall, determined there was a clear consensus to include North Korea as a belligerent based on reliable sources and the strength of arguments.
      • The close explicitly allowed for reevaluation if new battlefield events or sources emerged, but no substantial new evidence has invalidated the prior consensus.
    2. Ongoing Disruption:
      • Despite the RfC's resolution, the same arguments are being repeated across multiple threads, often by the same editors.
      • This behavior includes undermining reliable sources, misrepresenting their content, and insisting on a higher standard of verification (e.g., requiring firsthand evidence of North Korean combat, which is unreasonable given the context).
    3. Reliable Sources Confirming North Korean Involvement:
      • Multiple reputable outlets, including the BBC, Reuters, and Pentagon statements, confirm North Korean military involvement and casualties in the conflict.
      • Experts from institutions like Chatham House and RUSI have explicitly stated North Korea's role in combat, aligning with the community's decision.
    4. Impact on the Community:
      • The continued disruption consumes editor time and resources, detracting from the article's improvement.
      • These actions disregard Wikipedia's consensus-building principles and guidelines for resolving disputes. This dispute has been ongoing for months, with multiple threads being opened and closed on the same topic.

    Request for Administrative Action:

    I respectfully request that administrators address the following issues:

    1. Enforce the consensus reached in the closed RfC, as no new evidence significantly alters the previous conclusions.
    2. Discourage editors from rehashing resolved discussions, particularly when arguments have been repeatedly addressed and dismissed.
    3. Consider imposing a topic ban or other appropriate measures on editors who persist in disrupting the article with repetitive or bad-faith arguments.

    This matter has been discussed exhaustively, and it is essential to prioritize Wikipedia's goals of maintaining a high-quality, well-sourced, and consensus-driven encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. UPDATE: I just noticed that North Korea was removed as a belligerent and added to the 'supported by' section, completely violating the consensus. Rc2barrington (talk) 08:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this report isn't really about an incident and your request is directed towards admins, I think this complaint would be better placed at WP:AN rather than ANI. It will also need more specifics, which articles, which edits, which editors. You'll need to provide that. I also question whether or not these are content standards that the community can't handle on their own. Liz Read! Talk! 09:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to post it at WP:AN but it said: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
    If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you."
    I posted it on ANI beecause my specific problem was this dispute Rc2barrington (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original post in this thread appears to resemble LLM output. GPTzero confirms this impression, rating text as "99% probability AI generated". Using AI to generate ANI submissions is highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even when a message appears to be AI-generated, I think it is worth considering whether or not it is pointing out an actual problem. I think editors might be ignoring the results of an RFC, I just don't think asking for administrators to monitor a subject area, without identifying specific articles, is a feasible solution. It does seem like, possibly, a point that could come up in a complaint at AE regarding the Ukraine CTOP area. Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a peek and it's a messy RfC and, as is generally the case with a messy RfC had a very involved closure message which seems to reflect that the closer felt constrained by the framing of the RfC. I didn't see any immediate indication in the edit history that anyone had tried to implement the RfC result and been rebuffed (although I might have missed it). So there's some smoke here but, I think, not a ton of fire. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I don't disagree but I'm not at all convinced that use of AI is a positive contribution to CTOP areas. Axad12 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was written with AI assistance. Not all AI. ai detectors aren’t considered reliable, because you can put the U.S. constitution through one and it says 100% AI generated. Regardless, whether it’s AI or not has nothing to do with the topic. It’s just that there’a been so many discussions and when I checked the info box it said ‘supported by”, violating the consensus of the RFC Rc2barrington (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the underlying issue here is that if you use AI to generate text which looks like obvious AI output then readers will wonder "does the end user even have sufficient English to understand what the AI has generated for them?" and "did the end user understand the material prior to deciding to employ AI?". Thus if a user is fluent in English, as you obviously are, it will always be better to communicate in your own voice.
    At the end of the day, a user making a valid point in their own voice is generally speaking going to be taken more seriously than a user employing LLM output.
    There are plenty of other reasons for users not to employ AI (see the recent thread here [21] for extensive coverage) but the argument above seems like a good practical reason for fluent English speakers to always prefer using their own voice.
    You will see from the recent thread that many users here are vehemently against AI use. Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood the material very well, its not like I just used 100% AI out of nowhere. I know the context. I have been involved in this discussion since September. Rc2barrington (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a respect thing. It's disrespectful of other editors to make them read chatbot output rather than your words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rc2barrington's user page says This user believes in the bright future AI and robotics will bring, so there's probably no point in arguing here. However, I simply observe that in any kind of discussion where you're trying to convince other people, don't use a method that aggravates a significant number of readers (probably a significant majority of readers). It really is that simple. Axad12 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Concern About a New Contributor

    [edit]

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


    Kriji Sehamati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Dear Wikipedians,

    I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines and reviewed by experienced contributors, but he/she seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Vandalize" is a very loaded word here with a specific meaning. As far as I can tell, what they've done is nominate 4 articles for deletion, and your response has been to accuse them of vandalism, ignoring dispute resolution procedures and making personal attacks – none of which I can see at a glance through their contributions.
    Perhaps if you supplied evidence of this behaviour, someone would be able to help? If your issue is that they've nominated 4 articles of which you are a major contributor and are doing so by going through your contributions in order to find articles to nominate for deletion with specious reasons, then this board would be the place to come. If not, then making your arguments for keeping the articles on the AfDs in question would be your best bet.
    By the way [22] [23] [24] [25] is forum shopping. Stop that. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) This is an odd one. As S-Aura failed to provide diffs, I looked at Kriji Sehamati's contribution history. New account (9 Dec) began editing today, created two drafts and made a bunch of edits to those. Then began adding COI tags to articles S-Aura wrote, nominated those articles for deletion, and then left a possible UPE template on S-Aura's talk page. Really seems to be something weird going on here between those two. (In addition to opening this ANI thread, S-Aura asked for help with basically the same message on the talk pages of Ipigott, Ryan shell, CFA, and BusterD, and S-Aura opened same complaint at AN.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned that User:Kriji_Sehamati’s actions, including unjustified deletion nominations and spamming, are disruptive and violate Wikipedia’s guidelines.
    She seems to lack understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You were asked to provide diffs. You did, almost, here but then reverted yourself. Those diffs (well, the ones before those diffs) are just the other user nominating articles for deletion (which is allowed) or tagging them for what they believe to be conflict of interest edits (which is also allowed).
    Please provide some actual evidence that the other user is engaging in chronic, intractable behaviour, rather than just not editing how you would like them to. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some diffs highlighting her problematic edits. However, I believe that many of her contributions may be in violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines. It appears she has specifically targeted me and added the COI tag multiple times to the same page. I would appreciate it if you could review her actions more thoroughly:
    [26]
    [27]
    [28]
    [29]
    and many more
    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We wouldn't generally treat an AfD as vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your point about AfDs not generally being treated as vandalism. However, I noticed that the major contribution history of the user seems suspicious. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not from where anybody else is standing so far. I get that you're upset to have four articles of yours nominated for deletion, and if you have any evidence at all that you are being deliberately targeted by the other editor, then people will very much act on that. Please provide it. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am here to contribute and edit articles in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, today a new user targeted me and falsely blamed me for actions that are not accurate. I believe this is unfair and not in line with the collaborative nature of the platform. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide evidence of this. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check! [30] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles that have been nominated for deletion discussion have been reviewed by experienced contributors. These discussions involve articles about judges and lawyers, under WP:NPOL, a valid criterion according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. Therefore, the deletion decision was made after carefully reviewing these articles. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly it looks like this user, rightly or wrongly, believes you have a conflict of interest and are acting on the basis of that assumption. I would suggest, if you don't have a CoI, talking to them about this and maybe asking why they've come to this conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have just started targeting my contributions, and I tried to inform her about the situation. However, she is acting as if she knows everything about Wikipedia and is dismissing my concerns. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kriji Sehamati: hasn't edited since their AfD spree earlier today, let's wait and see what their response here is when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to stop focusing on the OP's calling this vandalism; it is not. I've changed the header to reflect that. That said, the new user's edits are problematic and merit scrutiny. As for the UPE stuff, I've removed that post from the OP's Talk page; it's nonsensical coming from a new user and does not merit a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, of course, not vandalism to nominate articles for AFD discussions as long as a legitimate deletion rationale is provided and the article hasn't just been discussed at a recent AFD. However, I don't think it's a good sign when a brand new editor claims to understand all of Wikipedia policies and whose first actions are to nominate articles at AFDs. They are almost never an actual new editor, especially when they know how to even set up an AFD or are familiar with using Twinkle on their first day of editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems that she is not new to Wikipedia and might be operating multiple accounts. It appears she has an issue with one of my contributions, as she created her account just 15 days ago, yet she already has a good understanding of tools like Twinkle and AfD procedures. This level of familiarity suggests prior experience on the platform. I am now requesting her account to be blocked as I am completely disturbed by her repeated allegations and disruptive behavior. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am now genuinely confused—if all my contributions are not good, then why am I even here? Were the experienced editors who reviewed and approved these pages also mistaken? A newcomer, who joined just recently, is now disrupting and questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors. This situation is deeply discouraging. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please resolve this situation—either block her for her disruptive behavior. How can i continue working under such constant targeting and stress ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:S-Aura, you seem to be making unsupported personal attacks against User:Kriji Sehamati. You should provide specific evidence of wrongdoing, including diffs, or your arguments here will fall on deaf ears (and bring consequences for you). Meanwhile, as a filer on ANI, you have brought all your own edits to close scrutiny by the community. You may have to face that smart people disagree, and this is how we sort disagreements out on English Wikipedia. You are not required to edit, but we encourage you to do so. Nobody is going to block Kriji Sehamati at this point, because you've given us no reason to do so. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Meanwhile, in the last few minutes S-Aura has disruptively created a second thread about this exact issue on this same board, which was reverted by another editor. This is intentional disruption. BusterD (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As to the question "Why am I here?", poets and artists have been trying to answer this question for eons. Epistemology is outside the scope of this board, but there are articles about it. Show up to edit if you want to, but expect disagreement from time to time. (That's actually a sound answer to any epistemology question as well.) BusterD (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear @BusterD,
      It means I have been proven wrong, and that user’s contributions have been more focused on me, which is quite insufficient to catch someone’s lie that she is pretending to be new, when in fact she is old.
      Also, I am not against AfD; I am simply expressing my opinion. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you please rephrase your point here? I don't understand. While it's okay to be suspicious that this editor is somehow socking or doing something else deceptive due to the familiarity, it seems unacceptable to deliberately accuse them of such repeatedly without firmer evidence. Remsense ‥  13:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear @Remsense,
      I am not engaged in paid activities on Wikipedia, and she claimed that I am connected with the subject, who is a judge, lawyer, etc. You all should understand that this is not a trivial matter; justice is a very respected position. Making such allegations can escalate court cases. I would like to remind you of the Wikipedia vs. ANI case. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing you need to understand immediately is you should never make another post that sounds vaguely like a legal threat, as you've just done above. Seriously. That intonation is seriously not helping us decide who's right or wrong here. Remsense ‥  13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will caution you that this is tiptoeing right up to the edge of WP:NLT and you'd be advised to avoid making legal threats. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dear @Simonm223,
      I am merely showing that she can potentially do something inappropriate. I am following the guidelines and not making any legal threats. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Accusing another editor of potentially making legal threats is not much better, when there is no concrete evidence that they would do so. Being interested in articles about judges does not suffice. Remsense ‥  13:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The page of Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had conducted over the Wikipedia vs. ANI court hearing, was also created by me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      State plainly what the implication you are making here is, because what I'm hearing is "I'm familiar with people who have hit Wikipedia with a mallet in court before, and I can make sure it happens again". Remsense ‥  13:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is becoming a rabbit hole. I urge you not to pursue the rabbit further. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good call, I'll retract the above. Remsense ‥  13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is not what I am implying. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No one has said your contributions are not good. However, it should be noted that a draft being accepted at AfC or a new page having been patrolled does not guarantee greater scrutiny would not result in a valid AfD nomination. That said, echoing others here it's clear something problematic is up with this user's behavior. Remsense ‥  12:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't both criticize someone for lack[ing] understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines, particularly those related WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and then argue that she is too familiar with the platform to be a newcomer for knowing how to file an AfD. I wouldn't be surprised if most people here knew how to file an AfD before knowing all 14 notability guidelines by heart. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are detailed instructions on filing an AfD that can be found by googling "how can I get a Wikipedia page deleted" - if somebody had some personal reason for wanting to have pages removed it doesn't strain credibility to think that's why they created a WP account and that they just followed the very clear instructions on the appropriate pages.
      In fact that might explain why some of the AfD filings were reasonable and some were, on their face, incorrectly filed. If you looked up the AfD process but not criteria that is the likely outcome. That's why I find the "new user files AfDs must be a sock" idea here somewhat uncompelling. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe we're entering boomerang territory at this point. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think OP is upset that a cluster of their articles were put up at AfD. This in itself is understandable, but while there's reason to think there might be mischief by Kriji Sehamati, we don't have any real evidence of it. We either need the OP to make it clearer what misconduct, if any, has occurred, or they need to drop the stick. Remsense ‥  13:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The OP has been intentionally disruptive (by creating a new ANI thread which was reverted), and this thread is going nowhere. IMHO, there's nothing ANI can do here. Everything I'm reading about should be resolved at the page talk and user talk level, in my opinion. The AfDs are underway. If dispute resolution is needed, fine. Nobody is harming S-Aura. S-Aura can't come crying to ANI (or four random user talk pages like mine) anytime someone merely disagrees with them. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd have said close with trout for all if not for creating the second thread at AN/I. Based on that I'd say the OP should be formally cautioned against such antics in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should have added that I largely hold with Remsense in their position. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia, but we don’t have any evidence because understanding Wikipedia’s AfD process so quickly can be a bit challenging. I have no problem with AfD regarding my contributions, and it’s a good thing that experienced contributors are giving their feedback. If you believe that the kriji is 100% correct and her activity is not suspicious, then this discussion should be closed. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 14:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You need to stop insisting this is definitely the case if you don't have any evidence for it, period. Remsense ‥  14:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      S-Aura, how did you make the determination User:Kriji Sehamati‬ is definitely a sock puppet on Wikipedia? Please share your process. That's a personal attack, and requires proof to prevent you from being in violation of WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. I've looked at the AfDs and they seem reasonable to me. When you've provided strong sources the article is being kept. So far the jury is out on the others. Both of you seem to be writing articles about obscure living persons who wouldn't normally (by my cursory reading) have a Wikipedia article about them because reliable sourcing is not readily found. When I see that, I must suspect COI or undeclared unpaid editing here, but nobody's admitting to it. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      S-Aura's continuing to issue personal attacks makes it more difficult for us to just close this (without some form of consequence for the editor making unproven personal attacks after they've been warned repeatedly). BusterD (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have made a level-four user talk page warning for the personal attack. FYI. We've been very nice about this up 'til now, but we need to stop being so kind. Doing foolish things has real world consequences. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both editors' apparent use of AI is certainly disruptive. If it continues, it should lead to blocks. C F A 15:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No personal hate intended, but I just found this and thought it would be worth checking.[31] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be nice if you could explain the significance for those who do not speak Hausa. Remsense ‥  16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      She had made contributions to pages in other languages a few months ago. I am attaching her contributions link.[32] 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How does this constitute evidence of sockpuppetry if we aren't to know what exactly happened? There's a reason we don't just automatically block anybody who is blocked on another language wiki, and I looked through the edits some and didn't find anything outrageous that made it past the language barrier. Remsense ‥  17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that it’s important to ensure we have solid evidence before making conclusions. I appreciate your perspective on not automatically blocking users based on blocks from other language wikis. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't reply to me or others using ChatGPT. It is flat-out rude. Remsense ‥  17:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support BOOMERANG - I've been uninvoled and have mainly just been watching the back-and-forths, but the personal attacks and VESTED mindset, such as "questioning the validity of all the work that has been carefully reviewed and maintained by experienced contributors", concerns me. Not sure for how long, but I don't think anything longer than a months is appropriate given the circumstances. EF5 15:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole thread, but especially the 16:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) comment, feels like the OP is just throwing literally everything at the wall to see what sticks. But, worse, what is being thrown at the wall lacks any significant body of evidence to support. I note that a personal attack warning has been given for the continued unfounded accusations being presented, which I think is a good move. I don't support a block at this point, although if I was the OP I would withdraw this complaint and/or drop the stick and walk away from this topic as a matter of urgency to avoid continuing to make the situation worse. Daniel (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Darkwarriorblake making aspersions

    [edit]

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


    Postscript: Ah, someone just close this, I don't care any more.  — Hex talk 22:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm posting here after a particularly underwhelming interaction with an editor in the form of edit summaries. I'll need to provide the context of a brief content dispute which hopefully won't take too long and then get to the point. I'm not asking for anyone to take my side in the dispute.

    Trading Places is a widely acclaimed comedy film from 1983, which is also widely acknowledged to have problematic elements by modern standards, including a scene in which the villain of the piece, stuck in a gorilla costume, is locked in a cage with a real gorilla, which is implied to sexually penetrate him without his consent.

    The article states that G. Gordon Liddy demurred being cast in the role upon finding that out. The citation for this claim is a listicle on Indiewire, which contains the sentence

    Reportedly, Liddy was on board until he got to the part where Beeks becomes a gorilla’s mate.

    Reportedly by whom is not mentioned, let alone is there a direct quotation from Liddy. Plus as can be seen the words "becomes a gorilla's mate" are linked to a very poor quality, hand-held video of the scene in question playing on a television. This alone should be enough to raise serious questions about the use of this "source" in a featured article.

    The content dispute began when I changed it like this (diff) with the comment Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs:

    Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla.
    +
    Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks is raped by a gorilla.

    This was reverted (diff) by Darkwarriorblake with the comment not what the source says.

    After thinking about it a moment I came to the conclusion described above about the quality of the source, and decided that it was better out than in, which is what I should have done in the first place.(diff)

    ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks. Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla. Paul Gleason took the role;...
    +
    ...was offered the role of corrupt official Clarence Beeks with Paul Gleason eventually taking the role;...

    My accompanying comment was (a) That was the source's voice, not Liddy's. It's called a euphemism. Demonstrable by how it links to a clip of the scene in which a man is raped by a gorilla. (b) Source says "reportedly" for this claim, without evidence. Poor quality source. Removing claim

    That was reverted by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment Nothing wrong with Indiewire as a source, if there is I'd raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Until then, there's a talk page for you to use per WP:BRD. Your comments sound agenda driven and therefore not Neutral.

    This is where the reason for me to raise this at this board begins, because that's solidly an example of casting aspersions. It came on top of a revert which reintroduced a claim cited to a rumor in a blog post into a featured article, but that's really not my concern, because if the champions of the featured article process have decided that it's somehow acceptable for our "best" content then I'm just going to move on to something else rather than argue.

    There's one final back and forth which was enough to motivate me to post here. First, I reverted that revert ([33], my only time using the actual "Undo" button today), with this comment: a good source doesn't say "reportedly" (ie, spread a rumor), it specifies the origin of a fact. My only "agenda" is with a crap listicle being used as a reference, regardless of who published it. Take it to talk if you want to argue for the continued inclusion of a trash ref in a featured article, or source the claim properly yourself.

    This was reverted - again - by Darkwarriorblake (diff) with the comment How are you an admin? "rape played for laughs" is an agenda, this went through FA as is so WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply. You must go to the talk page, not I. I don't know if you're going through a bad time or something but this isn't how an admin should be acting or communicating with others, up to and including WP:EDITWARRING

    At this point it's gone firmly into the realm of knee-jerk reversions, because if Darkwarriorblake took the time to read the article which they've reverting changes to for years (is this ownership? Kind of feels that way), they would get down to the critical reassessment section. Which says "some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe aged poorly, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla", cited to articles in four major publications. Or, you know, even search Google for "Trading Places gorilla rape".

    So anyhow regardless of whether the Indiewire source is deemed suitable or not, I'm just wondering what the feeling here is about someone making goofy assertions on the record that another editor has "an agenda" (what agenda could it be?) and may not be emotionally stable, which really doesn't feel like assuming good faith at all.  — Hex talk 20:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrrm, this seems a bit excessive.
    • I've added a second source for the claim. Really this should've been the first option rather than removing the content.
    • The first summary was, as stated, "Don't mince words; the interaction between Beeks and the gorilla is rape played for laughs". "Rape played for laughs" is a loaded comment and not something said in the article or the source text, so it's a personal opinion, it's not neutral, it's agenda-driven.
    • When this was reverted, the editor just removed the content entirely claiming IndieWire was unreliable. There is, as far as I'm aware, nothing wrong with Indiewire. I've since found a second source, the Telegraph, which is reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
    • The editor ignored WP: BRD when raised, and as an admin they should adhere to policy.
    • The editor states that they are an admin on their page. Assuming this is true, the aggressiveness of their edits, hyper focus on the single area, and use of words like "crap listicle" seemed out of line with what I, personally, would expect from an admin on Wikipedia, certainly someone who has been so for nearly two decades. Perhaps the edit summary wasn't the place to have that discussion but, as stated, they weren't adhering to WP: BRD to start a discussion, and in the interim the article needed putting back to the status quo.
    • I find accusations of OWNERSHIP often tend to come when people don't get their way. Which is fine. I have plenty of reversions on the page for people adding unsourced content and there are plenty of changes as well. I find someone removing sourced content and me putting the sourced content back to not really be something you can fling ownership at.
    • Within the context of the film, Beeks does become the romantic partner of the gorilla, it seemed more appropriate and encylcopedic text than just saying 'rape', and neither source I've added says that either.
    • Anyways, my edit history shows I'm a massive contributor and helper and it's nearly Xmas, and I don't feel like engaging with this any further, good luck Hex. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you don't, having ignored the actual matter of your conduct that I'm raising here. Your comments about the content of the article are irrelevant.  — Hex talk 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hex's position is not wholly supported, although in the entire issue, their toolset is irrelevant. There was no incivility on either part, and an all-out edit war seems to have been averted.
      Fundamentally the change Hex wanted to make was pure OR; rape may have been intimated—or, as Hex themself admits, implied—but its never overtly stated and is a wholly loaded term. This is the interpretation of an editor, not of secondary sources. If there is a pron=blem with Indywire as a source—currently used in 1000s of articles—take it to WP:RSN. If it's disputed that it's a high quality source per WP:FA?, then take it to WT:FAC. Accusations of OWNership are as unhelpful—and as much an aspersion—as accusations of agenda-led editing. In fact, for OWNership, Hex should read the relevant policy: here, it is WP:FAOWN, which not only allows for careful stewardship of featured material, but requires significant changes to the consensus version to be discussed on talk; I don't suppose there's any suggestion that introducing rape—particularly "played for laughs"—wouldn't be a significant addition.
      Really though, this is an overblown content dispute which should have started with one revert each, and ended on the talk page. --SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Never overtly stated... 'played for laughs' [would] be a significant addition" - here's an interview with John Landis, the director.

      One of the executives was deeply appalled by a man being sexually molested by a gorilla. And I said you know, it's a joke and it goes by very quickly. But the first preview was very successful and it all went away. [Laughs]

      Feel free to amend the article on that basis. I'm certainly not interested in spending any more time on it.  — Hex talk 22:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup

    [edit]

    I just want to say that, now that we've had an ANI thread on the subjeect of Gordon Liddy's feelings about portraying the romantic partner of a gorilla, I can die happy.

    While we're on the subject, our article on Liddy recites that Prior to his departure from the FBI in 1962, Liddy sought admission to various bars. I'm curious to know whether this is meant to imply that Liddy had a drinking problem, and whether this could have had any bearing on the whole gorilla romantic partner situation. EEng

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

    User Stationmanagerskidrow removing information on Radio Skid Row page

    [edit]

    User:Stationmanagerskidrow is repeatedly removing information about a recent incident involving a Jewish DJ at their station. They say that it is incorrect information, even though it is sourced. The name also states clearly that this is a company account. Lastly, they have continued this behavior even after being warned on their talk page. Pyramids09 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User is now editing using User:159.196.168.116 Pyramids09 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute and the article is being actively edited by many different editors. However, no discussion about the disagreements has occurred on the article talk page which is where this discussion should be happening. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That article probably should be speedied as an A7 for not containing any assertions of notability; which obscures that Stationmanagerskidrow appears to have been edit warring on it with an undisclosed COI, and presumably was WP:LOUTSOCKing as this IP, and if so violated 3RR as well. It's probably best for me not to take administrative action here tonight as I won't be around later/tomorrow to deal with any followups, but something should be done here beyond just saying "take it to the talk page." SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was longer, but sourced (all but?) soley to the station's site and it's been trimmed down to what it is now. Given the repeated edit-warring by IPs I've semi-protected the page for two days for now. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USERNAME and WP:COI message added here. I'm just about to make myself thoroughly WP:INVOLVED by seeing what I can do about the Radio Skid Row article. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults

    [edit]

    I'd like to report an incident related to this discussion. A person under IP already accused me of being "obsessed". Now someone (possibly the same person) suggests that I may need psychiatric help. Please also see this comment. I guess we can always agree to disagree with other people, but this is going a bit too far. Thank you. Psychloppos (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Psychloppos. What action are you seeking to happen here? Liz Read! Talk! 09:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea which actions are warranted here. Maybe an admin could leave a message to this IP and this registered user and remind them that they should assume good faith ? It would also be nice to remind them about Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Saying that I am "fuelled by an unhealthy obsession" or questioning my sanity do not seem to respect those guidelines. Psychloppos (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nlkyair012 and LLM chatbots

    [edit]

    This editor has been constantly using AI chatbots to respond and write messages.[34][35][36][37] They are a single purpose account for glorifying the Kamaria Ahir caste using unreliable WP:RAJ era sources, I and several other experienced editors have taken time and effort to respond to their endless queries and WP:SEALIONING generated using ChatGPT. They have posted AI generated walls of text on multiple noticeboards such as WP:RSN [38] and WP:DRN [39] and including here [40], accusing me of vandalism.

    Despite my repeated requests [41][42] and even a final warning[43] to them (including a request by @ActivelyDisinterested:[44]) they are still continuing to do it.[45][46] Their messages are repeating the same argument again and again and are frankly just hallucinations that bring up fictitious guidelines or misrepresent the existing ones. Several editors have told them that Raj era sources are not reliable yet they continue to ask for more evidence on why that is the case based on AI generated claims of supposed academic value or neutrality. This is getting very disruptive and taking up valuable contributor time to respond to their endless AI responses which take a few seconds to generate. I have alerted them about WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA, I would appreciate it if someone could enforce a restriction on this user from at minimum caste area. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Ratnahastin,
    To start with I should admit that I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I may have caused as a result of my actions. It was never my intention to take people’s time or skew the conversation in a certain way. I appreciate the core idea to contribute the thoughts to the Wiki and share it borne in mind the overall rules and policies of this program.
    I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site. Even when I was using AI for the grammar check or, for instance, to elaborate on some point in the text, I saw to my mismanagement that over the process we probably confused the readers and repeated the same information and thoughts, which I would never wish to happen again. From now on I will ensure that in the future the input which I provide to wikipedia fits the Wikipedia standard and is more personal. I will also not write walls of text and will not make assertations that do not have substantiated evidence in sources.
    As for subjects that concern the Raj and the sources from this period and the discussions we have had it seems that I have gone too far in demanding clarification for the same thing. That being the case, with the understanding that the consensus will be acknowledged, I shall not be inclined to reopen this discussion unless new substantiated evidence is produced. I don’t want to prolong the conversation or bring any more stress.
    I will strive to learn from my experience to be more productive in my interactions going forward. If there are other limitations or additional rules to which I have to stick to, I will receive them with pleasure.
    In the same respect, let me specially apologize for the inconvenience and thank all of you for bearing with us. That was why I wanted to remind all of us that we can and should keep collectively improving Wikipedia as a resource. Nlkyair012 13:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment also has a typical LLM feel and contains meaningless statements such as "I understand your fears about the AI utilities you have mentioned on your site" and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style, although GPTzero said this is human input. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems human in that it contains some composition and grammar errors that I don’t think an LLM would produce. Zanahary 13:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply sir, I can't explain how frustrated I'm feeling from this morning which this user made me experience Nlkyair012 14:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The time when I messaged Vikram banafar I was casual not formal and second of all your saying doesn't prove anything "and differs substantially from your usual (non-AI) writing style" that's a straight up false accusation and utter nonsensical point and 3rd point being that GPTzero stated that this is a human input then that's an human input end of the question. Nlkyair012 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's really not the end of the story if GPTZero says "likely human". In fact I'd actively discourage people depending on tools like GPTZero in favour of their human senses which are better at detecting LLM outputs than yet another computer program. And, frankly, what you're hearing from people here is we'd rather your casual, human, flaws-and-all style of writing over ChatGPT output "formal" report templates. They are doing the opposite of what you're looking for and have become disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Man you still wanna do this? @Zanahary also says this doesn't seems AI generated to him and he used his actual "Human senses" to lean that way Nlkyair012 14:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admitting that you have used AI for writing your comments[47][48] and then saying that you have not used AI is not going to help your case. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what I think this is getting to the WP:NOTHERE point. Having to tell somebody to have the basic respect of other editors to not subject them to text-walls of chatGPT garbage over and over again is a disruptive distraction from what we should all be doing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This ain't getting anywhere Nlkyair012 14:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't understand the problem. Cuz I literally also said many where that yes I used AI but for expanding and grammar correction Nlkyair012 14:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this combative approach is your "casual" style, perhaps your use of AI and its over the top politeness was an attempt to mask it. In any case, I think you are not here for building an encyclopaedia but for caste glorification given your obsession with a certain sub-caste. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    im not obsessed with a certain subcaste but am sure is obsessed with British Raj sources. Nlkyair012 14:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's better. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we just temporarily put aside the AI-generated comments, can Nlkyair012 accept the view of experienced editors on Raj era sources and not push any viewpoint on a particulary caste? Because, to be honest, editors who have done this in the past usually end up indefinitely blocked. There is a low tolderance here for "caste warriors". Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential vandal trying to start edit war on the page for Frisch's.

    [edit]

    This user keeps using IP addresses in order to revert creditable information about who makes their tartar sauce. Please look into this user. IP Addresses used were 67.80.16.30, 66.117.211.82, and 216.24.107.180. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrStudios The Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link Frisch's. Knitsey (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds a lot like the same edit warrer I dealt with on Redbox, down to the false accusations of vandalism, removal of sourced information, and apparent use of proxies (all the IPs geolocate to different places). I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same person. I've asked RFPP to intervene. wizzito | say hello! 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NVM, checked MaxMind for geolocation and they all are in the same general area. wizzito | say hello! 21:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nadeem asghar khan inaccurate edit summaries

    [edit]

    All but 2 of user's edit summaries are "Fixed Typo" when they are in fact partially updating statistical information on the page. Have left multiple messages/warnings on TP, with no response. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lil Dicky Semi-Protection

    [edit]

    Lil Dicky was semi-protected back in 2019. Now that five years have passed, could the semi-protection be lifted? 174.93.89.27 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ask at WP:RFPP EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Review of Neutrality and Repeated Actions

    [edit]

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


    Dear admin, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding Psycholoppos, who has repeatedly applied the neutrality dispute tag to content related to Randa Kassis. Despite previous clarifications, these actions suggest a potential bias, which could undermine the objectivity and integrity of the platform.

    I kindly request that you review this matter and take appropriate steps to ensure that all users adhere to neutrality standards. If possible, I would also appreciate guidance on how to address such situations constructively in the future.

    Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please feel free to reach out if further clarification is needed. Hazar HS (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hazar Sam, whether the NPOV tag is needed or not should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Also, see the large notice at the top of this page: you are required to notify the editor you are reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor is also called Psychloppos, not Psycholoppos. I have notified them for the OP. – 2804:F1...26:F77C (::/32) (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't give a chatbot-written thread the time of day. HS, we have less tolerance for AI-written arguments than the American court system. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior from IP

    [edit]

    For the past month, 24.206.65.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been attempting to add misleading information to Boeing 777, specifically trying to use the unofficial "777-200LRF" designation beyond first mention in the relevant section and passing it off as official ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]). Their behavior died down for a few weeks, but restarted several days ago ([60], [61]), including baseless claims that Fnlayson is "okay with it". They have been asked numerous times on their talk page to either stop or provide evidence of official use of the designation, but they have failed to do so and have continued their disruption. - ZLEA T\C 19:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to mention that this user has used at least two other IPs; 24.206.75.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.206.65.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 24.206.65.142 is the most recent to cause disruption. - ZLEA T\C 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "777-200LRF" is not misleading, some cargo airlines do use that designation. Today I reverted to a previous version that User:Fnlayson was okay with [62][63]. I feel that User:ZLEA is going overboard with charges of misinformation and disruptive editing. 24.206.65.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is misleading to remove any mentions of it being unofficial. Boeing has never made a "777-200LRF", no aftermarket conversion has ever been offered under that name, nor has the FAA or any other regulatory agency ever certified such an aircraft. To pass such a designation off as official is by definition misleading and misinformation. Likewise, to continuously do so after you have been told to stop by multiple people and falsely claiming that others support your arguments is by definition disruptive. - ZLEA T\C 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note is the fact that this is not the first time the IP has claimed to have Fnlayson's support. They have been told before by Fnlayson not to assume support without a specific statement, yet it seems they've also ignored that. - ZLEA T\C 20:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not misinformation as here are the sources which use "777-200LRF"[64][65], including GE Capital Aviation [66](the engine supplier for most Boeing 777) and Leeham News [67] (to avoid confusion with the upcoming 777-8F). 24.206.65.142 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant range is 24.206.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), in case somebody needs it. wizzito | say hello! 21:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]